miraclâ—s done about the Masse 〈◊〉 seldome and those most false too the Papists at this day are ashamed of the books wherein those miracles are reported 2 The comming of Antichrist shall be with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thess 2 9 as Paul prophecied of him 3. Miracles without the word of God are not sufficient to prooue articles of religion as wee reade Deut 13 1 2 3. 27 Luther doth confesse the deuill suggested arguments vnto him against the masse Therfore to impugne the masse is diuelish Ans 1 Luther describeth the conflict of Luther dimisâ—a priuata his conscience wherein Satan after his manner laying a truth for his ground endeuoured to build thereupon falsehood and desperation Euen as the deuill tempting Christ alleadged the holy Scripture which vndoubtedly is true But it doth not therefore follow that simply euery thing is a lye which Satan bringeth in his tentations For when hee obiecteth our sinnes against vs certainely he speaketh a truth 2 We oppose not against our Aduersaries either the authoritie of Luther or the tentation of Satan but the Word of God Now the testimonies of Scripture which ouerthrow the masse cannot be termed deuilish suggestions Let them then answere vnto them if they can 28 Our Aduersaries seek a shift to wind themselues out of the danger of the thunderbolts of the Epistle to the Hebrues say that Christs bodie alwaies remaineth one therfore though it be daily offered yet it is alwaies the same and but one only and so it doth not anie waiet whart the Epistle to the Hebrues Answ 1. That is not the question whether Christs bodie be one and the same But here is the controuersie whether that bodie which is one and the same be often to bee offered to God seeing the Apostle to Hebrewes witnesseth that that bodie was once onely offered and that the offering thereof may not be iterated There is then no connexion of the Antecedent consequent in this paralogisme 2 But neither do they offer the same bodie of Christ which was offered vpon the Croffe but an other bodie which within a moment of time before was breade if all bee true which they faine of Transsubstantiation But the true bodie of Christ was not breade Therefore neither doo they offer one and the same body of CHRIST An appendix of other abuses of the Masse The followers of Antichrist have transformed 1 Abuse priuate masse the Masse into a priuate action wherein there is no communion but the masse-maker onely receiueth the sacrament whilest others that be present onely looke on who are perswaded that such a masse benifitteth them neucrthelsse though they communicate not But wee reject this priuate masse fos these reasons Because the Lords supper by those priuate masses which neuer were instituted by Christ is changed into an action altogether diuerse and different from the first institution Christ gaue not onely a bare spectacle to his disciples in his first supper but distributed his bodie and bloud to them to be eaten and druncken Priuate masses therefore haue no agreement with the action of Christ That appellation of the Lords Supper vsed by the Apostles the breaking of breade which is nothing els but by a hebrue phrase the distribution of it sheweth that in the primitiue Church in the celebration of the supper there was a communicating that priuate masse was altogether vnknowen The same is meant by the wordes of Paul we are all partakers of the same bread 1 Cor 10 17 If the Corinthians were partakers then doubtles they were not bare beholders of some priuate masse That which Paul speaketh of the abuse of the Supper among the Corinthians euery man taketh his owne supper afore one is hungrie and an other is drunke 1 Corin. 11 21. May not vnfitly be applyed to the priuate masse for a certaine likenesse betwixt them For what more like to this abuse than is the priuate masse wherein the looker on hungreth the masse-maker hath his priuate banquet though he be not drunken vnlesse perhaps of the former dayes ryot Contrariwise our aduersaries do dispute 1 There is mention made of a priuate communion euen in the histories of the primitiue Church Ans 1 Priuate communion at that time was a thing much differing froÌ„ priuate masse now a dayes For from the beginning whilest persecution did still rage and the Christians were therfore inflamed with great zeale the whole Church did vse to celebrate the Supper euerie day But after persecution ceased the zeale of Christians was by little and little abated so that afterwards they did coÌ„municate onely vpon the Lords day In the meane while they of the cleargy and the ministers of the Church kept the custome of the dayly communion And this Communion when they of the laitie were absent began to be called a priuate Communion and that which was celebrated on the Lords day was called a publicke CoÌ„munion It is therefore a frivolous argument altogether froÌ„ the purpose whilest our Aduersaries argue from the priuate receiuing of the Lords supper to the priuate sacrifices of the Masse so making foure termes 2 Those which are the lookers on in priuate masse do communicate spiritually Therfore they want not the fruite of the masse Ans 1. We speake of the sacrament and sacramental eating our Aduersaries alleadge spirituall eating There are therefore in this argument foure termes 2 That spirituall communion may bee by faith alone euen out of the masse and communion Therefore it is nothing to the masse 3 This is the nature of the ministerie that the benefits of God bee by it applyed vnto men But priuate masse is a part of the ministerie Therfore by it there is application Made to the standers by Ans 1 The minor proposition is falâ—â— It suffiseth not that a Preacher preach to himselfe without hauing any hearers so neither sufficeth it that the masse-maker