voluntarie but originall sinne is not voluntarie therfore c. An 1. We may not leape from one science See Chap. 13 quest 2 obiect 6. to an other which is done in this argument whiles in defining what is sinne the Aduersarie goes from Divinitie to Philosophie to fetch the definition thereof from Aristotle 2 And so here is a confusion of distinct principles and seuerall artes and a fallacie of manie questions as but of one 3 Originall sinne though it be not voluntarie in vs now in respect of the present corruption which wee draw by nature from our Parents yet it was and is voluntarie in respect of the beginning principle and cause therof Adam and all his posteritie in his loynes coÌ„mitted the first sinne of disobedience against God willingly and thence issued Originall corruption And this is sufficient even in reaâ—on and philosophie to make an action sinâ—ull For a drunken man though hee knowe â—ot what hee dooth yet if hee kill a man in â—is drunkennesse is by the Ciuill Lawes of men guiltie of murder because himselfe was the cause of his drunkennesse See more in the place of Renouation Cap 13 quest 2. QVESTION 3. Of the workes of infidels The Question is whether the good workes or vertues of infidells be so devoide of all fault that the doers thereof do deserue grace The Papists affirme they bee wee denie it for these reasons Without Faith it is vnpossible note that hee sayth it is vnpossible to please God Hebr 11 6 but infidells want faith otherwise they should not bee called infidells therefore c. Without Christ there is no saluation noâ— eternall life no favour or acceptance with God Iohn 17 2 3. Acts 4 12. Matthew 3 17. But Infidells are ignorant of Christ therâ—fore c. The end of the workes which Infidellâ— doe is not for the glorie of God but most vsually for their owne glory or couetousnes or ambition or pleasure c. 4 If the person that doth the workes be not accepted of God then neither can the workes be how glorious soeuer they bee So God had no respect to the sacrifice of Cain not because for that the sacrifice was not of it selfe good but because God hated Cain for his impietie See more heereof in the 12 Cap quest 1â— Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason thus 1 Vertuous actions in infidels are not of themselues Simil Wine that is of it selfe very good if it bee kept in a corrupt vessell becommeth so distastful that it may breed loathing or cause vomiting in them that drinke of it euill therefore they may not bee reckoned amongst sinnes An. What vertues are of themselues wee are not heere to dispute but howe they are to bee esteemed by reason of the faultinesse of them in whome they are 2 It is therefore a fallacie making moe questions where there should be but one for these two are confusedly shuffled together what vertues are in theÌ„selues what in respect of the maÌ„ in whom they be It is also a fallacie from that which is spoken in some particular respect to the same taken absolutely and simply for these actions are in the former place taken absolutely and in the later as they are considered in respect of him that doth them 2 Vertues in infidels are the gifts of God therfore they are not to be accounted for sinnes Ans 1. As they are the gifts of God so they are no sinnes but heere they are considered not as they proceede from god but as the good and holy gifts of God are polluted in corrupt instrumeÌ„ts 2. Ther are some gifts of god which sanctifie the receiver and some which doe not of these later sort are all the gifts of God in infidells 3. A good thing by abusing of it may become to be not good 3. God hath sometimes rewarded the vertues of infidels therefore they haue pleased him and haue not beene counted for sinnes Ans God hath commanded outward honestie and civility and doth bestowe temporall rewards on it but our question is not of temporall but of spirituall rewards therefore this is nothing to the purpose The Iesuites in the Article of Iustification doe expound the word Grace for a gift or habite infused into the soule of man from heauen vvherby he is moved or stirred to worke righteously and by the which his workes are accepted with God and this Grace they deuide into the first and seconde Grace or into a preventing Grace whereby a man may prepare himselfe to the grace of Iustification and a subsequent grace whereby a man is actually and habitually made iust and so they goe about to shift of by this their explication al the sayings of the scripture concerning the free instification by faith But we in the Article of Iustification acknowledge no signification of the word Grace but such as excludeth all merits of men and that for these reasons Because the word Grace in the article of iustification is opposed to Merits workes and debt 1 To him that worketh the wages is not accounted by fauour but by debt Rom 4. 