Peter also erred Galat 2 11 14. Neither could be present in all places Christ only is the head of the Church Eph. 1 22 4 15. But the Church is not a two headed monster The Heavenly Father commended onely Christ vnto vs that wee should heare him Matt 17 5. Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason 1 From a similitude A Prince that goes into an other Countrey hath neede to leave some man behinde him furnished with full and absolute power so wee must beleeve that Christ did when he was to depart from vs. Ans Heere be manie falshoods and ridiculous toyes 1 Similes doe some times illustrate but never prove 2 If it were never so true that Christ had appointed a Vicar yet it would not follow that the Pope should be hee 3 Neither is there absolute authority such as is falsely ascribed to the Pope granted to anie vicar but authoritie onely which is bounded and limited by lawes 2 It is needefull that some one watch for the whole Church Ans 1. Christ watcheth for the whole and for the parts and speciall members let everie Bishop watch amongst his Clergie 2. It is a thing impossible that anie one man should watch over and for the whole this reason therefore supposeth an impossibility 3 In the olde Testament God appointed a Vicar in deciding controversies to wit the high Priest that hee might bee a visible head in the Church Deut 17. An 1 They argue from a type the signification whereof was accomplished ended in Christ to the Pope Which maketh foure termes in the Syllogisme for the high Priest was not the type of the Pope â—ut of Christ 2 The Priest was Iudge in civill affaires between bloud and bloud c therefore from civill affaires to Ecclesiasticall no good consequence can be drawen vnlesse perhaps from the type of Christ to the Pope 4 It is needefull that there should be some Vicar of Christ to interprete coÌ„troversies which arise or fall out in the holy Scriptures Ans If this were granted to bee never so true which yet may not be granted it wold not therefore follow that the Pope should be that interpreter 2. The Holy Ghost sendeth vs back to the Scriptures which is that our firme word of the Prophets 2 Pet 1 19. 3 Wee doo not reiect anie Interpreter which shall speake according to the law and the testimonie that is which shall interprete the Scriptures according to the Analogie of faith But the Pope will never suffeâ— himselfe to be tyed to this condition 5 It is certaine there should be one and a certaine visible heade for the preseruing of the vnitie of the Church Ans 1 Christ is that heade which governeth his Church by the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments to whom whosoever joyneth himself is made one bodie with the Church vnder one head 2 The Pope draweth vs from this vnitie whilest he sends vs away from the Scripture to the closer of his breast which doth very often crosse the holy Scripture directly 6. A Monarchie is the best state of gouernment but we must thinke that the Church is to haue the best state of gouernment therefore a Monarchie Ans 1. As concerning a visible head there â—s great difference betweene Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment And Christ himâ—elfe sheweth a very great vnlikenes between â—hem when he saith The Kings of the Genâ—iles raigne ouer them but you shall not be so Luk 22 25 26. 2 But as concerning an inâ—isible head we haue Christ the only true Monarch of his Church 7 In the Church all things ought to bee done Corinth 1. 14 40. â—â— order but all Ecclesiasticall Order is contaiâ—ed vnder the Pope Ans In the Antecedent proposition Paul â—eats not of the order of inferiour or superiâ—ur persons but of the outward order of Ceremonies which is to be obserued in the â—ssembly of the Church for comlinesse sake Such an order euery Church ought to obserue as the circumstances of time person and place shall require though they submit not themselues to the yoke of the Bishop of Rome The alleadging therfore of that saying of Paul makes nothing at all for the establishing of the Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome and so heere be foure termes in this argument Question 2. Whether Peter receiued 1 power of Dominion ouer the rest of the Apostles and 2 the dominion of faith We denie both and first we denie that Peter receiued Dominion ouer the other Apostles for these reasons Because it is no where taught in the holy Scriptures Because Peter doth no where testifie that hee receiued such power but behaued himselfe as equall to the rest in power 1. I which am a fellow-elder Consenior and witnes of the sufferings of Christ 1 Pe. 5 1. 2. Not as Lords ouer gods heritage but that yee may be ensamples to the flocke 3. Therefore he suffered himselfe to be sent of the other Apostles into Samaria with Iohn as his fellow equall Act. 8. 14. 4. He suffers himselfe to be accused for that hee had gone in vnto the Gentiles as being their equall cleareth himselfe before them Act 11. 2 3 c. 5. Hee endured himselfe to be reproued of Paul Galat 2 11 14. 