whether they that haue the dispensation of the Keyes doe alwaies necessarily bind and loose before God of these in order THE FIRST PART WHEREIN THE AVthoritie and power of the Keyes consisteth The Papists error 73 BY the Keyes and power of binding and loosing they chiefly and principally vnderstand the censures of the Church as Excommunications Anathematismes suspensiōs Degradations the whole Ecclesiastical iurisdictiō Rhemist Annot. Matt. 16. sect 14. Bel. lib. 1. de pontif cap. 13. Secondly they tye remission and retaining of sinnes to their imagined and deuised sacrament of penance saying that where Christ gaue authoritie to remit sinnes to his Apostles Iohn 20.23 he instituted the sacrament of penance Rhemist Iohn 20. sect 3. The sacrifice also and Sacraments of the Church say they are ministred for remission of sinnes Rhemist 2. Corinth 5. sect 3. Thirdly they seeme to grant in words that by preaching also of the Gospell sinnes are reteined and remitted ibid. but they make small account thereof for as we haue heard they make it not of the essence of their priesthood to preach neither doth it properly appertaine vnto that office yea say they absolutiō cānot be rightly sought for at the priests hands but by confession of our sins which is done in penance Rhem. Ioh. 20. sect 5. This then is their opinion that by their deuised ceremonie and Sacrament of penance sinnes are properly forgiuen and that the preaching of the word is not thereto necessarie Their chiefe argument is by abusing that place Iohn 20.23 where they say Christ instituted the Sacrament of penance when he gaue power to his Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes Ans. First your Sacrament of Penance is neither grounded vpon this nor any other place of scripture here in the wordes of Christ there is no institution of a sacrament because there is no visible element giuen whereunto the worde being added may make a sacrament Secondly here the commission is but renewed which was granted before to his Apostles and their successors Matth. 18.18 Fulk Annot. Iohn 20. sect 3. The Protestants THe Keyes of the Church that is the power to bind and loose sinners to open or shut vnto them the kingdome of God consisteth both in the externall discipline and gouernement of the Church lawfully executed according to the word of God as also in preaching of the Gospell by assuring in Christs name all faithfull and penitent persons remission and forgiuenes of their sinnes and in denouncing and threatning the wrath of God against the disobedient and impenitent also as the sacraments are ioyned to the word as seales and pledges of the promises thereof so by the right administration of the sacraments together with the preaching of the word sinnes are retained or remitted The Rhemists therefore doe vs great iniurie in falsely charging of vs that we should hold that the spiritual power of the Church standeth only vpon the preaching of the word whereas wee grant that it is exercised also in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of the Church both in punishing excommunicating censuring of offenders which is the binding of them and in releasing and absoluing them againe which is the other power of loosing Rhemist 2. Corinth cap. 10. sect 1. Leauing now this part of spiritual power in Ecclesiasticall discipline which is not in this place in question betweene vs wee must touch that other part which is exercised in the word and sacraments 1 That the sacraments doe binde and loose it is proued out of the word of God they doe binde Whosoeuer eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh his own damnation 1. Cor. 11.29 they doe also loose As oft as ye shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shewe the Lords death till he come vers 26. But here is a double caution and condition to be annexed First that all Sacraments worke not this effect but onely those of Christs institution which are but two baptisme and the supper of the Lord for Paul saith I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you 1. Cor. 11.23 If the Apostles would not neither might deliuer any Sacraments but those which were instituted of Christ what great presumption is it in any other to doe it Secondly we must not think that remissiō of sinnes is necessarily tied to the Sacraments as though there could be no remissiō without thē for the grace of remission may be effectual in the name of Christ by the preaching of the word without a sacramēt Ioh. 20. sect 4. Ful. For the word may be preached without a sacramēt but the sacramēt cānot be ministred without the word for that were as though a man should deliuer a seale without a writing Neither is it our meaning that as the Rhemists cauil with vs the sacramēt cannot be administred without a sermon of the death of Christ for though that were alwaies to bee wished yet where it cannot bee had there must and ought to be a briefe shewing and declaration of the death of Christ out of the word so oft as the Sacrament is administred as it is obserued in our Church Fulk Annot. 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. 3 We must take heede we conceiue not thus as though the Sacrament gaue grace by the worke wrought and that by the very vse forme and externall act of the Sacrament wee obtaine remission of sinnes as the Rhemists would beare vs in hand 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. But the Sacraments are onely effectuall to the worthie receiuers and to the worthie receiuing faith is requisite as Saint Paul willeth all men to examine themselues 1. Corinth 11.28 which is as hee himselfe interpreteth it to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Corinth 13.5 These conditions then being obserued we denie not but that there is an exercise of the keyes euen in the Sacraments 2 But chiefely and principallie is this power dispensed by the preaching of the word as Saint Paul saith Wee are the sauour of death vnto death vnto some there is the binding and to other the sauour of life vnto life there is the loosing 1. Corinth 2.16 So our Sauiour Christ saith He that refuseth mee the word that I haue spoken shall iudge him in the last day Iohn 12.48 Here is the power of binding Againe the truth shall make you free Iohn 8.32 Here is the power of loosing Who therefore doubteth this that the preaching of the word is the most proper and principall way and meane for the exercising of this Ecclesiasticall power for seeing faith is the key of heauen thereby wee haue free accesse vnto the throne of grace Rom. 5.2 and faith commeth by hearing Rom. 10.17 and hearing by the word It remaineth that by the word the keyes are dispensed Augustine also subscribeth vnto this for speaking of reformation of life and repentance with remission of former sinnes thus he saith Quid empturus es vt facias quae emplastra quaesiturus ecce cùmloquor muta cor factum est quod tam
we made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ but this fayth the wicked cannot haue The first part is proued out of the Gospell He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall neuer thirst agayne Iohn 4.14 He that shall neuer thirst must beleeue in Christ Iohn 6.35 Ergo he onely that beleeueth doth drinke the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith Nolite parare fances sed cor non quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit doe not prepare your iawes but your heart it is not that which is seene but what is beleeued that nourisheth Ergo Christ must bee receiued by faith therefore Infidels or vnbeleeuers cannot receiue him Argum. 2. Whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood shall haue eternall life Iohn 6.54 But the wicked haue not eternall life Ergo they neither eate nor drinke Christ. Augustine sayth De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem quibusdam ad vitam res verò cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit From the Lords table some doe receiue vnto life some vnto death but the thing whereof it is a sacrament worketh in all to life in none to death whosoeuer are partakers of it But the bodie and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament Ergo whosoeuer receiueth them hath life thereby the wicked then receiue them not THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNING the Popish Masse THis part likewise comprehendeth diuers questions 1 Of the diuers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ. 2 Of the sacrifice of the Masse the name thereof and of the sacrificing priesthood 3 Of the vertue and efficacie which they falsely ascribe to the Masse 4 For whom the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable whether for the quicke and the dead 5. Of priuate Masses 6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Masse 7. Of the ceremonies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse some goe before some are obserued in the celebration thereof 8. Of the forme of the Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon and of the preface to the Canon where we are to shew the foule and heretical blasphemies which in great number are belched out by them in the Masse Of these now in their order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ. The Papists THey are not contented with that one liuely representation of the death of Christ which is exhibited in the Lords Supper but they haue brought in error 126 two more beside that and so make three in all the first say they is simplex repraesentatio a simple and plaine representation of the death of Christ which is done so often as the Sacrament is receiued the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum A liuely and full representation of Christs death which they doe vse yearely to set forth by solemne gestures apparell and other ceremonies vpon Good Friday as it is commonly called before Easter when they doe make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament the third representation is also a sacrifice beside and that is the sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside which is in the solemne receiuing of the Communion at Easter So then first Christs death is shewed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the yeare long as it hangeth in the pixe or when it is carried to house the sicke Catechism Rom. pag. 408. Secondly it is represented once in the yeere by their solemne Pageant vpon good Friday when there is no Sacrament consecrated but an histrionicall expressing by certaine gestures and actions the manner of Christs crucifying Thirdly in the continuall sacrifice of the Masse Christ his death is represented And lastly in the solemne receiuing at Easter for then especially the mysterie of Christ our Paschall lambe is commended to the people to be eaten with all sinceritie in the Sacrament and so doe the Rhemist expound that place of Saint Paul Let vs keepe feast or holy day not with the leauen of malitiousnes 1. Cor. 6.8 literally applying it to the feast of Easter Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants FIrst we are taught by the word of God that by eating the bread and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament not by gazing looking lifting vp turning hanging vp bread in pixes or by any such meanes but onely as we haue saide is the Lords death shewed forth and represented 1. Corinth 11.26 Wee acknowledge therefore one onely Sacramentall representation of Christ and no more in the Lords Supper the sacrifice of the Masse we iudge to bee an abominable idol as afterward shall be shewed Secondly it is a foule absurditie to make any representation of Christs death by bare gestures shewes and actions of the bodie without any Sacrament as they doe in their popish pageants vpon Christs Passion daye for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated Eckius cap. 15. But the Priest by certaine gestures and motions of the bodie in bowing bending casting abroade his armes and such like dooth resemble Christ crucified Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a liuely representation being done without a Sacrament and the other in the Sacrament simplicem repraesentationem but a simple and plaine representation is too great presumption wherein they prefer their owne superstitious deuises before the ordinance of Christ. Thirdly that place of Saint Paul is vnfitly applied to the celebration of Ester Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise Diem festum celebremus non vtique vnam diem sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis veritatis Let vs keepe holy day not one onely day but all our life long in the vnleauened bread of purenes and trueth So then in Augustines iudgement the Apostle had no relation to any certaine time which he would haue kept holy but to the reformation of the whole life THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE sacrifice of the Masse and the Priesthoode thereto belonging THE FIRST PART OF THE name and terme of Masse The Papists error 127 THere are diuerse opinions amongst them concerning the originall of this name Some say it is called Missa the Masse Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mittantur Hugo de S. Victore Others quod Angelus a Deo mittatur quisacrificio assistat Because an angell is sent of God to bee assistant at the Masse Thom. Aquinas 3. part quaest 83. artic 4. Some of the hebrue worde Missath Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation Some ex missis donarijs symbolis of the giftes and offerings sent or put in before the Communion But what beginning soeuer it had they doe now generally take the Masse for that solemne action whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice and offered vp to God Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. The Protestants WE doe not greatly force vpon this name for both the name
