of the Sacrament as before is proued in the former question Mat. 26. 26. Take eate this is my body Luk. 22. 19. This is my body which is giuen for you Answ 1. I haue before proued that these words are spoken in an vsuall Sacramentall phrase figuratiuely and not properly Secondly they cannot be spoken but figuratiuely because Christ himselfe spake these words He willed them not to eate his naturall body which body was visible before them Had he his owne body in his hand and euery one of his Twelue Apostles the same in their mouthes then were there thirteene bodies of Christ at one time at the table twelue in their hands and mouthes and one sitting apparantly before their eyes One body cannot be in so many places at once as before I haue proued And what a little body must this be which Christ held in his owne hand which he did breake and which euery of the Apostles did put in their mouthes Thirdly The words must needs bee figuratiuely vnderstood now if we consider the time when Christ spake them to wit before his Passion when as yet his body was not giuen nor his bloud shed Fourthly Christ spake figuratiuely when hee deliuered the shop Mat. 26. 28. Then why more properly in the one then in the other Fiftly The end of Christs instituting this Sacrament shewes it to bee figuratiuely spoken For it was for a remembrance of him Luk. 22. 19. But if this vpon the words of consecration had beene his very owne bodie it could not be called properly a remembrance of him for wee remember by signes things absent and not things themselues present for so the signes were needlesse 1. Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the Lords body Answ 1. Here is no proofe for transubstantiation but that the Bread is Christs body and the Wine his bloud by the receiuing whereof wee receiue Christs very body and bloud But how Sacramentally spiritually by faith and such as come not prepared to this holy Sacrament as they ought eate and drinke vnworthily not making a difference of this bread and wine representing Christ from common bread and wine or a common banquet which is a grieuous sinne All this wee doe acknowledge neither doe we deny the bread to be the bodie of Christ or the wine his bloud but yet euer in a Sacramentall speech figuratiuely and not properly For if the signe be the very thing signified indeed then were there no Sacrament for it is an outward signe of an inuisible grace Now there being as is proued no transubstantiation then it followes that there is no adoration of the Sacrament in that respect nor therein offered any vnbloudy sacrifice for the quicke and the dead XXV Proposition That prayers are to be made vnto Angels and Saints departed Confuted by their owne Bible 1. FOr Angels their owne Bible telleth vs that the Angels themselues forbid worship to be done to them Reu. 19. 10. and 22. 9. And so Saint Paul taught that they should not be worshipped Col. 2. 18. Now prayer to them is worshipping of them and that in a great degree Secondly for Saints departed the Virgin Mary or any other they are not to bee prayed vnto for they know not our particular estates here Abraham hath not knowne vs and Israel hath beene ignorant of vs Esa 63. 16. The dead know nothing more Eccles 9. 5. Iob. cap. 14. 21. speaking of the dead saith Whether his children shall be noble or vnnoble he shall not vnderstand How vaine is it then to pray to them Touching either Angels or Saints their Bible alloweth vs not to pray vnto them I. It teacheth euery where wheresoeuer there is either a commandement to pray or an example of any holy man of God praying that the same is made vnto God For commandement Psal 49. 15. Inuocate me in the day of trouble who is very ready to heare Esay 64. 24. Mat. 11. 28. Come vnto me saith Christ and promiseth them that come vnto him that hee will not cost forth Iob. 6. 37. Iames saith Aske of God chap. 1. 5. There is no commandement to pray to any other in all the Scripture For examples Abraham called vpon the Name of the Lord so Isaac Iacob Moses Iosua Samuel Dauid and all the rest No instance can be giuen to the contrary in either precept or example II. The Apostles desired to be taught to pray Luk. 11. Now Christ in his perfect forme of Prayer taught them and in them all vs to pray aright And it is against praying to Saints and Angels in the Preface Our Father which art in Heauen First this is against all Shee Saints for we cannot call the Virgin Marie nor any woman-Saint Father Secondly this is against all Angels for they bee not our Fathers but Fellow-seruants as they confesse Reuel 19. 10. Thirdly this is against all Hee-Saints departed for they be our Brethren and in Heauen but one Father Matth. 23. 8 9. In the Petitions which Christ willeth vs to pray for they cannot be made to any of them We cannot say to them Hallowed be thy Name Thy Kingdome come Thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heauen Can we say to them Giue vs this day our daily bread Forgiue vs this day our trespasses Leade vs not into temptation but deliuer vs from euill In the conclusion for may wee ascribe to them and say Thine is the Kingdome the power and the glory for ouer Amen Now if we cannot aske of them these things nor ascribe to them kingdome power and glory without horrible idolatrie and sacriledge then either Christ taught not sufficiently in this Prayer to whom and what to pray for or else if he did then no Saints or Angels are to be prayed vnto III. Their Bible maketh onely Christ the meanes betweene God and vs For first it telleth vs but of one Mediatour One God and also one Mediatour of God and men 1. Timoth. 