6 Who is Paul who is Apollo 1 Cor 3 5 which wordes doe shew that there was no authoritie no superioritie among the Apostles one ouer another 7. When Iames and Cephas Iohn knew Note 1. Paul placeth Iameâ— in the first place 2 Hee saith not pillar but pillars 3. Hâ— calleth theÌ„ fellows of the grace of God that was giuen vnto me which are counted to be pillars they gaue to mee and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship c Galat 2 9. Christ saith the Kings of the Gentiles raigne ouer them but yee shall not bee so Luk 22 25 26. When the Apostles stroue for superioritie Christ neuer preferred Peter but exhorted all and so Peter also to equalitie humilitie Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason 1. Math 10 2. Where the Apostles are reckoned vp in order Peter is said to be the first Ans There bee foure termes in the Antecedent the word first is taken for the order of counting or reckoning and in the Consequent for the order of dignitie or authoritie 2 Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church therefore Peter is the foundation of the Church and thereupon hath power ouer the rest Ans It is a fallacie of Composition because in the Papists argument those thinges iointly are spoken of Peter which Christ spoke distinctly and seuerally of himselfe of Peter 2 Because Christ spoke to all the Apostles vnder the person of Peter it would follow arguing as the Papists doe that euerie one of the Apostles was the Prince of the Apostles Nowe what an absurditie were this 3 Christ saith to Peter feede my sheepe c. Ioh 21 17. Therefore hee made him head of the Apostles Ans 1. Heere is the changing of an
what is this to the purpose 5 Manie things are held and defended in the Church that is of Rome which are not in the Scriptures Answ For this verie cause they are forgeries deseruedly for the reasons before alleadged to be reiected 6 There are in the most auncient Councels which are approved and allowed on both parts constitutions which are not comprised in scripture but are receiued as being deâ—â—uered by the Church Ans 1 These constitutions belong to order and comelinesse and are not matters of faith Therfore this is nothing to the purpose 2 Neither are they proposed by the Councells as meritorious of eternall life but as things indifferent 3 And in Councells which wee approue of wee receiue those things onely which are not contrarie to the Word of God 7 Christ never commanded to abstaine from that which is strangled which notwithstanding the Apostles commanded Acts. 15 29. Nay they were abrogated and afterward brought vp by the Apostles Answ It is a fallacie from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely and in all respects For the Apostles did not require this as a thing necessarie to saluation but did ordaine in some respect according to the rule of charitie in favour of the weake ones who might bee offended at Christian libertie vsed vnseasonably But the Papists contend for such constitutions as they make necessarie It is therefore an argument from that which is necessarie by an accident and speciall occasion to that which is of it selfe absolutely necessarie QVESTION 3. The question is what kinde of workes those bee which our Aduersaries doe call workes of supererogation Our Aduersaries commende them highly as making men perfect but wee haue some things to except against them both in generall and in particular as That which they presuppose as a grounde is Error 1 false that is that we can performe more than is required of vs by the lawe When yee haue done all things which are commanded you say wee are vnprofitable seruants Luke 17 10. It is contrarie to the article of sanctification which dooth not grant to any man in this life a perfect plenarie fulfilling of the lawe much lesse anie workes of supererogation Whereof wee shall speake in the next Chapter following Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus 1 Christ sayth if thou shalt supererogate anie thing c. Luke 10 35. Therefore he had reference heere to workes of supererogation Ans 1 In controuersed points of Religion wee may not play with allegories which haue no ground in Scripture 2. Christ doth there extoll the charitie of the Samaritanâ— who before had giuen money to the hoste to make prouision for the wounded man and with all promised him that if heâ— spent more in prouiding for him hee would repaie it But what is this to workes of supererogation 2 I fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church Colos 1 24. Ans He speaketh nothing of the perfecte keeping of the lawe much lesse of workes of supererogation but of that parcell of the Crosse which God layeth vpon the shoulders of the Church and the members thereof to bee borne of them that they may bee made like to the image of his Sonne Romans 8 29 For the meaning of Paul is onely this since that certaine afflictions are allotted to the CHVRCH that himselfe beareth a great part of them that the measure of sufferings may bee fulfilled in the mysticall bodie of Christ And what is this to the works of supererogation They faine that Christ hath brought vs a Error 2 new and more perfect lawe by adioyning Euangelicall councells to the lawe which is very false Because manie of those things which they call councells are indeed commandements and the explication of the morall law wherof manie also are comprised in the Lawe of Moses where the tenne Commandements are explained Christ was not a Lawgiuer but a Mediatour 1 The Lawe was given by Moses but grace and truth by Iesus Christ Ioh 1 17. 