his One and twentieth Chapter fol. 323. calls the Protestants startling at the Romish doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a Prodigie of Opinions And he musters up several Tenents concerning the same which being various in themselves and contradictory each to other I wonder he should offer them against any particular Church especially the Church of England against whom I suppose his darts are by this intended for that elsewhere fol. 259. he speaking of Protestants offers grounds of converting to them again which must needs be intended to the Church of England from whence he is gone which he in this particular goes about to tax her of Error Wherefore I made bold to recapitulate these ensuing Truths professed by her and which she assumes to maintain against the Errours and Innovations of Rome touching this Sacrament wherein my desire is rather to clear her from all malicious dirt by Satans instruments thrown upon her then that I should by this means lay open the failings of the Doctor or his ingratitude to his Mother-Church The Church of England doth maintain That Christs body is given received and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual not after a carnal and corporal manner and doth utterly disallow of the new doctrine of Romes Transubstantiation not condemning it as new in respect of the Word but as it is a doctrine and practice in it self varying from what Christ his Apostles or the Primitive Churches taught and contrary to what the Church of Rome has formerly maintained for that it is a meer novelty through the corruption of later times and by covetous and ambitious Popes for self-interest obtruded upon the people making them believe a real transubstantiated presence by the Priests consecration and by him offered up for the sins of the people that so the people giving money to the Clergie they may buy Masses and Sacrifices for their sins and for the sins of others as well quick as dead Against which impious practice and vain assertions I will for the satisfying of some doubting and others deluded in opinion offer these professions of the English Church to their serious consideration The Church of England teacheth 1. Christ is spiritually eaten That Christ is not in the bread and wine but onely to such as worthily eat drink them That as Christ is a spiritual meat so he is spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us by faith And for this her doctrine she has warrant from Christ himself who speaking of the bread of life which came down from heaven and the bread which he would give them which was his flesh Joh. 6.51 the Jews and many of his disciples were offended saying How can he give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink Christ perceiving their murmuring that they should not remain in ignorance explains it to them saying What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that giveth life and flesh availeth nothing The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life Which is a manifest clearing how the flesh is to be eaten and how the blood to be drunk that is after a spiritual manner and so Abraham and many others did eat him many yeers before he was born of the Virgin according as S. Paul witnesses 1 Cor. 10. They did eat the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink that is to say Christ For to eat that meat and drink that drink is to have Christ dwelling in us The wicked do not eat the body and we in Christ which must needs be understood of worthy receivers and not of the ungodly in whom Christ cannot be said to dwell it must needs be understood of one that truly believing feeds upon Christ in his heart and the wicked unbelieving sinner he receiveth onely the bread and wine not discerning the Lords body Saint Paul witnesseth this truth 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ He saith not He that eateth and drinketh the body and blood for none but a worthy receiver doth that Nor doth this doctrine deny any to receive unworthily as the Doctor fol. 328. would perswade us because saith he such onely receive bread and wine and not the Lords body But it rather serveth to condemn their errours who would perswade that the wicked receive very Christ and so none should be guilty because whoso verily eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life Therefore the Church of England is careful to avoid this error and maintains according to Christ his explanation that Christ is onely spiritually given received and eaten and that those onely that believe in Christ eat him and live by him and that every one eating that bread according to Christs institution and Ordinance is assured by Christs own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receives the benefit of his passion and likewise be that drinks of that cup according to Christs institution is certified that he is made partaker of Christ his legacie his blood which was shed for remission of sins Whereas the unworthy receiver coming to this divine Ordinance without due reverence and a lively faith eateth and drinketh his own damnation for that he receiveth that bread and that wine unworthily which ought with faith to have been received believing that as that bread and wine nourish the outward man so Christ is thereby conveyed to the nourishment of the inner man and so Christ is in him and he in Christ And by thus receiving is the saying of Christ in Joh. 6. My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink to be understood for none but the faithful are partakers of this heavenly banquet Christ is the bread of life he that eateth that bread shall live for ever which must be by faith in the Son of God Gal. 2. It must needs be understood of a mystical and not a real eating that even as the bread and wine which we receive is turned into our flesh and blood and is so joyned and mixed together with our flesh and blood that they be made one body together so be all faithful Christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ and be so joyned unto Christ and also together amongst themselves that they do but make one mystical body of Christ as S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. We be one bread and one body as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. The wicked are not partakers of this banquet but onely the members of Christ therefore none verily eat the flesh and drink the blood but the believers It is not like the eating of Manna both good and bad ate that saith our Saviour Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead but he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever which must be by faith and in heart believing unto
in it one earthly another heavenly by the heavenly understanding the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God and by the earthly the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies Shortly after Irenaeus was Origen about 200 yeers after Christ who affirms in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly and is voided downward but the Word spoke upon the bread is it that availeth Eusebius Emissaenus who wrote about 300 yeers after Christ de consecrat dist 2. says that outwardly was nothing changed all the change was inwardly As man made new in Baptism doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward without making any change in the outward man not seen not felt but believed so likewise when thou dost go up to the altar to receive the spiritual meat in thy faith look upon the body and blood of Christ and feed upon him with thy inward man By which it is plain that it is onely a spiritual change by faith not an outward and corporal change Epiphanius contra Haereses lib. 3. tom 2. The bread saith he is meat but the vertue that is in it giveth life Chrysostome who wrote about 420 yeers after Christ ad Caesarium Monachum The bread saith he before it is consecrate is called bread but after it is consecrate it is delivered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of the Lords body although the nature of the bread doth still remain S. Austin who lived about the same time in Sermone ad Infantes That which you see on the Altar is the bread and the cup which your eyes shew you is the wine but faith sheweth you that that bread is the body and that cup the blood of Christ Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Eutichem Nestorium proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ he enforceth it with two reasons the one drawn from the example of Man who being but one is made of two parts and hath two natures the Body and the Soul the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which saith he is a godly thing and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still This was the opinion of the Fathers of those days and thus Transubstantiation is a new doctrine and no otherwise held the Church of Rome for a thousand yeers after Christ there being never so much as question made about this point for a thousand yeers compleat the time of Satans being let at large Apoc. 20. at which time by reason of some pretended miracles this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach