to himselfe out of all his people and he commanded them to be giuen for a gift vnto Aaron and his sonnes that is to the high Priest and his successours for it was his will that they whom hee himselfe had chosen to the ministerie of the Temple and holy things should bee subiect to the high Priest onely who represented the place of God on earth and by this he freed them from the iurisdiction of earthly Princes for Clergy men are the Ministers of God and offered to God by the whole people whereupon they are called Clerici as belonging to the inheritance of the Lord as Saint Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus Now surely secular Princes can haue no authoritie ouer those things which are offered and consecrated vnto God and made as it were proper vnto God himselfe which both the light of reason sheweth and God himselfe declareth not obscurely in holy Scripture when he saith in the last of Leuiticus Whatsoeuer shall be consecrated vnto the Lord it shall bee holy of holies vnto the Lord. ORTHOD. As houses and lands dedicated to God remained his proper and euerlasting possession so the tribe of Leui being once consecrated vnto God became for euer his peculiar inheritance But doth it therefore followe that they are all exempted from the iurisdiction of Princes the whole nation of the Iewes are called an holy nation and a kingdome of Priests all the males of Israel had the seale of the liuing God set vpon them in the Sacrament of circumcision yet not one of them were exempted from the power of their Prince It is true that by the lawe of God in matters concerning their office the Leuites were subordinate to the Priestes and the Priestes to the high Priest but both Priest high Priest were vnder the authoritie of the ciuill Magistrate Iehosaphat sent Priests Leuites to instruct the cities of Iudah and did he this without authoritie he sent Priestes and Leuites to be iudges and Delegates Amariah the high Priest to bee chiefe ouer them in the matters of the Lord did hee this also without authoritie when the house of God was defiled Hezechias called the Priestes and Leuites commanding them to sanctifie themselues and the house of the Lord and they did so according to the Kings commandement then hee commanded the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron to offer sacrifice vnto the Lord and they did so he appointed all the Leuites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals with Viols and with Harpes and the Leuites stood with the instruments of Dauid and the Priestes with Trumpets and Hezechias commaunded the Priestes to offer the burnt offering vpon the Altar and they did so then the King and the Princes commanded the Leuites to praise the Lord with the wordes of Dauid and Asaph the seer so they praised with ioy Then hee commanded the Priestes to offer the sacrifice of praise and they did so yea the King this holy King appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes which things hee did well and vprightly before the Lord his God therefore wee must not thinke he passed the bounds of his authoritie If Priest or high Priest were exempted from the iurisdiction of Kings why did Iosias commande Helkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order to fetch out of the Temple all the instruments prepared for Baal for the groue and for all the hoast of heauen which hee burned without Hierusalem in the fieldes of Kedron and caused the dust of them to bee carried vnto Bethel If Priestes were exempted why did hee bring all the Priestes of the high places out of the cities of Iudah and all such of them as were Ieroboams Priests of which the man of Iudah prophecied hee sacrificed vpon the Altars the rest which were of the line of Aaron but yet had offered in the high places hee brought backe from Hierusalem though they were not suffered to sacrifice vnto the Lord but were thrust out of their Priesthood to the meanest offices amongst the Leuites Now from Kings let vs come to Nehemias the Viceroy who relating how Eliashib the high Priest had made a great chamber in the house of the Lord for Tobias the Ammonite addeth immediately But all this time was not I in Ierusalem signifying that if hee had beene there hee would not haue suffered such abomination And when hee came hee cast out the vessels of Tobias and commanded the Priestes to cleanse them and bring againe the vessels of the Lord. When one of the nephewes of the high Prieste had married the daughter of Sanballat Nehemias chased him away With what face now can you say that Princes in the olde Testament had no authoritie ouer the Priestes If Kings had no authoritie then they should not haue enioyned appointed commaunded and punished but onely haue aduised admonished and exhorted them If Priestes had any such priuiledge it is strange that in all the storie of the olde Testament wee finde not one Priest once pleading his priuiledge If they submitted themselues when their conscience tolde them that they had offended yet why did they not plead their immunitie when they were iniuriously handled Zacharias the Priest was slaine at the commandement of the King and yet neuer mentioned any priuiledge When Saul slew Abimelech and aboue eightie Priestes which wore a linnen Ephod Abimelech declared his innocency and acknowledged the Kings iurisdiction ouer him by calling the King his Lord and himselfe the Kings seruant but spoke not a word of any priuiledge Therefore all the world may see that there was no such matter these are but fictions of idle braines wherefore we may truly conclude that the tribe of Leui was not exempted from secular iurisdiction but the King might conuent command reprooue and punish them and yet not transgresse the law of God PHIL. Who dare affirme that a prophane person hath any authoritie or iurisdiction ouer those things which haue deserued to bee called holy of holies that is most holy ORTHOD. Who but a prophane Iesuite durst bee so bold as to call the light of Israel the annointed of the Lord the Minister of God a prophane person The ancient sages of the Christian world did vse to speake of Princes with all reuerence not onely of those which professed the true faith but of others also The third Romane councell vnder Symmacus calleth Theodoricus who was knowen to bee an Arrian a holy Prince whereupon Binius writeth thus An Arrian king is named most holy and most godly not according to his merites but according to custome like as Valerian and Gratian Ethnicke Emperours were called most holy by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria as witnesseth Eusebius Which was done by the example of the Apostle Paul who called Felix being a wicked man but then in authoritie by the vsuall stile of most noble Hitherto
OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND With their Succession Jurisdiction and other things incident to their calling AS ALSO OF THE ORDINATION of Priests and Deacons FIVE BOOKES Wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of BELLARMINE SANDERS BRISTOW HARDING ALLEN STAPLETON PARSONS KELLISON EVDEMON BECANVS And other Romanists And iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures Councels Fathers or approued examples of Primitiue Antiquitie ¶ By FRANCIS MASON Batchelour of Diuinitie and sometimes Fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford Hebr. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron ¶ IMPRINTED AT LONDON by ROBERT BARKER Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie Anno 1613. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD GEORGE LORD ARCHbishop of Canterburie his Grace Primate of all England and Metropolitane And one of his Maiesties most Honourable Priuie Counsell AS in the Romane triumphes the worthy Conquerour gloriously ascending vnto the Capitoll did shew his magnificence by giuing ample gifts vnto the people euen so most reuerend father our victorious Sauiour and noble Redeemer hauing conquered Hell Death Diuell and damnation Triumphantly ascending to the Capitoll of Heauen did shew his vnspeakeable bountie in giuing admirable and incommparable gifts vnto men That is some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and Teachers For what hath the Church of God of so precious account as the holy ministery of the Word and Sacraments whereby CHRIST IESVS with all his blessings is reuealed and applied to the soule and conscience It may well be resembled to the Riuers of Paradise which did water and fructifie the Garden of God to the Golden pipes whereby the two Oliue branches replenished the seuen Lampes in the golden Candlesticke to the Crowne which the woman in the Reuelation cloathed with the Sunne and hauing the Moone vnder her feete had vpon her head being richly beset not with stones but with Starres Which holy function flowing from CHRIST as from the fountaine to his blessed Apostles was by thē