yet after another maner For he is in heauen according to the naturall existence of his body in the sacrament he is really present in his flesh yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel therfore they ought to be inferior But vnles the bread wine should be the very blood flesh of Christ in the sacrament their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior but far superior to ours As for example the Paschal Lambe is in nature to be preferred before bread and the slaying of the Lamb did more liuely represent the death of Christ then the breaking of bread the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spirituall nourishing then the eating of bread Wherefore vnlesse we beleeue a reall presence in the sacrament their sacrifices in dignitie and excellencie should farre exceed and excel ours Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram Eucharist ca. 3. Ans. 1. It is not true that their sacraments were figures of ours But S. Paul sheweth that both their sacraments and ours doe figure out and represent the same thing as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ 1. Corint 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs and theirs also had a certaine reference and relation to ours but they were not types of ours for then our sacraments should bee the body of theirs whereas Christ is the bodie both of their sacraments and ours Saint Peter sayth that Baptisme is an antitypon a figure answerable to the sauing of the eight persons in the flood 1. Pet. 3.21 They are correspondent one to the other and had mutuall relation and respect one to the other But that was not properly a type of Baptisme but both Baptisme and that are figures and signes and liuely representations of our saluation in Christ. 2. If the reall presence of Christ onely commendeth the sacrament and aduanceth it before the rytes of the law which in all other respects are better by this argument Baptisme still remayneth inferior to the sacramēts of the law for you affirme no reall presence in Baptisme as you do in the Eucharist and in all other respects it must needes giue place to Circumcision for the cutting of the flesh is a more liuely representatiō of regeneratiō thē is the washing by water and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water So by this reason though you haue wonne credite for the Eucharist yet you haue lost it for Baptisme 3 We answere therefore that although the reall presence bee set aparte yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs First the price and woorth of thinges in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament but they must bee considered in respect of the vse to the which they are ordayned by the institution Flesh you say is better then bread so is wine and milke better then water in their nature but in Baptisme water is better then they because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy vse Secondly the slaying of the Lambe doth more liuely represent say you the death of Christ then the breaking of bread Answ. We graunt that if breaking of bread had beene vsed in the law it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospell in this abundance of knowledge and instruction being a signe of a thing already done and finished must needes be more pregnant and liuely in representation then the killing of sacrifices in the law which were types of things to come the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs in respect of the more cleare light and fuller signification which they haue by the word of God the preaching of the Gospel ioyned vnto thē We neede not deuise any other way of excellencie for our sacraments then this which we haue sayd agreeable to the scriptures 2. Cor. 4.3 Galat. 3.1 The Papists ARgum. 2. Iohn 6.55 Christ sayth My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke in deede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him First this place must be vnderstoode not of any spirituall eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament First Vers. 51. The bread sayth Christ that I will giue he speaketh of a thing to come for the sacrament was afterward instituted but if this bread were to be taken for his word and the eating thereof for beleeuing in him in this sense the bread was giuen already Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense vers 32. My father giueth you the true bread from heauen I am the liuing bread that came down from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 51. Hee sayth not he that shall eate but he that euen now eateth And afterward he speaketh of the time to come The bread that I shall giue because his death and passion was not yet finished therefore he sayth The bread that I shal giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde But he speaketh euery where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense vers 35.50.51.53 which cannot bee vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating the sacrament being not yet instituted but of a spirituall manducation The Papists SEcondly those words being applyed to the sacrament must needes also bee vnderstood properly and literally for the very eating of the flesh of Christ drinking his blood not tropically or figuratiuely 1. The flesh of Christ which Christ promiseth to giue them to be eaten he preferreth before the Manna which their fathers did eate in the wildernes the true bread which he giueth them is more excellent then the bread of Manna But if the bread in the sacrament doe but signifie the flesh of Christ and be not it in very deede it should be no better then Manna which also did signifie and shew foorth Christ Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. Christ compareth not the spirituall substance of Manna with his flesh and blood but the corporall foode which being receiued into the belly and not receiued into the heart by fayth hath no power to giue eternall life For vers 32. Christ sayth that Moses gaue them not Manna from heauen Ergo he meaneth the corporall foode not the spirituall substance of Manna for as it was a sacrament of Christ it was heauenly bread Againe vers 49. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and dyed He speaketh of the materiall foode for they that did Manna spiritually by fayth died not in soule Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prooue that this place contayned in the sixt
person of Christ euen as his humanitie so that Christ was bread by consecration as he was man by his incarnation an horrible and monstrous opinion which is fathered vpon Rupertus the Abbot Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opinion who likewise affirmed that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ and vnited vnto him yet not immediatly as the other taught but by the mediation and meanes of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements First some would haue the forme onely of bread chaunged not the matter as Durandus Secondly some contrariwise would haue the matter altered and the forme to remaine Thirdly the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance both in matter and forme to be changed the outward formes and accidents onely remaining ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram Eucharist cap. 11. Thus men when they begin once to leaue the truth the Lord leaueth them to themselues and they runne mad in their owne inuentions not finding any end and so it is iustly come vpon them as S. Paul saith of the heathen Because when they knew God they did not glorifie him as God neither were thankfull they became vaine in their own imaginations and their foolish hart was full of darkenes when they professed themselues to be wise they became fooles Rom. 1.21.22 We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions which will holde no water will betake vs to the fountaine of truth This then to conclude is our definitiue sentence and full determination according to the Scriptures that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament neither by conuersion of the bread into his body either wholly or in parte nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together but he doth verily exhibite himselfe with all his benefits spiritually by faith to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer as we haue sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures THE THIRD QVESTION WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated be a Sacrament though it be neither eaten nor drunk The Papists THe elements in the Sacrament that is the bread and wine being once consecrate error 116 which say they is done by the prolation of those words hoc est corpus meum This is my body whether they be receiued or not at that instant but be reserued and kept in boxes and pixes and other vessels of the Church for daies weekes moneths to be caried solemnely to those that are sick and to be applyed to other vses are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil sess 13. can 4.7 Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Argum. 1. Christs words which were spoken ouer the bread This is my body were true as soone as he brought them forth before he said Take eat and so likewise of the cup therefore it was a Sacrament before they did receiue and eate it and had beene a Sacrament still if it had not bene receiued at all at that time Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Those wordes of Christ This is my body were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it but first as S. Math. setteth it downe he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples saying Take eate and then follow those words This is my body Math. 26.26 which seeme to haue bene vttered euen in that instant when they tooke the bread and began to eate it Secondly the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise partly of a precept the promise is this Hoc est corpus meum This is my body the precept Accipite manducate Take eate Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise then we performe the condition vnlesse therefore accordingly we doe take and eat it it is not the body of Christ. The Protestants THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the vse thereof so that though some form of words be pronounced ouer it if it be not receiued and eaten and drunk it is no sacrament neither is that which remaineth after the distribution the Eucharist being ended either of the bread or wine any part of the sacrament but so much onely as is taken and vsed Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament vnlesse it be vsed according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it but to the institution it belongeth on the behalfe of the Minister to blesse break and distribute it on the behalfe of the communicants to take eate and drinke it in them all thereby to shew the Lords death and to doe it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by vsing the words of benediction onely but by the whole action for how can they shew the Lords death or doe it in remembrance of Christ vnlesse