which being once published it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast if once they get rooting in any garden it presently got abettors and champions to justifie it against all opposers some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blinde Truth with subtil reasons others out of dulness of apprehension God having withdrawn his Spirit from them were given up to this delusion so that in 60 yeers this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth A mongst the rest one Paschasius was one that first publikely maintained it and after him the Popes enclined to this opinion insomuch that Berengarius a French-man and Arch-deacon of Anjou opposing this Heresie was himself censured of that he urged against the then Pope of Rome and was the first that ever was questioned for maintaining against this doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Pope adhering to the adverse party which was for Transubstantiation Berengarius was forced to recant the Councel of Vorcellense held 1051. swaying against him which opinion of his he again resumed and did recognize the Truth again after that the then-Pope was dead which when Pope Nicolas 2. heard of he sent his busie agent and Cardinal-Chaplain Hildebrand into France to bring Berengerius under coram nobis who being sore troubled and molested and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hildebrand that the current was against him through the treachery of a base timorous nature he suffered his noble parts his intellects to be clouded with the mists of the times errour and tamely did recant his former tenents and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holiliness in this point of Transubstantiation And thus this doctrine began And although Pope Nicolas did avouch this doctrine in a Councel at Laterane held anno 1059. Ante chap. 14. and there framed the term of Transubstantiation yet notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresie was Christned and put forth to nurse yet nevertheless it grew not to be free and to bear rule till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling and by another Lateran-Councel did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholike Faith enjoyning all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie Johannes Scotus who was called Duns lib. 4. writing of this matter saith that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly without Transubstantiation but it pleased the Church to chuse this sense which is more hard being moved thereunto most chiefly because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold Which kinde of blinde obedience Blinde obedience makes the Popish Religion in no better condition then the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the arbitrary power of a standing Legislative Councel which daily gave new Laws unto the people so that the people could not by any known Rule say their clothes were their own all the Law by which they derived any property being under an arbitrary power insomuch that as they were not secure by walking after any known Law so neither was it safe for them to rely upon such new Laws as the Councel it self proposed the Councel altering every day her own Laws as time administred occasion for self-advantage so that Athens was in a miserable condition during this slavery of her Legislative power not dissolvable by any Authority the people not having liberty to dissolve it and to call as occasion shall require a Councel to redress grievances and not otherwise to continue but to be dissolved that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable amongst them Even so stands the Religion of the Papists Now that the Pope is declared above Councels and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith by vertue thereof their Religion is a meer nose of wax alterable at his will and pleasure who has a faithful tribe of Ignations which will blandish his new doctrines and make the people believe they are but growings in faith whenas they are diametrically opposite to the Catholike Faith of the Primitive Church but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures it must be believed
significantly there present then they agree with us but if really in the bread then we do not concur in opinion with them for the reasons afore in pare rehearsed and for other reasons hereafter following I might instance many particular reasons against this Romish errour of Transubstantiation as that 1. Nothing was broken eaten drunken and chawed but the accidents of the body because they deny the bread and wine to be the visible elements which is against Reason and all authority or else if they will have a body there That it is without accidents and so they must either make accidents without substances or substances without accidents 2. When the bread mouldeth and turneth into worms or the wine sowreth or turneth into vinegar it is the bread mouldeth and the wine that sowreth Christ is the same yesterday to day and for ever Therefore are the bread and wine substantially there and if they were but accidents then no body could be made thereof as worms or material vinegar 3. Let a dog or cat c. eat of that bread and he is nourished thereby which could not be if the substance remained not 4. The Scripture calleth them bread and wine after consecration which are names of substance not of accidents which if substance remained not it were a meer illusion of our senses and so we with the Jews make Christ a Jugler making things appear to our outward senses which are not 5. The Sacrament had a beginning and hath an end put to it it is to be received in remembrance of Christs death till he come and then to cease Wherefore there can be no real transubstantiated presence of Christ for he is from eternity to eternity 6. If there be a transubstantiated body of Christ then is Christ every day new made and as many Wafers as many Christs which is impossible for his substantial body to be in several places either in the several Wafers or the several places of consecration at one and the same instant of time 7. This doctrine doth impugn the consent of the ancient Catholike Church which de fide professeth and believeth Christ to be made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother and therefore not every day to be made anew of the substance of bread and wine for if it were so then the same body that was crucified is not eaten or else that body which was crucified was made of bread and wine which is flat blasphemy against the holy Ghost by whose operation Christ was made and born of the flesh of his mother and suffered upon the Cross for the salvation of all believers Which Christ is no otherwise joyned to the elements in this Sacrament but Sacramentally as the holy Ghost in Baptism is joyned to the water not that the holy Spirit is made of the substance of the water or the water turned into the holy Ghost 8. It is against the express Scripture and Symbole of Faith grounded upon that Scripture which teaches that Christ concerning his body and humane nature is in heaven We believe that he was conceived of the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead buried that he descended into hell the third day he rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father from whence he shall come to judge both quick and dead Christ said to his disciples I leave the world Joh. 16. and Mat. 26. Ye shall ever have poor folks with you but me ye shall not have always Mark 16. He was taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of his Father Col. 1.3 Heb. 8. and Heb. 10. He sits continually at the right hand of God And Saint Peter Act. 3. faith that the heavens shall contain him until the time that all things shall be restored And Christ himself gave warning of this errour aforehand in Matth. 