properly This manner of speaking then being so common and familiar with that Nation well may we interpret our Saviour's words This is my Body in the same manner according to the nature of a Sacrament and the subject Matter thereof So it is said that the Rock which followed the Israelites was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ Sure there can be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in another manner when this form of Speech was so common among them but it is very agreeable to understand them as we understand them Besides it is but the same form of Speech which was used by the Jews in celebrating the Passover which our Saviour and his Disciples had been just now about And he instituted this Sacrament for the like End as the Passover had been and it was now for ever to succeed in its place This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge we are told was the form among the Jews meaning that it did put them in mind and represent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the true Paschal Lamb that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Passover the Master of the House likewise took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt not the very Bread sure but only a Type or Figure of it So our Saviour in like manner accommodating himself to their Customs and Phrases used the very same Symbols and express'd himself accordingly This is my Body which is broken for you which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himself ever after in the room of the Paschal Lamb. Now how should we understand our Saviour's words then but agreeably to the old form in the like case Besides it is plain from the words themselves about the Institution that it was very Bread of which he said This is my Body For it is said He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my Body What he took he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But he took Bread therefore of the Bread he said This is my Body And if it was Bread then it could not be his very Body but only a Symbol or Sign o◠it because it was Bread still And that it was Bread still ever after the Consecration we have also the Apostle's words for it 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread still which they are partakers of which was after the Consecration So again Chap. 11. 26 27 28. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Where he calls it Bread three times in three Verses together even after the Consecration In like manner our Saviour speaking of the Cup when he had said Mat. 26 28. This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately after adds 〈…〉 unto you I will not henceforth drink of this 〈…〉 Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom From whence it is plain that it was the Fruit of the Vine and real Wine which he drank with his Disciples and that was after the Consecration Besides if the substance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament into the very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ when is it done Is it done before those words were pronounc'd This is my Body or in them or after them If it was done before When was it done or by what Command or in what way If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd or till after the word Is is pronounc'd then it is false to say This is my Body before the change is wrought which is not till after the word Is is pronounc'd for these words are only declarative of what is before and are not imperative of what should be And if it was not before these words were pronounc'd then a thing is pronounc'd to be which was not which is a false Proposition And if it had been intended that the change should have been wrought by these words then it should have been Let this be my Body or This shall be my Body and not This is my Body which only declares what a thing was before and doth not command it to be what it was not So that in truth it only means that the Bread was set a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body when he blessed it and gave Thanks Again our Saviour gave to his Disciples his Body as broken But then his Body was really whole and unbroken for it was before his Passion and it was the Bread only that was broken Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body but the Bread broken only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken So that it was really Bread which he gave and not his very natural Body but the Bread as a sign of his Body and for that reason called his Body because signifying it And so these words are to be understood only in a Figure Are not these words to be understood in a Figure 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread Or are all Christians turn'd into Bread first and then into the Body of Christ by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament It is as good an Argument to argue so from these words as to argue from our Saviour's This is my Body that therefore the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of his Body But the figurative way of speaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we suppose the like in the former about the Body This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is Figure upon Figure the Cup for the Wine But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Testament nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither but the Seal of it But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Testament and of all the Promises and Benefits contained in it So was the Wine a sign of his Blood and as such was given to the Disciples as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this must