2 And therefore that hee should not seeme a Law giuer Christ iudgeth no man Ioh 8 15. 3 Therefore the preaching of the Gospell not of the Lawe is called the preaching of Christ and the Ministerie of reconciliation 2 Corinthians 5 18 19 20. This false assertion of our Aduersaries savoureth of Mahometisme For Mahomet in his Alcoran saith that Moses gave not so perfect a law that Christ gaue a more perfect law for that no man could bee saued by the â—awe of Moses but that Mahomet hath giuen a most perfect and absolute law Change this last name of Mahomet into the name of S Francis Saint Dominicke c. and it wil be the verie same thing Our Aduersaries reckon Povertie amongst Euangelicall Councells and workes of supererogation 3 Pouerty but falsely Because it is not a councell but a commandement that when neede so requireth we Mat 8 19 20 c 10 37 38 c. Lu 18 29 c. should part with al the goods of this life nay life it selfe for Christs sake But the Moonkish pouertie is farre from this The Moonkish pouertie is but a mockerie For therein the sweate of the browes layed vpoÌ„ everie man in his calling is changed for yearely and most certaine renenews and pensions for terme of life Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason 1 CHRIST sayd to the young man who asked a councell of perfection If thou wilt bee perfect goe and sell all c Matt 19 21. Marke 10 20. Ans The whole text doth make it plaine that Christ woulde represse and pull downe the proude yong Pharisee that swelled with perswasion of his owne perfection and that he meant nothing lesse than to teach that perfection did consist in povertie Neither would Christ by this answer prescribe a common rule of attaining to perfection But as God prooued Abrahams obedience when he commanded him to offer his sonn which yet he would not haue done so Christ by enioining the young man poverty would bring to light his disobedience and idolatrous worshipping of money That so it might appeare that hee loued riches more than God and that therefore he lyed in bragging that he had kept the lawe They ground the counsell of vowed chastitie 4 Chastitie vpon the words of Paul Concerning virgins I haue no commaundement of the Lord but I give counsell 1. Corint 7 25 and he thas is able to receaue this let him receaue it Matthew 19 â—2 Ans 1. Pauls counsell in this place was not concerning perfection or of obtaining of eternall life but his counsell was fitted to the present necessitie that is for feare of persecution it is not then to the purpose 2 Paul left this counsell free at their owne choise neither did he lay a snare on their coÌ„sciences Wherein there is no agreement with the moonkish vowed chastitie 3. Christ Matthew 19 handleth nothing of the perfection of man but onely teacheth that
The Apostles did annoint many sicke men with oile and healed them Mark 6. 13 therefore Extreame vnction is a Sacrament enâ—oined by Christ to the Apostles Ans 1. That annointing was a temporarie thing neither hath it any commaundemeÌ„t that we should do the like 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul Act 19. 12. and the shadowe of Peter whereby manie sicke men were healed Acts. 15. 15. should be Sacraments 3. The text speaketh of miraculous gifts which because they endured but for a time doe not come within the coÌ„passe of Sacraments 3 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray for him and annoint him with oile c. Iames 5. 14. Answer 1. It followeth not Iames speaketh of oile therefore of oile of Extreame vnction magicallie exorcized 2. That annointing was not extreame vnction but was for the recoverie of health whereas on the contrarie side extreame vnction is administred in Poperie to them which are readie foorth-with to die when there is no hope of any recoverie 3 The meaning of Saint Iames is that praier should be made for the sick that their sinnes may bee forgiven them whereby they haue drawne sicknes vpon them but thence ariseth no Sacrament 4. Caietan no meane Cardinall among the Papists saith this place cannot bee vnderstoode of extreame vnction but of the miraculous annointing spoken of Mark 6. Whereof hee giveth three reasons 1 Because Iames doth not say Is anie man sicke vnto death but simply is any man sicke 2 The end and effect heereof is the easing of the sicke but of remission of sins he speaketh not but only conditionally wheras Extreame vnction is not administred but at the point of death is directly intended for remission of sinnes 3 Iames bids call for many Ministers to one sicke man both to pray for him and to