they take and eate Ergo if it be not so vsed it is no Sacrament Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike and of one and the selfesame kinde there is one way of instituting and consecrating both but the water in baptisme is no part of the Sacrament but during the solemne action of baptizing afterward it returneth to the common vse so much as is not vsed Ergo it is so also in the Eucharist for as Christ saith to his Apostles Ite baptizate Goe and baptize so that it was no Sacrament vnlesse some body were baptized euen so he saith Accipite â—anducate Take eate No SacrameÌ„t then vnlesse it be receiued and eaten And here I pray you let it be noted how well the Iesuits agree amongst themselues our Rhemists doe commend the reseruing also of the water in baptisme and carrying of it home to giue it the diseased to drink annot Iam. 5. sect 5. Bellar. saith that Res permanens in baptismo That the thing permanent in Baptisme that is water which remaineth is not the sacrament but ipsa actio the action of baptizing it selfe and alloweth onely the Eucharist to be reserued and remaine a Sacrament Etiam extra vsum Without the vse thereof Bellar li. 4. de Eucharist cap. 3. But we haue shewed already that both the Sacraments are halowed and sanctified alike and that both in the one and the other the vse onely and present action according to Christs institution maketh the Sacrament In Augustines time some vsed to receiue the Communion dayly but vpon the Sabboth or Lords day it was commonly receiued of all Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec laudo nec reprehendo omnib tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor Euery day to receiue the Eucharist I neither commend nor dispraise it but euery Lords day I doe perswade men and exhort all to communicate It should seeme then that in those daies there was no such superstitious reseruation of the Sacrament seeing euery day or at the least euery Sabboth it was administred THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the elements or materiall part of the Sacrament namely bread and wine The Papists 1. The bread
not onely of remission of sinnes but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification 1. Cor. 1.30 that he will assist vs with his spirite and replenish our harts with grace Ioh. 4.14 yea the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a pledge vnto vs of the resurrection and of life eternall Ioh. 6.54 But that amongst the rest it also assureth vs of remission of sinnes thus it is proued Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith This is the blood of the new testament that is shed for many for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes Iere. 31.34 Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes if this sacrament did not serue for that vse Secondly we doe holde that to haue a liuely faith in the promises of God with repentance for our sinnes and a full purpose to amend our liues is a sufficient preparation for the Communion and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion till they haue fully satisfied for their sinnes as the Papists teach and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes for so few or none at all should be admitted to the Lords table but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort and assurance of remission of sinnes Argum. Iohn 6.35 He that beleeueth in me saith Christ shall neuer thirst S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues 1. Corin. 11.28 which is nothing els as himselfe expondethu it then to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Ergo the examination or triall of faith is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table Augustine saith Ad Deum acceditur fide sectando corde inhiando charitate currando We come or haue accesse vnto God in folowing him by faith seeking him in our heart and running to him with loue In Psalm 33. concion 2. Ergo by fayth we haue accesse vnto God Rom. 5.2 but a liuely fayth which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion The Papists 1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie Concil Constantiens sess 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 22. ratione 4. The Protestants 1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie it may be doubted seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist as they say there is of Baptisme All sacraments we graunt are necessary that is profitable expedient requisite so often as they may bee had But none so necessary that the want thereof vnto a faythfull man that in heart doth wish and desire them can be any hindrance to his saluation 2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion if his stomack be weake and not able to fast so long for otherwise if a man can abstaine we wish him so to do rather Saint Paul sheweth writing to the Corinthians 1. cap. 11.34 If any man be hungry let him eate at home Some of them he sayth came hungry some drunken vers 21. the Apostle commendeth neither but telleth them if they bee hungry they haue houses to eate in Againe in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament it doth euidently declare vnto vs that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament Augustine sayth Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while or after dinner neither dare wee forbid any so to doe so hee maketh it a thing indifferent to communicate fasting or otherwise The Papists 2 THey binde the people onely once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe Concil Trident. sess 13. can 9. The Protestants 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles whom the Rhemists confesse to haue ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie Annotat. Act. 2. sect 6. So expounding the wordes of the text They continued dayly in breaking of bread 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule who speaketh of often communicating Doe this sayth he as oft as you drink it 1. Corinth 11.25 For seeing the eating of that bread and drinking of that cuppe is nothing els but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come who seeth not that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred and shewed foorth 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare Si panis quotidianus est cur post annum illum sumas accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit If it be thy daylie bread why doest thou take it but yearely take that daylie and continually which may profit thee daylie In Luk. serm 28. THE EIGHT QVESTION OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde The Papists error 123 CHristians say they are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds Concil Trident. sess 21. can 1. And whosoeuer saith that the Church hath erred or done amisse in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse should receiue in the one kinde that is bread onely Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both contrary to the determination of the Church let him bee accursed Concil Trident sess 21. can 2. Rhemist Iohn 6. sect 11. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup for otherwise Christ should be deuided But euery spirit sayth the Apostle that dissolueth Iesus is of God 1. Iohn 4.3 Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde is as well partaker of whole Christ and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament as if hee receiued in both Bellarmin cap. 21. Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included as we haue shewed before the bread and wine are signes onely of his body and blood and therefore Christ is not diuided they being the signes onely and not the thing signified 2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them while they choose rather to follow their
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
yet by the way the Iesuite is deceiued that thinketh it probable that the Popes particular person cannot fall into heresie here you see Marcellinus fell into Idolatrie Liberius subscribed to the Arrians consented to the condemnation of Athanasius as testifieth Ierome confessed by Nicolaus Cusanus and Alphonsus de castro both papists Iuel pag. 164. defens Apolog. Honorius 1. consented to the heresie of Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who was a Monothelite and held that there were not two wills or operations in Christ and so destroyed the two natures That Honorius was a Monothelite Melchior Canus a papist confesseth hee was condemned for an heretike in the 6.7 and 8. generall synodes Bellarmine answereth that the Councels are corrupted or they might be deceiued in iudgement as in a matter of facte or that Honorius onely misliked the speech to say there were two willes in Christ and not the thing See what poore shiftes heere bee to make Honorius no heretike and yet all will not be Pope Stephen the sixt tooke vp Formosus body and cut off two fingers of his right hande and buried him againe in a lay-mans Sepulchre Then followed Rhomanus the first Theodorus the second Iohannes the ninth and restored Formosus with his decrees iudging him to bee lawfull Bishop After them commeth Sergius the third who tooke vp the body agayne cutte off the head and cast it into Tiber. The Iesuite answereth that Stephanus and Sergius erred onely in a matter of fact A goodly cloke to couer the filthines of their Ghostly fathers withall But by your leaue a little doe you not holde it to bee an article of fayth to beleeue the Pope to bee heade of Christes Church Then was it an article of fayth to hold that Formosus was right Pope for at that time there was no other Ergo Stephanus and Sergius erred in fayth defining the contrary All that you can say is this that it was not yet determined and decreed for an article of fayth so to beleeue see I pray you these mennes fayth is pinned vpon Popes sleeues Why masters the rule of fayth is certaine you cannot make new articles of fayth now but onely declare and explane those that are But doe you not thinke that these iollie Popes that would rake the dead out of their graues for their holines might deserue at GODS hand to haue a priuiledge not to erre in fayth Siluester the second was a Necromancer and a Coniurer and therefore fallen from the fayth Bellarmine sayth hee was a good man and all are fables and lyes that are tolde of him and because hee was cunning in Geometrie that ignorant age straightwayes iudged him to bee giuen to Necromancie Thus wee may take the Iesuites worde if wee will But the storie is reported by authors of better credit then Bellarmine as Iohannes Stella Platina Petrus Premonstratens Nauclerus Antoninus Fox pag. 167. Anastasius was a Nestorian heretike whose heresie was this that there are as two natures so also two persons in Christ Alphons de castro lib. 1. de haeresib cap. 4. Celestinus is reported by Laurentius Valla a Canon of Rome to haue been a Nestorian heretike de donation Constantin Now commeth in Pope Hildebrand or rather Heldebrand for hee was a very brand of hell fire called Gregory the seuenth Of whome Benno writeth thus that hee poysoned sixe Popes his predecessors to make himselfe a way to the popedome that hee was a Coniurer a raiser of Diuels and in his rage hee cast the sacrament into the fier But sayth Harding our countrey man though vnworthily Benno was his enemie and wrote of displeasure and Bellarmine thinketh that some Lutherane was the author of the booke which goeth vnder the name of Benno who was Cardinall in this Hildebrands time But Benno onely doth not thus report of him he was openly twise for the same crimes condēned in Councel first at Wormes thē after deposed in the Coūcel at Brixia in Italy Pope Clement 3. elected to succeed him And the said Gregory died in exile of whom Antonius reporteth that before his death he repented him of his insolencie shewed toward the Emperour Henrie the 4. whom with his wife and young child bare foote and bare legd hee had caused three dayes together in extreame frost and colde to waite at his palace gates at Canusium before he could speake with him Yet this Hildebrand for all these insolent cruell and dishonest partes is commended by our papists Harding Bellarmine and other for a deuout Catholike man who did all things of a zeale to the Church By this you may iudge whome our aduersaries count a Catholike man Pope Iohn the 22. affirmed that the soules lie in a traunce till the day of iudgement and feele neither