that which we perceive clearly with all our Senses and which we can reason as plainly about as about any thing whatsoever Or if our Saviour and his Apostles were now preaching or working Miracles in the World how should we judg of all they said or did but by those Mediums which about Transubstantiation we must entirely renounce CHAP. XXVI That the Mass is not only a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but that the self-same Christ is therein offered that offered himself upon the Cross and that this Sacrifice performed by the Priest is truly propitiatory for the Remission of Sins of the Quick and Dead Council of Trent Sess 22. chap. 2. Can. 1 2 3. THis is a consequent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament without which it cannot subsist For if the very Body of our Saviour be not substantially and properly present in the Sacrament then how can there be a proper Oblation of the Body of Christ there For how can there be a proper Oblation of that that is not properly and substantially there The Body of Christ being there in a Figure or Representation there is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of his Body which he offered on the Cross and there is a representation of the Sacrifice of his Body made there upon which account it may be called a Commemorative Sacrifice But there being no proper or corporal Presence of his Body there can be no proper Oblation of it So that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being refuted before this being a Consequent of it must fall with it There is the Sacrifice of Christ in a Figure indeed that is there is a Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ by the Bread broken and the Wine poured forth which represents to us the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood in the Offering which he made of himself on the Cross So the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come So that therein the Death of Christ is shewed forth and we have Communion with him in his Benefits by an Act of Faith when we partake of the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And it was for this End for the nourishing and confirming our Faith and the expressing our gratitude to our dying Lord by keeping up a grateful remembrance of his Death that this holy Rite was instituted But read the Institution entire Luk. 22. there is not the least intimation of any sacrificial Act there performed by our Saviour or commanded the Disciples He took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat this is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me A Sacrifice is offered to God but here is nothing offered to God but a representation of thatâ— Body that was to be broken and offered and the Bread distributed to the Disciples to nourish their Faith. And indeed that which our Saviour did then could not possibly be a propitiatory Sacrifice unless they will say that Propitiation was made by Christ before he suffered on the Cross for this that Christ did was certainly before his Suffering And what need then of the following Oblation on the Cross if Propitiation was made before For what need that be done again that is sufficiently done already So that we conclude that there was no propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Supper because there was no Propitiation made before the Oblation on the Cross And if there was no Propitiation made in the Sacrament then neither is there now the Institution being always the same and that only being required to be done by the Disciples which was then done and appointed by our Saviour and for the same Ends and no other And we in many places find that the purging away of our Sin and our Sanctification and Redemption which is the Fruit and Consequent of Propitiation is entirely attributed to that offering of the Body of Jesus Christ which was made by himself on the Cross and which was offered but once and that by this once offering all this was done so that there is to be no more offering then for Propitiation Heb. 7. 26 27. For such an High Priest became us who needed not as the legal Priests to offer up Sacrifices first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples and to do this often as they did it every Year and often For this he did once when he offered up himself And that once in him was sufficient to all the Ends of a propitiatory Offering Chap. 9. 12. For by his own Blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtain'd â—ternal Redemption for us by that once Offering If the Blood of Christ shed once upon the Cross â—e of such infinite and eternal efficacy and merit for our Redemption what need can there be of more For v. 13 14. How should not the Blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead Works And Chap. 10. 10. We are sanctified and our Sins expiated by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ onâ—e for all And vers 13. This Man Christ Jesus after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin for ever sat down on the right Hand of God as having fulfilled his Offering Vers 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Therefore saith God in consideration of this once Offering of Christ Vers 17. 