argument against you That day wherein the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely meete together to exercise themselues in hearing the word preached receiuing the Sacrament and giuing of Almes that same day did the Apostles ordain to be the Sabbath of Christians but the Apostle did ordaine that Christians should weekly assemble themselues vpon the first day of the weeke for the purposes before mentioned therefore the Apostle did ordaine the first day of the weeke to be the Christians Sabbath Pap. I denie the Maior for that being graunted if the Apostles did appoint moe daies in a wéeke than one for Christians to assemble themselues for the like Christian exercises by the same argument you a Non sequitur Looke the answere may likewise prooue two Sabbaths in one wéek and no doubt those Christians who liued together in the fellowship of the Apostles sold their possessions and had all thinges common b That is not their intent Act. 2.45 to the intent that they might be wholy employed in the seruice of God had moe dayes than one in a wéeke appointed for that purpose Your Minor proposition also which is that the Apostle did ordaine that Christians should assemble thēselues vpon the first day of the wéeke c. is false not warranted by either of the places of scripture by you alleaged In the 20. of the Acts the first day of the wéeke is not prescribed vnto Christians as a day whereon they ought to assemble themselues for the seruice of God but there only mentiō is made that the Disciples were assembled on the first day of the wéeke to break bread and that Paul intending to depart on the morrow continued preaching till midnight Let vs c Admit what you will yet the first of the weeke is the ordinarie appointed day admit that Saint Paul was to depart on the Tuesday and that the Christians were assembled on the Monday to breake bread and to heare Paul preach before his departure might not I in this case make as stronge an argument to prooue Monday to be the Christians Sabbath as yours is for the Sunday In the 16. Chapter of Saint Pauls 1. Epistle vnto the Corinths the Apostle doth prescribe the first day of the wéeke vnto the Corinths as a day whereon they ought to lay aside for the poore as their deuotion shall serue it is not preaching prayer or administration of Sacraments that is in this place enioyned but it is a laying aside for the poore Why doth the Apostle enioyne this contribution for the poore to be made at that time the answere followeth in the text That there be no gatherings when I come Why would the Apostle haue no gatherings when he came no doubt because hée would not haue such spirituall exercises as he determined to bestow amonge them at his returne vnto them d Then this day was not onely for collections but for spirituall exercises hindered or impeached by such collections if this were the meaning of the Apostle then is it not like that he would appoint the Sabbath for the making of such collections which is wholy e Not wholy so as no time should be spared for collections to be employed in such spirituall exercises as hée meant to vse amonge them at his returne and therefore this place would better serue a wrangler to prooue that the first day of the wéek was not appointed to be the christians Sabbath then it will serue you to the contrarie Pro. Out of this place it may be gathered that the Christians vpon the first day of the weeke did weekely assemble together for there is no time so fit for collections as generall assemblies and a weekely assembly vpon that day doth manifestly proue it to be the Sabbath Pap. You can wring no generall assemblies out of that place for the text saith Let euerie one put apart by himselfe and lay vp which argueth rather f Neither doe we imagine that all saw what euerie man gaue or tooke it from him but he himselfe layd it vp as the rest did in the cōmon purse else Paul must either gather it or tarry the gathering of it when hee came a priuate laying vp at home than a contribution in an assembly as your marginall note in the English Bible interpreteth for how can a man bée sayd to lay vp that which he doth deliuer to another in such a contribution Pro. It appeareth in the first of the Reuelation that in Saint Iohns time the first day of the weeke was called the Lords day which is as much as if hee had called it the Christians Sabbath Pap. You shall find in that Chapter that Saint Iohn was in the spirit on the Lords day whereupon you may conclude that in Saint Iohns time one day of the wéeke was called the Lords day which we doe graunt and more than that that the first day of the wéeke was then called the Lords day which would haue put you to your shifts to haue prooued out of the word yet haue you gained nothing for what consequent is this the first day of the wéeke was of the Apostles called the Lords day therefore the Iewes Sabbath is to be abolished and the first day of the wéeke is to be obserued for the Sabbath of Christians might not the first day of the wéeke be called the Lords day in regard of Christs resurrection and yet the Iewes Sabbath remaine or be abolished as other of their ceremonies were without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof Or will you rather reason thus Saint Iohn could be in the spirit but on the christians