annoint him which is much different from the rite of Extreame vnction So one of their owne pillars hath wyped them of two places at once This of Iames and the sixth of Marke which are the onely shewes of authoritie the Papists haue for this forged Sacrament CHAP. 15. Of Transsubstantiation OVr Aduersaries doe expound the sacramentall vnion in the Eucharist to bee by manner of Transsubstantiation whereby they imagine that after the words of consecration the elements doe altogether vanish away and are changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ so that besides the bare accidents which are seene tasted and felt there remaineth no whit of the elements in the Sacrament but we denie that there needes any such fiction of Transsubstantiation for the making of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that for these reasons The nature of a Sacrament requireth that there be together an earthly and an heavenlie lie matter as Irenaeus saith or not that the substance be changed but that grace be adioined as Theodoret speaketh Because there be other meanes of Sacramentall vnion than by Transsubstantiation alone as is apparent in Baptisme Christ saith not This shall bee made my body or this is changed into my body but This is my body to wit by sacramentall relation and vnion as in other Sacraments Paul the heavenly Interpreter of Christs words doth not admit Transsubstantiation but doth so interprete the sacramentall vnion that stil the visible elements remaine or the bread of the Sacrament after the consecration hee calleth bread still to giue vs to vnderstand that the substance of the bread remaineth still 1 The bread saith he which we breake that is distribute after the consecration is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. All we are partakers of one bread 1. Corinth 10. 16. 3. As often as yee shall eate this bread 1 Cor 11. 26. 4. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vers 27. 5. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread verse 28. So haue the Fathers explaned this mysterie that they declare that the elements remaine as Receaue that in the bread spiritually by faith which hanged vppon the Crosse Augustine These manner of speaches in the Scripture are almost alike God is man This is my beloved sonne In which phrases is noted the most neare and straite vnion of the two natures in Christ farre straiter and more neare than this of the Sacrament and yet is not concluded the transsubstantiation of one nature into another or the abolishing of either nature Vpon the opinion of Transsubstantiation many absurdities doe follow 1 So Christ should be said to haue a twofold body or two bodies whereof the one should bee taken from the virgine Marie and the other should be made of bread 2. We should not receaue the body crucified for vs but a certaine other thing which an houre before was not that bodie but bread nay which a little before had no being in nature which is absurd and impious contrarie to the wordes of Christ whereby he promiseth vs that bodie that was given for vs and that bloud which was shed for vs. 3. Accidents are heereby made to bee without a subiect as if when the snow is melted the whitenes of the snow should remaine alone with out a subiect 4. Mise that gnawe the consecrated bread cannot gnaw bare accidents alone Therefore either accidents are substances that they may be subiect to the grinding of teeth or the glorified body of Christ is subiect to elementarie passions and naturall sufferings both of which are most absurd The like question may bee made concerning the burning of the Eucharist what it is that burneth whether bare accidents or the body of Christ 5 Infinite such other grosse absurdities may bee seene in the Writings of that famous man Wilhel Holderus de mure exenterato wherein are recited many other such like things according to the opinion of the Schoole men Our Aduersaries themselues doe not beleeve that there is Transsubstantiation 1. And therefore they seeke out other and more goodly words as annihilation of the elements or a ceasing of them to be desinition they call it 2. Gerson amongst his reasons for the communion vnder one kinde bringeth this as a reason why the cup should bee denied to the people because the wine might bee corrupt and turned into Flies and vineger If the wine be truly transsubstantiated then can it not bee corrupted vnlesse wee will say that Flies and vineger may be generated of the glorified body oâ— Christ or that they are generated of accidents there being no corporeall matter or substance required thereunto 3 Transsubstantiation was not belieued in the whole Church before * I take is this is a fault in the print that the Autor meaÌ„t to say 1300 yeares as â— câ—tur â— writers also do CeÌ„â— 13 cap col 622 for in the 13th centurie after Christ was the Councell of Lateran vnder InnoceÌ„tius the 3d. whereof the Autor heere speaketh which was the 〈◊〉 generall CouÌ„cell wherein TranssubstaÌ„tiation was