18. Their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Now where Remission of these is there is no more Offering for Sin. There is Faith and Repentance indeed required on our part that we may have benefit in the Offering made but there is no more Offering for Sin that being sufficiently done already by Christ's own Offering So that to talk of the necessity of more or repeated Offerings and Sacrifices for Propitiation is in the necessary construction of the Fact whatever is pretended to impeach the once Offering of Christ which he made himself for us of insufficiency for the Ends of Propitiation And by this the Apostle argued the insufficiency of the legal Offerings Heb. 10. 1 2. For the Law having only a weak shadow of good things to come and not the very Image and solidity of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered Year by Year continually make the comers thereunto perfect as touching remission of Sin. For then would they not have ceased to be offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins for which there had been made sufficient atonement So that according to the Apostle the repetition and reiteration of Sacrifices is a note of their Imperfection And by the same reason the Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross would be imperfect if there were a necessity of its being frequently offered Which is manifestly
use of the Bread too as well as the Cup or else they ought to continue both aâ— there is the same Command for both Vers 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till be come So that they must drink this Cup as well as eat this Bread to shew the Lord's Death This is to be done by both together and not by either singly And all those for whom Christ died then are obliged to shew his Death in the Sacrament by the use of the Cup as well as by the use of the Bread. But Christ died not only for the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel but also for the People And therefore this order concerns both Vers 28. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. This is spoken to the People of Corinth and it is plain from many Passages in this and the foregoing Chapter that the People of the Church of Corinth did drink of the Cup and committed great excess in their drinking But notwithstanding this Abuse the Apostle doth not presume to alter the Institution or to take it away And what shall we thinkâ— then of the presumptuous boldness of the Church of Rome that dares to do this in manifest defiance of and open contradiction to our Saviour's Command and Institution and without the least colour of any good reason If they say whole Christ is contained in the Bread was it not so in the beginning of our Saviour's Institution as well as now And if our Saviour notwithstanding instituted the Cup how do they dare to take it away upon this vain Presumption as if they knew better than our Saviour what was fit to be done This Doctrine of Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body did not keep our Saviour from instituting the Cup and how comes it to be so good a Reason now to take away what he was instituted He hath appointed different Symbols one for his Body alone and another for his Blood as shed and separated from his Body the one to eat and the other to drink And how should the Bread which is to be eaten which represents his Body without the Blood represent to us the Blood as shed and separated from his Body by way of concomitancy when they are considered as asunder If so then the Blood of Christ must be eaten too with the Bread but is not drank whereas our Saviour instituted the Cup as a Symbol of his Blood shed and so to be drank apart as the Symbol of it and not eat by way of concomitancy with the Bread which is the particular Symbol or Figure of his Body But some have urged that some of the Blood may be apt to hang upon Mens Beards and so be profaned and therefore for this reason the People ought not to have the use of the Cup. As if there were not Beards in our Saviour's Time also as well as now but they were new sprung up or new come in fashion in these latter Ages But it seems our Saviour did not consider this very weighty Reason SOME PREJUDICES OF THE Church of ROME Answered SECT I. They accuse our Doctrine of Novelty THIS the Pharisees likewise alledged against our Lord Jesus Christ and urged the same Prejudices Mark 1. 27. They question among themselves saying What thing is this What new Doctrine is this And Acts 17. 19. St. Paul being brought to Areopagus they demanded of him May we know what this New Doctrine whereof thou speakest is So likewise this is the Tone of the Romish Doctors who call the Reformation an upstart Religion and say that our Doctrine is new and still are insisting upon the thread-bare Question Where was your Religion before Luther As the Ancient Heathens no doubt would be almost perpetually questioning the Jews in the same manner Where was your Religion before Abraham And the same Answer for substance will serve for our Defence that would do for theirs For as our Saviour said to the Pharisees Whatever they may pretend about the Antiquity of their Religion the like the Jews might say to the Heathen and so we may say to the Church of Rome That from the beginning it was not so Idolatry and the worship of Idols was not from the beginning So neither was the Mass Purgatory worship of Images Invocation of Saints believed or taught from the beginning of Christianity But our Religion is as ancient as Christianity it self as the Jewish Religion in worshipping the True God in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry was as old as that of Noah or Enoch or Adam For we believe and receive nothing as absolutely necessary to Salvation but what our Saviour