Sabbath only Ergo the first day of the wéeke is the Sabbath of christians if this be your argument you doe but clauum clauo pellere for when you shall haue prooued your antecedent by the word then will I graunt the consequent and as easily may you prooue the one as the other but let it be admitted that you can prooue by scripture that the Christians were enioyned by the Apostles to assemble themselues wéekely vpon the Sunday to ioyne together in prayer hearing the word preached yet what word haue you to prooue that g Neither doe we say neither can you proue it is all bodily labour is vnlawfull vpon that day they might well assemble in prayer vpon that day and heare 2. or 3. sermons and yet spare some time to bestowe vpon their labours and the commaundement forbiddeth labor on the seuenth day and not h The first day is now become the seuenth on the first day of the wéeke Thus you may sée while you do nodum in scirpo quaerere by séeking to prooue that by scripture which the Church doth hold by tradition how you are driuen to wrest the scripture and how weake and ridiculous your arguments be If the obseruation of the feast of Easter and other festiuall dayes prayer for the dead or the Sacrifice of the Masse had found the same entertainment
eminent day and chosen from amonge the other dayes of the weeke for the speciall seruice of the Lord so was it celebrated as an eminent day and so still kept in fresh memorie in the Churches of Asia now that this day was the first day of the weeke and no other it will bee easie to shew without shifts not onely because no other day was euer permanently kept holy but also because we may trace the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dominica applied to this day as it were a Hare in the snow issuing out of this place of the Reuelation into all the Churches of Christendome Yea but saith your Papist Might not the first day of the wéeke be called the Lords day in regard of Christs Resurrection I say no for then it had been called the Rising day or the Resurrection day as the like dayes be namely Ascension Circumcision c. For to call it the Lords day in regard of Christs Resurrection is vtterly insensible When he demaundeth further Whether the Iewes Sabbath might not remaine or be abolished as other Ceremonies were Col. 2.16.16 without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof I answere that the Iewes Sabbath is taken away by Saint Paul so farre forth as it was ceremoniall but the morall parts thereof namely that one day in a weeke should be layd apart for spirituall meditations and exercises Exod. 23.12 and for the recreation of seruants and dum creatures was to be kept still inuiolable without any such substitution as he dreames of and so his other wranglements about bodily labour and resting the seuenth day not the first day of the weeke are cleane dasht Mat. 12.5.11 Mark 2.27 3.4 Luk. 13.14 c. Ioh. 5.8 c. 9.6.7.14 Iren. lib. 4. ca. 19. howbeit that which was the first day of the weeke is now become the seuenth day and bodily labour was neuer altogether vnlawfull no not in time of the lawe as appeareth cleerely in many places of the new Testament Now iudge you or any reasonable man else in the world whether our arguments or his answeres be weake and ridiculous as for his Tradition the more he vrgeth it the more hee confuteth himselfe and confirmeth our exposition of these three places for if the Apostles deliuered the obseruation of the Sabbath by Tradition wee may not thinke they deliuered it to some Churches and not to other some and if they deliuered it to all without exception then was it deliuered to them of Troas to the Galatians Corinthians and the Churches of Asia if to them then can it not bee denied but that these places of scripture which I haue now disputed of doe cleerely containe the practise and continuall obseruance of the Lords day as it was deliuered to these Churches by the Apostles I will not vouchsafe to answere your Papists vnpowdered talke of Iohn Caluin that worthy seruant of God and wire-whipper of popish marchants out of the house of God onely this I will say that if Iohn Caluin were not a greater mote in his eie then Popish traditions are in ours he would haue spared this idle vagarie The next point is eating blood Act. 15 2â—.29 which was forbidden in the first generall Councell the circumstance whereof you haue well set downe howbeit your Papist still calls for Scripture whereby it may be shewed him that after the decree made at Ierusalem by the Apostles it was lawfull for Christians to eate blood which hee would neuer doe if hee were learned and had read the Epistles of Saint Paul with any diligence wherefore you may stoppe his mouth for this point out of these places which I haue here quoted 1. Rom. 14.2 3 6 14 20 c. 1. Cor. 10.29 Coloss 2.16 Timothie 4.4 Tit. 1.15 Now followeth the third poynt which hangs vpon Tradition and not vpon Scripture Leui. 28. 