24. saying The time will come when there shall be many deceivers in the world which shall say Here is Christ and there is Christ but believe them not Thus the whole current of the Scripture makes against this Romish errour of Transubstantiation And because the Papists may not object against us that it is a novel interpretation or our mis-understanding of Scripture in this point I will make it manifest that the Primitive Church never taught this doctrine of Transubstantiation but were utterly against it as may appear by the testimony of these ancient Fathers Origen upon Matthew Tract 33. The Fathers against Transubstantiation saith Christ hath two natures God and Man as God he is with us always unto the end of the world as man he is not He is gone hence and absent in his Humanity but is always present in his Divinity S. Austin in his Epist 55. ad Dardanium Christ as concerning his Manhood is now there from whence he shall come to judge both quick and dead and as he ascended so shall he come in the self-same form and substance to the which he gave immortality but thereby did not change the nature Now saith he after this form we must not say that he is everywhere for we must take heed saith he that we do not so stablish his Divinity that we take away the verity of his body Cyril upon S. John lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ took away from hence the presence of his body but in the majesty of his Godhead he is everywhere he according to his promise is with his disciples even unto the end of the world S. Ambrose upon Luke lib. 10. cap. 24. We must not seek Christ upon earth but in heaven where he sits at the right hand of God And S. Gregory in Hom. Pasch saith Christ is not here in the presence of his flesh and yet as he is God he is absent nowhere by the presence of his majestie all unanimously and Apostolike being of one consent in this that Christ as touching his humanity is onely in heaven at the right hand of God And particularly these Fathers following are absolutely against this very point of Transubstantiation Justinus The Fathers against Transubstantiation an ancient Writer and holy Martyr who wrote about an hundred yeers after Christ in his second Apologie saith that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are not to be taken as other meats and drinks be they being purposely ordained to give thanks to God in and therefore be called Eucharistia and be called the body and blood of Christ and yet the same meat and drink be changed into our flesh and blood and nourish our bodies By which it is plain that the substance of the elements remain because saith he they are changed into flesh and blood and nourish our bodies Irenaeus contr Valent. lib. 1. c. 4. who wrote about 150 yeers after Christ and was a disciple of Polycarpus who was a disciple of John the Evangelist says The bread wherein we give thanks to God hath two things
as a matter of faith and that upon pain of damnation as witness this novel point and some others which are of later times crept into that Church And when any thing of Papal will and interest must be held forth to the other Churches then is the Lateran at Rome pitched upon Ante chap. 14. as I have formerly said as the onely convenient place to have the matter debated it being there likely to receive the least opposition by reason his Holiness is at hand to take notice of his enemies and to punish them and to flatter and promote such as stand for his Papal pleasure In this Councel of Laterane The Councel of Laterane chap. 17. likewise was hatched that other Cockatrice that strange brazen-fac'd and staring opinion of deposing Kings from which root of bitterness springs many tart branches of dangerous and poysonful Errours the nauseating juyce of whose sowre grapes being given to some other Churches to drink it hath intoxicated them making their Vertigious heads turn after the Laterane Weather-cock and in their brain-sick fit conceit that her high-reared Spire is the onely supporter of the heavenly Pole whilst the sober and discreet Christian knows that her proud top being exalted to that height is but so much the neereâ— the pattern of Babels Tower And whilst they think she is dignified before others her head being lifted above them others know she hath not whereof to boast unless in this That shee has the upper room in Satan 's airy principality which how much the higher she is lifted she is but thereby rendered more subject to be muffled with the black contractions of the Devil's Cimerian clouds of Errours And though the top thereof be forged out of that material Sword as is by the Romish Legends maintained which cut off Saint John Baptist's head it should not therefore arrogate to be the onely decolling instrument of Principality and Temporal power But I return to the subject matter of this Chapter That I may the further lay open the errours of the Church of Rome in this particular Miracles the cause of Transubstantiation and that the Papists shall not have whereof to boast in that I said they were induced by Miracles to maintain this doctrine should I pass those Miracles by in silence I will let the Reader know what they were It is reported that a Bishop of Canterbury about the time of this change did shew unto some for their conversion the Host turned into flesh and blood in outward appearance dropping into the Chalice and that thereupon they believed Transubstantiation Another is reported by Paschasius of one Plegildus a Priest of Almain who did see and handle visibly the shape of a childe upon the Altar and after it turned into bread and he was to receive it Another is reported of a Jew-boy who coming into the Church with another boy which was a Christian he saw upon the Altar a little childe torn in pieces and afterwards by portions distributed which he reporting was condemned to be burned but was after rescued from the flame by the Christians These Miracles were the onely arguments used against Berengarius and the convincing perswasions of the facile consciences of those days which how it stands with the doctrine of Christ Joh. 6.63 the practice of the Apostles the profession of the Primitive times and the faith and doctrine of the ancient Fathers let any judge S. Paul says 1 Cor. 11. That which he had received of the Lord Jesus that he delivered That as often as they did eat the bread and drink the cup they shewed the Lords death till he came Saint Paul calls it bread and the Evangelist wine and that after consecration and the Fathers of the Church taught that doctrine with them and Christ himself calls them bread and fruit of the vine and S. Paul The communion of the body And this being the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles though an Angel from heaven should come and teach any other doctrine let him be accursed Gal. 1. Wherefore these miraculous apparitions were no ground for Rome to change her faith in this point If these stories be true they ought to be considered as extraordinary apparitions like the light from heaven which shone about S. Paul These external miraculous apparitions were but to perswade the consciences of Infidels and Heathens to turn to the faith of Christ and to be perswaded of the truth of that Sacrament and not to make the true and already-grounded Christians to change the nature of their faith which is the ground of things hoped for and the evidence of things which are not seen Heb. 11.1 This was to perswade the mis-believing Jew of Christ and of the truth of this blessed Sacrament whereby he was to be made partaker of the benefits of his precious death and passion not to teach the Christian any new doctrine concerning the same These miracles should rather confirm him in his faith received that it was a spiritual banquet in respect that after the apparition as the story runs at the receiving that which was received was become bread again and not to ensnare him into this novel errour which was contrary to Christs doctrine the Apostles preaching and the practice of the Primitive Church But I will no longer insist upon this point I submit to any good Christian whether it be safer to follow Christs explanation of this mystery to be spiritual with which S. Paul and the ancient Fathers do concur then to humour the times and to be observant to the late Popes which about the time of this change were grown great and since have by cunning practices enlarged that power insomuch that now they are declared above Councels and whatsoever they propound must de fide be received upon the score of their infallibility be it never so contrary to the truth of Gods Word And they by this doctrine receiving advantage by their Altar-Sacrifices will not easily be induced to renounce the errour thereof and though never so palpably against the Truth of God yet the Jesuites will maintain it for their Masters advantage this doctrine tending more to his avail then any good to the souls of his flock Wherefore the Church of England having a right to reform errours in her own Province has chosen to cast off this blinde tenent of the Pope and his Parasites and she having the warrant of Christ the rules of the Apostles the practice of the Primitive Church and the consent of the ancient Fathers for her doctrine in this point hath therefore made choice with them in unity of Spirit firmly to hold and maintain that Christ in his humanity is not really and corporally in the Sacrament but figuratively in the outward elements being thereby signified and is spiritually eaten and drunken of the worthy receiver CHAP. XVI Against Communion in one kinde That the Church of Rome's withholding the Cup from the Layty is a novelty against Christs precept and the ancient