and his Apostles taught and delivered to the World and what is contained in the Ancient Creeds But as the Worship of the one True God and the True Religion was greaâ—ly corrupted in the Ancient Times which Abraham was raised up to reform and so his Reformation was new in comparison of the Abuses that were before So indeed the Reformation of the Corruptions and Errors which for many Ages had obtained in these Western Parts of the World did not begin very long ago And if this be accused of Novelty we cannot help that but are sorry it was no sooner All Reformation is new in comparison of the Abuses that went before and so therefore was that set aâ—oot by Luther But how could this be remedied unless there should be no Reformation at all or because things are once â—ad they should never be better For they cannot be better without being reformed and whenever a Reformation begins it is certainly New. So that the Question is Whether those were Errors and Abuses which the Reformation cut off and so whether it were a Reformation really or no And if this be so as may appear in part by the foregoing Treatise then the Reformation justifies it self though it was pâ—â—y it had not been sooner And all those Negative Articles which we hold in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome and which now make up part of our Confession of Faith in opposition to those Errors are only New because the Reformation is New. And so it must be whensoever Men renounce or protest against Errors or unless they will err still SECT II. They say That we had no Call. THey say we had no Call to do as we did we had no Call to separate from the Church of Rome or to set aâ—oot this pretended Reformation But were those Errors or no which the Church of Rome taught And were they Innovations and Corruptions or no which they practised If they were as hath appeared in part before have we no Call to renounce Errors or to reject Corruptions or must there never be a Reformation of Things that are amiss If they say we should have stay'd till the Church had done it If they mean by the Church the Church of Rome we see it
there arose another Generation after them that knew not the Lord nor yet his Works which he had done for Israel And the Children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim And they forsook the Lord God of their Fathers which brought them out of the Land of Egypt and followed other Gods of the Gods of the People that were round about them and bowed themselves to them and provoked the Lord to anger And they forsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth How was the Face of the Church disfigured at that Time when they publickly worshipp'd false Gods He that would see the several Ecclipses of the Church of Israel then let him read this History of the Judges particularly Chap. 2. 3 4 6 10. And 2 Chron. 15. 3. When Israel was for a long season without the True God and without a teaching Priest and without the Law. In the Reign of Rehoboam the Son of Solomon ten of the twelve Tribes of Israel revoked from the Service of God and publickly worshipp'd the Calves in Dan and Bethel which were made by the Commandment of Jeroboam 1 King. 12. And if you desire to see how much the Face of the Church was disfigured and how often the Service of God was interrupted read the History of the Kings The ten Tribes were the greatest part of the Church of Israel But in them the Church was so obscured in the Time of Ahab that Elijah complained 1 King. 19. 10. The Children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant thrown down thine Altars and slain thy Prophets with the Sword and I even I only am left and they seek my Life to take it away God had indeed reserved to himself 7000 Men that had not bowed their Knees to Baal And 1 King. 18. 4. When Jezebel had put to death the Prophets of the Lord Obadia took an hundred Prophets and hid them by fifty in a Cave and sed them with Bread and Water So that there was a Church then left in Israel but iâ— was so obscured that Elijah himself could not see it In the Kingdom of Judah also there was sometimes the same obscure State of the Church As in the Time of Ahaz 2 Chron. 28. 24 25. For Ahaz gathered together the Vessels of the House of the Lord and cut them in pieces and shut up the Doors of the House of the Lord and he made him Altars in every corner of Jerusalem And in every several City of Judah he made high Places to burn Incense unto other Gods and to provoke to anger the Lord God of his Fathers Repeated again 2 Chron. 29. 6 7. There was no other Church of God then upon Earth but what was among the Children of Israel and Judah and there was not any one Temple dedicated to the Worship of the True God but that at Jerusalem But yet you see that was prophaned the Service of God banish'd Idolatry establish'd And what external Form of a Church then was there there where the true God was not acknowledged or served So in the Time of Manasseh 2 Chron. 33. 4 5. Who built again the high Places which Hezekiah his Father had broken down and he reared up Altars to Baalim and made Groves and worshipped all the Host of Heaven and served them Also he built Altars in the House of the Lord whereof the Lord had said In Jerusalem shall my Name be for ever Which was as great a Promise as ever was made to any Church and if there had been any Promise designed ever to secure the State and Splendour of the Church in any place 〈◊〉 â—ould think this had been such an one If 〈◊〉 had been but a like Promise made or half 〈…〉 said of the Church of Rome what confiâ—â—nt boasting and brags should we have had yet you see Jerusalem and the Temple filled with Idols And it is moreover to be observed that at this time the State of the Church was so corrupt that there were no Copies of the Law to be found extant among the People but the Book of the Law was found in the restoring of the Temple by Josiah at the reading of which as a new thing the King was mightily terrified 2 Chron. 