alone communicate for others becavse our aduersaries cannot free their publicke masse much lesse their priuate masse from idolatrie and how shall idolatrie then be a part of the ministerie 2 Sacramentall application doth not consist in a bare spectacle but in the vse and fruition as it is not sufficient to saluation that an vnregenerate man bee a beholder of Baptisme vnlesse himselfe also bee baptized 4 Priests that doe masse are the mouth of the Church Therefore if the Priest communicate it is all one as if the whole Church had communicated Ans 1 The Antecedent hath no ground in the scripture 2 Neither doo the Papists themselues belieue this which they say otherwise the priuate coÌ„munion of the Priest would bee sufficient for theÌ„ that they should neuer haue neede of anie publicke communion 3 The mouth of the Church should bee an impure one when the Priest is polluted with adulterie whoredome and such other wickednesse The Priests in the Olde Testament did sacrifice for others the laitie being present so in priuate masse the
this Blessed is the man to whome the Lord imputeth not iniquitie and in whose spirit there is noe guile therefore if sinnes be not imputed yet they are in the man though they be not imputed vn to him 10 The fathers denie that concupiscence is a sinne Ans They denie it to be sinne according to the ciuill definition where the will consenting and the act performed and consummated is vnderstood not according to that definition which is taken out of Diuinitie CHAP. 14 Of the Number of the Sacraments VVe denie not but that the ancient writers did vse the word Sacrament some times but in a very general signification to note other things by than Baptisme the Lords supper partly for reuerence partly for some misterie in the thing But the question is of the more stricte and most proper signification of the word Sacramēt in such sort as it agreeth to the Lords Supper and to Baptisme Hereuppon the question is whether the other fiue papistical Sacraments to wit Confirmation Penance Extreme Vnction Order and Matrimony be to be receiued vnto the number of Sacraments in such sort as that they may haue the like autoritie the same definition of a Sacament with the other vndoubted Sacraments and most properly so called Our Aduersaries contend for the number of their seauen Sacraments but we admit not of that number for these reasons Because that number of 7 Sacraments is no where mentioned in holy Scripture Neither can there be any of the ancient fathers shewed who did precisely reckē 7 Sacraments and neither moe nor fewer Wheras it is the power of God to ordain Sacraments none of the other fiue Sacraments haue the words of Sacramentall institution contained in the Scripture Our Aduersaries themselues cannot although their schoolemen haue toyled in it many waies but al in vaine they cānot I say giue a general definition of a Sacrament which is not larger thē the thing defined that is so that it doth not admitte within the definition other things besides those 7. Sacraments or els which is not straiter than the thing defined whiles they endeuour to exclude other things which besides their 7. Sacraments doe arise out of their larger definition that is which is so framed that there be not some of the 5 counterfeit Sacraments excluded by that definition Heere our Aduersaries doe sticke in doubtfull plight whiles they make the definition of a Sacrament either too large or too straite Seeing those two vndoubted Sacraments the Lords Supper and Baptisme doe admitte the same definition and may be contained vnder one generall definition so that whatsoeuer in that generall definition agreeth to the one the same agreeth to the other also why should the other 5 controversed Sacraments if they be truely and properly Sacraments why shold they want this proprietie of a common definition and why should they not be pertakers of the same definition Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason 1 As there are 7 spirituall diseases so there must bee 7 remedies and Sacraments And as there be 7 cardinall vertues so there must be 7 Sacraments which conferre the same Answere 1. These diseases and these vertues what euer they be were in the time of the old Testament also If therefore 7 Sacraments be necessarily concluded from the 7 diseases and 7 vertues it will likewise follow that in the olde testament there were neither moe nor fewer than seauen but because the cōsequent is false therfore the Antecedent is false also 2 Besides those diseases and vertues may either bee restrained to fewer or extended to moe these are therfore ropes of sande 2 The number of seauen in the Scripture is an holy number and is oftentimes vsed in mysteries the 7 Seales Reuel 5. 1. the 7 trumpets Revel 8. 6 the 7 starres Candlestickes Reuel 1 13 16 the 7 loues Matt 15 34. the 7 eyes vpon one stone Zachar 3. 9. and such like both in the old new testament concerning the number of seauen therefore there are 7 Sacraments Answere 1. If our Aduersaries would make a perfect syllogisme thus it should be framed wheresoeuer in Scripture there is the number of seauen there the 7 Sacraments are prefigured c. But this proposition as is cannot be proued so it is ridiculous and therefore our Aduersaries keepe it close 2 Yea not 7. but 70 Sacraments might by the same reason bee proued seeing that the number of Seuentie is often vsed in Scripture The captiuitie of Babilon endured 70 yeeres there were 70 palme trees in Elim Exod 15. 