the Evangelists who witness with one consent that Christ took the Bread and also or after the same manner he took the Cup we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup for so we destroy the Sacrament as being of incertainty and having no certain ground either for its institution or the precept for the administring thereof Wherefore for the Doctor here to construe and or is to multiply contradictions and so his reason is become invalid in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is that this Sacrament is to be administred under both kinds therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sacramental Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup to be understood of the whole Sacrament rather then in many places to wrest and into or For the mentioning of Bread onely doth not exclude the Cup negatively but rather according to Cyprians speech by the naming of part of the action the whole is to be understood and herewith agreeth Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.17 And we that are many are one bread and one body because we are all partakers of one bread We must not think that because here Saint Paul names bread onely that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup for that is against the precedent verse where he saies The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ Besides in the ensuing Chapter he enjoyns both to be received and that to the people so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is onely mentioned we are not thereby to exclude the cup for the Hebrew phrase is under the breaking of bread to signifie the whole feast as in the Prophet Esay Frangere esurientis panem is as well to give drink as bread Besides should we admit of any other construction as that when bread is mentioned alone thereby to understand communion in one kind we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ and the rest of the Apostles which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds which were an impious and presumptuous charge Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein and let her not longer wrest mangle and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christs rules herein contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church and contrary to the judgement and practice of the antient Fathers and her own antient Bishops and that but for self-interest to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing taken up upon a light score and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years after Christ and let her confess the truth with us herein by which means she shall neither alter the sense nor wrest any particular word to maintain her doctrine herein and if she will not for unitie sake and for communion with us yet for avoiding an absurdity against her own principles let her never construe that place of Luke to signifie an entire Sacrament for then she makes the whole Sacrament onely breaking of bread and destroyes Transubstantiation As for the Doctor if he be not herewith satisfied but that he will persist notwithstanding that it must be understood of communion in one kind and furthermore to maintain that opinion will here construe and for or I must tell him that he has hereby wiped off one error which he elswhere fol. 337. taxed our Translators with 1 Cor. 11.27 which if it be mis-translated it makes nothing for communion in one kind but whether we receive the one or the other that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet and it doth further illustrate to us that though we receive the bread worthily yet if we receive the cup unworthily we are guilty of the body and blood which is an argument and indeed an absolute proof that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood therefore I encline to think with the Doctor that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles rendring and for or I find it various from the old copies and I will not presume upon the Doctors rule to justifie it however it is something excusable for that in the very same Chapter 26 28 and 29. verses eating the bread and drinking the cup is expressed and not eating the bread or drinking the cup which upon the Doctors rule for avoiding contradiction should be construed or but whether it be taken or or and yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind The Doctor layes down for the Priests receiving in both kinds Of the sacrifice offered upon the Altar by the Priest because he offers up a sacrifice I will therefore a little consider of that I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reasonable soul that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sacrifice and if so then by the Doctors rule they are to receive in both kinds because saith he Christs sacrifice upon the Cross is not perfectly represented but by both kinds as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacrifice of bread and wine For the better explaining of this point it is to be understood that there are two kinds of sacrifices one is a perpetual sacrifice pacifying Gods wrath whereby mercy and forgiveness of sins is obtained which is onely the death of Christ prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving which doth not reconcile us unto God but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him by faith in him which is the reconciliation for our sins even Christ Jesus By the first Christ offered us unto the Father by the second we offer our selves and all that we have unto him and his Father according as David sayes Psal 50. A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and Hebr. 13. Alwaies we offer up to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ and Saint Peter saith of all people that they are A holy Priest-hood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul Heb. 9. Every High-priest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar offered up in their Mass which who please to read may plainly discover that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law who did offer Bullocks and Goats for the sins of the people and therefore in the old Testament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices being indeed but shaddows and types of Christs sacrifice which was to come which was the true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats verse 1â— By
her Church be like the Temple of Venus in which there was a Lanthorn made of the stone A Beston whose nature as Isidore lib. 15. de Genuus saith is such that being once set on fire no wind nor rain can extinguish it which made the Heathen people Idolize it but she must not think so to delude us we know her Virgin Lamp is sunk in its sockets and that fuliginous liâ—â—k composed of adulterate combustibles which she hath set up in its room is but a thing of exhalation the heavenly Sun from whom she formerly borrowed light having withdrawn his shining beams from her terrestriall Orb and so she 's left in both internall and external darknesse her understanding being darkned in that whilst the truth is removed froÌ„ her she thinks others see it with her and that she neither hath been nor can be invisible the contrary whereof is plain by what I have already proved Romes Church hath been Invisible and by this that followes As the Church of Rome hath been and may be Invisible in respect of persecution so hath she been by reason of the vacation of her Head The Doctor in his 22 Chapter fol. 360. sayes the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church because her Bishop is the Head thereof and hath been so accounted through all Ages That he hath not been so reputed through all Ages appears by the testimony of the first Councels and if Rome be the Chatholick Church in respect that the Pope is the Head then it followes that the Catholick Church hath been Invisible because of the vacation of that Head for cessante causâ cessat effectus The light of the body is the Eye which is placed in the head and if the body be without the eye the whole body is in darknesse If then this Mark of Visibility be such an incident and inseparable token of her truth I would fain know where the Universall Head of the Church was whilst Rome had no Bishop for either they must confesse that the Univensall Church must be in darknesse for want of a Head and so they make Gods promise of none effect if the Church be universally hid or else they must confesse that Romes Church is but a particular Member of the Church and that then like the Church of the Israelites or the Church of Ephesus she is subject to be made invisible for a time and that she hath been invisible may appear by these enfuing proofs Two yeers together after Pope Nicholas the fourth no Pope was chosen and when after much dissention amongst the Cardinâ—ls Celestine was chosen Boniface the 8th murdering him was made Bishop in his stead where was the visible Head whilst Benedict the tenth and Nicholas the second both stand Popes at once The Clergy who then had the Election of the Popes not daring to proceed to a new Election to crosse Benedict who was very much beloved of the Citizens of Rome withdrew themselves to Sene and there elected Gerrardus Bishop of Florence by the name of Nicholus 2d who was the onely favouâ—â—ite of Hildebrand whom Hildebrand caused to be made Pope that he as then not ripe for the Seat might under him rule all for Pope Nicholas was but a dull fellow though proud and ambitious of Honour and be sure when he saw his own time to out him that he might succeed in the Chair and so it happened accordingly for Hildebrand succeeded Nicholas 2d two fit to go together the one bringing in at the Councel of Lateran the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation the other maintaining the then never heard of sin of the Popes power to depose Kings Where was the triple Crown when