deriued to posterity But as the water which neere the spring is cleare and chrystalline in further passages may be polluted so in processe of time by the subtiltie of Satan the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments being the ordinance of God was mingled with sacrifising and other humane inuentions Yet such was the goodnesse of God that euen in the darknes of Poperie as Baptisme so the Ministeriall function notwithstanding the abominations cleauing thereunto was wonderfully preserued for the Church of Rome by Gods speciall prouidence in her Ordination of Priests reteined such Euangelicall words as in their true and natiue sense include a ghostly Ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes by the Ministery of Reconciliation consisting in the due administration of the Word and Sacraments So remission of sinnes is ascribed to the Minister as to Gods instrument in effecting it and Ambassadour in pronouncing it Wherefore in that they haue authority to forgiue sinnes they haue also authority to vse the meanes thereof that is the Word and Sacraments Thus the Church of Rome gaue power to her Priests to teach the truth although it did not reueale the truth vnto them Now when it pleased him which causeth the Light to shine out of darkenesse in the riches of his Mercie to remember his distressed Church those blessed instruments which hee first vsed in the Reformation were such as had receiued their Calling corruptly in the Church of Rome But when their eyes were opened they disclaimed the sacrifising abomination and other impurities which by the iniquitie of the time were incorporated into their calling Thus the pollution of Poperie by the Grace of God was drained and drawn away the Ministeriall function restored to the original beautie And here let vs admire and magnifie the Mercy of God who did not forget this remote Iland situate in a corner of the world but did most graciously shine vpon it with his Golden beames from the Sphere of Heauen For whereas in other Countreys the Bishops which should be starres and Angels of the Church did resist the Reformation and persecuted such as sought it It pleased God that in England among other Bishops Archbishop Cranmer the chiefest Prelate of the Kingdome was Gods chiefest instrument to restore the Gospel which afterward he sealed with his blood The euent whereof was That whereas other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessity to admit extraordinary fathers That is to receiue Ordination from Presbyters which are but inferior Ministers rather then to suffer the Fabrick of the Lord IESVS to be dissolued the Church of England had alwayes Bishops to conferre sacred Orders according to the ordinary and most warrantable custome of the Church of CHRIST And although in Queene Maries time fiue blessed Bishops were burned to ashes yet God reserued to himselfe a number which being then forced to take the wings of the Doue and fly beyond the Seas or to hide themselues in the clefts of the rocke when the tempest was ouerblowne the cloudes cleared and the Sunne of Righteousnes began to display himselfe in the happy raigne of Queene Elizabeth returned againe clapped their wings for ioy praised God preached the Gospel and with holy imposition of hands ordained Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of England These are the Ordinations which reprochfull Papists doe most traduce and slander as though they were no Ordinations at all but onely Nullities thence perswading their Proselytes That our present Ministers are no Ministers but meerely Lay-men and thereupon inferring that wee haue no Church no saluation In which point some Popish Recusants haue beene so confident that they haue professed That if we could iustifie our Calling they would come to our Churches and bee of our Religion The consideration whereof most Reuerend father gaue me occasion to made into this Controuersie being desirous next the assurance of mine owne saluation as I am a Christian to bee fully and clearely assured of my Calling as I am a Minister In prosecuting whereof I did euidently find That their chiefest Obiections are nothing but slanders confutable by Authenticall monuments of publique Record Whereupon I wished from the bottome of my heart That some learned man would haue vouchsafed for the glory of God and the good of the Church to scatter these Popish mistes and to set the Trueth in the cleare light A worke in my opinion very important First in respect of vs of the Ministerie and secondly in regard of the people committed to our charge For how chearefully and with what ioy of heart may we preach and they heare vs when the lawfulnesse of our Calling is made manifest to all men Thirdly If any haue formerly made scruple to enter our Orders out of ignorance how these odious and scandalous imputations blazed in Popish Bookes might bee truely answered and the point soundly cleared by Record it is verely to bee
conscience that it is a continual tormenting to the soule and conscience PHIL. Howsoeuer you conceiue of our Religion you must giue mee leaue to tell you that it was deriued from God the Father reuealed by Iesus Christ inspired by the Spirit planted by the Apostles watered with the blood of Martyrs and confirmed by miracles being reuerend for antiquitie honourable for vniuersalitie certaine for succession amiable for order and admirable for vnitie ORTHOD. You brag of the Casket but the Iewels are gone For the faith of Rome was sometimes renowned through the world and commended by the voice of the Apostle himselfe But since those dayes Rome hath suffered many and great alterations For as in respect of her Ciuill estate she hath bene powred from vessell to vessell lost her language left her seuen mountaines to plant her selfe in campo Martio changed her face and her fashion and is so intombed in her owne ruines that Iustus Lipsuâ—s one of her louers cannot so much as trace the ancient tract of her walles euen so in respect of her state Ecclesiasticall one might now seeke old Rome in new Rome and not finde it She hath matched traditions with the written Word therein iniurious to the Wisdome of God she hath mingled mans merits with the Merits of Christ therein iniurious to the Grace of God She hath communicated diuine worship to stockes and stones therein iniurious to the glory of God Thus the garden is ouer-growne with weedes and the daughter of Ston is become the whore of Babylon Yet foâ— all this she vanteth herselfe as though she were a Virgine because she was sometimes a Virgin She painteth herselfe with counterfeit colours of Antiquitie Vniuersalitie Succession Vnitie and the like which are nothing else but a little Vernish that will vanish away PHIL. I hope you speake all this onely for disputation sake But howsoeuer for your better resolution I wish you would take betweene your hands the glasse of Experience You haue already had a triall of your English Vniuersities may it please you now to take a taste of our English Seminaries where I dare warrant you you shall receiue ample satisfaction of all your doubts And because I loue you I will vndertake that you shal be bountifully intertained in the English Colledge at Rome and euery vvay respected according to your vvorth But ô how our holy Father wil imbrace you with the armes of compassion and receiue you as the Doue into the Arke Such is his imcomparable loue to our English Nation ORTHOD. How well the Popes haue loued our Nation may appeare by Pope Innocent the fourth who called England his garden of delights And who would not loue such a garden Hee called it also a Well neuer drawne dry And doth not such a Well deserue to be wel loued Now the fruit of his tender affection towards it was witnessed by these his owne words Vbi multa abundant multa extorqueri possunt Where many things abound many things may be extorted The Poets feigne that the riuer Arethusa being swallowed vp in the ground runneth through the Sea and riseth againe in Sicilie but without all feigning from England as from a Well did spring golden Riuers which being suddenly swallowed vp did runne through the Sea and rise againe at Rome in the Popes Exchequer And vvho so readeth the Chronicles of our Kingdome vvritten by Matthew Paris and Thomas Walsingham shall find that the Popes loued our Siluer and our Gold This vvas their loue to the English Nation PHIL. You make mountaines of molehilles for the Popes receipts out of England vvere but as a Gnat to an Elephant and such as his Holines little regarded but onely as tokens of loue to holy Mother Church ORTHOD. Bishop Bonner may teach you That the Popes yeerely pâ—ay out of England did almost equall the reuenues of the Crowne And verily if this had not bene preuented though England had bene an Ocean it would haue bene drawne drie Such Elephants you swallow and yet you count them gnats PHIL. You