34. 18 19 20. which is a plain Argument that the Law was but little known and the Copies of it generally lost And the Prophet Jeremy saith Jer. 11. 13. That according to the number of thy Cities were thy Gods O Judah And according to the number of the Streets of Jerusalem which is yet called the Holy City Matth. 27. 53. have ye set up Altars to that shameful thing to burn Incense unto Baal And what Corruptions did the Prophet Isaiah complain of before Chap. 1. In the time of the Captivity the whole Land was a desâ—lation and an astonishment Jer. 25. 11. the Temple of Jerusalem was demolish'd and the Service of God beaten down So in the New Testament there are Prophecies of great defections and much obscurity that there should be in the Church 2 Tim. 4. 3 4. For the time will come that they shall not endure sound Doctrine but after their own Lusts shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching Ears And they shall turn away their Ears from the Truth and shall be turned unto Fables So 1 Tim. 4. 1. The Spirit speaketh expresly that in the latter Times some shall depart from the Faith giving heed to seducing Spirits and Doctrines of Devils or rather Doctrines concerning Demons or a sort of under-Gods or angelical Mediators with God speaking lies in hypocrisy having their Consciences â—eared with an hot Iron forbidding to marry and commanding 〈◊〉 abstain from Meats How well doth this agree to 4. Church of Rome Rev. 12. 6. The Woman by which the Church is represented fled into the Wilderness where she hath a place prepared of God there to lie hid for a time during the rage of the Dragon It is very unjust and unreasonable then to demand that at all times we should shew the visible State of the True Church Rev. 13. 15 16 17. The time is prophesied of that the second Beast shall cause that as many as will not worship the Image of the former Beast shall be killed And he causeth all both small and great rich and poor free and bond to receive a Mark in their right hand and in their forehead and that no Man might buy or sell save he that had the Mark or Name of the Beast or the Number of his Name And how should the Church then during this Tyranny have a visible and flourishing State And the Papists themselves allow that in the time of Antichrist there shall be an universal defection for a time It is certain in Fact that many Churches founded by the Apostles themselves have quite fallen away to Mahometanism And in the time of Athanasius the whole World almost was become Arian And in the Ages just before the Reformation the Purity of the Church was so
Christ for the edifying of the Church Ephes 4. 11 12. He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. But not one word of such an Office as that of supreme Pastor or universal Sovereign over all Which we may be sure he would not have omitted if such an Office had been so necessary to the aforesaid Ends as is pretended CHAP. IX That the Pope hath power over Kings to Excommunicate and Depose them and can give Power to resist Soveraign Princes and can absolve Subjects from their Allegiance And that all Ecclesiastical Persons are exempted from the Jurisdiction of Secular Courts The 3d General Council of Lateran Cap. 27. 14. The 4th of Lateran Can. 3. de Haereticis Can. 43. Council of Lions Ann. 1245. Council of Constance Sess 17. Council of Trent Decret de Reformat Cap. 12. THis vast and exorbitant Power being founded upon the Pope's Headship over the Church which is refuted before there needs no new Arguments here for the confutation hereof For it is not pretended that the Pope hath a proper and direct temporal Soveraignty but as a necessary Consequent to and appendix of his Spiritual and for the promoting the Ends thereof The Pope can change Kingdoms take them from one and give them to another as the soveraign spiritual Prince if this be necessary to the Salvation of Souls Which are the words of Bellarmiâ—◠〈◊〉 Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 6. So that the same Arguments produced before to refute the spiritual Soveraignty serve also to overthrow the temporal and more strongly this having only relation to the former and inferr'd from it by far-fetch'd Consequences without the least intimation from Scripture And the exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons from the Temporal Power is grounded likewise upon the same Papal Headship For he being supposed to be their supreme Governor and Soveraign is to take cognizance of all Causes that have relation to them as their proper Judg. And this being the Consequent of such a Principle the Principle being overthrown the Consequence must also fall with it And then there remains no other Power upon Earth to which the Clergy are to be subject as their supreme Governor under God and Christ but soveraign Princes and States in their several Dominions But yet this pretended Exemption of the Clergy may be likewise farther confuted from the following Texts Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers meaning the supreme Civil Authority whatsoever it is whether Emperor King c. in their several Dominions Here 's an