20 Deut. 25.5 namely the forbidding of marriage within degrees of affinitie as if Leuiticus were no scripture yea but may he say Deuteronomy is scripture too as well as Leuiticus yet the brother is there commanded to raise vp seede to his brother which in Leuiticus is made vnlawfull now tell vs why you receiue the one and refuse the other here must you call for the helpe of Tradition or els lie in the dust Alas good Papist you are much deceiued for the law of Leuiticus is morall and naturally ingraffed in the hearts of all nations as appeareth euidently in the conclusion of this law in Leuiticus from the foure and twentieth verse to the end of the eighteenth Chapter for if this Law had beene peculiar for the Iewes there is no reason why the Canaaniticall nations should bee punished so seuerely as there it is described for the non obseruance of the same as for the other law of Deuteronomy it is an exception or dispensation in that particular case for the common weale of the Iewes wherein God had a speciall care of the first borne and his inheritance againe being repugnant to nature and to the explication thereof twice told in Leuiticus Cap. 18.16 cap. 20.21 it might not continue longer vnrepealed Touching the example of the incestuous Corinthian which you propound it will sticke better to your Papists ribbes then he is aware of for how can that fornication be vnheard of among the Gentiles which a man committeth with such a one as hee may lawfully marrie if then this Corinthian might lawfully marry his mother in law verily single copulation with her could not be so abominable as that the very Gentiles could not abide it should be once named amongst them and if single copulation of the mother and sonne in law was so much abhorred then was it vnlawfull they should marrie and so the law of God in Leuiticus is confirmed and so indeed your Papist gently confesseth in these words the law of the Corinths would permit no such mariage as may be gathered out of the text c. The fourth poynt followeth namely that it cannot bee shewed by scripture thas it is a greater offence in a Christian to haue many wiues then it was in Dauid howbeit we read in Scripture that God gaue him his masters wiues into his bosome 2. Sam. 12.8 Rom. 4.15 Nulla lege prohibebatur August contr Faust lib. 22. cap. 47. Matth. 19.4 c. 1. Cor. 7.2 c. Eph. 5.31 if there be no transgression where there is no law as Paul saith then verily Polygamy being neither cleerely forbidden by any law nor reprehended by any Prophet from the beginning of the world to the comming of Christ it must follow that it was eyther no transgression at all in the fathers or a farre lesse transgression then it is in Christians whom Christ Iesus himselfe and the holy Apostle Saint Paul hath so manifestly instructed that nothing can be more euident Now touching the fift and last point of punishing theft with death it is confessed by your Papist that
little before out of Austine Martyr Priests we read of none specially so called in Gods holy word but either Leuiticall or after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 7.12.18 wherof the one gaue place to Christ the other hath place in Christ and in Christ onely for this priesthood is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 7.24 that is such as passeth not from one to an other successiuely as did the Priesthood of Aaron and this is yet further strengthened in that the ministers of Christ hauing so great varietie of names in the new Testament to shew what their office is and what they haue to doe in Christs Church are no where named priests which the holy Ghost that knew best how to giue fit names would neuer haue done if Christ had euer instituted such a kingly priesthood to succeed him wherefore the Priesthood of Melchisedech figuring onely the euer-standing neuer-passing priesthood of Christ for no other Priesthood can possibly be answerable to the paterne of Melchisedechs priesthood it must follow that such as challenge to be Priests after Melchisedechs order are sacrilegious traytors against Christ and lay violent hands against his royall prerogatiues Neither is this doctrine preiudicall to the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing which needeth no erection of a speciall priesthood for as it is a common duetie so we are all in generall a holy and a kingly priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Iesus Christ 1. Pet. 2.5.9 Reuel 1.6 and to shew foorth the prayses of him that called vs out of darkenesse into his marueilous light so then the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing may euery Christian offer in priuate by himselfe and publikely by the mouth of Gods minister other sacrifice the old fathers knew none Iustine Martyr saith In dial cum Triphone that supplications and giuing of thankes are the onely perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these onely Christians haue learned to offer where the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be obserued Vide Bez. Annot in Math. 1.20 which teacheth vs that these Christians of these times had receiued this only kind of sacrificing and no other of the fathers and teachers that were before them Ad Scapulam Againe Tertullian saith Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro ipsius sed quomodo praecepit deus pura prece The dead must be prayed for when they are remembred at the sacrifice in their order and it must be declared that it is offered also for them In which words after he had sayd generally we sacrifice for the health of the Emperour he then restraines this sacrifice first to the true God and then secondly to the Christian maner