at once there was 3 Popes as Innocent 7th Gregory 12th and at the Councell of Pise Alexander 5th chosen I might adde more of this nature but I will reserve the rest of my arrows to shoot at his other Markes and shut up this point and conclude that the Church of Rome in respect of Persecution and vacancy of her Bishops cannot be the onely Chatholick Church and distinguished to be so by any certain Infallible rule of a constant Visibility CHAP. VI. That the Church of Rome cannot be reputed and taken for a true Church in respect of her Unity in Doctrine or Sanctity of Life onely CHrists Coat was seamlesse and the Souldiers cast Lots for it that Coat was to teach the Apostles unity and concord The Ministers of the old Temple were clad in White thereby to betoken their Innocency Let us look upon Romes present Church and see if her Pastors be not worse then the Souldiers in rending in pieces the one and like Baals Priests not having any right to the other And who please to examine their private practices how they agree with their publique Professions will find such a disproportion and dissonancy that it will be hard to judg whether his Holiness's Decrees as compendiums and true abstracts of the Cannons of Councels or his Pontificall Robe as the Conusance of Peters successour then with them lesse of agreeablenesse and representation the one privately thwarting the publick edicts of General Councels and the other publickly unsuitable and dissonant to a Minister of the Gospell so that a man cannot at any time judge by his outside what his inside should be nor prove by his inner closet that ever he was in the publick Halls so that I may return the Doctors saying against Beza Luther and others more properly and fitly to the Pope Vide uiram tunica filii tui sit vel non The Church of Rome would fain have us to believe that she is free from the blood of this and that Prince basely by her practices and instruments assassinated and barbarously despoiled of their Crownes and Scepters and if any question arise about such businesse she is ready to disavow all privity to the act though the scene was studied in her Cardinals Conclave and acted abroad by her own emissaries as who please to peruse the Anatomy of Popish Tyranny will find presidents enough of this nature but it makes not much to my present purpose I will forbear to trouble the Reader with them I will proceed to shew her discords and variances in point of Doctrine She professes to maintain the Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Carthage and the Councell of Constant hath appointed an Oath to be taken by the Pope at his installing to that purpose But how little he performes that Oath or observes the Rules of those Councels let what I have said in the 2d Chapter serve to witnesse The Church of Rome in this respect I mean the Pope enchathedrated who judicially declaring any thing as Pope is confessed by all to represent the Church may be compared to a Water-man who looks one way and rowes another She may have some land marks tokens to steer by but she quickly layes those observations and wanders into unknown latitudes one Pope this way another that the
to the voice of his Priests calling unto him in truth and sincerity yet where he is an absolute Prince he is not to be called to an account by them or the people who have submitted themselves to be governed by him but in such a case Preces lachrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae according as S. Ambrose witnesses in his Orat. contr Auxent l. 5. And this was the practice of the Priests under the Law and according to Christ's own practice whilst he was upon the earth and according to the precepts he left to his Apostles for them to walk by and according to the Rules of those Apostles prescribed to others as examples for their imitation and according to the ancient practice of the Primitive Church So that for the Pope upon any pretence to dethrone Kings is not warrantable but utterly against all truth recommended unto us by these faithful witnesses Christ Jesus our Saviour the onely Son of the ever-living God King of heaven and Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek being both King Priest and Prophet denied all Kingship in this world Joh. 1â— 36 He was by the Jews called Jesus of Nazareth king of the Iews partly in scorn partly to justifie their putting him to death pretending he wronged Cesar and hereunto forging false witnesses Luk. 23. did give him that title But Christ in this was innocent he never wronged Cesar but commanded his Tribute and those things that belonged to Cesars to be given to Cesar Matth. 22. Shall Christ Jesus a Priest a King and a Prophet give tribute to Cesar and will not the Bishop of Rome allow it Shall the Jews be so tender of Cesars right though an Heathen and but the second over them and that by Conquest that they would not spare Christ himself upon pretence that he should call himself King and will not his Holiness vouchsafe that Christian Kings and Princes may enjoy their Rights and Prerogatives He may plead for his excuse herein the Heathens Apophthegm Si jus violandum est certe regnandi causa violandum est and by that Rule adorn his own Temples if his triple Turbant be not weight enough with all the Crowns upon earth But I am sure he cannot plead any Christian practice or president either out of the Old or New Testament to warrant his action He must not think that that late invention of the Jesuites forged upon the Anvile of their own brain to please their master his Holiness to wit That after a King is excommunicated he ceases to be a King and no subjects owe obedience to such an heretical Prince will be a sufficient excuse for his dethroning any such an one Aquinas Papists Objections for the Popes power to dethrone and a Councel of Laterane have adhered to this distinction and did to justifie their opinion cite for an evidence and proof the example of Hildebrand against H. 4. To which I answer De facto ad jus non valet consequentia Aquinas was 1200 yeers after Christ and was the Popes vassal and overtaken with the errors of his time and he did not alleadge any warrant from the Scripture for this his opinion and therefore being a thing of novelty upon the Papists own rules is to be rejected As for the Councel of Laterane Councel of Laterane call'd 1215 which set Popes above Kings it was called at the beck of Innocent the third he being at that time at odds with the Emperour Otho with John King of England with Peter King of Arragon the Earl of Tholouse and divers others and at that time this Juncto consisting of eight hundred Covent-Friars and their Vicars who ought not to have sate there to please their great master overcame four hundred Bishops not with strength of Reason but Voices where he likewise was with his Court to over-awe them And therefore when any thing of Papal interest is to be passed by Councel this place is ever pitched upon as most convenient for that his Holiness is at hand either with fair means to allure or with threats to force the opposers to condescend to his desires Hence was it that in a Councel here anno 1056 Pope Nicolas the second was not afraid to broach the doctrine of Transubstantiation And here Pope Innocent the third did ratifie that doctrine And here first was hatched that other tenent of the Popes Supremacie over Councels Wherefore this being a Laterane-Decree â—it ought to be of the less credit and that the rather because the thing in question was the Popes own parâ—cular case who being at that present in open defiance against those Princes it was for flattery to the Pope and for necessity of State thereby to divert many from joyning with those Princes against his Holiness who if the differences amongst them were not appeased were like to sit too heavie upon his Holiness skirts declared that his Holiness was above kings And for this they instance the president of Hildebrand's excommunicating H. 4. and his successor Paschalis deposing him Now these things considered I leave it to the Reader whether to give credit to that Councel or the Councel of Mentz which deposed all the Clergie which joyned with Hildebrand it being an unwarrantable act in Hildebrand to oppose the Emperour and was by Sigebert called Novellum Schisma and Sigebert wrote above five hundred yeers since and therefore according to the Papists rules that which is later is less to be credited in those points wherein it differs from the ancient profession And sith there is no warrant from Scripture for the decree of this Councel or the opinion of Aquinas I hope there is no judicious Christian but will adhere to that of Mentz and not in his judgement approve of the Laterane Councel which was of more puisne time and strave in all things to please the Pope and that the rather because Otho Frisigensis lib. 6. cap. 35. and Vincentius and divers others concurred with Sigebert and the Councel of Mentz in this opinion whose resolutions in this point are grounded on Gods Word but the Decree of Laterane on mans will and therefore none may submit his judgement to be deluded with the erroneous and unwarranted decrees thereof The Jesuites therefore thinking this too weak a prop to support so weighty a Potentate as they would fain make his Holiness to be Objections out of the Old Testament answered wave their confidence in this and flee to their last refuge to wrest and abuse the Scriptures under pretence of Ecclesiastick power of interpretation and therefore they cite some presidents out of the Old Testament which they mis-apply and would fain have them mis-understood As for example They would prove by the examples of Saul Jeroboam Joash Athaliah and Ahab being put from their kingdom by the High-Priests to be a warrant for the Popes dethroning of what Prince he pleaseth to account wicked Whenas those presidents rightly understood make nothing for the Popes pretended power herein but rather