27 the patriarches descended into Egypt with 70 soules there were 70 Elders of the people there are 70 yeares of our life Psal 90 10. Christ chose 70 disciples we must pardon our brother that sinneth against vs seuentie times seauen times in one day c It is therefore a fallacie taking that for a cause which is no cause whereof followeth no conclusion 3 There are 7 principall orders in the Church The first is of them that enter into it whereto answeareth Baptisme The second is of them that warre and plaie the souldiers and to this confirmation answereth The third of them that resume strength and refreshing in the Euchariste the fourth of them that arise after a fall by pennance The fift is of them that depart out with extreame vnction The sixt of them that minister and doe seruice in the Church and heereto belong holy orders The seuenth is of them that bring in newe souldiers by matrimonie therefore needes it must be that there be 7. Sacraments and neither more nor lesse Answere These distinctions of orders diseases vertues are speculations of idle braines which cannot beget vs any Sacraments for it should be proued by the holy Scriptures that all these things haue the force and propertie of Sacraments 2. Neither may the counterfeit Dionisius in his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie rest content with this number of 7 for such reason as these be 4 The fathers haue giuen the name of Sacramēt vnto other things beside Baptisme and the Supper Ans 1. Yet did they neuer precisely define the number of 7 Sacraments to be necessarie 2. Neither did they name other thinges Sacraments in the like sorte as they did Baptisme and the Lords Supper but either they called them so for renerence of the things or for some mystery in them A particular Examination of the fiue Papisticall Sacraments Whether that the other 5 Popish Sacraments be to be called properly truly Sacraments seeing that the word Sacrament is not contained in the Scripture we can not better learne than if the true properties of Sacraments be fetched from the definition and nature of the two proper and vndoubted Sacraments baptisme and the Lords supper Wherby afterward the agreeing or disagreeing of the rest of the Popish Sacramēts wil be made manifest For this is a groūd without cōrrouersie so that it neither can nor ought to bee refused of either side Now the properties of a true Sacrament
as they are taken out of Baptisme the Lords Supper be these There is required on outward signe or visible materiall and corporall element which may by a certaine and set rite and gesture be handled vsed and giuen It is required that the Element and the rite haue an assured divine commandement and institution That it be an institution and commandemēt of the New testament That it be such an institution or ordinance which is to last not only for a time but to the ende of the world That there be some promise of God of the grace fruite and effect of the Sacrament That that promise bee not bare and naked but ioyned vnto and as it were clothed with that Sacramentall signe That the promise be not of any forte of blessings either Corporall or Spirituall but of Iustification Reconciliation and the whole benefite of Redemption That it be not a generall promise only but such as respecteth euery one euen euery particular man that vseth the Sacraments These properties and conditions seeing they agree to both the vndoubted Sacraments in all things it must needes bee that the other if they be true Sacraments agree with them in the properties rehearsed Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason 1 The Apologie of the Augustane Confession doth admitt absolution and orders into the number of Sacraments therefore themselues the Autors of the Apologie doe not obserue the properties proposed Ans 1 They admitte them for Sacraments in a general acception of the word sacrament according to which acception the fathers called all those things Sacraments whereby the generall promises of God were applied to euery seuerall man in which the Ministerie may be called a Sacrament It is therefore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect onely to the same taken absolutely in all respects 2 But because Absolution and Orcers doe want the visible Element the Apologie doth protest that it can endure they should be called by the name of Sacraments so that they be not made equall to Baptisme and the Lords Supper Therfore the Apologie doth not speak of that signification of the worde Sacrament where of wee heere dispute And therefore there be foure termes in the argument 2 The same Apologie protesteth that they will not contend about the word Sacrament therefore it is friuolous to dispute thereof so exactlie Ans Because the worde Sacrament is a thing not contained in Scripture therefore the autors of the Apologie doe not brawle about the word In the meane time the controuersie of the matter and thing signified by it is not layd aside that is whether there bee one and the same reason and dignitie of Baptisme and the Lords Supper as of the other which ouer and besides these two are by our Aduersaries graced with the name of Sacraments They doe therefore but dallie by a fallacie from that is spoken in some respect only to the same taken absolutely Nowe then let vs compare and examine the 5 popish Sacraments seuerally euery one by it selfe by the proposed properties 1 Confirmation We cannot allow Confirmation for a Sacrament for these reasons following Because it hath no cōmandement frō God for there appeareth not so much as any steppes of commandement or example in the holy scripture wherby it may be certaine that the faithful were annointed by the Apostles with the oile of confirmation and that magically exorcized or coniured 1 Philip is not said to haue confirmed the treasurer of Candace Act 8 27 c. 2 Neither is it written that Peter did it to the three thousand Iewes that were conuerted Act 2 40 41 c. 3 Neither is it read that Paul confirmed any of the beleeuers with oile or Chrisme in all the storie of the actes of the Apostles ◠There are abominations