payne nor ioye Harding and likewise Bellarmine answere that this was an error but no heresie Yet in the Vniuersitie of Paris it was condemned for heresie as Gerson writeth Againe sayth Harding he held it only as a priuate opinion But Massaeus sayth that Pope Iohn preached this heresie and sent out preachers to maintaine it Hee was condemned sayth he with his error by the diuines of Paris in the presence of Philip the French King before he was Pope when he was yet but a priuate Doctor But the contrary is proued by B. Iewel that he was Pope 13. yeares before Philip was king Iuell defens apolog p. 667. Pope Iohn the 23. denied the life to come and the resurrection of the body And this heresie was openly obiected against him in the Councel of Constance Bellarmine and Harding before him answere that he was not the rightful Pope for there were three at that time and therefore might erre But Platina sayth that he was chosen at Bonoma by the consent of all the Cardinals ex Iuel pag. 671. Lastly Pope Eugenius the 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretike in the Councel of Basile Where the Iesuite hath no other answer then by condemning the Councel as Schismatical to acquite the Pope Lib. 3. de pontif cap. 14. By these examples it may appeare to the indifferent reader that it is no rare nor impossible thing for the Popes of Rome to erre yea become playne heretikes And as for that shift of the Iesuite that they are no longer Popes whē they openly begin to teach heresie this is as Alphonsus sayth In re seria verbis velle iocari to dallie with words in a serious and earnest matter And so euery Bishop shal be as well priuiledged as the Pope and cannot fall into heresie for why may we not say that a Bishop when he is knowen to bee an heretike ceaseth to bee Bishop any longer as the Pope is no longer Pope and so as long as he remayneth Bishop cannot possiblie bee an heretike Surely this is but paltrie and beggarly stuffe 4. Augustine is not a whit afrayd to say Episcoporum literas per sermonem sapientiorem cuiuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum
owne sonnes for to enrich the See of Rome as Augustine very well saith Qui vult exhaeredato filio ecclesiam haeredem facere quaerat alterum qui suscipiat non Augustinum immo deo propitio nullum inueniat He that would make the Church his heire and defeate his own children let him seeke some bodie else to accept of his gift surely Augustine wil not nor I trust any honest man beside The Protestants FIrst we willingly grant that the Church may inioy those teÌ„porall possessions which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof so they bee not abused to riot and excesse as the Leuites beside their tithes had their cities and fieldes Numb 35. Secondly the iudgement of Ecclesiasticall matters doth of right appertaine to the Church as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 Thirdly we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes but as the ciuill Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes so spirituall persons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall and conferred with and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters as wee reade Deuter. 17.8 How the high Priest and chiefe iudge did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states and handle both swordes we say it is contrarie to the word of God for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince in making and ordaining ciuill lawes in hauing power of life and death in proclaiming of warre and waging of battayle with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale as we will now shew in order 1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes though the Ecclesiasticall bodie according to the ancient custome of this land haue their suffrage and voyce and doe giue consent yet the chiefe stroke in alowing confirming and enacting of such lawes is in the prince and cannot agree or bee matched with any spirituall office Saint Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things that is for the work of the Ministerie 2. Cor. 2.16 If therefore spirituall persons suffice not to execute to the full their spirituall charge though they should bend all their studie and care that way much more insufficient shall they be if they be entangled in temporall affayres for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient Againe saith he no man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life 2. Timoth. 2.4 By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode as the Iesuite imagineth merchandise traffike buying selling and such like but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines and require greater studie and labor then the other baser workes which are named To this Augustine agreeth Quo iure saith he defendis villas Vnde quisque possidet quod habet Iure humano iure imperatorum quare quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano tract in Ihoann 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions by the lawe of man the lawe of the Emperors for these humane lawes by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world See then ciuill lawes and humane constitutions are giuen and made not by the Pope Priest or any other Prelate but onely by Kings and Princes and the ciuill magistrates 2 It were a moÌ„strous an vnnatural thing that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life death for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword and if it be not lawfull for the ciuill Magistrate to excommunicate which is as the spiâ—tuall sword and the greatest censure of the Church no more is it to be suffered that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person any man should bee put to death The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud which touched the life but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie where the magistrates sate Deuter. 17.5 Not to the temple where the priest ministred Nay we see that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth namelie when they put our blessed Sauiour to death the priests did not challenge any such power It is not lawful say they for vs to put any to death Iohn 18.31 But that power was in the temporall Magistrate as Pilate said to Christ Knowest thou not that I haue power to crucifie thee and power to loose thee Ioh. 19.10 Ergo the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince to haue power of life and death 3 If the Pope be a temporall prince then hee may wage battaile which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe There were great bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt and the Antipope Clement in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud Bishop of Norwich was the Popes Captaine generall in France where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge and put man woman and childe to the sword So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris and tooke himselfe to his sword waged many battailes and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King vpon Easter day where there was of his army slaine to the nuÌ„ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists themselues for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ who coÌ„maunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword how is it lawfull for the Popes that I am sure dare not challenge more to themselues then was lawfull for Peter Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE PRErogatiues of the Pope BEside these priuiledges and immunities of the See of Rome which hitherto we haue spoken of both in spirituall and temporall matters there are other prerogatiues which haue been in times past giuen to the Bishops of Rome most blasphemous wicked which the Papists of this age are ashamed of and therefore passe them ouer with silence for Bellarmine saith nothing of them Wee will therefore spare our labor in confuting of them they are so grosse and absurd but onely bring them forth that the godly reader may vnderstand the
other but all shall not passe through Purgatorie by their owne confession They are driuen to this shift to graunt that vers 13. the fire is taken in one sense namely for the sentence and iudgement of God and vers 15. in another that is for the flames of Purgatorie But who seeth not how absurd a thing this is that in an allegorie the same word and in the same place should be so diuersly taken Thirdly The day shall reueale it that is sayth Bellarmine the day of the Lord at the comming of Christ the Rhemists vnderstand the particular day of euery mans death so well they agree together But it is apparant that this is the meaning that the day that is the time shall declare it for God hath appoynted a time to examine euery mans doctrine by fire which is nothing els but the iudgement of God by the fire of his word whereby euery man in the day of his calling and conuersion shall knowe whether he hath preached aright or not Fulk The Protestants THat there is no such place of Purgatorie after this life but that here onely is the place of repentance and to be reconciled vnto God and that the soules departed are presently either receiued vp to heauen or thrust downe to hell thus it is proued out of the scriptures Argum. 1. The scripture maketh but two kinds of works either good or euill Ecclesiastes 12.14 But two sorts of men he that beleeueth shall be saued he that beleeueth not shall be condemned Mark 16.16 But two places heauen and hell Math. 25. Christ hath but two flockes one of sheepe at the right hand another of goates at the left and he saith to the one Come ye blessed to the other Goe ye cursed There are but two sorts of men therefore but two places Ergo no Purgatorie Bellarm. There shall be indeede at the comming of Christ but two places heauen and hell Purgatorie shall haue an end Ans. First you say your selues that there shall be two infernall places for euer Hell for the wicked and a Limbus for infants that dye vnbaptized and heauen that maketh three and now you say there shall be but two Secondly there are but two places now because there are but two sorts of men for the beleeuers are alreadie passed frō death to life Iohn 5.24 The vnbeleeuers are alreadie condemned Iohn 3.18 Thirdly Augustine consenteth with vs Non est vlli vllus medius locus vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo There is no middle or third place but he must needes be with the diuell that is not with Christ. De peccator remiss merit lib. 1. cap. 28. And againe Tertium locum penitus ignoramus imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inuenimus The third place beside heauen and hell we are vtterly ignorant of nay wee finde not in scripture that there is any Arg. 2. S. Paul saith that euery man shall receiue the works of his bodie according to that which he hath done either good or euill 2. Cor. 5.10 Therefore there is no place to cleanse and purge the soules of men after this life for then they should not receiue according to the works done in their flesh Bellarmine sayth that euen they whose sinnes are remitted after death doe receiue nothing but that which was done in the flesh for they deserued in their life time to be helped after death Ans. First as for desert we will shewe elsewhere that it hath no place before God neither in this life nor the life to come for the scripture sayth Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne not who deserueth remission of sinnes Rom. 4.6 Secondly this deuised and friuolous distinction doth not stand with the Apostles meaning for he speaketh of things actually done in the flesh not deserued to be done and of the workes of the bodie not of the soule of things perfectly done not begun onely or in choate and he vseth it as a reason to perswade men euen while they liue to be accepted of God vers 9.11 But if there might be any such helpe after death there needeth no such hast presently to be conuerted vnto God Argum. 3. Apocal. 14.13 Blessed are the dead from henceforth that dye in the Lord for they rest from their labours Ergo there is no Purgatorie for all the godly departed are at rest Bellarm. First it is not meant of all the godly but onely of Martyrs which dye for the name of Christ. Ans. As to liue in Christ Iesus is a phrase of scripture signifieth to liue godly in Christ 2. Timot. 3.12 so to dye in the Lord signifieth to dye in the faith of Christ 1. Thessal 4.16 Therefore this place is vnderstood of all the godly Bellar. 