defined so after generally receiued how soeuer for só-400 or 500 yeares before it was disputed of maintained by some three hundred yeares and this error at the length was spread further and was confirmed by the Lateran Councell Contrariwise our aduersaries doe dispute 1 That which Christ reached to his Apostles was the true bodie of Christ Therfore the bread was turned into his body by Transsubstantiation Ans 1 There is more in the consequent than in the Antecedent For it followeth not Christ gaue his body to his disciples therefore there was his bodie in none other manner than by Transsubstantiation For it was in the sacrament by sacramentall relation and vnion and receiued of the belieuers spiritually by faith 2 Christ sayde not This breade is my bodie but he sayde This meaning thereby his body so that the demonstratiue particle This is construed and taken not for the bread but for the body Heereby therefore he insinuated that the bread was not then in the Eucharist Ans 1. Then the speach shall be this this body shall be my body which is idle 2 This explication of Christs words cannot stand with the doctrine of the Papists For whereas they say that the power of Transsubstantiating is contained in those fiue words pronounced Hoc enim est corpus meu◠for this is my bodie doubtles whē Christ tooke up the breade and pronounced the word This as yet was made no Transsubstantiation and so the speech should haue bin of a non ens a thing which had no being 3 The worde est is is a verbe substantiue which noteth a beeing or subsisting therefore there must needes be Transsubstantiation Ans 1 By the same reason it will as well follow Christ saith I am a vine but the verbe sam or I am is a verbe substantiue which noteth the beeing and subsisting of a thing Therefore there must needes bee Transsubstantiation of Christs nature into a vine 2 It signifieth the beeing but not the manner of the being There is Christs body indeed but not after a naturall manner of being by Transsubstantiation but after a spirituall by faith and sacramentall vnion 4 There must needes bee an Identitie that the body may truly be predicated of the breade for it were not true that breade remaining the same and a different thing from the body should be the body but an Identitie of the breade and body can bee no other way made but by Transsubstantiation Therefore c. Ans There needes no Identitie to make the predication true for this proposition is true the Lambe is the Passeouer and yet the Lambe and the Passeouer bee not the same thing For some things are affirmed of other because they are really formally inherent in them some things again are affirmed of other because they haue an externall vnion and coherence which is most vsuall in all the sacramental speeches both of the old new Testament Circumcision is the Couenant the Rock was Christ c. 5 As that predication is vnderstood Matth 3 This is my beloued Sonne that is whatsoeuer ye see is my beloued Sonne so are the wordes of Christ to be vnderstood in the supper as This is my body that is that which yee see is my body So that the bread remaineth no longer bread Answer 1 Howsoeuer the predication be vnderstood Matthew 3 the contrarie will rather follow thereof For by reason of the neare coniunction of the two natures in Christ the one is predicated of the other in Concreto but there is no Transsubstantiation or changing of one nature into the other 2 Christ was the Sonne of God both in respect of his deitie and of his humanitie And therefore this speach is nothing like those of the Sacrament 6 Seeing that the predication is changed so that the breade is afterward not called bread but the Lords bodie it must needes bee that the subiect that whereof it is spoken must bee changed also therefore there is Transsubstantiation Answer There is a great change but it is of vse and qualitie not of substance Therefore after the consecration it is called blessed and holy breade the communion of the body of Christ and is not common vulgar breade But it followeth not there is a change therefore by Transsubstantiation 7 Tropes and figures are not to bee admitted in the wordes of the supper For it is to bee supposed that Christ would then speake plainely without figures but if Transsubstantiation be not granted there must needes be admttted some figure Therefore c. Answ All figures and improper speeches are not obscure but they are when they be vsuall and knowen most cleare and significant Now there bee no other figures or tropes in the Lords Supper but such as are and alwaies were vsuall in Sacraments and familiarly knowen to the Church 2 How will the Papists auoid a trope in those words of Christ Luk 22 20 This cupp is the New Testament in my bloud Is the cupp properly the Newe Testament 8 Breade before the consecration the Fathers call breade but afterward they call it the body of Christ Ans And so doo wee For though it be in nature bread euen after the consecration as Paul oftentimes calleth it yet is it sacramentally the body of Christ 9 In the liturgie of Saint Iames Transsubstantiation is approued Answere This is