thereof as may be proved by these examples Pope Agatho who when Constantine Pogonot the Emperour called a Councel Consiant Pogonot ante writ that he had sent his fellow-servants to his most excellent Lord according to the most holy Decree of his Princely Majestie and the duty he owed him After that Leo the fourth shewed to the Emperour Ludovicus the second that if he had not dealt justly with them over whom he was placed whatsoever was amiss he would amend at the discretion of his Excellency And some other Presidents of this nature I have shewed in the fourth and tenth Chapters Thus you see in all Ages Ante ch 10 and ch 4. the Popes acknowledged themselves obedient and subject to the Emperours till that fire-brand of dissention Haldebrand ante Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh opposed Henry the fourth which by the Fathers of those days was called Novellum Schisma Neither did it pass unpunished he being afterwards thrust from the Popedom and himself confessing at his death the unjustness of his proceedings as I have formerly touched in the sixth Chapter And as Hildebrand escaped not the divine hand of Vengeance so did none after him attempt the like but it was punished either in themselves or their immediate successor Pope Innocent the third did excommunicate Frederic the second but the Bishops of Germany denyed to obey the Bull insomuch that one Eberhardus Archbishop of Saltzburg did condemn that proceeding of Pope Innocent against Frederic and likewise disapproved of what his Predecessor Pope Celestine the fourth had done to Henry the sixth uncle to Frederic basely and unworthily crowning him with his foot and what Pope Alexander the third most insolently and antichristianly did to Frederic the first treading upon his neck and calls them worse then if Luther or Calvin had been to have spoken their epithets in a full Councel all agreed to withstand the Pope in those his unjust proceedings The French and Spaniards oppose the Pope Nor were the Germanes sole opposers of his Holiness in this point as may appear by the practices both of the French and Spaniard The French as I have formerly expressed in the eleventh Chapter And anno 1600. the whole body of the Sorbonne and the University of Paris did condemn this tenent as Schismatical and pernicious And the Spaniards his dearly beloved Catholike darlings did in a Councel at Toledo oppose his Holiness in this point as may appear by the six Councels of Toledo can 18. Testamus coram Deo omni ordine angelorum c. We protest before God and his angels that no man ought to intend or enterprise the destruction of the King they having formerly by the fourth Councel of Toledo and can 75. established an Oath of Allegiance indispensable which was done anno 633. and was revived by the sixth Councel and since observed and kept even to this day the Pope having no right or usage to dispose of that Crown England not under the Pope And as of right this is due to other Princes especially may England claim this immunity she having had Kings to govern her before ever there were Bishops of Rome Nor can Rome lay any title to dispose of her Crown she having still continued a succession of Princes without any appointment by the Pope and having an ancient Law to establish them in her Throne without any appealing to his Holiness And should any under pretence of Religion as Allen did go about to betray the Magistracie of his native Country into the hands of a forraign power he becomes a sinner against the God of Nature rebelling against his own native Country to which he stands inseparably engaged to reverence obey and love and such his Treason is not any jot extenuated for that it has the cloak of Religion for no man must do evil that good may come thereon unless he think with the A theist that in nomine Domini begins all mischief Wherefore how Allen would answer his Treason before the court of Heaven he being naturally bound to his King and Country and not against that tye to confederate with strangers to make it a prey as he confessed to persons he did Quod lib. S. Art 7. page 247. let God and his Truth witness Alas it was not the Popes Bull could excuse that the Pope cannot dispense with inseparable duties especially when the interest of Kings is concerned he has no Commission but one of the Popes forging to dethrone Kings or to disengage Subjects from their stipulation of obedience Peters authority He as he pretends to be Peters successor is to use the Spiritual sword the Word he is to make intercessions and prayers he is not in that capacity to use the material Sword Peter had command to put up his sword he might not use it though in defence of Christ his Master his office was to perswade not to compel his commission was to feed not to kill to obey not to rule Christ commanded his Apostles to wash one anothers feet Peter was not to tread upon Kings necks nor was any to kiss his toe Peter would not suffer Cornelius to fall down at his feet and worship him but took him up and said Stand up for even I my self am a man And now that the Pope should cause all these things to be done under pretence of power derived from him seems to me a meer Solcecism and a knot so inexplicable that let the whole tribe of Ignatius Loyala study till their brains resolve to jelly they shall never produce a convincing reason for it And it is an arrant shame for Princes in the mean time thus to be troden by Romes Crows which like Aesop's Chough being made fine with others feathers moveat Cornicula risum It is brave pastime for the Grand Seignior to see his Holiness with borrowed feathers mount above the Eagle whilst other Princes like little birds onely stare with wonder to behold such a monstrous Owl abroad at noon-day neither offering to beat her back to her Ivie-bush nor to take from her their own proper plumes by which means they make the Pope an object of admiration and glory themselves of scorn and misery And whilst they suffer him to trample upon any one particular Prince they consent to their own ruines whenas they ought to make it their own case in general and every one ought to consider it as a wound in his own side in particular which whilst it is suffered and not remedied it grows to gangrene the very body of Kingship and all Temporal Magistracie Be wise therefore O ye kings and learn ye that be judges of the earth CHAP. XV. That Christ is spiritually eaten and drunken by the faithful and worthy Receiver That Christs calling the bread and wine his flesh and blood was a figurative speech That the outward elements are not changed and That the doctrine of Transubstantiation is utterly against the truth of the Catholike faith THe Doctor in
wine we do signifie the flesh and blood which he offered for us And the Old Testament saith he was instituted in blood because that blood was a witness of Gods benefits in signification and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood for the tuition of our body and soul he and many more concurring in judgement in this point that the Sacramental bread and wine are not corporally and really the natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ but that they are similitudes significations figures and sâ—gnes of his body and blood and therefore be called and have the name of his flesh and blood and were but indeed tokens thereof and meant of a spiritual grace as Christ witnesses The words which he spake were spirit and life Joh. 6. It was bread which he took it was wine which he gave saying I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine till I drink it with you in my Fathers kingdom They were the elementary parts of the Sacrament signifying the spiritual substance of his body and blood And when he took the bread and the cup and said This is my body this is my blood it is manifest by what I have already spoken that that saying was a figurative speech To maintain that it was very flesh and very blood Christ gave to his disciples Bread and wide are the outward elements of the invisible grace doth utterly destroy the nature of a Sacrament both according to the Tenents of the Church of Rome and all other Churches concerning the nature of a Sacrament The Church of England holds that the bread and wine are but the outward visible signes of the inward spiritual grace And herewith agrees S. Austin in his definition of a Sacrament