4. 2 If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else grace were no more grace Rom 11. 6 3 Hee hath saued vs not according to our workes but according to his owne purpose and grace which was giuen to vs through Christ Iesus before the world was 2 Tim 1 9 4 By grace ye are saued through faith that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes c. Ephes 2 8 9 Because it is opposed to the law which causeth wrath we are not vnder the law but vnder grace Rom 6 14 Because the Scripture declareth the same by equivalent termes or words of the same value and signification 1 They are iustified freely by his grace Rom 3 4. 2 When the bountifulnes and loue of god our sauiour toward man appeared not by the workes of righteousnes which wee had done but according to his mercy he saued vs Tit 3 4 5 3 Let vs goe boldly to the throne of grace that we may receiue mercy Heb 4 15. Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1 The word grace is oftentimes in the Scripture taken for the gifts of the holy Ghost as 1 Corin â—â— 4 there are Diuisiones Gratiarum diuersities of graces Ans 1 The propositions of this reason are meere particulars and therefore no conclusion followes 2. Whereas Saint Paul in that place treateth of miraculous gifts not of iustification and our question is only of iustification the argument is frivolous and not to the present purpose 3. Though wee denie not but that the worde grace is sometimes in Scripture taken figuratiuely for the free gifts of God bestowed vpon men for only we deny it to bee vsed in that signification in the article of Iustification any where in the Scripture yet neither in this place alledged is the word Charis vsed which properly signifieth grace but Charisma which signifieth a gift freely bestowed
thing be required but faith alone why I say is it not once so much as in one word at the least insinuated by so great and worthie Authors in so many and so serious sayings of theirs therefore faith alone doth iustifie Contrariwise Infidelity alone is the cause that sinners doe not obtaine forgiuenes of sinnes and so are condemned whereas no sinne is vnpardonable where faith is 1 He that beleeveth not is condemned alreadie because hee beleeveth not in the name of the only begotten sonne of God Ioh 3 18 2 He that obeyeth not the sonne or that * The word in the latine translatioÌ„ is incredulus that beleeueth not the originall Hâ— Apâ—â—thoÌ„ signifieth hâ— that beleeueth not or he that obeieth not how soeuer it bee taken heere it is certaine it is opposed to faith and beleeuing as appeareth by the wordes next going before beleeveth not on the sonne shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Ioh 3 36 3 Except yee beleeve that I am hee yee shall die in your sinnes Ioh 8 2. 4. The holy ghost shall reproue the world of sinne as if this were the sinne by an excellencie aboue other because they beleeue not in me Ioh 16. 8 9. 5 If any man heare my words and beleeue them not c. hee hath one that iudgeth him Ioh 12. 47 48. 6. Hee that will not beleeue shall be condemned Mark 16. 16. 7 The sinne of the Iewes for which they were reiected was their vnbeliefe Rom. 11. 20. 8. Christ is to them that beleeue not a stone to stumble at and a rock of offence 1 Pet. 2 8. 9 He that beleeueth not God hath made him a lyar 1 Ioh. 5 10 10 Hee that hath not the sonne now the sonne is had by faith hath not life 1 Ioh. 5 12. 11. Without faith it is vnpossible to please God Heb 11 6 Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe argue 1 As a gift is receaued not with one finger but with the whole hand so we doe not receaue iustification by faith alone but by hope charitie together with fairh Ans Similitudes haue no force to proue a thing And yet a gift may be receiued with one finger too as for example a gold chaine may This is therefore a most fonde argument although it were sometime alleadged in a famous place and companie by a Iesuite a man of no small authoritie and account 2 We are saued by hope Rom 8 24. Therfore we are not saued by faith alone Ans 1 Paul speakes not of iustification but of the future possession of euerlasting life which in this life wee possesse in hope only and this is all he saith that we are truly blessed through faith but we doe waite for the reuelation of that our blessednesse in hope And therefore because to bee saved is in this place taken of S. Paul in one sense and of our Aduersaries in an other sense in the conclusion there arise in the argument foure termes 3 Goe and teach all nations c. not only to belieue but to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Math. 28. 20. Therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ans Vnto Renouation whereof Christ speaketh in the obseruing of those things hâ— Our Aduersaries make no difference betweene SanctificatioÌ„ iustification commanded it sufficeth not onely to believe but to worke is required also But as concerning iustification in the very same instruction of the Apostles Christ sayth he that shall believe and be baptized shall be saued without making mention of charitie or any other workes Marke 16 16. 4 It was not enough for the blinde man that his eies were annoynted but it was needfull Eckius that he should goe to the poole Siloam Ioh. 9 6. 7. that is faith sufficeth not but workes are required also to iustification Ans Wee may not determine of controuersed points by such Allegories as haue no ground in scriptures 5 If I had all faith so that I could remoue mountaines and had not loue I were nothing c. 1. Cor 13 2. Ans 1 Paul speaketh of the necessitie of loue or charitie not as pertaining to iustification but to vnitie and the profite of the Church It is therefore a fallacie from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely and this saying of the Apostle is wrongfully wrested to iustification 2 Neither doth he speake of iustifying faith but of the faith of miracles Heere be therefore fiue termes in this argument 6 To you it is giuen for Christ that not onely yee should belieue in him but also suffer for his sake Philippians 1 29. Heere Paul ioyneth faith and workes together Answ 1 Heere is not anie thing meant of iustification onely the Apostle sheweth that they that belieue should beare all things patiently for Christs sake and that it is the gift of God and not of the strength or abilitie of man that they doo patiently suffer aduersitie for Christs sake 2 He speaketh that of those that be iustified which our Aduersaries expound of them that are to be iustified There are therefore fowre termes 7 Faith is effectuall or worketh by loue Gal 5 6. therefore faith alone doth not iustfie but loue or charitie together with faith An 1. There is more in the conclusion Roffensis faith ful of good workes doth justifie before it bringes forth the good workes than in the premisses For there dooth no more follow but that faith which is voide of charity is a dead faith but that charity which follloweth faith doth iustifie here is not one sillable 2 The question is not what vertues are linked or ioyned with others but what is the peculiar propertie of euerie one of it selfe Heere is therefore a fallacie in workes making manie questions for one 8 Seest thou not that the faith wrought with his workes and through the works was the faith made perfect Iames 2 22. and yee see then that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith onely Verse 24. and faith without workes is dead Ver 26 Shew me thy faith by thy workes I will shew thee my faith by my workes Verse 18. Ans 1. Hee speaketh of a dead faith which we reiect in the article of iustification also 2 The meaning is that our iustification is to bee delared before men by our workes according to that which our Sauiour sayth Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good workes c. Mat 5 16 3 works are not good vnlesse they be done by them which are iustified 9 This word Onely by faith or by faith alone is found no where in the Scripture Therfore we are not iustified by it alone Answ Exclusiue particles equiualent to the word alone are found in the holy Scripture 1. The word Grace Ephes 2 8 Rom 11. 5 6. Tit 3 7. 2 Timo 1. 9. 2 The word freely with other of the same signification Roman 3 24 charisma a gifte freely
Note Paul calleth concupiscence sin Rom. 6 fiue times Rom 7. six times Rom 8 thrise Rom 6 12. 3 I knew not sinne but by the lawe for I had not knowen lust or concupiscence except the lawe had said thou shalt not lust Rom 7. 7. 4 Sinne tooke occasion by the commaundedement and deceiued me Rom 7 8 11. Because termes aequiualent to sinne are attributed to Concupiscence 1. An euill present with vs Rom 7 8 21. 2 A thing not good Rom 7 18. 3. The flesh lusteth against the spirit Galat 5. 17. which is enimitie against God Rom 8 7. 4 Therefore Paul teacheth vs to crucifie Concupiscence or the luste of the flesh Galathians 5 25. The first motions of luste or concupiscence and other bad affections are condemned as sinnes 1 Of anger Christ saith whosoeuer is angrie with his brother vnaduisedly shall bee culpable of iudgment Matthew 5 22. 2. Of hatred whosoeuer hateth his brother is a Man-slayer 1 Ioh. 3 15 3 Of the first motion of Concupiscence vnto wantonnesse Christ sayth whosoeuer looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committted adulterie with her alreadie in his heart Mat. 5 18. Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason thus 1. There is nothing that bringeth damnation in them which are in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. But sinne is a thing that causeth damnation Therefore sinne is not in the regenerate and consequently Concupiscence seeing it is in the regenerate is no sinne Ans All sinne deserueth damnation but it bringeth not damnatioÌ„ to any in whom it is pardoned as it is in all the children of God that is Paules meaning that there is nothing that shall cause damnation in them which are in Christ Iesus because that which is damnable in them of it selfe is made veniall for Christs sake 2 Christ hath purged all our sinnes Heb. 1. 3. Therefore concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne Ans This is a monstrous and misshapen reason for by the like argumeÌ„t because Christ hath purged all sinnes therefore neither adulterie nor manslaughter should bee sinnes any more 3 Christians regenerate are sanctified and washed from their sinnes and offences 1 Cor 6 11. therefore they haue no sinne and consequently Concupiscence in them is no sinne Ans 1. There is more in the Conclusion than in the premisses for this only doth follow they are washed and sanctified therefore their sins are not imputed to them For if they were not sinnes they had no neede to bee washed from them 2. Washing from sinnes doth not cause tâ—at they should not be but it respecteth the guilt of sin which is taken away otherwise the regenerate should not sin any more which sauoureth of the error of the Anabaptists And maruaile it is that our Aduersaries daâ—e come into the light with such toyish fooleries The Anabaptisme of the Papists 4 Concupiscence if it be ouercome as it is in the regenerate giueth but matter of victorie and glorie vnto them therefore it is not sinnne Ans 1 It were a shamefull argument for by the like reason Satan should not sinne because if hee be ouercome hee doth but yeeld vs matter of reward 2. It is a fallacie from that which is a cause by accident not of it selfe for we may not say that Concupiscence is not sinne by his owne nature because the conquest of it yeeldeth vs matter of glorie 5 If concupiscence be sinne then all sinnes bee equall and be a like sinnefull Answere 1. Though we keepe the iust degrees of sinnes yet sinnes of the lowest degree cease not to be sinnes and qualities in the smallest degrees doe not because of their smallnesse cease to be such qualities as they by nature are 2 The consequence of the argument should bee this If concupiscence be a sinne then all men are sinners before God but this conclusion liketh not our Aduersaries 6 Sinnes are not sins vnlesse they bee voluntarie but Concupiscence is not voluntarie therefore c. Ans 1 The theologicall knowledge of By this reason originall sinne should be no sinne sinne is not to be learned out of Aristotle or Baldus but out of the holy Scripture which reckoneth Concupiscence and inuoluntary sins amongst sinnes 2 And according to this definition of the Papists Concupiscence is a sinne for though it be not done by the consent and will of the spirit yet it is voluntarie in respect of the flesh Rom 7 25 3 It is a proposition Ethic. Nâ— com lib. â— c. 5. deliuered by Aristotle himselfe that those things be done of vs willingly the beginning cause whereof was in our selues as if a drunken man coÌ„mit any fault in his drunkenes when he knoweth not what hee doth and cannot auoid it yet he is to be accounted to doe it willingly because himselfe was the cause of his ignorance disabilitie so by nature God made vs able to keepe his lawe wee through our fault haue lost this abilitie haue brought vpon our selues a necessitie of sinning which is therefore voluntarie in vs because our selues were the cause thereof 7 Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Iames 1. 15. therefore Concupiscence it selfe is not sinne but the cause thereof Ans 1 Iames speaketh of actuall sinne and in the meane while he doth not acquitte concupiscence of the name of sinne for if therefore concupiscence be not sinne because that which springeth from it is by Saint Iames called sinne then neither can concupiscence bee a sinne in the vnregenerate which is absurde 2 Seeing euery thing doth beget and bring forth his like to insist in the metaphore of S. Iames certainely concupiscence which bringeth forth sinne is it selfe sinne also And that which maketh another to be so is it selfe much more so but concupiscence doth tempt and entise vs to sinne as saint Iames saith in the same place therefore c 8 Concupiscence is in the Scripture called sinne improperly as Christ also is called sinne 2. Cor. 5. 21. Ans 1. Why wee should not take the worde sinne in his proper signification in the place alledged 2 Cor 5. 