of sacrifycing in pure prayer as the true God had commanded teaching vs that God neuer gaue commandement to offer any other sacrifice vnto him and if he had no doubt but the Christians of Carthage and other places in Afrike would haue offered most readily and willingly for the safety of the Emperour These two fathers both in regard of their great antiquitie plainesse of their testimonie are of sufficient force to shew that the first Churches neuer knew what the Popist sacrifice of the Masse meant yea but will you say likewise that they knew not the sacrifice of the Almes for these two testimonies are as full against the one as the other not so by your leaue Dulcit questio 2. Enchir. cap. 209. Phil. 4.18 Mat. 9.13 12. epist 6.6 for Almes is contained vnder gratiarum actio and Austine saith it is gratiarum actio pro valde bonis and propitiatio too pro non valde malis Howbeit Almes though Saint Paul call it a sacrifice yet needeth it no speciall priesthood to offer it neither is it an immediate seruice of God as prayer is but mediately pleaseth him as a worke of the second table and therefore our Sauiour saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will haue mercy and not sacrifice and so sayd the Prophet Osea long before opposing sacrifice to the exercise of mercy Now comes in our Papist crying thus doe I prooue that the sacrifice spoken of in the fathers was neither prayer nor thankesging and therefore Iustine Martyr and Tertullian had neede to looke to themselues well let vs heare these worthie proofes and consider of them whether they be strong ynough to outface two fathers of so great antiquitie Austine saith he maketh mention of the prayers and sacrifices of the Church Lib. 10. cap. 15 as of two difficult things ergo it was not prayer No nor sacrifice neither by your leaue but a representation of the sacrifice of Christ for that 's Austines meaning as himselfe tels you in his booke De ciuitate Dei and so is the other argument to be answered where your papist tels vs out of Austine that the dead are releeued by the sacrifice of our redeemer whereas thankesgiuing can neither be so called nor yet relieue soules because we giue thankes for benefits receiued not for benefits to be receiued For Austine knew well ynough that to speake precisely there was no sacrifice of our redeemer in his time nor any time els after the death of Christ Dyonisius Eusebiu◠Chrysostome c. but that which himselfe cals signum representationem sacrificij a signe and representation of the sacrifice and other fathers a token a memoriall a recordation of the sacrifice of Christ now whether this recording the Lords death till he come 2 Cor. 11.26 doe releeue the soules of the dead it hath been already disputed But to graunt him more then either may bee graunted or he can possibly euince namely that it is indeed a sacrifice as it is called yet may it be said that it is so and is called so not absolutely in it selfe as it consisteth of dumme and deafe elements but in regard of prayer and thankesgiuing which be inseparably annexed vnto it otherwise it is not like that Austine would say that the sacrifice of the Altar for those that be valde boni Enchir. ca. 109. Dulcit quaest 2. is thanksgiuing now if this sacrifice pro valde bonis be thankesgiuing as Austine faith it is why may it not be said likewise that the same sacrifice pro non valde malis is prayer I am sure Austine saith it is propitiatio which includeth prayer and heere againe consider how weakely he disputeth when he saith that thankesgiuing which is for benefits receiued August ibid. not for benefits to be receiued cannot releeue soules c. For though it may be sayd that God rewardeth a thankefull remembrance of benefits receiued with new blessings yet Austine writes not any where that the vse of the sacrifice is alwayes to releeue but sometime to giue thankes in which regard it is called the Eucharist but for as much
as Iustine Martyr and Tertullian testifie that the Christians in their time did sacrifice not only by thanksgiuing which is for benefits receiued but also by prayer which is for benefits to be receiued the edge of this wise dispute is vtterly blunted To goe yet a little further if it should bee graunted him that this sacrament is a sacrifice absolutely in it selfe yet I hope it cannot releeue soules nor doe any such feat by it selfe as it consisteth of dead elements vnlesse prayers and supplications and giuing of thankes be annexed vnto it for he that neither prayeth nor giueth thankes be hee priest or king Aaron or Melchisedecke cannot be said to offer this sacrifice and relieue soules it cannot vnlesse it be offered Now then see the vnskilfulnesse of this prating disputer who teareth into pieces things that be inseparably knit together and so in this foolish fit desireth to know whether this sacrifie was the sacrifice of the Masse the sacrifice of the Protestants communion the sacrifice of prayer or the sacrifice of thankesgiuing let him shew me that either his Masse or our communion is said or song without prayer and thankesgiuing or else let him hold his peace till he haue learned to dispute better Augustine distinguisheth his sacrifice from prayer and thankesgiuing but he doth not separate them and so his meaning must needes be that our prayers and