a testimonie from a forged and counterfaite writing 10 All things are possible with GOD therefore Transsubstantiation Answere From what GOD can doo to what hee will is no good consequence It is a fond reason to argue as Papists doo from the absolute omnipotencie of GOD without his Word or Promise Heere follow certaine shiftes of our Aduersaries 1 Breade after the phrase of the Hebrues is often taken for nourishment so whereas the body of Christ is the nourishment of the soule it may well be called breade by Paul euen after the consecration Ans It followeth not breade in some places signifieth nourishment therefore in the Lords Supper breade dooth not signifie bread All these propositions be meere particulars and therefore nothing followeth thereof 2 Some things which haue beene changed in nature haue kept their olde name in the scripture as the Rod of Moses that was turned into a Serpent So may breade after it is transsubstantiated keepe the name of breade Ans 1 They should first proue that there is Transsubstantiation but this argument of the Papists presupposeth Transsubstantiation which we denie It is therefore a begging of the thing in question 2 They bee meere particulars from which nothing will follow 3 The Ancient Church admitted of the Phrase Sub specie that is vnder the shape or Accidents Therefore they intimate hereby that the breade and wine remaine not Ans Our Aduersaries trifle with an aequiuocation of the worde Species For the Fathers tooke it for the one part or kinde of the outward Element in the Sacrament as it is also meant in that question betweene vs and the Papists
whether the people are to receiue sub vtraque specie vnder both kinds that is both the breade and the wine not vnder both accidents which were a senselesse speach but they take the word Species for a shape or accident which the Fathers meant not CHAP. 16. Of the adoration inclusion and carying about of the Eucharist as also of the Sacraments out of their vse THe adoring carying about and shutting of the Eucharist in a boxe vseth to bee glosed with this colour especially among the Papists for that they say that the Eucharist is and remaines a Sacrament besides and out of the vse thereof turning that into an argument or proofe which is a controversie therefore are wee also to make a question heereof Question 1. Whether the Eucharist remaine a Sacrament out of the vse thereof We denie it for these reasons Because seeing Sacraments are actions they consist onely in vse and action that they may bee Sacraments which action and vse ceasing the Sacrament it selfe ceaseth also Seeing our Aduersaries themselues doe not account Baptisme to bee a Sacrament out of his vse as in which the wordes of the action are contained in the institution and moe wordes of the action doe concurre in the Lords Supper than in the institution of Baptisme much lesse also may the Eucharist remaine out of his vse than Baptisme may Where the whole action is not neither is there the whole Sacrament but when the Consecration is rent and seperated from the communicating or receauing there is not the whole action neither is there therefore the whole Sacrament Christ doth prescribe a certaine end and vse Eate drinke Christ instituted this vse for this Sacrament wherefore this vse ceasing the Sacrament ceaseth also Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1. When Christ pronounced these words This is my body the Disciples had not eaten as yet and yet the words of Christ were true then before they did eate therefore it was a Sacrament also even before and without the vse thereof Ans 1. If we made the action and vse onelie to consist in eating and drinking then the argument would follow but we doe not define that action to consist onely in eating and drinking but in doing all those thinges which Christ either by his example or commaundement bids vs doe as namely to receaue the bread to breake blesse distribute and eate it to giue God thanks and to shew the Lords death It was not therefore out of the vse of the Sacrament when Christ reached the bread to his Apostles 2. Luke omitteth these wordes Take eate intimating thereby that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist out of the vse thereof Answere 1. By a fallacie of Division those things are severed asunder which ought out of foure rehearsalls of the institution to haue beene ioined together for that which Luke omitted the other two Euangelists and Paule haue supplied The whole action then is not to bee taken from some one of them alone but iointly and together from them all 2 They conclude heere any thing of everie thing for what coherence is Luke omitted some words therefore he did omit them for none other cause but to shewe that the Sacrament out of his vse is neuerthelesse a Sacrament 3. Christ faith this is he saith not It shall bee made my body heereafter to wit in the eating Answere 1. It was answered a while agoe that the action and vse doth not consist in eating alone And therefore in the acte of the Supper the bread is rightly