21 the text giueth vs reason when it saith That God made him to be sinne for vs which knew no sinne but there bee noe reasons why when wee speake of concupiscence wee should change the proper signification of the word into an improper 2. Neither is it in the place of Paul an improper speech but a manner of phrase borowed from the Hebrewes wherein the worde sinne is taken for a sacrifice for sinne therefore our Aduersaries doe bewraie their great ignorance 9 Blessed is hee in whose spirit there is no guile Psal 32 â— therefore Concupiscence is not a sinne in the righteous Ans 1. To be without guile is opposed vnto hypocrisie and nothing els is meant but that the righteous are of a single vpright heart 2. It is a fallacie of diuision whiles the thinges that goe before are seuered from those that follow after for the whole verse is
then to Popish Confirmation 2. Heere bee more termes than three 1 Confirmation 2 Sacrament 3. Laying on of hands 4 Ceremonies different from laying on of hands 5 The bestowing of the gifts of the holy Ghost 6. The bare Popish spectacle of Chrisme or oile 6. Christ confirmed the little children Mar. 10 16 therefore Confirmation is a Sacrament Ans 1. The Antecedent speaketh of blessing and praier such a Confirmation as is vsed at this day in our Churches neither is there any mention of oile but the Consequent speaketh of a quite other thing altogether different from the action of Christ there arise therefore foure termes 2 Penance Repentance though it bee necessarie for all men yet it is not to bee counted among the Sacraments for these reasons Repentance was commaunded and was necessarie in the olde Testament also but our Sacraments ought to be the institutions of the new Testament Seeing in the olde Testament where also was repentance it was not reckoned for a Sacrament why should it now be It wanteth a visible element ordained by God for Repentance Those ceremonies which the Papists vse in their penance laying on of handes and such like haue no promise that God will be effectuall in vs by those rites The Popish penance is polluted with manie humane traditions and corruptions as shall bee declared in his proper place Chap. 23 for which cause it deserveth not the name of a Sacrament Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1 penance is commaunded Mar 1 15 Math 3 2. therefore it is a Sacrament Answer 1. It is a fallacie for that there is not a sufficient reckoning vp of the causes and parts requisite to a Sacrament for not some one or other partiall cause alone is a sufficient cause of a Sacrament 2. By the same reason Charitie should be a Sacrament too for that also hath the commandement of Christ Ioh. 13 34. and in other places 2 Penance hath an outward element also as the laying on of hands therefore it is a Sacrament Ans 1. If the ceremonies of actions performed by the hand bee elements in the Sacraments then in Baptisme there will bee two elements to wit water and the laying to of the hands or the washing of the childe by the hand of the Minister which is absurd therefore the Antecedent is false 2. The rite or ceremony of laying on of hands is not commaunded in Scripture 3. Neither can it be shewed that the grace of God is tyed to the ceremonie Neither doe we reade that Iohn Baptist laied his hands vpon euery one of that innumerable multitude of men whom vppon their repentance hee baptized 3. In penance there is an application of the grace of God to euery one in particular therefore it is a Sacrament Answere It is a fallacie from an vnsufficient cause for remission of sinnes is applied to euerie one in particular by faith and yet it is not therefore a Sacrament And as Papists say the grace of iustification is applied to euery one in particular by good works therefore according to their opinion the good works of the regenerate should bee counted amongst the Sacraments And by this meanes what an infinite number of Sacraments shall we haue 3 Order Wee denie that Popish Orders are to bee accounted a Sacrament if we speake properly of a Sacrament for these reasons Because it hath no outward element Because the rites which are there woont to bee vsed haue neither example of the Apostles nor commandement of Christ and therefore they haue no promise of grace to the receaver Because those things which are alleaged out of Scripture for their degrees of Orders are very ridiculous 1. That Christ was Ostiarius a doore-keeper and so thereby did institute this See Durandus in his book called Rationale Divinoruâ— officioruâ— degree of Orders they triflingly proue because he said I am the doore by mee if any man enter in hee shal be saved Ioh. 10 9. And so their Ostiarij the dore keepers in Poperie shall be that dore by which we must enter into heauen 2. The degree of Lector or Reader they proue because Christ did reade out of the booke of Isai Luk 4 17. 