mistake the matter Hee loueth not your siluer but your soules for since he reaped one penie out of England he hath imployed many thousand crownes in founding and maintaining two English Colledges So pure is his loue to the English Nation ORTHOD. Your English Seminaries were founded if the turning of an Hospitall into a Colledge may be called founding by Gregory the thirteenth But to what end sent he those souldiers mentioned by Genebrard and Campana into Ireland Was it not to assist the Rebels against their soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth So pure was his loue to the English Nation PHIL. The loue of his Holinesse is most plainly demonstrated in those noble foundations where wee haue more disputations lessons conferences examinations repetitions instructions catechisings resolutions of cases both of conscience and controuersie methods and maners to proceed to the conuersion of the deceiued and such like exercises in our two Colledges then are in your two Vniuersities containing about thirtie goodly Colledges As for the Masters and Professours of our Colledges specially the Romane Readers we may be bold to say they be in all kind the most choise and cunning men of Christendome Now for that part of education which appertaineth to Christian life and maners our chiefe indeuour is to breed in our Schollers deuotion which is done by diuers spirituall exercises and dayly examinations of their consciences often receiuing the blessed Sacrament much praying continuall hearing and meditation of holy things So by these meanes a number of the best wittes of England are here trained vp most happy in regard of their rare education ORTHOD. What reason you haue to compare your two Colledges with our two Vniuersities let wise men iudge You vaunt of your varietie of exercises God giue vs grace to glory in the simplicitie of his Trueth with the testimonie of a good conscience As for the exercises of our Vniuersities you might know if malice did not blinde you that they are famous throughout the Christian world and that these Campes of Christ haue from time to time trained vp Souldiers able to encounter the proudest Philistines Neither doubt we but they shall alwayes haue a Dauid to cut off the head of Golias with his owne sword Which wee rather hope because of that Treasurie of Learning and Languages lately erected I meane that renowned Library the honour of Oxford the Iewell of England the admiration of strangers and the Phaenix of the world O noble Bodley many Benefactours haue done worthily euen in this kind but thou surmountest them all Blessed is the stocke which brought foorth such a branch and blessed is the branch which yeelds so pleasant fruit Deuonshire was the mother Merton Colledge the nurse to this most gracious plant happie mother happie nurse happy plant Prosper O Lord O prosper thou his handy worke Let it be as an Armorie for defence of thy Church and as
immodestly then euer did any other heretickes And other reuerend diuines vse almost the same words Gregory de Valentia saith Certainely it is apparent that in the Catholicke Romane Church there are lawfull Ecclesiasticall Ministers as being rightly ordained of true Bishops but in the Synagogues of Sectaries it is euident that there are not lawfull Ministers for they are not ordained of lawfull Bishops and therefore it is manifest that they haue no Church seeing that a Church cannot want lawfull Ministers Likewise father Turrian saith That the Donatists and Luciferians had after a sort some fashion of a Church because they had Bishops though schismaticall and other Ministers whom Bishops ordained But the Protestants haue no forme or fashion of a Church at all because they haue no Ministers at all of the Church or word but meere Lay men Mattheus Lanoius hath proued that onely the Romane Church hath lawfull vocation And D. Tyreus hath written of the false calling of the new Ministers but these are sufficient And that this is the iudgement of holy Church may appeare by the practise for as you haue heard out of Rich. Bristow Your Ministers returning to vs are not admitted to minister vnlesse they take our Orders which sheweth that in the iudgement of the Church they are not lawfull Ministers but meerely Lay-men ORTHOD. Our Ministerie is agreeable to the blessed booke of God and therefore holy and I doubt not but when the chiefe Shepheard shall appeare those that haue instructed many vnto righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer But how proue you that our Ministers are no lawfull Ministers PHIL. CAn there be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling ORTHOD. It is impossible For no man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but hee that is called of God as was Aaron It is written of Iohn the Baptist There was a man sent from God The Apostles did not preach before they had this warrant Behold I send you And S. Paul saith How can they preach except they be sent And the Lord in the Prophet Ieremie reproueth such as ranne before they were sent Therefore though a man were wiser then Solomon and Daniel he must expect till the Lord send him he that teacheth without a calling how can he hope that Christ will be with him This is an order saith Beza appointed in the Church by the Sonne of God and obserued inuiolably by all true Prophets and Apostles That no man may teach in the Church vnlesse he be called PHIL. If there cannot be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling then I must demaund how the Ministers of England can iustifie their calling Might not a man say to euery one of you as Harding said to Iewell How say you sir you beare your selfe as though you were Bishop of Salisburie but how can you proue your vocation by what authoritie vsurpe you the Administration of Doctrine and Sacraments what can you alledge for the right and proofe of your Ministerie who hath called you who hath laied hands on you by what example hath he done it how and by whom are you consecrated who hath sent you who hath committed vnto you the Office you take vpon you be you a Priest or be you not if you be not how dare you vsurpe the name and Office of a Bishop if you be tell vs who gaue you Orders ORTHOD. You please your selues and beat the aire with a sound of idle and emptiâ— words but leaue your vaine flourishes and let vs heare what you can say against our calling PHIL. Then I demand whether you haue an inward or an outward calling ORTHOD. We haue both PHIL. An outward calling must either bee immediatly by the voyce of Christ as was the calling of the Apostles or mediatly by the Church ORTHOD. We are called of God by the Church For it is he which giueth Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints PHIL. All that are called of God by the Church deriue their authoritie by lawfull succession from Christ and his Apostles If you doe so then let it appeare shew vs your discent let vs see your pedegree If you cannot then what are you whence come you If you tell vs that God hath raised you in extraordinary maner you must pardon vs if we be slow in beleeuing such things there are many deceiuers gone out into the world and Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light In a word euery lawful calling is either ordinary or extraordinary if yours be ordinary let vs see your authoritie if extraordinary let vs see your miracles If one take vpon him extraordinary authoritie as an Ambassadour from a King he must produce his commission vnder the Kings seale If you will challenge the like from God then we require a miracle that is the Seale of the King of heauen But to vse the words of Doct. Stapleton In the hatching of the Protestants brood no ordinary vocation nor sending extraordinary appeareth so the ground and foundation being nought all which they haue builded vpon it falleth downe ORTHOD. The Ministers of England receiue imposition of hands in lawfull maner from lawfull Bishops indued with lawfull authoritie and therefore their calling is Ordinary PHIL. Your Bishops themselues whence haue they this authoritie ORTHOD. They receiued it from God by the hands of such Bishops as went before them PHIL. But your first reformers whence do they deriue their succession ORTHOD. Archbishop Cranmer and other heroicall spirits whom the Lord vsed as his instruments to reforme Religion in England had the very selfe-same Ordination and succession whereof you so glory and therefore if these argue that your calling is Ordinary you must confesse that theirs likewise was Ordinarie PHIL. We must not onely examine Cranmer and such others consecrated in King Henries time but them also which were in King Edwards and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths as Parker Grindall Sands Horne and the like which were Priests after the Romane rite but leaped out of the Church before they were Bishops ORTHOD. As the first Bishops consecrated in King Edwards time deriued their Spirituall power by succession from those that were in King Henries so the first that were aduanced vnder the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth receiued theirs from such as were formerly created partly in K. Henries dayes partly in King Edwards And the Bishops at this day vnder our gracious soueraigne King IAMES haue the like succession from their predecessours as may be iustified by Records in particular and is confessed in generall by â—udsemius who came into England in the yeere of our Lord 1608. to obserue the state of our Church and the Orders of our Vniuersities Concerning the state saith he of the Caluinian sect in England it so standeth that it may either indure long or be changed suddenly and in a trâ—ce in regard of the Catholicke order there in a