called the bodie of Christ even before the eating that it shall not be needefull to say This shall bee made the body of Christ 2 And Christ in these wordes would simply say this much I giue you my body to be eaten 4 If the Eucharist bee not a Sacrament out of his vse it would followe that not the wordes of Christ but our vse doth make a Sacrament Answere 1. Christs will whom wee ought to obey in eating and drinking maketh the Sacrament and not our vse The vse of the Sacrament therefore relyeth vpon the words of institution and how then doe wee ascribe it to vs and not rather to the word of Christ while wee doe that which is commaunded by the wordes of Christ It is therefore a fallacie supposing that to bee a cause which is none 5. In the Primitiue Church the Deacons were woont to carie parts of the Eucharist to the sicke therefore the Eucharist remaines a Sacrament out of the vse Ans These parts were caried to the sicke that they should take them and eate them as Communicants and partakers of the common action according to Christs institution and therefore that was not out of the vse of the Sacrament It is therefore a loose conclusion from the Sacrament in vse to the Sacrament out of his vse 6. Ecclesiasticall writers doe report that some were wont to carie the Eucharist home with them and to reserue it Ans 1. And it may be doubted whether they did well or no 2. Other mens abuse doth not make a rule for vs and impose a necessitie to doe or approoue the like And the Reader may heere obscrue that the Papists doe vsuallie in their Sophisticall reasons suppresse that proposition which is weake and lyable to open exception as knowing that they cannot proue it but this is not to deale sincerely with the Church of God 7. But when afterward some daies being passed after the consecration they did in the time of persecution eate the consecrated bread which they had reserved who would denie but that they receaued the body of Christ especially being as they were so deuoutly affected Ans 1. Wee may not make rules of those things which happen in case of necessitie 2. Neither may we thinke that those deuout Christians in that agonie of persecution did receaue the reserved Eucharist without the memorie of Christs passion without godly praiers and giving of thankes All which seeing they belong to the vse and action of the Supper it may not bee saide that they receaved the Sacrament out of the vse And the elements which they vsed were destinated to the vse of the Lords Supper Question 2. VVhether the Eucharist bee to bee adored Our Aduersaries doe adore it with divine worship onely due to God not onely in the vse therof but out of the vse too in their Oratories and in publicke processions when it is caried about We say that the Eucharist is to be reverenced as an holy mysterie but not to bee adored or worshippeed and that foâ— these reasons Because the Sacraments doe consist of an earthly and an heavenly matter therefore when the Sacrament is adored the element and the earthly matter is adored which is Artolatria a worshipping of bread Out of the vse the worshipping of the Eucharist is more absurd Idolatrie for out of the vse Sacraments cease to bee Sacraments and so they worship bread which is not so much as holy or sacramentall bread True adoration
of their owne religion Moreover how lately those Ceremonies arose â— Abuse The newâ—es of their ceremonies and were vnknowne to the Primitiue Church we cannot more briefely learne than by the narration of Polydore Virgil. He writeth on thâ—â— wise Dâ— inâ—ent rer lib. 5 cap. 11. All mysteries of Religion were deliuered of Christ amongst his Apostles plainely and simply the whole order of Ceremonies was naked and plaine having more devotion than gay furniture for it is evident enough that Peter who either first of all as being the chiefe of the Apostles or together Where was here the offering after the Coâ—sâ—â— cratioâ—â— with the rest of the Apostles did estsoones celebrate divine service with that rite which hee receaved from Christ was woont straight after the consecration to bring in the Lords Prayer Afterward Iameâ— the Bishop of Ierusalem increased these mysteries Basill also increased them and others at sundrie times instituted other things Caelestinus the Introitus of the Masse the beginning whereof is the Psalme Iudica me Deus Damasus ordained the Confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend to the Altar yet some there bee who ascribe it to Pontianus Gregorie ordained the Antheme which followeth the Introitus and therefore it is commonly called by the same name as also that Kyrie should be said nine times the Antheme after the Epistle Gospel Communion But the Antheme after the Epistle they call the gradual because the DeacoÌ„ ascendeth into an higher place to reade the Gospell Telesphorus ordained the Hymne Gloria in excelsis Deo Gelasiuâ— first invented the Orâ—isons that is the clauses of praiers as they call them Hierâ—m the Epistle and Gospell and Anastasiâ—s first appointed when it was read that all