2. This word amodò from henceforth is not to be vnderstood straight after their death but straight after the day of iudgement thē they shal be blessed Ans. First by this reason none that are dead in Christ should be happie before that time And yet by your owne confession Martyrs are straightway receiued vp to heauen Secondly S. Iohn vseth this word elsewhere to signifie from this time forward as Iohn 1.51 Christ sayth to Nathanael From henceforth you shall see heauen open Rhemist Thirdly it may be also vnderstood of the soules of Purgatorie that are without danger of sinne and damnation and are put in vnfallible securitie of their saluation with vnspeakable comfort Ans. First so the Saints liuing are blessed being as well without feare of damnation Rom. 8.1 and are assured of their saluation Rom. 8.16 Secondly I pray you what rest or comfort can they haue that endure greater paine then any in this life And how can their consciences be quieted seeing their soules are so afflicted for bodies they haue none whatsoeuer they suffer is in soule how then can ioy and paine comfort and horror be together in the soule Fulk ibid. THE SECOND PART OF THE CIRCVMSTANces and other matters belonging to Purgatorie The Papists error 11 1. THey say it is an article of faith to beleeue that there is a Purgatorie and that he which beleeueth it not is sure to goe to Hell Bellarm. lib. 1. de purgatorio cap. 11. The Protestants WE hold that it is not onely an article belonging to the faith but contrarie to it and that though there were a Purgatorie yet it should not be necessarie to saluation to beleeue it First because the scripture hath not determined it which containeth all things necessarie to saluation Secondly the Greeke Church holdeth it not to this day they confesse no Purgatorie though they pray for the dead it were a hard matter therfore to pronounce them damned Thirdly Augustine doubted of it He sayth that there should be some such place after death non incredibile est it is not incredible vtrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inueniri aut latere fideles potest whether it be so or not
doe as well belong to the institution as the other Secondly they say that the words of institution doe not serue any thing at all for the instruction of the people to shew them the right vse of the Sacrament but onely for benediction and consecration of the elements Bellarm. cap. 19. Thirdly they doe hold that only by the pronouncing of those words the elements are consecrated whereas by the whole action and cerebration of the Sacrament the giuing receiuing inuocation thankesgiuing according to Christs institution the consecration is performed vpon the elements Fulk 1. Corinth 10. sect 4. Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed do helpe as well to admonish stirre vp the people to a thankful remēbrance of the death of Christ as to consecrate blesse the elemēts it is manifest whereas Christ saith as the words are vsually rehearsed Doe this in remembrance of me and S. Paul saith That by receiuing the sacrament we doe shew forth the Lords death 1. Corinth 11.26 Ergo the people are by the words pronounced instructed and admonished and taught the right vse of the sacrament Argum. 2. that the words of institution doe helpe toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements we deny not but not by them alone but praier also and thankesgiuing and the whole action beside of receiuing To the consecration or sanctifiyng of any creature two things are required the word of God and praier 1. Timoth. 4.5 Neither the word sanctifieth without praier nor praier without the word Ergo to the sanctifiyng cōsecrating of the sacrament the bare rehearsall of the institution sufficeth not without inuocation and praier Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum et fiet Sacramentum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it is become a Sacrament And in an other place he sheweth what word he meaneth Faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus The word effecteth this not because it is spoken or vttered but because it is beleeued this is the word of faith saith the Apostle which we preach thus farre Augustine tract in Johan 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange toung after the manner of enchaunters that by any secret force giuen vnto them hath power to consecrate but the vnderstanding hearing and beleeuing the institution of Christ with calling vpon the name of God and thankesgiuing before him AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART WHETHER THE forme of wordes in the institution of the Sacraments may not be by some addition or other alteration changed The Papists THe words of institution may be changed two manner of wayes either substantially error 89 when the sence is also altered with the words or accidētally whē the elements or syllables are onely changed but the sence remaineth the same If there be a change in the substance of the words the sacrament is imperfect if the alteration be of the forme onely of words and not of the sence the sacramēt is not destroyed but he sinneth that doth so alter them Wherefore it is not lawfull any way at all to alter or change the forme of words Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1. Argum. It is not lawfull to adde or take to or from the words of scripture much lesse to change the words appointed to be vsed in the Sacrament Bellarm ibid. Ans. To adde or detract to or from the word of God with a purpose and intent to wrest it to a contrary meaning and destroy the true sence thereof cannot be done without great impiety and such is the manner of all heretikes But to alleadge Scripture in keeping still the full sence though we misse of the wordes is not to be counted so heinous a sinne we see the holy Apostles in citing textes of Scripture doe not alwaies binde themselues to the very wordes as Act. 7.43 Heb. 10.5 The Apostle saith A body thou hast giuen me In the Psalme we read Mine eares hast thou opened diuerse wordes yet the same sense Augustine saith very well they that vnderstand the Scripture though they keepe not alwaies the wordes are better then they that read and vnderstand not Sed vtrisque ille melior qui et cum volet ea◠dicit et sicut oportet intelligit But he is better then both that both remembreth the wordes and keepeth the sense too yet he also deserueth praise that beareth the sense in minde though he cannot the words The Protestants NO substantiall change we confesse is to be admitted in the forme of Institution which may alter the sense neither is any particular man by himselfe to make any accidentall change and bring in a new forme of wordes but the publike and vniforme order of the church must be kept yea and the church likewise is bound both to reteyne the true sense and as neere as may be the very words but where occasion serueth to make some small accidentall change of the words the sence being nothing diminished it is not condemned as an vnlawfull and sinfull act Argum. 1. The Euangelists report not all the same forme of words which should be vttered by our Sauiour neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them in the precise and strict forme of institution as by comparing of them together it may be seene Mat. 26. ver 27. Take eat this is my body S. Luke cap. 22. This is my body which is giuen for you do this in remembrance of me ver 19. S. Paul Take eat this my body which is broken for you doe this in remēbrāce of me 1. Cor. 11.24 ver 28. This is my blood of the new testament that is shedde for many for the remission of sinnes This cup is the new testamēt in my blood which is shed for you This cup is the newe testament in my bloud this do as oft as you drink it in remēbrance of me If it had beene a sinne to haue missed in some termes and sillables no doubt the spirite of God would not haue suffered these holy writers to haue made the least scape Is it to be thought a sinne in the Church which in stead of Take ye eate ye in the plurall number hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministred particularly in the singular number to euery of the cōmunicants saying Take thou eat thou drinke thou Wherfore all accidentall change of words carieth not with it a guilt of sinne Augustine indeede saith Certa sunt verba euangelica c. The words of the gospell are certaine whereby Baptisme is consecrated But yet he saith else where In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manēs In the word spoken the sound which passeth is one thing the vertue or sense of the words which abideth is an other It is then the sence of the words not the sound or sillables that is certaine and permanent THE THIRD PART OF THE INSTRVMENTALL cause of the Sacraments that is the lawfull
First that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and represent vnto vs after a liuely manner the spirituall things which are signified Secondly they must haue the institution perpetuall commandement of Christ. Thirdly the sacraments of the new law must succeede in the place of the olde Hereupon we will inferre that there are but two sacraments in the new Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper Argum. 1. These two alone are not onely signes of heauenly things but seales and pledges vnto vs thereof whereby our fayth is strengthened and our hope confirmed in the promises of God as the remission of sinnes is represented in Baptisme Act. 2.38 the death of Christ shewed foorth in the Eucharist 1. Corinth 11.26 The like commendation is not giuen of any other of their sacraments Argum. 2. Christ onely commaunded these two sacraments to bee vsed for euer in his Church to such spirituall purposes as Baptisme is instituted and commaunded Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper likewise Math. 26. Many other ceremonies Christ vsed himselfe as lifting vp of hands the tempering of clay and spittle his Apostles imposition of hands and anoynting with oyle But he hath not layd his commaundement vpon these ceremonies enioyning vs perpetually to keepe them as he hath charged vs with the other two Argum. 3. The sacraments of the newe Testament succeede in the roume of them of the olde Baptisme standeth in stead of Circumcision the Lordes Supper is come in place of the Paschal Lambe But they cannot shew what old sacraments those fiue other newly inuented confirmation orders penance matrimony extreame vnction doe succeede and supplie Ergo they are none And beside if all these should be sacraments and so seuen in all we should haue more in number then the Iewes had which is not to bee admitted for they had but two ordinary sacraments Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe two extraordinarie as their baptisme in the red sea and the clowde and their eating of the Manna and drinking of the rocke 1. Corin. 10.2.3 So they should haue but foure sacraments for your seuen Other legall rites ceremonies and sacrifices they had and many typical shadowes and significations but no more sacraments then we haue heard Augustine yeeldeth to haue no more sacraments then onely two As Eua was made out of Adams side as hee was asleepe Sic ex latere domini dormientis in cruce manauerunt sacramenta ex quibus formaretur ecclesia So out of the Lordes side sleeping vpon the crosse the sacraments of the Church issued that is water and blood by the which he vnderstandeth the two sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE order and degree of the sacraments among them selues The Papists error 97 IF any man shall say that these seuen sacraments are of equall dignitie and not one in some respect to be preferred before the other let him be accursed Concil Trident. sess 7. can 3. In diuers respects one sacrament may excell another as Baptisme excelleth the rest because of remission of sinnes thereby effected or as we say represented Orders excell in respect of the minister because they are onely say they conferred by a Bishop Matrimony excelleth in respect of the signification the coniunction of Christ and his Church But simply the Eucharist exceedeth all because of the substance of the sacrament the reall and bodily presence of Christ. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 28. Answer First that Baptisme and the Eucharist exceede all the other we do easily admit for we holde them to be no sacraments and therefore we stand not vpon their seuerall priuiledges Secondly neither Baptisme is more excellent then the Lords Supper because it representeth the remission of sinnes for that also is insinuated in the other for how can we shew foorth the Lords death which is done in that sacrament vnlesse we call to minde the benefits purchased by his death as remission of sinnes Neither doth the Eucharist goe beyond Baptisme in regard of a more full presence of Christ for he is not otherwise present in one sacrament then in the other presenting himselfe in both spiritually to be apprehended of the worthy receiuer as for that carnal and grosse presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament we acknowledge none as afterward it shall more fully appeare when wee come in order to that question Augustine sheweth that Christ is no otherwise present in the Eucharist then in the preaching of the word for the manner of his presence Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est quod vobis tracto panis quotidianus est quod in ecclesia lectiones quotidie auditis panis quotidianus est the Eucharist or sacrament of thankesgiuing is our dayly bread that which I handle and preach to you is our daylie bread that which you heare read daylie in the Church is our daylie bread If Christ then be no more really present in the sacrament then in the worde what is become of the preeminence that the one sacrament in that respect should haue aboue the other The Protestants THat the one sacrament should be so much extolled aboue the other namely the Lords Supper to be preferred before Baptisme as the more worthy and excellent sacrament we finde no such thing in the word of God but that both of them are of like dignitie in themselues and to be had equally and indifferently in most high accompt thus it is prooued Argum. 1 They are both commaunded and instituted by the same authoritie of our Lord Iesus Christ neither is one by the first institution aduanced aboue the other Secondly there is the same matter and substance of both sacraments Christ Iesus with all his benefites Thirdly one and the same end of them both which is the increase and strengthening of our fayth in the promises of God Ergo they are both of equall dignitie and worthynes Let them say now which is the more worthy thing Baptisme or the word preached no doubt they will preferre Baptisme for they holde that the sacraments doe giue grace by the worke wrought and so doth not the worde yea they are offended because we say that the sacraments are no otherwaies instruments of our iustification then the word preached is but that the one worketh by the hearing the other by the senses of seeing handling tasting but they all serue to one end namely to beget and increase fayth in vs. This our assertion they vtterly mislike Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 2. Whereby it appeareth that they preferre Baptisme before the word We then thus reason out of Augustine He thus writeth Dicite mihi quid plus videtur vobis verbum dei an corpus Christi respondere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei Tell me which is the chiefer in your opinion the word of God or the body of Christ that is the sacrament of his body ye must answere that the word of God is not inferior Homil. 26. Hence we frame this argument The word of God is equiualent to
and rooted out Et tolli omne illud quod veram habet propriam rationem peccati And all that wholly to be taken away which hath the nature and qualitie of sinne Concil Trident sess 5. For the concupiscence or originall sinne remaining after Baptisme is now no more to bee called sinne In infants then newly baptized there is neither mortall nor veniall sinne Rhemist 1. Iohn 1. sect 5. Argum. The Scripture saith Beholde the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Ioh 1.29 Christ doth sanctifie and cleanse his Church by the washing of water through the word Ergo by remission sinnes cleane taken away Rhemist Rom. 4. sect 7. Ans. First if sinne in baptisme were wholly remoued not onely the guilt but the very staine and blot of sinne how commeth it to passe that many which are baptized doe fall afterward into deadly sinnes yea there is no man that liueth without sinne If sinne once haue been vtterly expelled and banished out of the flesh how commeth it in againe if their iustification haue once clearely rid them from sinne how can they be subiect to it againe for the grace of iustification being once obtained can neuer bee lost the giftes of God are without repentance Rom. 11.29 2. The Scripture is true that Christ by his blood cleanseth washeth taketh away our sinnes not by actually purging vs from all corruption but in freely acquiting and discharging of vs before God both of the guilt and punishment of sinne so the Scripture saith Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Rom. 4.7.8 Our sinnes therefore may be truely forgiuen though some corruption of sinne doe still remaine in vs. The Protestants THere are three things to bee considered in sinne First the staine or blot corruption or remnant of sinne in vs. Secondly the guilt fault and offence of sinne Thirdly the punishment and stipend due vnto it By our spiritual washing in the blood of Christ whereof Baptisme is a seale both the guilt and punishment of our sinnes are not onely hid and couered in Gods sight as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs to say but they are truely forgiuen vs for Christs sake and shall neuer be remembred any more But yet there is left in vs some remnant of sinne so long as we liue in this flesh which in the end together with the corruption and mortalitie of the bodie shall bee cleane taken away Argum. 1. If wee say wee haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs 1. Iohn 1.8 Ergo there are none liuing at any time voyde of sinne no not in their Baptisme Saint Paul also exhorteth to bee renewed in minde and to put on the new man and put off the old Ephes. 4.23 Ergo there remaineth some sinne and corruption after Baptisme what neede else this renewing of the minde and putting on the new man afterward Argum. 2. Originall sinne is not taken away in Baptisme therefore some sinne remayneth still And that this originall corruption is properly called sinne and is sin indeede S. Paul sheweth euidently Rom. 7. ver 7 8. where he nameth lust and concupiscence sinne Augustine thus writeth Meminisse debemus peccatorum omnium plenam remissionem fieri in Baptismo hominis verò qualitatem non totam continuò mutari We must remember that all our sinnes are fully remitted in Baptisme but the quality of man that is the corruption and staine or blot of sinne is not wholly chaunged THE SECOND PART WHETHER BAPtisme serue onely for remission of sinnes past not for the sinnes also to come The Papists error 108 CHristes death applyed to man by Baptisme wypeth away al sinnes past for new sinnes other remedies be dayly requisite Rhemist Heb. 10. sect 4. The councell of Trent holdeth them accursed that thinke all sinnes to be forgiuen fide Baptismi suscepti by faith of Baptisme receiued sess 7. can 10. Heereupon their saying ariseth that Baptismus est prima tabula post naufragium that Baptisme is the first boord of refuge after shipwracke Poenitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium penance is the second boord of refuge So that if a man do fall after Baptisme he must vse other helpes and meanes for the remission of sinnes for Baptisme is not auaileable for sinnes afterward committed Bellarm. cap. 18. Argum. It is impossible saith the Apostle for them that haue beene once lightened and tasted of the heauenly grace if they fall away to bee renewed by penance Heb. 6.6 that is they which fall away from faith and grace after Baptisme cannot be baptized againe or be illuminated or renouated by so easie a cleansing of sinnes as the Sacrament of Baptisme did yeeld Ergo Baptisme is not auaileable for remission of sinnes which men fall into afterward Bellarm. cap. 18. Ans. The Apostle speaketh not of this or that kinde of Repentance but generally of all shewing that there is no hope of remission nor grace to repent left for those which fall into the grieuous sinne of Apostasie which hee heere describeth for they crucifie againe the Sonne of God and make a mock of him ver 6. And that the Apostle vnderstandeth the sinne of Apostasie the sinne against the holy Ghost it appeareth by comparing that other place Heb. 10.29 with this for there they are said to tread vnder foote the sonne of God and to despite the spirit of grace The Apostle then cutteth off such from all hope of grace and repentaunce not onely barreth them from some speciall kinde of repentance The Protestants THe externall act of Baptisme neither wipeth away sinnes going before or comming after but it is the inward working of the spirite of God which by the vertue of Christs death testified and shewed forth in Baptisme that washeth away our sinnes And Baptisme is a seale of remission of sinnes for the confirmation of our faith euen of those which are committed after Baptisme as well as of sinnes done before and although the ceremonie of Baptisme be not repeated yet the vertue of Gods spirit testified thereby remaineth to our liues end Argum. 1. Mark 16.16 He that shall beleeue and be baptized shall bee saued Wee reason thus Baptisme is a seale of that faith whereby men are saued or to the which saluation is promised but that faith beleeueth remission of all sinnes both past and to come therefore Baptisme also sealeth vnto vs the remission of all our sinnes going before or following after Argum. 2. Baptisme is a signe and seale of our mysticall washing in the blood of Christ But all our sinnes both before and after are washed away by the blood of Christ Ergo Baptisme doth assure vs of a perfit remission of all our sinnes So saith Augustine Eodem lauacro regenerationis verbo sanctificationis omnia prorsus mala hominum regeneratorum sanantur etiam quae posterius humana ignorantia aut infirmitate committuntur By the same
bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall â—utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violeÌ„tly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death SecoÌ„dly the innoceÌ„t partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thiâ— poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius Tâ—leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman
my God which wordes must needs declare an inward confideÌ„ce and assured trust in God The Protestants WE holde it was necessary for our redemption that Christ should not onely suffer bodily paines but also feele the very anguish and horror of soule that as by his death we are redeemed both body and soule so he should pay the ransome for both in his body and soule 1. That our Sauiour suffered great anguish in soule the scripture testifieth for before his suffring in his body vpon the crosse being in the garden he saith of himselfe My soule is heauy vnto death at the same time being grieuously troubled he sweat water and blood and last of all hanging vpon the crosse he cryed out By those effectes it is euidently proued that there was a greater feare in him then of the death of the body for many holy Martyrs haue without any shew of such griefe endured horrible torments in the flesh and therefore consequently it followeth that those things proceeded from the griefe of his soule as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 5.7 He offered vp praiers with strong crying and teares to him that was able to saue him from death and was heard in that which he feared If it had beene onely feare of bodily death what need such strong cries with teares And the text is plaine that he was heard that is saued froÌ„ the death which he feared but he was not saued from the bodily death for he died and gaue vp the ghost wherefore it was the great horror of soule that caused him to feare Bellarm. answereth for all this that it was the bodily death which he feared but not of necessitie because he could not otherwise choose but willingly he would abide this brunt also of the feare and sorrow of death Voluit poenam maeroris timoris subire vt redemptio esset copiosae And heerein he exceedeth all other men that haue suffered for they are ridde from feare because God giueth them greater comfort and they regarde not the present torment but Christ willingly and of his owne accord drew himselfe into this agonie of feare Ans. 1. That Christ as he was God had determined and set it downe to dye for the world it is not to be doubted of but that as he was man he had not a desire to escape death as being ignorant of Gods determination it is contrary to the Scriptures which make mention of his earnest praier that he made thrice that the cup might passe Math. 26. Therefore Christ willingly entred not into that agony of feare in his humane desire but as submitting himselfe and his will in obedience to his fathers will 2. He is contrary to him selfe in saying that Christs bodily sufferings were sufficient for our redemption and yet graunteth that Christ vt redemptio esset copiosa That our redemption might be more full would abide also the smart of the feare of death If he feared but the bodily death as he saith yet was he troubled in soule and therefore besides bodily paine he suffered anguish in his soule Argum. 2. Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raised vp saith S. Peter and loosed the sorrowes of death for it was impossible that he should be holden of it Ergo Christ suffered the sorrowes of death and felt the wrath of God which caused those sorrowes The vulgare Latine hath the sorrowe of hell solutis dolorib infernâ— which pincheth the Papists very sore for how could Christ be loosed from the sorrowes of hell if first he had not beene helde of them That which Bellarmine answereth that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others which were to be deliuered is but a poore shift for the text is plaine It was impossible that he that is Christ himselfe should be stil holden of it it is spoken of the holding of Christ and not of any other Argu. 3. The prophet Esay saith He was wounded for our sins and broken for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was vpon him and with his stripes are we healed Esay 53.5 But we could haue no peace with God vnlesse all the punishment due vnto vs for our sinne had beene vndertaken by Christ wherefore seeing we by our sinne had deserued to be punished both in body soule it was necessary that our redeemer should be wounded and broken wholly for vs for how els by his stripes should we wholly be healed Augustine thus reasoneth against Felicianus the Arrian and proueth that Christ tooke not onely humane flesh but an humane soule Si totus homo periâ—â— c. If man wholly were lost saith he he had wholly need of a Sauiour and if he wholly needed a Sauiour Christ by his comming wholly redeemed him therefore Christ tooke vpon him the whole nature of man both body soule for if since the whole man hath sinned Christ onely had taken our flesh the soule of man should still remaine guiltie of punishment haec Augustine cont Felician cap. 13. By the same reason we proue it was necessary that Christ should suffer both in body and soule by the which Augustine inferreth that Christ tooke both body and soule he did assume them both to redeeme both But he redeemed vs not in being borne for vs or walking or preaching heere vpon earth although these were preparations to his sacrifice but by dying and suffering for vs Ergo he suffered both in body soule the punishmeÌ„t due vnto sinners They grauÌ„t that Christ suffered anguish in soule yet not properly in the soule but onely for the bodily death which was no part of the punishmeÌ„t of the soule which consisted in the very sense and feeling of Gods wrath and the torments of hell due vnto mankinde for their sinnes This punishment of the soule ought also necessarily to haue beene vndertaken by Christ being the redeemer both of body and soule THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER CHRIST descended in soule into hell to deliuer the Patriarkes The Papists THey doe beleeue that Christ according to his soule went downe to hell to error 101 deliuer the Patriarkes and all iust men there holden in bondage til his death Rhemist Act. 2. sect 12. Argum. 2. He that ascended is he that descended first into the lowest parts of the earth Ephes. 4.9 that is into hell the which is the lowest place in the earth Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. The earth it selfe is in respect of the world the lowest part so that here one parte of the earth is not to be compared with another but the whole earth in respect of the high heauens hath the name of the lower partes so is it taken Psal. 139. ver 15. Thou hast fashioned me beneath or in the lower partes of the earth But Dauid I trust they will not say was borne in hell because he speaketh of the lower partes of the earth consul Bez. in hunc locum So that by the descending of Christ into the lowest partes of the earth is meant nothing els but the lowest and extreamest degree
is THE SECOND PART WHETHER CHRIST bee our mediator as he is man onely or as hee is both GOD and man The Papists error 104 THey doe teach that Christ onely exercised his priesthood the office of the mediator as he was man not as he was both God man Rhem. Heb. 5. sect 4 His obedience sacrifice prayer satisfaction entring into the heauens was all performed by in his manhood only Secundum formam serui as he was in the forme of a seruant not secundum formam Dei as he was in the forme of God Bellarm. de Christo lib. 1. cap. 1. Argum. 1. If he were priest as he is God he should be inferior and not equall to God and so be Gods priest and not his Sonne for he to whom sacrifice is offered is greater then he that offereth it Rhemist ibid. Answ. It followeth not that because Christ is our priest and mediator as God and man that therefore he should performe all the dueties of the Priesthood as he was God all the partes of his priesthood that required obedience seruice homage subiection as were his sufferings and sacrifice he exercised as man but the authority of reconciling vs to God he wrought both as God and man Argum. 2. There is one God and one Mediator of God and men the man Iesus Christ 1. Timoth. 2.5 Why sayth the Apostle The man Iesus Christ but to signifie that according to his manhood onely he is our Mediator Bellarm. cap. 3. Ans. 1. You may as well conclude out of this place that the Mediator is onely man and not GOD as that hee is mediator onely as man and not as GOD but if out of these wordes it may bee prooued that the Mediator is both GOD and man as it necessarily followeth for how else can he be a Mediator of God and men it dooth as well follow that hee is Mediator both as God and as man Indeede the Apostle sayth The man Iesus Christ not God and man for the one he had sayd before There is one God in that speech including our Sauiour Christ who is one God with his Father Secondly what Saint Pauls meaning is it appeareth in the next verse who gaue himselfe a ransome vers 6. As Christ therefore gaue himselfe a ransome so is hee Priest and Mediator but he gaue himselfe as he was God as he was man hee was giuen Ergo as God he is Mediator The Protestants IN the office of the Priesthood two things must be considered a ministerie and an authoritie In respect of the ministeriall parte Christ performed the office of his priesthood as man but in respect of authoritie of entering into the holyest place and reconciling vs to God which was the principall parte of his Priesthood he did performe it as the Sonne of God as the Lord and maker of the house and not as a seruant And so we holde that Christ neither according to his humanitie alone nor his Godhead alone but that whole Christ is a Priest both as God and man Argum. 1. Saint Paul sayth God was in Christ reconciling the worlde to himselfe 2. Corinth 5.19 Ergo Christ as God is our reconciler and mediator Againe Christ as he is without Father and mother hath no beginning of his dayes nor end of his life so is hee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech but Christ as he is God and man hath neither father nor mother as he is God hath no beginning of dayes and in his whole person no end of his life therefore as God and man he is a Priest of Melchisedechs order Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth The lawe was giuen by Angels in the hand of a Mediator Galath 3.19 But then Christ was God onely Ergo hee is Mediator also as God Bellarmine sayth that hee is called Mediator because that person was appointed afterward to bee Mediator But the text is playne that he then actually performed the office of a Mediator so much as pertayned to his Godhead for the Lawe was giuen in the hand of a Mediator which kinde of speech sheweth a present execution of the Mediatorship Augustine sayth Non mediator homo praeter diuinitatem diuina humanitas humana diuinitas mediatrix The man Christ is not mediator beside his diuine nature the diuine humanitie and the humane diuinitie is the Mediatrix Ergo Christ Mediator both as God and man THE THIRD PART WHETHER CHRIST merited for himselfe The Papists error 105 CHrist they say by his passion and sufferings hath not onely merited eternall life for vs but euen by his owne merite obtayned his owne glorification Rhemist annot Hebr. 2.1 Argum. 1. Philip. 2.9 He humbled himselfe vnto the death of the Crosse wherefore God hath also highly exalted him and giuen him a name aboue all names Ergo Christ merited his exaltation Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. 1. This place sheweth a sequele of the exaltation of Christ after his humiliation it maketh not one the cause of another as our Sauiour himselfe sayth Luk. 24.26 Christ ought to haue suffered and so enter into his glory Secondly the exaltation which the Apostle here speaketh of is the fame which God chalengeth to himselfe Isai. 45.22 Euery knee shall bow vnto me and euery tongue shall sweare by me But it were most grosse to affirme that the diuine power and glory can be merited Christ hath his diuinity by nature and not by merite The Protestants IT is not in any wise to be thought that Christ merited his glory which is due to him in respect of his diuinity but that by the glorious work of our redemption he hath declared himselfe to be a person worthy of all honour and glory Apocal. 5.9 the place is so to be vnderstoode Argum. 1. If Christ had respect vnto himselfe in his sufferings to gayne or merite any thing for himselfe his loue should greatly bee obscured and darkened which Saint Paul so greatly cōmendeth In that he died for his enimies Rom. 5.10 For now should not his loue bee whole and entire towards vs as though for our cause he onely had died But it is now a diuided and halfe loue for he died as they say partly to merite for himselfe partly to merite for vs. But the scripture speaketh cleane contrary Iohn 17.9 For their sakes sanctifie I my selfe he sayth not partly for their sakes partly for mine owne Argum. 2. All glory that Christ hath was from euerlasting due to his person because he is the eternall Sonne of God As hee himselfe sayth Iohn 17.5 And now glorifie mee with thine owne selfe with the glory which I had with thee before the world was and this glorie was due vnto Christ so soone as he was incarnate by the right of his Godhead Hebr. 1. When he bringeth in his first begotten Sonne into the worlde hee sayth Let all the Angels of God worship him And the Rhemists themselues confesse in their Annotat. vpon these wordes that straight vpon Christs descending from heauen it