2. 5. Who this one is it also telleth vs euen the Man Christ Iesus 1. Timoth. 2. 5. And further teacheth that he is our Mediatour both of redemption Heb. 9. 12. and of intercession Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 7. 25. neither doth their Bible make any other Mediatour in either of these respects vnto God for vs saue Iesus Christ alone Secondly their Bible telleth that no man commeth to the Father but by Christ Ioh. 14. 6. Thirdly that we haue a promise to be heard if wee aske the Father in his Name Ioh. 16. 23. Fourthly that Christ foreshewed that his Disciples should aske and pray his Father in his Name Ioh. 16. 26. Fifthly their Bible exhorts vs therefore to goe to him Heb. 13. 13. to offer vp our prayses and so our prayers by him Heb.
the ground Let them proue to vs by Gods owne voice as here that their Images are holy and that Gods presence is in them And yet for all that will not this procure adoration to them no more then Moses adored the earth Fourthly this place if Images were holy should rather keep vs from them then make vs come to them For it is said Approach not or come not hither loose off thy shooes from thy feet for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground It s therefore rather against going to Images then to goe to worship them Adorâ—â—â—e the footstoole of his feet Vnderstood say they of the Arke 1. Chron. 28. 2. Which was worshipped of the Iewes in regard of the Images set vpon it Answ Vnderstanding this footstoole of the Arke as they say it will helpe nothing their worship of Images For first the Arke was of Gods own appointment to be made for manner matter and end Exod. 25. 9. but so bee not their Images Secondly the Arke is called his footstoole But Images are not so called neither claimeth he them for his Thirdly God promised his presence with the Arke Exod. 25. 22. But where is his promise to be with their Images Fourthly the Arke was not an Image What is this then to an Image Fiftly the Arke was in the most holy place into which none could enter but the High Priests Therefore the people could not adore it but a farre off as being in the out-Court without any sight thereof Now their Images are neere and in the peoples view and not only where the High Priest of Rome comes If they will haue Images as the Arke then let his High Priestship keepe them in his most holy Chappell for himselfe and let them be for him only as the most Holy was for the high Priest Sixtly by the Arkes being in so remote a place its cleere that the words must be translated Adore yee towards his footstoele as in 1. King 8. 44. Pray towards the holy Citie and the house which hee had chosen And then the Arke was not adored but God it being the signe of Gods presence before which they worshipped 1. Sam. 1. 19. Seuenthly if it was worshipped because of the Images vpon it then was it only worshipped in the Sanctum Sanctorum For there the Cherubims were spred ouer it and not elsewhere and then onely the High Priest adored it for he onely saw the Images ouer it And then this Text seemeth to speake not to all but to him What is this to the peoples worshipping of Images Eighthly and lastly it is vntrue to say the Iewes worshipped it because of the Images on it For first they neither did nor could euer see any Image vpon it Secondly wee reade of the Arke brought forth in their iourneyings in the wildernesse so in going ouer Iordan also into the Campe of Israel 1. Sam. 4. 5. and at other times but wee neuer read of any that did worship it But if this had beene a commandement here surely there would haue beene some example of adoring it Thirdly they were commanded to worship God Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. but no where to worship any other thing Fourthly how could it be that they worshipped the Arke because of the Images vpon it when the angels which by the Images were represented were not adored of them Would they worship the Image and not the things themselues For as Origen saith No Contr. Cels lib. 5. man adored the heauenly Angels which did submit himselfe to the Law of Moses Phil. 2. 10. At the name of Iesus c. Answ 1. Here is no Image mentioned What is this to Saints worship and their Images For this Text speakes of Iesus our Lord Sauiour Christ because we must bow downe to him the Sonne of God one person God and Man when wee doe make mention of his name Will it follow therefore that we should doe so to dead Images XXIII Proposition That the Lords Supper is to be administred to the people in one kinde onely Confuted by their owne Bible 1. IT teacheth vs that Christ instituting this his last Supper administred it in both kinds giuing a commandement to take and eate and also to drinke Mat. 26. 26 27. Luk. 20. 20. Secondly the Apostle Saint Paul repeating the institution mentioneth both the Bread and the Chalice 1. Cor. 11. 