3 They proue the degree of Exorciste because Christ gaue power to his Apostles to cast out Devils Mar. 6. 7 13. 4 The degree of Acolythites they proue because Christ saide Hee that followeth mee walketh not in darknesse Iohn 8. 12. 5. The degree of Subdeacon is proued because Christ when he washed the Apostles feete was girded about with a linnen to well Ioh 13. 4. 6 They proue the degree of Deacon because Christ did distribute the Eucharist or Communion to his Apostles Math 26 26 c. 7 They proue the degree of Priesthood because Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech because hee offered himselfe to his Father in his last supper because there he ordained his Apostles to be Priests Because the rites of the popish ordination a great part of them be taken out of the ould Testament where the Priest was annointed with oile c. Wherfore those belong not to the Sacraments of the newe Testament vnlesse we would bring Christians backe againe to Iudaisme Because the end of the popish ordination is not intended and destinated to the preaching of the Gospell but to the offering of the sacrifice of the masse for the liuing and for the dead Which how great an impietie it is shall bee declared afterward in the chapter of the masse Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus 1 The institution of the ministery is contained in the Olde and New Testament Therefore it is a Sacrament Ans 1. The maior proposition which our Aduersaries doe not set downe is manifestly false which should be this whatsoeuer is instituted in the Olde and New Testament that is a Sacrament 2 It is a fallacy from an vnsufficient reckoning vp of the causes for it is not some one propertie of a sacrament that can suffice vnlesse there bee a sufficient cause brought that is such a one as consisteth of all the properties which concurre to the making of a Sacrament 3. There is more in the Conclusion than in the premisses For there doth no more follow but that the Ministerie dependeth not vpon humane but deuine authoritie 4 And by the like reason to answere them by an instance the ordination of the Magistrate should be a Sacrament For it hath his institution both in the Olde and New Testament 2 Order hath a visible signe the imposition of hands as appeareth by the ordination vsed of the Apostles Therefore it is a Sacrament Ans 1 We answered a little before that imposition of handes is not the Element or matter of a Sacrament 2 We doo not reade that that ceremonie was euer commanded of Christ 3 b * Though there be no certain coÌ„mandâ—ment for imposition of hâ—â—des yet because we And it is now in the liberty of the church to vâ—e it or not to vse it
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
three sonnes Shem Ham and Iapheth c. Genes 6 9 10. 3 Abraham the Father of the faithfull was Will any man say that any vnmaried man is more pure than was Abraham beeing maried maried as were also the other Patriarches 4 Dauid a man after Gods owne heart was maried and in state of wedlocke composed Psalms most acceptable to God being indued in a principall measure with the Spirit of God 5 Ezechiel the Prophet was maried Ezech 24 16. 18. 6 The high Priest who offered holy oblations to GOD might by the lawe of God marie a wife neither was he polluted by mariage bed to be made thereby vnfit for the Priests office And Aaron was commanded by God to burne sweetâ— incense euery morning in the tabernacle before the Arke of the Couenant as it is Exodus 30 7. Neither did the vse of mariage bed hinder him in this behalfe For he begate sonnes 7. And so were the rest of the Priests maried also 8. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both iust before God and walked in all the coÌ„maundements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe and yet they were man and wife had Iohn Baptist to their son Luk 1 6. 2 In the newe Testament also there were Ecclesiasticall persons holy and religious that lived in wedlock 1 Peter had a mother in law and therefore a wife Math. 8 14. 2 Haue wee not power to leade about a wife being a sister as wel as the rest of the Apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas 1 Corinth 9 5. 3 Philip the Evangelist which was one of the seaven Deacons had foure daughters which did prophecie Acts. 21 8 9. 4. A Bishop must be vnreproveable the husband of one wife c. having children vnder obedience with all honestie 1 Tim. 3 2 4. 5. Let Deacons bee the husbands of one wife and such as can rule their children well and their owne housholds 1 Timo. 3 12. 