universal Assertion respecting all Persons under such Authorities and no exemption of any For there is no such Power lawfully constituted but of God The Powers that be are ordainded of God. Wherefore he that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation So that there is no Power whatever that can absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to the supreme Magistrate or free them from his Jurisdiction lawfully constituted For he beareth not the Sword in vain 't is his part to bear and wield and Sword of Justice For he is the Minister of God to execute Wrath upon him that doth evil and to punish Offenders And therefore Ecclesiastical Persons as â—ell as others if they do evil against the Laws of God and a lawful Government are liable to the just execution of punishments inflicted by such Governours But it is well known that the Republick of Venice was put under an Interdict for having began a Process against an Abbot and a Canon who were notoriously criminal and punishable 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. See also St. Peter ' s Judgment Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil Doers and for the praise of them that do well He doth not say Submit your selves to me as the supreme Head of the Church neither saith he Submit your selves from time to time to my Successor in Rome but submit your selves to the King as Supreme And how could he more manifestly teach subjection which all Persons of whatsoever Condition and Quality should render unto him For he makes no exception of the Clergy but this Epistle is directed to them as well as others See Chap. 5. Tit. 3. 1. See here again to the same purpose St. Paul Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers and to obey Magistrates Who were these that Titus was to put in mind to be subject but those who by St. Paul's direction were committed to his care and teaching among which we find the Elders and Bishops of the Churches Chap. 1. 4 5. these were some of those then whom Titus was to put in mind to be subject Aaron was Elder Brother to Moses and chief Priest yet nevertheless he was subject to Moses and called him his Lord Exod. 32. 21 22. And Moses said unto Aaron What did this People unto thee that thou hast brought so great a Sin upon them viz. of the Golden Calf of which they spake And Aaron said Let not the Anger of my Lord wax hot thou knowest the People that they are set on mischief And Numb 12. 11. Aaron said unto Moses Alas my Lord lay not this Sin upon us wherein we have done foolishly and wherein we have sinned for he and Miriam had murmured against Moses The chief Priests were subject to the Kings of Israel For which you need but read the Books of Kings See one Example hereof to which no reply can be made 1 King. 2. 26 27. Vnto Abiather the Priest said King Solomon Get thee to Anathoth unto thine own Fields for thou art worthy of Death but I will not at this time put thee to death because thou bearest the Ark of God before David my Father c. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. But now under the New Testament saith Cardinal Bonaventure the Temporal Rule is subject to the Priesthood and Popes may now degrade Kings and depose Emperors as this hath often come to pass But wherein is the difference and where is the proof of this impious Assertion St. Paul pleadeth his cause before Felix a secular Judg and doth not except against the Jurisdiction of the Court Acts 24. And so again before Festus Acts 25. But now the meanest Priest and the poorest Monk of them all where he can refuseth to appear before the secular Judges And it is a received Maxim The Pope ought to judg all the World and be judged himself of no Body Distinct 40. Can. Si Pape At last St. Paul appeals unto Cesar Acts 25. 10 11. Then said Paul I stand at Cesar
be justified and by thy Words thou shalt be condemned Yet we do not say that all Sins are equal or equally deserving the same degree of Death or Pain but all deserving the Death and exclusion from God. So that 't is not possible for the Sinner to offer a sufficient Recompence or Satisfaction for the least Sin. Mich. 6. 6 7. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow my self before the High God Shall I come before him with Burnt-offerings with Calves of a Year Old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams or with ten thousands of Rivers of Oil Shall I give my First-born for my Transgression the Fruit of my Body for the Sin of my Soul So by what means shall I satisfy the Justice of my God Shall I Fast in Lent Shall I make Prayers of forty hours long Shall I give all my Goods to nourish the Poor But all these things cannot expiate my Sins these have no proportion or equivalence to his Justice And moreover as to those Penitential Works which are said to be Satisfactions as Prayer and Fasting and Alms c. they are Debts already to which we are obliged by virtue of the Law there being no Works of supererrogation beyond or above the Precept of the Law as is proved afterwards and therefore they cannot be Satisfactions for other Debts or Sins or Defects of Obedience For that which is a Duty already due before the commission of the Fault can never satisfy for the Fault committed We are obliged indeed to Repentance and to practise some Acts of Discipline to shew our indignation against our selves for our Sins and to deter us the more from sinning for the future And sometimes we must make some Satisfaction to the Church for the Scandals that we have committed and to testify the truth of our Repentance