24 25. And first he tels them that this hee receiued of the Lord. Secondly that he deliuered the same vnto them verse 23. Thirdly he in verse 28. plainely prescribeth the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Chalice and that to euery one that commeth prepared and proueth himselfe saying Let him eate of that bread and drinke of that Chalice Out of which place it is euident that the drinking of the Chalice is of equall extent with the duty of prouing our selues before wee come vnto this Sacrament But the duty is generall and belongeth vnto all indifferently The drinking of the Chalice therefore may not be denied vnto any Thirdly the Church then in his dayes did receiue it in both kindes 1. Cor. 11. 26. For it is said there So often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this Chalice you shall shew the death of our Lord vntill hee come By both they shew his death And this place shews clearely that so often as they receiued they did eate the Bread and drinke the Chalice Fourthly the Apostles and Ministers of Christ did administer in both For the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which wee breake is it not the participation of the body of the Lord Here the Apostle first mentioneth both the Chalice and Bread Secondly by the word we he vnderstands himselfe and other which did blesse the Chalice and breake the Bread Thirdly he saith that by the Chalice we communicate of Christs bloud and by the bread wee participate of his bodie and not by one of them of them both Saint Paul would haue Christs bloud out of his bodie in the Against concomitancy See D. White his last booke pag. 460 466. Chalice represented and not by the bread onely both his body and bloud Fourthly Christ is perfect food wee must therefore eate him and drinke him Drinke alone preserues not life nor onely to eate but both to eate and drinke therefore Christ instituted both to be receiued If the Aduersaries say that this receiuing was of the Apostles and as they by consequent would See an answer to this there also pag. 488 489 492. inferre of Priests onely which may receiue in both kindes but not the Laitie I answer first that the Apostles receiuing the Sacrament from Christ were then and there for the whole Church They receiued alone because they were Christs family to receiue together the Passeouer Secondly the Apostles were not as yet fully ordained till Christ breathed on them after
signe being called by the thing signified as we see in other Sacraments which must teach vs to expound this as also the rest of the words this Chalice is the new Testament 1. Cor. 11. 25. this is my bloud of the New Testament Math. 26. 28. this is the Chalice the New Testament Luk. 22. 20. and Drinke the Chalice saith S. Paul which they yeeld to be figuratiuely spoken and therefore so must the other Thirdly the name of bread both before the mentioning of the words of Consecration by Saint Paul in 1. Cor. 11. 23. and after is still kept verse 26 27 28. 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. not because only shew of Bread was so to the eye but for that it remained bread indeed and is yet so to feeling and taste as well as to sight Fourthly their Bible telleth vs that heauen truely hath receiued Christ vntill the times of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. Till then hee commeth not bodily out of heauen except the bread be heauen it selfe into which at his Ascension he was receiued Fiftly their Bible telleth vs that when Christ commeth hee shall come from heauen visibly so come againe as the Apostles saw him goe vp Act. 1. 11. But they saw him in his body visibly ascend so shall he in body come againe and not in a conceited inuisibilitie into the Sacrament bodily Sixtly their owne Bible teacheth that a body cannot be in two places at one instant of time Mat. 28. 26. He is not here said the Angell and giueth the reason For he is risen Because hee was in another place being risen and gone out of the Sepulchre See Augustine in Ioh. tract 31. shewing that Christ is not in two places at one time the Angell plainely and truely denied him therefore to be there Now wee beleeue him to bee euer bodily in heauen Therefore by an heauenly Angels reason wee may truely say that bodily he is not here in the Sacrament no more then he was in the Sepulchre because he was risen Seuenthly their Bible teacheth that wheresoeuer Christs bodie was at any time hee was discernable by sense and therefore he willeth his Disciples to vse their sense to discerne him Luk. 24. 39. So did Thomas Ioh. 20. 28. But in the Sacrament is no sensiblenesse at all of his bodily presence Eighthly their Bible doth teach that whensoeuer God turned one substance into another or tooke one away and put another in stead thereof that the same was discernable by sense Moses Staffe was visibly a Serpent Dust in Egypt was Lice seene and felt and so the Water was Bloud sensibly and the Water good Wine in Ioh. 2. 9. 