6. The like appeareth by the examples of Spiridion and of others in the Primitive Church who being holy men and indued with singular gifts of the Spirit were maried and begat children And often times the legitimate sonnes of Bishops succeeded their Fathers in the Bishopricks Paul doth sharply reproue them which disgrace mariage saying In the latter daies some shal depart from the faith and shal giue heede vnto spirits of error and doctrines of Devils which speake lies through hypocrisie haue their consciences burned with an hot iron forbidding to marie 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. Finally if matrimonie be a Sacrament if it do confer grace and that grace of the Sacrament causeth as Eckius saith the bed to bee vndefiled why are Ecclesiasticall persons polluted thereby Or why is a state otherwise impure and defiled reckoned among the Sacraments as matrimonie in the opinion of the Papists is Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute 1 The vse of Mariage bed after the fall is impure and not without lust Therfore priests who ought to bee pure must abstaine from wedlocke Ans 1 If the speech bee of the motions of concupiscence remaining after Originall sinne whereof the Psalmist maketh mention in his conception Psal 51 5 then is it a fallacie of an accident and that which agreeth to the accident to wit Originall sinne is transferred to the vse of Mariage bed which of it selfe is right lawfull and ordained by God And if because of this accident men should abstain from mariage as froÌ„ an impure state then should they abstain from all other states and workes because in all of them there concurreth somewhat of Originall sinne And because purenes becommeth all Christians therefore all should abstaine from mariage 2 But if the vse of mariage bed bee compared to vnlawfull lusts and aequall thereunto it is manifestly repugnant to these sentences of Scripture 1 In the Scripture the vse of mariage bed lust are opposed as contraries but contraries seeing they destroy one another are not the same 2 To auoide fornication let euery man haue his wife 1 Cor 7 2. and what may the remedy of lust impuritie be called lust Sâ— the sâ—n beames which are as it were the remedy of darknes should be called darkenes and impurity 3 Paul saith let the Husband giue vnto the wife due beneuolence he bids them also come together again 1. Cor. 7. 3 5. And what dooth Paul bid them follow after impuritie dooth he egge them forward to sinne 4 The bed betwixt the godly maried couple is vndefiled Heb. 13. 4. 2 If Mariage bed were so pure then would not Paul bid them abstaine in the time of prayer and fasting Answ 1 Hee speaketh not of all sorts of prayers but of solemne prayers 2 Neither doth he bid them therefore abstaine because the vse of mariage bed is impure and would pollute their prayers but that they may giue themselues to prayer and their prayers may be the more feruent c. Euen as in the time of solemne prayers we leaue of the exercise duties of our proper honest calling that wee may attend to prayers and sermons Heere is then committed a fallacy taking that for the cause which is not the cause 3 I was borne in iniquity c. Psalm 51 5. There Dauid confesseth the impuritie of mariage therefore c. Answ 1 Hee speaketh not of the vse of mariage bed in his parents as if that were of it selfe a sinne but he sheweth that lumpe or masse so to speake of which he was created euen then to haue been polluted with sin for the whole substance of man was corrupt with sinne not by reason of the act of mariage bed but by reason of originall sinne which doth accidentally concur there with heere is then committed the fallacy of an accident 2 Whereas our question heere is not concerning originall sinne whether it be in the regenerate and doe concurre also in their good workes but whether there be in matrimony of it selfe anie impurity our Aduersaries change the state of the question play the Sophisters 4 They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom 8 8. But those which are maried are in the flesh Therefore c. This is pope Syricius his argument Answ 1 What it is to bee in the flesh Paul expoundeth Gal 5 19. Where he reckoneth vp the fruites of the flesh to wit sins and crimes but there is no mention of mariage but of the contraries thereto 2 To liue in the flesh with Paul is to liue in sinne but with our aduersaries to liue in the flesh is to liue in the state of matrimony Therefore there are foure termes in this argument 5 Yea but many doe vse mariage bed intemperately which is not without impurity Answ 1 This is the fallacy of an accident For this is a thing that accidentally agreeth to mariage besides the right vse and that but amongst some onely â— Neither is a thing which is of it selfe laweful to be condemned because some vse it