which were present at service should stand crooked and bending downe for reverence that they might bee more readie to defend the faith of the Gospell or to marke and note it which we vse to doe rather standing than sitting The Alleluiah was translated from Ierusalem The singing of the Creede that it should bee sung after the Gospell on feastivall daies and should bee repeated by the people which were present at service was the decree of Pope Mark the first The same decree was renued afterward by Damasus Gelasius made the Antheme which Here Masse was so celebrated that the people might answere they commonly call the Tract and the Hymnes and the prefaces which goe before the Canon hee framed in an elegant speach and song which as Pelagius reporteth are nine in number Vrbanus addeth the tenth vnto the honour of the virgin the mother of God And whereas Incense is burned at the Altar Aaron did that first as the Lord said vnto Moses Thou shalt set an altar before the vaile and Aaron shall burne theron sweete incense as it is in Exodus 30 6 7 And afterward Leo the third decreede that the same should be done amongst vs which was also obserued of the heathens Hereof it is that Virgill saith of Venus in the first of his Aenâ—ids Vbi Templum illi centumque Sabâ—o Thâ—re calent arae c. Where stand her famous seates And Temple rich and of incense an hundred altars sweats The vse of washing their hands seemeth to haue come from the Olde Testament for that the Iewes were wont to beginne not onely diuine seruice but their banquets also with washing of hands as holding it wicked to eate bread with vnwashen hands which fault they obiected against the Disciples of Christ Or else this custome was taken from the Heathen amongst whom those which sacrificed did first of all washe their hands as Hesiod saith there was a charge giuen that no man should in the morning ofter wine to Iupiter with vnwashen hands lest the glory of the sacred things should be polluted And here againe he alleadgeth verses of Virgils thus farre Polydore Virgill Who so would see more let him reade Durandus his booke intituled Rationale Diuinâ—rum Officâ—orum Behold the great impudencie of our Adâ—ersaâ—ies who boast of antiquity in the masse and endeuour to fetch it from the verie Apostles contrarie to their consciences and credit to all histories but least they here seeke a shift and pretend that these things are spoken of the ceremonies only which are not of the substance of the masse let vs heare what the same Autor writeth of the chiefest the substantiall misterie of the masse of the Canon I meane in the same booke and chapter Where he saith thus In the prefaces that Sanctus Sanctus How finely the masse came from the Apostls Sanctus Dominus Deus Zebaoth should bee sung was first decreed by Sixtus which was taken froÌ„ the Prophet Isay Gelasius made Teigitur which afterward was made the begining as before Syricius had made Communicants which now is set in the third place Whence it appeareth that the Canon it selfe was neither al framed by one man neither broght into that forme whereof it now consisteth The certaintie whereof hence appeareth that Alexander the first who was along time before Gelasius and Syricius appointed for the memoriall of Christs passion Quâ— pridie quaÌ„ pateâ—eter c. vnto these words Hoc est Corpus meum Wherefore it is cleare enough that then was the beginning of the Canon when as hath beene sayd Gelasius was Bishop of Rome about 360 yeares or somewhat more after Alexander Then Leo added Hanc igilur oblationem c vnto these words placitus accipias Gregorie annexed thereto three petitions Diesque nostras in tua pacâ— disponas atque ab aeterna damnatione â—oâ— eripe et in Electorum tâ—orum iubeas grege numerarâ— The same Gegorie the first added Sanctunâ— sacrificium immaculatam hostiam And in like sort others added other things Thus far Polydor Virgil. By this narratioÌ„ you see that they are stark shameles lies which the Papists boast of the antiquity of their masse of Apostolick traditions of the masse You haue heere the history of the beginning of the principall and substantiall parts of the masse compiled out of the Ecclesiasticall histories not by some Lutheran but by a faithfull seruant of the Romane Church euen by a masse-Priest 7 Abuse The errors and â—ooleries of the Canâ—â— of the masse Now leâ— vs see by one or two examples how absurd that Canon is thus patched together by diuerse shreds The Ancients in times past at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist brought loue-feasts for the sustenance of the poore and maintenance of the ministerie At those offerings which certainely were no propitiatorie sacrifice the Church was woont to pray for preseruation and safetie c. Now that in the Canon before the consecration is applyed to the breade and wine at this day and the breade and wine are offered to God the Father for the saluation of the Church In the Canon God is requested to accept that pure sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ as he did accept