and sometimes to particular Men in case of particular Instances And we do not doubt but these things are very pleasing to God and may averâ— his Displeasure according to his Covenant and Promise made to us Penitens and are tending to his Honour But we deny that they are proper and equivalent Satisfactions to the Justice of God or that any Sufferings are so which we can undergo or that there can be any such performed or undergone by us at all As for the Sufferings and Punishments inflicted by God himself upon Men after their Sins are forgiven these are not designed by him as vindictive Punishments upon them and Compensations to his Justice but either for Example to others that they sinning may not presume upon impunity from his sparing of others or as Acts of mere Discipline and fatherly Correction to deter his own from falling into the like Sins for the time to come For Psal 103. Like as a Father pitieth his Children so the Lord pitieth them that serve him What a Father doth is for his Childrens amendment he doth not inflict Torment or Suffering on them for his own Satisfaction nor doth delight in giving them any trouble were it not needful for themselves Or if any earthly Parent does so yet God doth not Heb. 12. 10. Nor is it true always that these temporal Inflictions are or are to be inflicted upon good Men but only in some certain Cases when God sees it meet and fitting for them or others CHAP. XVIII That some Persons may satisfy over and above what is needful for themselves and their own Sins so that their Satisfactions may serve for others that want them or have not enough of their own Catech. Rom. par 2. cap. 5. p. 61. And that these are put into the Treasury of the Church to be dispens'd by Indulgences Decret de Indulg BUT by what is said in the foregoing Chapter it appears that no Man whatsoever can offer an equivalent Satisfaction or Compensation to the Justice of God for any one Sin of his own and that he can never by his Sufferings exhaust the demerit of any one Sin the Wages of Sin being Death everlasting And Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldst mark Inquities O Lord who shall stand The Psalmist's Question implies that no Man can stand in Judgment if God should be strict with him And how can he be supposed to suffer more than he deserves Psal 143. â— Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant O Lord. The Psalmist is afraid to put himself upon an equal Trial before God. But according to these People one may not only reckon with the Justice of God but that God will be indepted something over and above Psal 90. 7 8. We are consumed by thine Anger and by thy Wrath are we troubled Thou hast set our Iniqui-quities before thee our secret Sins in the Light of thy Countenance The Prophet Moses here speaks of the Calamities of this Life and refers them all to our Sins So that whatsoever we suffer is but a just infliction for our Sins Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee but unto us confusion of Face The Prophet reckons that whatsoever God inflicts upon Men he is righteous therein and that an utter confusion of Face is but what we deserve It was his own Sin as well as the Peoples that he was confessing Vers 20. Ezra 9. 13. After all that is come upon us for our Evil Deeds thou our God hast punish'd us less than our Iniquities deserve Must not we always say the same And what is become then of Satisfaction and superabundant Satisfaction Lamen 3. 39. Wherefore doth a living Man complain a Man for the punishment of his Iniquity But if God should punish him more than he deserves he would have cause of complaint But Job 34. 23. God will not lay upon Man more than is right that he should enter into Judgment with God as it is implied he might do if he should So that whosoever suffers suffers but what is due and yet doth not satisfy much less over-satisfy The Penitential Works of the Saints are but what are due also before as was before observed and therefore are not Satisfactions And the Afflictions that are laid upon them are for other ends and not to be an equivalent Satisfaction to Divine Justice It is Christ alone who hath offered himself a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice for all our Sins He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the World. Who his one self bare our Sins in hiâ— Body on the Tree The only Propitiation 1 Tim. 2. 5 6. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus who gave himself a Ransom for all This is no Man's Business but his nor can be done by any but him For Acts 4. 12. There is not Salvation in any other For there is no other Name given among Men by which we must be saved But if others may satisfy and their Satisfactions may serve for us they are so far made our Redeemers and Saviours Which is to put them into Christ's Office and stead