might descend by degrees to the lowest lincke euen to the last Bishop of England whence we might returne againe ascending and climbing vp to the Apostles themselues But now alas since the time of Schisme in stead of Golden linckes you haue added leaden so that there is a breach a rupture a plaine dissolution in the chaine You may well climbe vp a few steps by the leaden ladder but you must downe againe you haue no part nor portion in the Golden ladder of succession which leadeth vs vp to S. Peter and so to Christ himselfe For the Church of Rome and that onely hath Canonicall Bishops All other are but counterfeit ORTHOD. Iust For all the Popes geese are Swannes and other mens Swannes are geese PHIL. I Might bring the Church insulting against you as Tertullian did against the heretickes of his time Qui estis quando vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo Marcion iure syluam meam caedis qua licentia Valentine fontes meos transuertis Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus quorum fuit res Ego sum haeres Apostolorum sicut cauerunt testamento sicut fidei commiserunt sicut adiurauerunt ita teneo 1. Who are you when and whence came you what doe you in my ground seeing you are not mine O Luther by what authoritie doest thou cut downe my woods O Caluin By what licence doest thou turne away the course of my fountaines It is my possession I possesse it by prescription I was first in possession I haue strong Euidences from the true owners I am the heire of the Apostles as they appointed by testament as they committed it to trust as they bind men by adiuration that it should be enioyed so I enioy it ORTHO To answere all your demaunds in order We are the children of God and when it pleased him which causeth the light to spring out of darkenesse we did spring from your selues being still content to be yours so you would be Christs Otherwise know that the Vineyard is not yours but Christs wherein we haue cut downe nothing but your corruptions Neither haue we diuerted the fountaine though wee were forced to cut out a chanell to draine it to straine it to purge it from your pollutions that so wee might drinke the water of Life out of the wells of saluation Whatsoeuer you haue by lawfull possession by ancient and iust prescription by inheritance from the Apostles whereof you haue sound Record and euidence out of the Scripture All that is common to vs with you Whatsoeuer is controuersed betweene vs in any point of Religion therein we appeale to the written Will and Testament of Christ Let that be Iudge betweene vs and you PHIL. When the question was betweene the Iewes and the Samaritanes concerning the Temple whether the Lord in his Law allowed that at Ierusalem or that other in mount Garizin Andronicus produced the succession of the high Priests from Aaron Whereupon Ptolomeus King of Egypt gaue sentence for the Temple at Ierusalem What say you had he not reason ORTHO He had For the Lord gaue the Priesthood onely to Aaron and his sonnes so they only had title to the Priesthood who descended from Aaron by carnall generation But Aaron and his sonnes according to the Law of the Lord performed the Priests Office in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple at Ierusalem the place which the Lord had chosen Wherefore as they alone were the Priests of the Lord so that alone was the Temple of the Lord. PHIL. Very well Now to proceed We of the Church of Rome are built vpon S. Peter as it were vpon mount Sion you are built vpon Cranmer as it were vpon mount Garizin We haue a Church and Priesthood which deriue their originall from Christ you can goe no further then Cranmer Now if this matter were put to King Ptolomy or any other indifferent man would not he giue iudgement for vs against you ORTHOD. No Neither for your Priesthood nor for your Church Not for the first because the Priesthood which the Apostles conferred was only a power to minister the word and Sacraments which being conueied to posteritie successiuely by Ordination is found at this day in some fort in the Church of Rome in regard whereof you may be said to succeed the Apostles and Cranmer you and wee Cranmer and consequently we also in this succeed the Apostles as well as you But besides this which is the Ordinance of God you haue added another thing the imagination of your owne braine which you esteeme the principall function of Priesthood to wit a power to offer a Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead Now how is it possible that in this you should succeed the Apostles seeing as in due place shall be prooued they neither were such Priestes themselues nor euer by Ordination deliuered any such Priest-hood And as Ptolomy if hee liued in this age could not iustifie your Priestes so neither could hee nor any indifferent man iustifie your Church by vertue of this Argument drawne from outward succession For how slender it is may appeare by consideration of the Greek Church which Bellarmine denieth to be a Church pretending That they were conuicted in three full councels of Schisme and heresie yet Constantinople can fetch her pedegree from Saint Andrew the Apostle as witnesseth Nicephorus and bring it downeward euen to Ieremie who liued in this present age Likewise the Church of Alexandria chalengeth succession as well and as truely as the Romane Baronius recordeth an Ambassage from Gabriell their Patriach to Clemens the eight in the title whereof he calleth himselfe the 97. Patriarch successor of Saint Marke the Euangelist If you say that the line of Constantinople and Alexandria hath beene interrupted be it so And hath not the Romane beene so likewise Genebrard is of opinion that fifty Popes by the space of almost 150. yeeres were not Apostolicall but Apotacticall and Apostaticall Baronius lamenteth that false Popes were thrust by strumpets into the seat of Peter Platina saith it was grown to that passe that any factious fellow might inuade the seat of Peter I passe ouer your hereticall Popes your woman Pope and your Antipopes whereof you haue had some times two some times three at once so that one could not tell which was the true Pope but onely by the preuayling faction For he that wonne it in the field must weare the garland the weaker side must to the walles and ambitious wittes must bee set a worke by writing to maintaine the Popes quarrell Haue you not now great cause to bragge of this noble succession If you expound your selfe not of Local and personall but of such as appeareth in successiue Vocation Mission and Ordination then why doe you tell vs of Polydor Virgil or of Democharis or of the old monument found in a
Salomon may rightly be called Prophets PHIL. I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as a king but as a Prophet and executer of diuine iustice ORTHOD. As though the King as a King were not an executer of diuine iustice yes Philodox it is the King as King which beareth not the sword in vaine it is the king as king which is The minister of God and a râ—uenger of wrath to him that doth euill therefore the King as King is the executer of diuine iustice And so when you say not as a king but as an executer of diuine iustice you put those things asunder which the Lord hath put together againe when you say that hee did it As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iustice you put those things together which the Lord hath put a sunder for a Prophet as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord the executer of diuine iustice is not the mouth but the hand of the Lord the hand and the mouth must be distinguished PHIL. I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet For in the same place it is sayd that Salomon put out Abiathar that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo ORTHOD. Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause and the intents of the Agents The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame wouen from the top throughout said one to another Let vs not diuide it but cast lots for it whose it shal be that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which saith they parted my garments among them and on my coate did they cast lots doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent hereby to fulfill the Scripture Euen iust as much as Iudas had when hee sold his master for thirty peeces of siluer or Herod when hee slue the infants or the Iewes when they gaue him vineger to drinke They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture yet God so disposed that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled Likewise your owne Bishop Tostatus may teach you that in this place the particle vt doth not signifie the finall cause but the consecution But what if Salomon had done it to that very end and purpose that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet Iehu when he had slaine Iehoram said to Bidkar a Captaine Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite for I remember that when â— and thou rode together after Ahab his father the Lord laide this burthen vpon him surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of Naboth and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet PHIL. Either as a King or as a Prophet not as a King and therefore as a Prophet ORTHOD. NOt as a King why so the Lord had promised that Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne by Gods owne appointment yet for all this Adonias exalted himselfe and sayd I wil be king and Ioab and Abiathar helped him forward they said God saue King Adonias Whereupon all three were guilty of high treason against the king and all three were punished by the king PHIL. True by the king but not by kingly power ORTHO Yes by kingly power the king did it as a king And to beginne with Adonias the king granted him a conditionall pardon that If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man there should not a haire of him fall to the earth but if wickednesse were found in him hee should die and therefore when hee desired Abisha to wife the wisdome of the King reaching into the profoundnesse of the policie did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the kingdome So King Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada and hee smote him that hee died Who did this the spirit of God saith that King Salomon did it so it is ascribed to the King yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King for who could pardon treason but a King as a King Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors but he that beareth not the sword in vaine that is the King by the power and authoritie of a King Concerning Ioab it was tolde Salomon that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord and Benaiah sayd thus saith the King come out and hee sayd nay but I will die here and Benaiah brought the King word againe and the King said doe as hee hath said and smite him in all which there was nothing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King Now to come to Abiathar his offence against the King was the same and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest euen the king who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine that is the King as a King which may appeare further by that which hee said Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields in which words hee confineth him which is the action of a King And againe thou art worthy of death but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted In which wordes hee granteth life to one that had deserued death and who could doe this but a King So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vnto the Lord Where wee see death changed into depriuation All which doe argue the power of a King yea it is said that the King put Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King as hee was King and it followeth immediately in the same verse and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King as a King and why should you thinke otherwise PHIL. BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God from the power of secular Princes For in the third of Numbers God doth not once but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his owne and that he hath chosen them
her raigne admonished all her louing subiects not to giue credit to such persons professing that she neither did nor would challenge any other authority then was challenged and vsed by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of ancient time due to the imperiall crowne of this realme that is vnder God to haue the soueraignty and rule ouer all manner persons borne within her realmes dominions and countries of what estate either ecclesiasticall or temporall soeuer they be so as no other forraigne power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them And that no other thing was is or should bee meant or intended by the same oath Which was also further declared man act of Parliament the fifth yeare of her raigne with relation to the former admonition and moreouer fully explained in the Articles of religion in these words We giue not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments which things the iniunctions lately set foorth by Queene Elizabeth doe most plainely testifie but onely that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwaies to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they bee ecclesiasticall or temporall and restraine with the ciuill sword the stubborne and euill doers This is the substance of the title due to the imperiall crowne of the Kingdome PHIL. If it be due to the imperiall crowne then it skilleth not whether the Prince be man woman or child nor of what religion For the Princely power was no lesse in Traiane then in Theodosius in K. Henry then in Q. Mary In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers then in Queene Elizabeth their protectour yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before hee was baptized then after And consequently the Emperour of the Turkes may bee called supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions ORTHOD. Here are two things to be considered First the princely power and authority Secondly the ability rightly to vse and exercise the same The princely power and authority is giuen immediatly froÌ„ God both vnto Christian Princes and also vnto Ethnickes which are guided only by the light law of nature and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man For this is true in all By me kings raigne And Daniell said to Nabuchodonosor O king thou art a king of kings for the God of Heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome power and strength and glory But the ability rightly to vse and exercise this authority by refering it to the true end that is the glory of God for all our riuers should run into that Ocean the eternall good of the subiects is communicated from the Lord aboue onely to such as know him in Christ Iesus and are guided by his grace The fountaine therefore of al power is God himselfe as the Apostle witnesseth saying there is no power but of God To which purpose it is well said of Saint Austin Qui dedit Mario ipse Caesari qui Augusto ipse Neroni qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suauissimis imperatoribus ipse Domitiano crudelissimo ne per singulos ire necesse sit qui Constantino Christiano ipse Apostatae Iuliano i. He that gaue it to Marâ—â—s gaue it to Caesar hee that gaue it to Augustus gaue it to Nero he that gaue it to Vespasian the Father or his sonne most sweete Emperours gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell And that I should not neede to recken vp the rest in particular hee that gaue it to Constantine the Christian gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata But though domination and power were in the law of nature yet the right vse of it is not from nature but from grace A Prince as a Prince be he good or bad Christian or Pagan in respect of his princely calling hath sufficient power and authoritie to gouerne his people according to the will of God And it is his dutie so to doe The Lord said vnto Cyrus I will goe before thee and make the crooked streight I will breake the brasen doores and burst the Iron barres And I will giue thee the treasures of darkenesse and the things hid in secret places that thou maiest know that I am the Lord. Vpon which wordes Saint Ierom noteth that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men not that they should abuse them but as for other reasons so for this that being inuited by his bountie they should bee conuerted from their sinnes So it is their dutie to serue God not onely as they are men but as they are Kings And Kings saith Saint Austin doe in this serue God as Kings when they doe those things to serue him which none but Kings can doe But what is that It may appeare by these wordes Seruiant reges terrae Christo etiam leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societes be peace and prosperitie yet the last end of all and most principally to bee respected is the glory of God and eternall happinesse For which purpose it is the dutie of all subiects to pray for their Prince though hee bee a Pagan that vnder him they may liue a godly and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honestie But though euery Prince in that hee is a Prince hath authoritie to serue God as a Prince yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace Authoritie is in a Pagan the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniuie had authoritie long before to proclaime a fast Nabuchodonosor had authoritie to commaund that all nations and languages should worship the God of Daniel but they put it not in execution till God touched their hearts and when they put it in execution it was not by any new authoritie but by vertue of their former Princely power heretofore abused but now vsed rightly by direction of Gods Spirit and assistance of his grace The truth of which answere that you may see in another glasse let vs a little remooue our speech from the Prince to the Priest I demande therefore if the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts PHIL. Yes verely as saith the Prophet Malachy ORTH. But he may be a false prophet an Idolater an Apostata he may turne Pagan or Atheist Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest in respect of his office ought so to be ORTH. But the Prophet speaking of the wicked Priest which seduceth the people saith not he ought to be but he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest as a Priest be he good or bad in respect of his priestly calling and authoritie is the messenger of the Lord of
yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe coÌ„monly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were sâ—aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth
vpon the silence of the Apostle onely but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world that Popery is the meer inuention of man shall wither in the root from whence it sprung For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out PHIL. Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist And wherein can it consist but in an oblation or sacrifice ORTHOD. First some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham Secondly those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and not a propitiatorie Thirdly if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice for those which hold so must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine by Melchisedec the first to God by way of Sacrifice the second to Abraham and the armie in the manner of a banquet the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse the second to the Eucharist Fourthly your Popish massing Sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist as in due place shall be declared Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice CHAP. III. Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe PHIL. THe Sacrifice of the Masse and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer is proued by an argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe And first it is cleare by the Scripture that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice For we read in Exodus Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe and immolate the Passeouer And againe You shall slay it it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer And in the 9. of Numbers Certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day And those men said vnto him we are defiled by a dead man Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord in the time therunto appointed And againe But the man that is cleane and is not in a iourney and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer the same person shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season And in the Gospel of S. Mark The first day of the Azyms when they sacrificed the Passeouer And S. Paul saith Our Passeouer Christ is immolated ORTHOD. Admit it were a Sacrifice what can you conclude PHIL. The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist Therefore if the Paschal Lambe were a Sacrifice the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure and the thing figured ORTHOD. As other ceremonies of the Law so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ. PHIL. The ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion as may appeare by foure circumstances First the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist but the passion was deferred vntill the day following ORTHOD. Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer therefore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passeouer But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion for what saith the Scripture Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world How doth he take away the sinnes of the world Is it not by his death and passion as it is written wee haue redemption through his blood euen the forgiuenes of our sinnes according to his rich grace And againe He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this that hee was slaine which was not in the Eucharist but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn who rendreth this reason why his legges were not broken because it is written there shall not a bone of him be broken PHIL. Secondly The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing ouer and the deliuerance of the people and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father by his passion and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan by the death of Christ. ORTHOD. If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ then one is not the body of the other but the substance of both is Christ. PHIL. Thirdly the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten and so is the Eucharist but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed ORTHOD. If the Lambe were properly offered then it was more truely a Type of Christ then of the Eucharist For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist onely Christ sayth doe this in remembrance of me Whereby we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten Christ himselfe saith Verely verely I say vnto you except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day For my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And a little before The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world PHIL. That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist ORTHO Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life some vnto destruction but
the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is is to euery one that is partaker therof vnto life and to none vnto destruction And so is the flesh here spoken of â— Christ crucified which is meat not for the body but for the soule to be eaten not with the teeth but with the heart by a liuely faith both in the Eucharist and without it PHIL. Fourthly the Paschall Lambe could not be eaten sauing onely of the circumcised and cleane and in Ierusalem so the Eucharist cannot bee receiued but onely of the baptised and cleane and in the Church sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum vt in cruce immolatum fide manducare i. But others also may and ought to eat Christ by faith as he is offered vpon the Crosse. ORTHOD. Can the vncleane eate Christ by faith This is contrary to the Scripture which teacheth That God by faith doeth purifie the heart Againe No vncleane thing shall enter the kingdome of Heauen but euery beleeuer shall haue life euerlasting therefore no sound beleeuer is to be reputed vncleane PHIL. Faith goeth before both Baptisme and Iustification therefore a man may haue faith before he be cleane ORTHOD. Faith goeth before iustification onely in the order of nature and not in the order of time but it may goe before Baptisme euen in order of time as the Eunuch beleeued before he was Baptized But wheresoeuer it is found or whensoeuer it purifieth the heart and maketh the party cleane Wherefore notwithstanding all these friuolous obiections it is most sure and certaine that the Paschall Lambe was most expresly a Type of Christs Passion PHIL. Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also ORTHOD. Because they were both representations of Christ therefore there is great similitude and correspondencie betweene them And because the Passeouer gaue place to the Eucharist therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist But what then Must it therefore follow that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist God commaunded not onely that the Paschall Lambe should be slaine and immolated but also that it should be eaten Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled vpon the Crosse where Christ our Passeouer was sacrificed for vs and not in the Eucharist The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spirituall eating of Christ both in the Sacrament and without CHAP. IIII. Of their Argument drawen from certaine places of the Prophets PHIL. I Wil proue it by other testimonies of the Old Testament And first by the Prophecie of that man of God that came to Eli I will stirre mee vp a faithfull Priest that shall doe according to my heart and according to my minde and hee shall walke before mine Anointed for euer ORTHOD. This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock in Samuel who succeeded Eli in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar who was of the race of Eli For Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest vnto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo PHIL. S. Austine answereth to this obiection that this Prophecie was fulfilled in Samuel or Sadock insomuch as they did cary the figure of Christian Priests And so the casting out of Eli was a figure of the casting out of the Aaronicall Priesthood and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priesthood Which he proueth because the Scripture when it saith that Eli was to bee cast out with his fathers speaketh plainely of Aaron For it nameth him who was appointed of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt ORTHOD. Suppose all this were granted what can you conclude if the Lord promised that he will raise himselfe vp a faithfull Priest and thereby signified a Christian Priest doeth it therefore follow that he speaketh of a Popish Priest PHIL. That the Lord meant a Priest properly may appeare by the Prophet Esay who prophecying of the time of the New Testament saith In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the middest of the land of Egypt And againe The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and doe Sacrifice and oblation And againe Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord and men shall say vnto you the Ministers of our God ORTHOD. These may be expounded by other places of the same Prophet They shall bring all your brethren for an offering vnto the Lord Where it is cleare that the Prophet speaketh of Spirituall offerings which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel As S. Paul doeth testifie That the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God being sanctified by the holy Chost Which conuersion of the Gentiles the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Leuiticall sacrifices All the sheepe of Kedar shall be gathered vnto thee the Rammes of Nebaioth shall serue thee they shall come vp to bee accepted vpon mine Altar and I will beautifie the house of my Glory Likewise the Prophet Dauid Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of Righteousnes euen the burnt offering and Oblation then shall they offer calues vpon thine Altar Where by calues he vnderstandeth the calues of the lips that is the sacrifice of Prayer and Thankesgiuing The burnt offering also is to be expounded in the like maner and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousnes And a little before he said The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit And as our Spirituall sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Leuitical so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Leuites I will take of them for Priests and Leuits saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly for then the word Leuite should likewise be taken properly but I hope you will not say that your Masse-priests are properly of the tribe of Leui. By these plaine places we may expound the former by you alleadged PHIL. NAy they are Priests properly in regard of an externall sacrifice properly so called which they offer properly as is euident by the Prophet Malachie From the rising vp of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shal be offered vp to my Name and a pure offering for my Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts ORTHOD. The Priests here spoken of are called the sonnes of Leui are your Masse-priests properly the sonnes of Leui PHIL. Of Leui No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion ORTHOD. Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion PHIL. Not so for here is mention of their offering which is called A pure offering ORTHOD. That is to be expounded of Spirituall offerings in the iudgement of the Fathers Irenaeus saith In
blood of Christ were vnder the formes of bread and wine or else you will come short of your sacrifice PHIL. That is plaine by the words of Christ This is my body This is my blood For he spake of those things which he had in his hands and hee calleth them his body blood but to outward appearance there was only bread and wine therefore seeing the words of our Sauiour must needs be true it followeth that the very body and blood of Christ were vnder the appearance of bread and wine ORTHOD. The words of our Sauiour are most true in that sense wherein he ment them But it was his will that they should be taken Sacramentally and not Substantially which will appeare if Scripture be expounded by Scripture and Sacraments by Sacraments To beginne with Circumcision the Lord said This is my Couenant which you shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seed after thee let euery man child be circumcised hoc est foedus meum this thing is my Couenant what thing that euery man child be circumcised therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant But is it the couenant properly it is impossible therefore it is improperly and figuratiuely for so God himselfe expounds it You shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the Couenant betweene me and you Therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant because it is a signe of the Couenant But is it a bare and naked signe not so for the Apostle saith he receiued the signe of Circumcision as the seale of righteousnesse of the faith which he had when he was yet vncircumcised so circumcision was not onely a signe to signifie but also a seale to confirme vnto him the righteousnesse of faith that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and imputed to all that beleeue Neither was this seale onely promissory but also exhibitory deliuering vnto them Christ Iesus with all his blessings From Circumcision let vs come to the Passeouer You shall eat it in hast for it is the Lords Passeouer what shall they eat was it not a Lambe there a Lambe is the Lords Passeouer But why is it so called The Lord himselfe expoundeth it saying the blood shall be a token for you so the Lambe is called a Passeouer because it was a token that is a signe and a seale of the Lords passing ouer them From the ordinary Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the extraordinary Saint Paul speaking of the Rocke saith and this Rocke was Christ which Saint Austine expoundeth truely and learnedly not in substance but in signification From the Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the new In the 6. to the Romanes it is said wee are buried with him by baptisme into his death vpon which Saint Austine saith the Apostle saith not we signifie the buriall but he saith flatly wee are buried together with him so hee called the Sacrament of so great a thing no otherwise then by the name of the thing it selfe To which agreeth your owne Iesuite Baptizati vna cum Christo sepeliuntur idest Christi sepulturam representant That is those that are baptized are buried together with Christ that is they represent the buriall of Christ From Baptisme let vs come to the Lords Supper which consisteth of two courses the Bread representing his Body and the Wine representing his Blood the former may be expounded by the latter For Christ calleth This Cup The new Testament because it is a signe and seale of the new Testament Therefore when it is said this is my Body and this is my Blood the wordes must likewise bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally as though it were said this Bread and this Wine is a signe and a seale of my Body and Blood Yea these very wordes this is my Body may bee expounded by the like wordes signifying the same thing the Bread that wee breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ which word Communion must of necessitie bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally for a signe and seale of this Communion The Apostles were well acquainted with this figure and vsed it themselues before the institution of the Sacrament for they saide vnto Iesus where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer by Passeouer meaning the Paschall Lambe which was a signe and memoriall of the Passeouer Thus the whole course of Scripture proclaimeth that these words this is my body must not bee expounded Substantially but Sacramentally