ground an ordinarie and perpetuall sacrament vpon an extraordinary example and that they were such visible graces of the spirite it appeareth because Simon Magu◠saw that the holy Ghost was giuen them by laying on of hands Secondly the holy Ghost was obtained by their praiers ver 15. and not by the very laying on of hands Thirdly to make a Sacrament it is not enough to haue a visible signe and to shew some spirituall grace therewith to be bestowed for then the spittle and clay that Christ vsed the napkins also and partlets which were carried to the sicke from the Apostles and they were healed presently all these should be sacraments for here are outward signes and some effect followed yet because there was no institution of a sacrament by Christ nor any commandement to vse them neither these nor the imposition of hands can be a Sacrament The Protestants WE graunt a ceremonie of imposition of hands vsed in the Apostles time and after so long as the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost continued in the Church there is also another kinde of imposition of hands such as the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 6.2 which may haue perpetuall vse in the Church which is nothing else but a kinde of praier to be strengthened by the holy Ghost and for the encrease of grace But neither this nor the other doe we holde to be a sacrament Argum. 1. Euery sacrament must haue his appointment from Christ consisting both of an outward element and the word of institution but the popish sacrament of confirmation hath none of these the element they vse is oyle the word of consecration I signe thee with the signe of the Crosse and annoint thee with the Chrisme of health in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost but none of these haue their institution by Christ or his Apostles any where in the new testament Ergo it is no sacrament Augustine saith Manus impositio quid aliud est quà m oratio super hominem The imposition of the hands what els is it but praier ouer a man He saith not it is a Sacrament THE SECOND PART OF THE MATter and forme of Confirmation The Papists THe matter of this popish Sacrament they say is oyle mixed and tempered error 44 with balme Rhemist Act. 8. sect 6. First halowed and consecrated by the Minister thereof and striked in manner of a crosse vpon the forehead of him that is to be confirmed Bellarm. cap. 8. Argum. 2. Corinth 1.21 It is God which establisheth vs or confirmeth vs with you in Christ and hath annointed vs. Here the Apostle speaketh of confirmation and of the materiall part thereof which is holy vnction or anointing Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle saith not Which hath confirmed but Which doth confirme which if it were meant of that external ceremony of confirmation see what iniury you offer to the Apostle that being a confirmer of others he had neede now to be catechized and confirmed himselfe Againe he speaketh not of confirmation wrought by the ministerie of men but God saith he confirmeth vs that is establisheth vs by his spirite 2. It is to too grosse to vnderstand by this anointing your greazie besmearing mens faces with your Chrisme seeing the Apostle expoundeth himselfe in the next verse He hath sealed vs and giuen the earnest of his spirite in our harts ver 22. Of this holy anointing of our harts by the spirite S. Iohn also maketh mention saying This Anointing teacheth you all things 1. epist. 2.27 But doth the anointing of the face I pray you giue men instruction Let vs heare Augustines exposition Christus sit in corde vnctio ipsius sit in corde inspiratio eius docet vnctio eius docet Let Christ be in your harts let his anointing be in your harts his inspiration is his anointing you may be ashamed therefore so grossely to abuse Scripture 3. As for your oyle therefore mixed with balme First the true balme you know is not to be had and therefore you abuse the people Secondly make the best of it you can it is but a Iewish ceremonie Thirdly your benediction of it is but a kinde of magicall inchantment seeing you haue no word of God to consecrate creatures in that sort for all things are sanctified by the word of God and praier Ergo without the warrant of God there is no such sanctifying of creatures The Papists 2. THe forme of Confirmation is in the words which are pronounced I signe thee with the signe of the crosse and confirme thee with the Chrisme of error 45 saluation or health in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost Bellarm cap. 10. The Protestants 1. THey must shew the institution of Christ out of the word for the forme of euery sacrament which they can not doe for this vnlesse they runne to their beggerly traditions which they blasphemously call the word of God vnwritten 2. Where haue they learned that men are confirmed and established with the externall anointing of oyle so said some amongst the Colossians Touch not taste not handle not to whom the Apostle answereth Which things perish with the vsing and are after the commandements of men Coloss. 2.21.22 So is this anointing with oyle a meere inuention of men and hath no longer vertue or force then in the naturall vse thereof THE THIRD PART OF THE EFFIcacie and vertue of confirmation The Papists THe holy Ghost is giuen in confirmation for force strength and corroboration against all our spirituall enemies and to stand constantly in the confession error 46 of our faith euen to death with great increase of grace Rhemist Act. 8. sect 7. And in this respect it giueth more abundant grace in strengthening of vs against the deuil then Baptisme doth Bellarm. cap. 11. The Protestants FIrst they doe offer great iniurie to the spirite of God tying him as it were to their beggerly elements which haue power as they say to conferre grace The Scripture saith The spirite bloweth where it listeth Ioh. 3. The spirite of God is free and is giuen without Sacraments as well as with them but this tradition of yours is no Sacrament if it were yet could it not conferre grace as we haue proued before Secondly they doe greatly deface the Sacrament of Baptisme making it imperfect without confirmation saying that he which is baptized shall neuer be a perfect Christian vnlesse he be confirmed with Chrisme Gerson And that it is to be reuerenced with greater reuerence then Baptisme See Fulk Act. 8. sect 7. Yea they depriue Baptisme of the proper effect and vse thereof which is a signe vnto vs of the assistance of Gods spirite to fight manfully against the Deuill for by baptisme we are buried into the death of Christ Rom. 6.3 But Christ by his death triumphed ouer the Deuill Coloss. 2.15 Ergo Baptisme is a signe of our victorie against the Deuil yet they rob Baptisme of this honor and giue it to
Confirmation And thus they preferre their owne inuentions before the ordinance of God no Sacrament before a Sacrament Augustine sheweth what the Sacrament of Vnction is Vnctionis sacramentum est virtus ipsa inuisibilis vnctio inuisibilis spiritus sanctus The sacrament of vnction is the inuisible vertue the inuisible anointing the holy spirite What is become now of your sacrament of vnction THE FOVRTH PART OF THE RITES and ceremonies of Confirmation The Papistes THe ceremonies which they commonly vse in Confirmation are these First error 47 the Bishop must breathe vpon the pot or cruze of Chrisme Seōcdly he saluteth it in these words Aue sanctum Chrisma Haile holy Chrisme Thirdly he giueth a kisse Fourthly he striketh him that is cōfirmed with his hand to teach him patience Fiftly his forehead is bound about least the Chrisme should run downe which teacheth him not to lose the grace of God Sixtly seuen daies together he must neither wash his head nor face And these with such like ridiculous toyes are practised amongst them Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. de confirmat The Protestants 1. SOme of these ceremonies we condemne as ridiculous as the breathing vpon the oyle the striking of the party confirmed which light gestures become not the grauity of the Ministers of the Gospell all things should be done in the Church in decent and comely order 1. Cor. 14.40 Secondly one of them is meerely Idolatrous to salute the oyle as the Angel saluted Mary to say Aue All haile vnto it making an Idoll of it being a thing without sense or life Thirdly all of them are superstitious hauing mysticall and typicall significations and shadowes which agreeth not with the nature of the Gospel for all shadows are now past the body being come Col. 2.17 Lastly they are superfluous cumbersome and burdenous as Augustine saith Ipsam religionem quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit onerib premunt They oppresse religion with the burden of ceremonies which God hath left free in few sacramēts Againe who seeth not how thus by their own traditions they doe euacuate the ordinance of God for in stead of catechizing and instructing of the youth in the principles and foundation of religion as of repentance from dead workes faith toward God of the resurrection and eternall iudgement Hebre. 6.2.3 they haue brought in nothing else but oyling greazing annointing of them breathing vpon them crossing and such like and whereas S. Paul giueth Parents a charge to bring vp their Children in the instruction of God Ephes. 6.4 They bid them bring their Children to be anointed crossed chrismated as they call it and they haue done enough THE SECOND QVESTION of Orders THe seuerall partes of this question are these First whether it be a Sacramēt Secondly of the efficacie and vertue thereof Thirdly of the ceremonies THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE receiuing of orders be a Sacrament The Papists THat holy Orders are a sacrament rightly and properly so called it was decreed in the Tridentine Councell sess 23. canon 3. And that not onely the error 48 three higher degrees of Priesthood Deaconship subdeaconship but the foure inferiour orders of Exorcistae Acoluthi Lectores Ostiarij doe belong vnto the same sacrament of Orders and are sacraments as well as the other Bellarm cap. 8. lib. de sacram ordinis Argum. 1. Timoth. 4.14 Despise not that gift which was giuen thee through prophesie with the laying on of hands Holy orders giue grace by an externall ceremonie and worke Ergo it is a Sacrament Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. 1. It cannot be proued out of this place that imposition of hands giueth grace for this was an extraordinary gift which S. Paul speaketh of and doth not alwaies follow imposition of hands Secondly this gift was not giuen by the very ceremony of imposition of hands but through prophesie and reuelation of the holy Ghost for it was reuealed vnto the Church by the spirite of prophecie that Timothie was a chosen vessell of God therefore S. Paul saith That worthie thing which is committed vnto thee keepe through the holy Ghost 2. Tim. 1.14 The holy ghost was both the conferrer of that grace and the preseruer of it Imposition thē of hands was but an outward signe of the presence of Gods spirit vpon those that were lawfully ordeined for al vpon whom hands were laid receiued not the holy ghost but such only as were appointed of God And therefore the Apostle chargeth Timothie to lay hands sodenly on no man 1. Timoth. 5.22 which caueat was not needfull if vpon whomsoeuer he had laid his hands they should immediately receiue the holy Ghost The Protestants YOur seuen popish orders we do not at all receiue into the church much lesse can we abide that they should be sacraments The lawfull ordeining of Pastors teachers and Deacons we doe acknowledge but no sacrificing Priesthoode nor no ministring Deaconship at the Altar such orders as we haue notwithstanding we doe not take to be Sacraments much lesse yours that are vtterly to be abolished Argum. 1. Sacraments must haue their institution from Christ so haue not your orders for Christ instituted onely Apostles and Disciples Presbyters and Deacons were founded by the Apostles who notwithstāding had no commission to constitute new Sacraments As for the other fiue orders of Subdeacons Readers Acoluthi Exorcistes doore keepers they are neither read in Scripture nor ordeined of the Apostles nor heard of for many yeeres after Secondly your Sacrament hath neither outward element nor word of institution if you say laying on of hands is the externall signe we answere that the visible signe in a Sacrament must not onely be an externall action but a materiall element as water in Baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper The forme you say is in these wordes pronounced by the Bishop Accipite potestatem offerendi sacrificium Receiue ye power to offer sacrifice Bellarm. ca. 9. We answere againe that this sacrificing office hath no foundation in Scripture the Ministers of the Gospell are called dispensers of Gods Mysteries namely of the word and Sacraments 1. Corinth 4.1 Ministers for Christ not sacrificers of Christ wherefore neither haue ye any word of institution and consequently no Sacrament And I pray you tell me if you will make euery one of your orders a Sacrament then must you needes haue as many Sacraments as there are orders and so shall you haue sixe Sacraments more then you thought for you doe distinguish all the orders in office and forme of consecration one from another and therefore they cannot all make one Sacrament Augustine saith Christus Sacramentis numer◠paucissimis societatem populi colligauit Christ hath ioyned together his people with most fewe Sacraments and then he nameth Baptisme and the Communion Et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur and if any other be commended in Scripture Ergo there is no Sacrament of orders because it is not found in