lib. 2. de doctr Christian Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum sensibile sanctificans nos S. Tho. part 3. quaest 60. art 3. says Tria significantur primuÌ„ causa effectiva nostrae sanctificationis scilicet Passionem Christi Hoc facite in mei commemorationem 1 Cor. 11. secundum causam formalem nostrae sanctificationis scil gratiam tertium cansam finalem quae est gloria Whereupon the Church hath this heavenly Song Oh sacred banquet in which Christ is received and the memory of his Passion recollected by which our mindes are filled with grace receiving a blessed pledge of future glory Hugo de Sancta Victoria part 1. cap. 1. Sacramentum è materiale elementum foris sensibus praepositum ex similitudine representans ex institutione significans ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem spiritualem gratiam And herewith agreeth S. Austin saying Sacramentum signum est quod praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit quicquid in cognitionem venire The Councel of Florens treating upon the Sacrament of Confirmation have resolved that all Sacraments must consist of matter and form there must be an outward signe to signifie the inward grace Wherefore I wonder that the Papists can for shame deny that the matter of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist for by this means they deny it to be a Sacrament destroying the end of Christs holy institution which was That it should be had in remembrance of him And they generally gainsay the publike profession of their Church by the contradictory practices in private and particular Masses and Altar-Sacrifices And they likewise go against Christ who says This bread is my body He did not say This is no bread but my body And certainly if Christ would have had us to think the substance of the elements were changed he would not have called them bread and the fruit of the vine Nay he would not when he explained the words of giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink have said his words were spirit and life And S. Paul therefore to witness this truth with the Church of England says The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ He thereby explaining Christs saying Hoc est corpus meum to be meant of a spiritual eating and of a communion of his body we being hereby made one with Christ he dwelling in us and we in him Besides when Christ bade them drink all of the Cup it was wine he bade them drink for the words of consecration follow And therefore if the Apostles drank any thing else they did not fulfil the precept or else Christ commanded them to drink that that was not there which were impious to imagine And as for the bread it is called bread after consecration for S. Paul calls bread the communion of Christs body which must needs be understood of bread consecrate otherwise it is not the communion of his body So that it is evident that the elements of bread and wine remain in the Sacrament and are not materially changed And this the Monks which administred to King John of England and to Henry the seventh the Emperour knew well enough which Princes the better to further the holy designes of the Pope were dispatched hence out of this world by the poysoned elements of the Eucharist which elements Christ ordained Sacramentally to be received for our nourishment thereby signifying our communion with Christ by the bread and wine made of many ears and many grapes and our growing up by faith in Jesus even as those elements turn into our flesh and blood by natural digestion so Christ is spiritually conveyed unto our souls which are fed by his flesh and blood which every faithful and worthy receiver is by the receiving of this Sacrament made partaker of The Doctor would perswade us fol. 327. that if by denying the bodily presence we mean onely not with accidents of his body as quantity figure and the like and that Christ is â—ot so bodily in the Sacrament but spiritually Then we agree with the Catholikes But then in the same leaf â—e would again perswade us that Christ cannot be really there unless his body be there and that it must be as well corporally as spiritually there or else we deny Christs being there To which I answer The errour of Transubstantiation We by maintaining a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood do not divide the spirit from the body as the Church of Rome doth by maintaining a bodily presence because according to their doctrine the wicked receive the body and not the Spirit as I have already proved we by taking the bread and wine which tend to the nourishment of our outward bodies the thing signified by them to wit Christ Jesus is hereby conveyed unto us to be the food of our souls and becomes spirit and life to us he living in us and we in him and this is onely to the worthy receiver who by faith feeds upon him and lays hold of the benefits of his Passion The ungodly they onely receive the bread wine not discerning the Lords body And if the Church of Rome mean that his body is
practice of the Church That the Sacrifice upon the Altar is superstitious and The authority of the Church no excuse to change the administration of the Lords Supper into one kinde THe Church of Rome having thus gained a general consent though at first forced upon many by the power and domineering of the Popes to her doctrine of Transubstantiation she stuck not long in this station but partly to make good what she had introduced into the Church and partly to shew to the world the divine Legislative power of her Head she soared a pitch higher whereas before this she but maintained an opinion which but to some weak capacities did convince all not being satisfied with the sincerity of her doctrine concerning the nature and quality of this Sacrament of the Lords Supper which Christ himself instituted and by his last Will and Testament left it as a Legacie to his faithful servants her Popes now take upon them after their former opinion was confirmed by Councel and generally received and believed as an Article of Faith to dispense with that Sacrament of Christ Jesus and have in stead thereof instituted one of their own making administring in one kinde and denying the Cup to the Lay-people which is a novel trick of Papal invention and never practised in the Churches upon earth till they forced it upon some over which the Popes did without controul rule at will and pleasure Christ Jesus did institute this Sacrament in both kindes Paul enjoyns both the whole Church did administer in both and the Fathers teach that as well the wine as the bread is to be received and did think wine so necessary that it could not be administred in water much less in the cake alone in which there is no liquid element to represent the shedding of Christs blood for which end it was ordained Cyprian who wrote 260 yeers after Christ in his 3 Epist ad Cecilium lib. 2. Forasmuch saith he as Christ said I am the true vine and the Cup is his blood it cannot be thought that his blood is in the cup if wine be not in the cup whereby the blood is signified unto us Chrysost in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Christ used wine as well before his Resurrection as after S. Hierome in Sophon cap. 3. doth witness that in his time the Priest did administer the Eucharist and divide the blood unto the people In the Canon of Pope Gelasius and in the Popes Decrees de Consecrat a strict Injunction is laid that all receive in both kindes for that the dividing of that Sacrament is sacriledge I need not instance in this any more particulars in respect that none can deny but that anciently it was in both kindes administred I will therefore examine the reasons the Church of Rome gives for her alteration from this antient way and for administring in one kind and in so doing I shall plainly lay open her errors in this point The Councel of Constance held 1414. Councel of Constance Ses 13. decreed Quod nullus Presbyter sub conditione excommunicationis communicet populo sub utroque specie Panis Vini Which notwithstanding the Councel of Basil did after restore to the people again Anno 1431. So that in this new doctrine of hers Rome has met with much controversie even in her self Gelasius the Pope decreeing it to be sacrilegious to omit either kind by which it is evident that the Church of Rome has erred de fide For Gelasius taught that judicially as Pope and the Council of Constance was approved by Pope John 23. and this Councel of Basil by Eugenius the 4. Which proceedings wound the infallibility of the Church of Rome and spoiles her unity one Pope being against another and one Council against another To decide which strivings the late Prerogative Royal of the Popes being above Councels was therefore decreed which notwithstanding by that means the Church of Rome is made infallible yet it spoiles her of her marks of antiquity and constant visibility and therefore absolutely spoiles her for being taken to be the onely Catholick Church for if so then the Catholick Church was once utterly extinguished from off the earth which is against Gods promise and impious to imagine The Pope being thus grown above Councels he