10. to the taste But in this change at the Sacrament is no such sensible perception and therefore is there no such thing for God in his miracles deludeth no mans sense Contraried by Antiquity Tertul. aduers Marcionem This is my bodie that is This is a figure of my body Ambros desacra lib. 4. saith that it is a figure of the body and bloud of Christ And speaking of the signes he saith that they remaine the same that they were August in Psal 3. saith that in this Feast the Lord commanded and deliuered the figure of his bodie and bloud to his Disciples And the same Father contra Adamantium cap. 12. saith that wheÌ„ the Lord said This is my body he gaue the signe of his body See more in his Booke de Doct. Chri. lib. 3. cap. 16. calling it a figure and contr Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 22. he calleth the things visible Signes Chrysost ad Caesarium Monachum saith that though the bread hath the name of the Lords body yet the nature of bread remaineth still Theodoret. in Dialo immuta Hee changed the names and gaue his bodie that name which belonged to the signe and to the signe that name which belonged to his body not by changing their nature but by adding grace to nature And in Dial inconfusus hee saith that the mysticall signes after consecration doe not depart from their nature but they abide still in their former substance figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before Cyril in Ios lib. 4. cap. 14. saith that Christ gaue to his faithfull Disciples pieces of bread See farther in Bishop Vsher his last Booke of the controuerse of the Reall presence citing Iustine Martyr Ireneus Tertullian Origen Cyprian Theophilus of Antioch the Author of the harmony of the Gospels Eusebius Acacius Macarius Austin Chrysostome Theodores Ephraemius the Councell of Constantinople Bishops of France in a Synode at Carisiacum Rabanus Also D. White his last Booke pag. 401. citing many and pag. 435. answering the Aduersaries places out of the Fathers Gainsaid by themselues Golasins a Pope de duabus nat Chri. saith that the nature of the Bread and Wine ceaseth not but remaine stil in the propertie of their nature and contra Eutycheten The elements are the image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ Their Glosse de cons Dist 2. The heauenly Sacrament is called the body of Christ but vnproperly It is impossible that the bread should be the body of Christ Pet. Lombard sent 4. dist 11. si autem c. saith that some iudged and some wrote that the very substance of bread and Wine remained still and of the manner of conuersion he saith he is not able to define Petrus de Aliaco the Cardinall 4. q. 6. Art 2. saith that the opinion which holdeth the substance of bread not to remaine doth not euidently follow of the Scriptures nor in his seeming of the Churches determination Caietan 3. par q. 75. Art 1. pag. 153. saith that in the Gospel there is nothing that compelleth vs to vnderstand them properly See more in Bishop Vsher his last booke of this point Ratrannus Scotus Alfrick Abbot of Malmesbury The Scriptures obiected answered Luk. 22. 15. With desire I haue desired to eate the Passeouer with you before I suffer Answ 1. This Text is vnderstood of the Iewish Passeouer and not of the Lords Supper for the Supper was not called the Pasche or Passeouer Also the whole Text sheweth it to bee â—â— verse 7 8 11 13 15. Secondly euen in this Text is a Sacramentall phrase for here the eating of the Lambe is called the Passeouer which was an act done long before of which this Feast was onely a remembrance and not the thing it selfe Thirdly this Passeouer did Christ certainly eate of with his Disciples but the Bread Wine in the Supper which he instituted for this new sacrament of the new Testament the Apostles ate and dranke of but not a word of Christs eating thereof but onely of the other Iewish Sacrament of which in the Verses next following hee also speakes saying that he would no more drinke of the Vine verse 18. as before he said that he would not eate of the Passeouer verse 16. Ioh. 6. 51. I am the liuing Bread c. Answ This speaketh not
his Resurrection Ioh. 20. 21. as some euen of Papists affirme Thirdly if because they onely were present at the institution they therefore should onely receiue in both kinds then what warrant haue they to admit any but Priests to the Lords Supper What warrant to admit women to it so much as to receiue the bread Yea why are any Lay-men admitted to the bread or to the Sacrament at all for no Lay persons did receiue with the Apostles no not Christs Mother Fourthly touching the 1. Cor. 10. 16. there is vnder the word we meant the Apostles and other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments that they blessed and brake that is consecrated and administred the Lords Supper vnto other to wit the Laitie For in verse 21. he plainly sheweth how the Corinthians did drinke of the Chalice and did partake of the Table of the Lord though they could not receiue worthily so doing if they went vnto the Idol Temples Thus are they confuted by their owne Bible Contraried by Antiquitie Ignatius in Epist 6. ad Philadelp giueth vs to vnderstand that in his time the Cup was diuided to the whole Church Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. telleth vs that it was the manner of the whole Congregation to receiue both the Bread and Wine The first Councell of Nice speaking of the holy Table mentioneth both the Bread and Cup. Theophyl on 1. Cor. 11. saith that the Cup was in like manner deliuered vnto all See more for this Athanasius 2. Apolog. Chrysostome Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. and Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian in 2. Epist ad Cornelium in Epist 63. 