So the meaning is this is my body that is this Bread is a Signe Seale and Sacrament of my Body PHIL. When it is said hoc est Corpus meum this is my body the opinion of Catholickes is that the word this doth not demonstrate the Bread ORTHOD. Why then saith the Scripture Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them saying take eate this is my Body First hee tooke what tooke hee hee tooke Bread materiall Bread such as was vpon the Table After hee had taken hee blessed what did he blesse be blessed that which hee tooke but that was materiall Bread therefore hee blessed the materiall Bread After hee had blessed hee brake and gaue what did hee breake and giue the same which hee had blessed therefore as he blessed the materiall Bread so hee brake and gaue the materiall Bread when hee gaue he saide take and eate what should they take and eate but that which he gaue therefore seeing hee gaue materiall Bread hee commanded them likewise to take and to eate the materiall Bread When hee had saide take and eate hee added imediately this is my Body This what this this that hee had taken this that he had blessed this that hee had broken this that hee gaue them this that hee commanded them to take and eate This and nothing but this hee calleth his Body But this was materiall Bread as hath beene proued and therefore when he said this is my Body the Pronoune this did demonstrate the materiall Bread 2. PHIL. HE tooke bread blessed bread but after the blessing it was changed ORTHOD. As the Paschall Lambe was changed when of a common Lambe it was made a Type of the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world or as the water of Baptisme is changed when of common water it is made a holy representation of the blood of Christ So the Bread and Wine are changed in the Lords Supper that is in vse not in substance for before they bee brought to the Lords Table they are common Bread and common Wine for the feeding of the body but when they are sanctified according to Christs institution then the God of heauen setteth another stampe vpon them and maketh them a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ yet as the lambe still remained a lambe in substance as the water euen in
participle with an article praepositiue should regularly be gouerned of somewhat going before of the same case number and gender yet there are sundry examples in Scripture where it is otherwise the Article supplying the place of a relatiue as for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where according to the ordinary Greeke it should bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab ente but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Article praepositiue standeth for a relatiue as though he should say in Latine Ab eo qui est likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be according to the vsuall Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concordeth not with any thing going before but the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standeth for a relatiue as though it were said in Latin ab eo qui venturus the like is to bee said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which it is euident that the spirit of God departeth from the Analogie of the Greeke tongue and vseth sometimes the Article for a relatiue and so it may be vsed in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may bee translated thus in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effusus est Therefore though in another Authour which tied himselfe to the vsuall Greeke it were requisite to referre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the New Testament there is no such necessitie Wherefore seeing according to the speech of the holy Ghost the words stand indifferently to bee referred to both constructions let vs now consider the thing it selfe that so wee may finde the true construction of the words The holy Ghost in these words of Saint Luke declareth what Christ said when hee deliuered the cuppe the same thing is expressed both in Saint Matthew and Saint Marke and both of them vse the same participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and referre it cleerely and emdently to blood both in the Greeke and your vulgar Latin and not vnto the Cuppe Whereby wee are taught that though in Saint Luke the construction stand indifferently betweene the blood and the cuppe yet by conference of Scripture it is restrained vnto the blood and not vnto the cup so the sence of the place is this cup that is the wine in this cup is the New Testament that is a signe and seale of the New Testament in my blood which blood is shed for you And that it must needs bee meant of the cuppe of wine may appeare by Saint Matthew saying And when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes he gaue it them saying Drink yee all of this For by your owne confession before the words of Consecration it was wine but Christ said this before the wordes of Consecration and therefore hee spake of wine but hee addeth immediately for this which I giue you to drinke is my blood therefore hee calleth the wine his blood so the pronoune this demonstrateth the wine For how can it be otherwise You confesse that it was wine till the words of Consecration were ended but when hee said this the words were not ended and therefore then according to your owne principles it was wine which is agreeable to the Fathers Tertullian why saith he doth Christ call Bread his body Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands on the Crosse he yeelded his bodie to the souldiers hands to be wounded that his Apostles might teach Nations how Bread and VVine was his flesh and blood Irenaeus the Lord taking bread of this quality and condition which is vsuall among vs confessed it to bee his bodie Hierome Let vs heare that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying Take eate this is my bodie Athanasius VVhat is the bread the bodie of Christ. Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my bodie Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries hee calleth bread his bodie All these Testimonies and sundry others from time to time haue beene set before you by learned Diuines sufficient to perswade any reasonable man that when Christ sayd this is my bodie this is my blood the pronoune this did demonstrate the breade and the wine and for mine owne part I see no reason why you should denie it for your Church teacheth a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the bodie and blood of Christ. Now if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread and the wine then there is no bread and wine signified in the words of Christ and if Christ speake not in those words of bread and wine then it is impossible to proue out of these words any transubstantiation of the bread and wine and so you haue made shipwracke vpon this rocke NOw if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread what else shall it demonstrate The Glosse of the Canon law saith The word hoc is taken materially and signifieth nothing How say you haue you not spunne a Faire thread so to tosse and tumble the words of Christ that you haue brought all to nothing if you will say that it must needes signifie some thing then let vs consider what this some thing shal be Stephen Gardiner did make it a kind of indiuiduum vagum as though hee should say somewhat it is but I know not what but this cannot stand because the pronoune hoc beeing a demonstratiue must of necessitie demonstrate some certaine and sensible thing what shal be this be Occam saith Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi the pronoune this is referred to the body of Christ but then it is an Identicall proposition signifying that the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ which were an idle speech and to no purpose Yet it would cleane ouerthrow your transubstantiation Therefore others thinke that by hoc should bee meant Hoc ens as Scotus or haec substantia as Caietan well what can this ens or this substantia bee but onelie the Bread and therefore why should they thus walke in Mistes and Cloudes and not rather cleerely confesse the truth But Iohannes de Burgo will make all cocke sure for hee saith Hoc sub hac specie praesens vel de propinquo futurum est corpus meum that is That which is present vnder this show or shortlie shal be is my bodie Hee durst not say simplie that which is present for then hee must either say the Bread or the Bodie but if hee said Bread hee should haue saide as wee say which had beene daungerous and to expound it of the bodie had beene against his owne conscience because the wordes of Consecration were not yet finished Therefore beeing in a quandary what to say hee thought hee would speake safely though thereby hee shewed himselfe but slenderly resolued Behold what it is for men to leaue the written word and to