now as he pleases declares this Councel void the other to be of force and by vertue of this his Prerogative he has approved the Councel of Constance and yet but in part for he onely takes as much out of that Councel as makes for his turn he onely confirmes their Decree prohibiting the Cup to the Laity but their other Decree of the power of Councels to be above the Pope that 's abominable and his Holiness commands that Decree to be believed to be Heretical By this is to be noted that the Popish Religion is a nose of wax as pleaseth his Holiness to set it forth it must be received upon the score of his infallibility though it be never so destructive to former Christian principles to the ruine of Councels and overthrowing of the true antient Catholick Faith yet such is the condition of the Pope that his will can guide him into no tenent though never so contrary to truth but his faithful Papal servants the Jesuites will dawb over his rotten Doctrine with the smooth plaisters of humane reason and think with subtile Sophistry to beguile the simple the deluding of whom doth not in their uneven hands counterpoise the pleasing of their Master the Pope and therefore did they strive to varnish over this new point of Communion in one kind with some counterfeit Paint Will you please to take a view thereof and I hope I shall so far convince their reasons that the case will meerly stand upon the Popes will and if so I presume none will be so irreverent to their Master Christ to forsake his institution and to adhere to the Popes institution lest they may be said with the Jewes to reject Christ and chuse Barabbas The Doctor would perswade that it was no precept to receive in both kindes but onely being of institution and not precept the Church has power to alter it as occasion may serve To which I answer 2. It was christs precept to receive in both kinds It was injoyned us by way of command to receive in both kinds for Christ in the 6 of John v. 53 sayes Except ye eat the flesh 〈◊〉 â—rink the blood of the Son of man ye have no life in you Christ took the Bread and said Take eat And also he took the Cup and said Drink ye all of it Matth. 26. This is an absolute precept as well for the Cup as the Bread and Saint Paul delivered it so to the Corinthians according as he had received of the Lord he likewise enjoyning it to them as a precept probet seipsum let a man examine himself let him eat let him drink the Commandment extending to the one as well as to the other which
his own blood entred he once into the Holy place and obtained Eternal Redemption for us Christ was such an High-priest that he once offering himself by once effusion of his blood did cleanse the sins of all that believe he took unto himself not onely their sins which many years before were dead and put their trust in him but likewise the sins of those that until his coming again should believe in his Gospel so that we look for no other Priest or sacrifice to take away our sins but onely his sacrifice made once for all If he should have made any oblation for sin more then once he should have died more then once but he hath made a full and plenary oblation for sin by his death by the will of God are we sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made Heb. 10.10 For with once offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified If Christ then have taken upon him the burden of our sins and become a reconciliation not onely for our sins but the sins of the whole world if he himself have made a full oblation for our sins by the offering of his body once made how shall the Popish Priests be excused who presume daily to perswade the people they offer in their Mass a Propitiatory sacrifice and the same that was offered by Christ himself upon the Cross Which if it be so then may we say of them that they crucifie again the Lord of life whereas the Scripture tels us plainly he was not to be offered often as the High-priest offered every year but onely once did put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 For as a man must once die so Christ was once offered to take away sins for many and to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation for Heb. 10. Every Priest appeareth daily ministring and offereth ofttimes one manner of offering which can never take away sins but Christ after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sitteth at the right hand of God It is a rule in Logick Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur the Papists deduce this Doctrine from their other errors of Transubstantiation and so they proceed from iniquity to iniquity they hereby when they have made the people believe their transubstantiated god that now they may as well rob God of his office and their Priest may make a Propitiatory sacrifice upon the Altar for the sins of the people which S. Paul saith was onely proper to Christ himself He himself entred into the holy place by his own blood It was the office of himself to offer himself the satisfactory oblation for our sins by the will of the Father he being the High-priest of good things to come having an everlasting Priest-hood being holy harmless separate from sin made higher then the heavens which needed not daily to offer up sacrifice as the other High-priest did first for his own sins and then for the peoples for that did he once when he offered himself up once for all Moreover when the Popish Priests take upon them to offer up satisfactory sacrifice at their Altar it must either be understood such a sacrifice as the Priest under the Law offered which were but typical of the Messias and so they become Jewes denying Christ to be already come or else if they think they offer Christ upon the Altar for quick and dead and make the same oblation which Christ made upon the Cross they do hereby either deny the sufficiency of Christs oblation as if his offering once for all did not satisfie without their daily offering and crucifie again the Lord of life or else if that sacrifice of Christ was sufficient they must needs confess that this of theirs is vain and needless being added to the sacrifice which is already sufficient and perfect or if this of theirs be requisite they make the death of Christ of none effect or in vain because this their offering is satisfactory for the sinnes of the people This doctrine is very well known to have sprung up of lucre the Priests by this doctrine finding a means to sell Masses for the quick and promising for and in consideration of such and such Legacies to say so many Masses for the dead whereby they should be released from pains in Purgatory and finding the sweet benefit that doth arise by this doctrine to the Priests and to his Holiness by this doctrine and the other of Indulgences they bend all their wits and wholly apply themselves to darken the truth with the mists of subrile sophistry and fleshly interpretations of the word to gain grateful and liberal Proselytes to this their new doctrine I do not deny that this Sacrament is by some Fathers called a sacrifice it is so properly called but it must not be therefore understood to be a sacrifice for sin onely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or else it is called a sacrifice to put us in mind of the sacrifice which Christ himself hath made and so is significantly a sacrifice as the bread is called his body and the cup his blood And herewith agreeth Saint Austine in his 33. Eplstle to Boniface and in his book de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 5. That saith he which men call a sacrifice is a figure and representation of the true sacrifice And Magist Sentent lib. 4. distic 12. That which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice because it is the memory or representation of the true sacrifice of Christ and that holy oblation made in the Altar of the Cross And Chrysostome upon the Hebr. That which we offer is but in remembrance of Christs sacrifice he himself in his own Person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross by whose wounds all our diseases are healed all our sins pardoned and so did never any man or creature but he the benefit whereof is in no mans power to give unto another every man must receive it at Christs hands himself by his own faith and belief we are made one body as many as are partakers of one bread If then this be a representation of Christs sacrifice which sacrifice by the Doctors own confession is not perfect without the cup then must the people either receive both kinds or else they do not sufficiently commemorate Christs sacrifice which they ought to do in respect the Priest doth not nor can offer up a Propitiatory sacrifice for the Reasons aforesaid As this Sacrament has the name of a sacrifice it is to be understood significantly of Christs sacrifice or else as it is in it self a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving if it be significantly a sacrifice the people ought to be partakers of it as it is a perfect sacrifice in both kinds and if it be a sacrifice of praise and laud unto the Lord then the people as well as the Priest are required to and concerned