54. Cyril Catech. mystag 5. Augustine in Ioh. tract 27. Tertul. deresurrect Clem. Alexand. 2. pedagog cap. 2. See Doctor White his last Booke pag. 482. citing Iust Martyr Chrysost Haymo Answ to Fisher Gainesaid by themselues Gelasius the Pope decret part 3. dist 2. ca. comperimus calleth it a fond superstition to abstaine from the Cup and satih that such a diuision cannot bee done without great sacriledge Alex. Hales 4. q. Art 2. saith that whole Christ is not contained vnder each kinde by way of Sacrament but onely his flesh vnder forme of Bread and his bloud vnder the forme of Wine and that there is more power of grace in Communion in both kinds then in one q. 11. in 2. Art 4 5 3. Lorichius lib. 5. Hospinian calleth them false Catholikes which hinder reformation of this point The Church of Rome for aboue a thousand yeeres after Christ vsed both the kinds in administring this Sacrament See this at large proued by Master Perkins in his demonstratiue of the Probleme out of Papists themselues To which adde the opinion in this point of receiuing in both kinds Lyra in 1. Cor. 11. Durand in national lib. 4. also Greg. de Valentia de legit vsu Enchar cap. 10. who confesseth that the custome began not much before the Councell of Constance Caietan 3. part Thom. q. 80. Art 12. q. 3. Ouand 4. p. 221. See Doctor White pag. 497. Fisher the Iesuite acknowledgeth the Lay people in the Primitiue Church to haue frequently receiued in both kinds Scriptures obiected answered Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue him is my flesh Answ 1. This is not spoken of the Sacrament For first Christ So hold many Papists Doctor White pag 495 had not as yet instituted it Secondly he speaketh of spirituall bread then present I am the liuing Bread in the former part of the verse to which the relation is in these words here This bread to wit himselfe the liuing Bread I am the bread of life saith he verse 48. The Sacramentall bread was not as yet when thus he spake Thirdly the bread here was that which when he spake came downe from heauen verse 50. 58. But the bread which Christ administred at his last Supper neuer came from heauen Fourthly this bread whoso eateth maketh him that eateth it to liue for euer but so doth not the Sacramental bread which may be eaten by the wicked Fiftly he himselfe expoundeth what he meaneth by this Bread euen his owne flesh which he giueth for the life of the world and which he did giue vpon the Crosse But the Sacramentall bread is not his owne flesh As for that errour of transubstantiation the vanitie of it shall be confuted in the next question Sixtly if this bee spoken of the Sacrament then all that receiue it not haue no life in them verse 53. as Infants and other before they come to ripe age which they will not affirme And yet will it vndeniably follow if this be properly meant of the Sacrament II. If it were granted that Christ spake here of the Sacrament which hee would institute yet this place helpeth not our Aduersaries but rather maketh hue and cry after their the euery for presuming to rob the people of the Cup. For first in vers 53. Christ plainely saith Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you And in verse 54. he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life So he bindeth life to both and secludeth life from such as receiue not both Secondly therefore both being so necessarie it followeth that when he onely mentioneth the eating of bread there is a figure one part for both Else should the diuine Oracles of our Sauiour thwart one the other in pressing both eating and drinking affirmatiuely to the obtaining of life in receiuing both and negatiuely to losse of life in not receiuing both Thirdly Christ goeth about to declare himselfe to be sufficient food for the life of his which beleeue in him Now a man cannot liue by onely eating nor onely drinking but by both Therefore saith he My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed verse 55. He saith not that his flesh is both meate and drinke He knew that his body had flesh and bloud yet he willeth to eate and drinke Now the flesh is to be eaten and the bloud to be drunke In eating his flesh wee cannot be said to drinke his bloud For that which is to be eaten cannot bee said to bee drunken too these being two distinct and differing actions for two things If one would haue serued the vrging of two had beene needlesse Fourthly and lastly hee mentioneth Bread not to exclude Wine and eating not to exclude drinking but because hee had spoken of Manna the Israelites bread in the Wildernesse and so called himselfe Bread keeping the subiect and occasion of which hee had begun to speake So in Ioh. 4. speaking with the Woman of Samaria occasioned by the drawing of water out of the Well hee promiseth to giue her water to drinke Would any therefore hence conclude that onely water were sufficient and no need of eating bread As we cannot conclude so from the one no more can we from the