communicate in the Sacrament We do not deny this Spiritual Communion without which the other is ineffectual But our Saviour appointed not only a Spiritual Communion but a Sacramental Communion and this Sacramental Communion cannot be had without the Sacramental Action that is without communicating in the Sacrament Which therefore by our Saviour's Commandment all Christian People should do and not the Priest alone by himself CHAP. XXIX That the Sacrament is to be administred in one kind only and that the People are not to have the use of the Cup. Council of Trent Sess 21. chap. 2 3. Can. 1 2 3. AGainst that which is written Mat. 26. 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it Note then that the Cup is contained in our Saviour's Institution as well as the Bread and is as essential a part of it And if by virtue of the Institution all Christians are obliged to the use of the Bread then by virtue of the same Institution they are likewise obliged to the use of the Cup. Or if notwithstanding the Institution they may take away the Cup then notwithstanding the same Institution they may take away the Bread also and so they may make void the whole Sacrament Note also that in the same quality that the Apostles received the Cup in the same quality also they received the Bread. If they received the Cup as Priests and so that belongs only to Priests then they received the Bread as Priests likewise for there was no alteration made in them between the two Receivings of the Cup and the Bread. And by the same reason they may take away the Bread â—oo from all but Priests as well as the Cup. But indeed the Apostles were not there at the Supper in the quality either of Apostles or Priests But Jesus Christ did the Office of a Pastor and they were the Flock and so partak'd of the Supper as Christ's Disciples and not as Apostles or Priests Again vers 28. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Here we have the Reason of our Saviour's Command why all should drink of the Cup because this represents his Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now to all Christian People there belongs pardon of Sins by the Blood of Jesus Christ and not only to the Priest And therefore all Christian People are to partake of the Cup and not the Priests only For to whom the reason of the Command belongs to all such belongs the Command Again note It is by the Blood of Jesus Christ shed and separated from his Body that Remission of Sins is obtained of which they are to keep up a Commemoration in the Sacrament And this Commemoration therefore cannot be kept up by the use of the Bread alone without the Cup which hath a particular relation to his Blood shed or poured out So that there is a proper and peculiar use of the Cup in the Sacrament as well as of the Bread. And the use of it as it is said belongs to all those to whom Remission of Sin by Christ's Blood shed and poured out belongs which is here in this way represented and sealed to them Mark 14. 23. And he took the Cup and when he had given Thanks he gave it to them and they All drank of it Note that as Jesus Christ said Drink ye all of this so it is here expresly observed by this Evangelist that they All drank of it This Communion of All is particularly observed touching the Cup and not touching the Bread surely not without Reason but as if the Holy Spirit would thereby purposely forewarn us against this sacrilegious presumption of the Church of Rome in debarring the People the use of the Cup. John 16. â—3 Verily verily I say unto you Except 〈◊〉 at the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood 〈◊〉 have no liâ—e iâ— you Our Adversaries believe that in this place he speaks of the Lord's Supper and by consequence they deprive as much as in them lies all the poor People of Eternal Life if it be to be meant as they interpret it because they do not permit them to drink of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. They did all eat the same spiritual Meaâ—â— and did all drink the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and this Rock was Christ The Israelites did not only eat of the Manna which was a Figure of the Body of Christ but they also drank of his Blood in a Mystery And why should they with-hold from Christian People the same priviledg when our Saviour hath allowed it to them For vers 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ It is the Cup that is the Communion of the Blood of Christ And why will they hinder the Christian People then from the Cup which is the Communion of his Blood. For if the Cup be the Communion of his Blood it is in vain to pretend that whole Christ is contained and communicated under the Species of Bread. Vers 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread and of that one Cup as it is added in some Copies But whether these words were in the beginning or were added afterwards 't is plain that whensoever they were inserted the Cup was then in use among the People 1 Cor. 11. 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. Here the Apostle repeating the Institution of the Supper lets us know that it is the Cup that is the Seal of the New Testament confirmed by the Blood of Christ And should not those then who have part in the Covenant have part also in the Seals of the Covenant Now all Believers have part in the Covenant therefore they ought also to partake of the Cup that is the Seal of the Covenant And upon this the Command follows Do this as oâ—t as ye drink it in remembrance of me So that all those who are in the Covenant and so ought to celebrate the memory of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament where the Covenant is confirmed ought to partake of the Cup for this End. But all true Christians ought to do this and consequently ought to partake of the Cup For if the Command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ added after the Bread Luke 22. 19 20. make it the Duty of all Christians to partake of the Bread for that End. Then the same Command added after the Cup which is here mentioned by St. Paul makes it their Duty in like manner to partake of the Cup. And if they are not obliged by this to the use of the Cup neither are they obliged by that to the use of the Bread and so they may take away from them the