supplications are profitable at all times but specially then when the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ is ministred and our soules inflamed thereby and stirred vp to greater deuotion In Philip hom 3. and hereunto Chrysostome accordeth saying Stante vniuerso populo manus in caelos extendente caetuitem sacerdotali verendoque posito sacrificie quomodò deū non placaremus pro istis orantes The whole people standing and lifting vp their hands to heauen as also that companie of the Priests and the reuerend sacrifice layed before how should we not appease God when we pray for them This is sufficient to shew that the pricking arguments you speake of draw no blood and that they may be answered sine sanguine sudore yet a knacke or two of Popish knauerie is heere to be discouered that you may the better see the sleights of these cōpanions for when he foresaw out answere to Austine like to be as I haue set it downe hee thought it his best way to falsefie Austines testimonie after this prettie fashion Austine saith that at the time of the sacrifice prayers were made for the dead and that the sacrifice was also offered for them but doth Austine say that the sacrifice was offered at the time of the sacrifice is it credible that Austine spake so foolishly no friend Papist Austines wordes are these pro defunctis cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur oretur ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur The dead must be prayed for when they are remembred at the sacrifice in their order and must be declared that it is offered also for them That is when the dead are mentioned in their order at the time of the sacrifice let them be prayed for and that the people may be stirred vp to pray the more deuoutly let it be told them also that the same sacrifice is offered for them and for the better explication of his meaning Austine presently after in the same place as Chrysostome in the place before alleaged mentioneth prayer and not the sacrifice saying Orationes Deo non inaniter allegantur Prayers are not directed in vaine to God whereby inclusiue such prayers are to be vnderstood as were sharpened and set on edge by the celebration of the sacrament Againe obserue how your Papist lets slip the Protestants communion through his fingers and concludes no more but thus therefore this sacrifice of the Church was either the Protestants communion or else the sacrifice of the Masse well but is this all he purposed to prooue with his sprinckling arguments if this be all our controuersie will soone be at an end and yet he neuer the neerer his transubstantiation no no this is not the daysie which he skipt at he must prooue that the sacrifice of the Church which the ancient fathers speake of was the sacrifice of the masse and no other and that shall he neuer be able to doe till he haue remoued the Protestants Communion as wel as prayer and thankesgiuing out of his way This he could not but know if he had any wit in his head therefore what can be sayd else to this but that the Protestants Communion was too to hot for him han-dle and that all the wit and learning he had was not able to out-face it The Dialogue Sectio XVIII PRo I may say vnto you heere as the Auditor in Tusculanes questions sayd vnto Marcus Spinosiota haec prius vt confitear me cogunt quà m vt assentiar your pricking arguments doe rather compell me to graunt than perswade me to consent for although by my silence I may seeme to graunt as not being able to vnloose your Gordions knots yet am I so farre from consent as I was at the beginning of this conference which bringeth to my remembrance a merry tale I haue heard of a scholler of Oxford who hauing attained some pretty skill in Sophistry would needs take vpon him to prooue vnto his father by the rules of Logick that two chickings which were set vpon the boord in a dish were three the father although he could not vnfold his sonnes arguments yet was he so farre from being perswaded by them as I am now from being perswaded by yours and for an infallible demonstration that he could not be deceiued in his opinion he tooke vnto himselfe the two chickins leauing the third which lay a As the bodie of Christ doth in the pix for foolish Papists to feed one inuisibly in the emptie dish for the Logician to feede vpon euen so although you haue prooued your assertions by such arguments as I am b It is not so hard a matter to doe not able to answere and prooued the same by the testimonie of such reuerend witnesses as I cannot except against yet cannot I beleeue the same because all my sences together with infinite absurdities and impossibilities that would follow thereon doe infallibly demonstrate the contrarie doe not all our senses tell vs that Christs naturall bodie is not in the sacrament doth not our reason and vnderstandin teach vs that a natural bodie cannot be in infinite places at the same instant and that it is impossible the sacrament being diuided into a c This is a greater mysterie than the mysterie of the Trinitie million of parts that euery of these parts should be the entire body of Christ yet that al these bodies are but one the same body can all the arguments and reasons by you produced and vrged be more forcible to perswade me to be of your opinion than these demonstrations to