in the Popish confirmation 1 That Exorcizing or coniuring of Chrisme is altogether magicall whereby some legions of Diuels are coniured from the oile superstitions the signe of the Crosse and others being annexed thereto 2 It turneth to the disgrace of Baptisme as if more grace were receiued in confirmation than in Baptisme according to the doctrine of the Papists Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1 In confirmation there is the matter or element oile and the word of the Lord In the name of the Father c. it is therefore a Sacrament Answere 1. There is no commaundement of God whereby wee are enioined to vse oile to confirme the mindes of the faithfull 2 By the same reason when wee say grace at dinner there is the matter meate and the forme the word of blessing it or giving thanks therefore by the same reason wee should eate and drinke nothing but Sacraments 3. There wanteth also the commaundement of God whereby the word of blessing and consecration is appointed and tyed to the visible element It is therefore a fallacie taking for a cause that which is no cause and heere bee brought partiall causes not totall part of those thinges that are required to a Sacrament but not all 2 The Apostles Peter and Iohn confirmed the Samaritanes and Paul the Ephesians Act. 8 15 17 and 19 6. Ans 1. We reade not one word that they confirmed them with exorcized oile or giving a blow on the eare which is the Popish ceremonie 2. The places alleaged do speake of the wonderfull gifts of the holy Ghost which are ceased in the Church but Sacraments ought not to cease but and if our Aduersaries can bestow the admirable gifts of the holy Ghost by their confirmation wee will also receaue their confirmation 3. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation and the consecration of the Chrisme the day before he suffered Ans 1. Let them if they can shew vs one sillable heereof in the whole storie of the Gospell 2. Certaine writings wherein such traditions are recorded as beeing receaued from Christ which are thrust vpon vs vnder the name of antiquitie are counterfaits neither are they warrant inough to make a new Sacrament 4 Certaine persons were annointed with oile in the old Testament therfore Christians ought to be confirmed with it Ans 1. Our Sacraments ought by their beginning to be Sacraments of the new Testament 2. Oile in the olde Testament was a shadowing of the holy Ghost but shadowes are alreadie ceased therefore this is an inconsequent argument 3 And if oile may be translated out of the olde Testament into the new why should not also all other the ceremonies of the Leviticall law which Christ hath abrogated at his comming 5. The beleevers were confirmed by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles Answere 1. The Apostles laied their hands on the beleevers that they might receaue the wonderfull gifts of the holy Ghost as was aforesaid besides it was to last but for a time neither was it vsed towards all for there were many thousands of Christians on whom the Apostles laied not their hands for those wonderfull gifts were not bestowed on all Christians And what is this
defined so after generally receiued how soeuer for só-400 or 500 yeares before it was disputed of maintained by some three hundred yeares and this error at the length was spread further and was confirmed by the Lateran Councell Contrariwise our aduersaries doe dispute 1 That which Christ reached to his Apostles was the true bodie of Christ Therfore the bread was turned into his body by Transsubstantiation Ans 1 There is more in the consequent than in the Antecedent For it followeth not Christ gaue his body to his disciples therefore there was his bodie in none other manner than by Transsubstantiation For it was in the sacrament by sacramentall relation and vnion and receiued of the belieuers spiritually by faith 2 Christ sayde not This breade is my bodie but he sayde This meaning thereby his body so that the demonstratiue particle This is construed and taken not for the bread but for the body Heereby therefore he insinuated that the bread was not then in the Eucharist Ans 1. Then the speach shall be this this body shall be my body which is idle 2 This explication of Christs words cannot stand with the doctrine of the Papists For whereas they say that the power of Transsubstantiating is contained in those fiue words pronounced Hoc enim est corpus meu◠for this is my bodie doubtles whē Christ tooke up the breade and pronounced the word This as yet was made no Transsubstantiation and so the speech should haue bin of a non ens a thing which had no being 3 The worde est is is a verbe substantiue which noteth a beeing or subsisting therefore there must needes be Transsubstantiation Ans 1 By the same reason it will as well follow Christ saith I am a vine but the verbe sam or I am is a verbe substantiue which noteth the beeing and subsisting of a thing Therefore there must needes bee Transsubstantiation of Christs nature into a vine 2 It signifieth the beeing but not the manner of the being There is Christs body indeed but not after a naturall manner of being by Transsubstantiation but after a spirituall by faith and sacramentall vnion 4 There must needes bee an Identitie that the body may truly be predicated of the breade for it were not true that breade remaining the same and a different thing from the body should be the body but an Identitie of the breade and body can bee no other way made but by Transsubstantiation Therefore c. Ans There needes no Identitie to make the predication true for this proposition is true the Lambe is the Passeouer and yet the Lambe and the Passeouer bee not the same thing For some things are affirmed of other because they are really formally inherent in them some things again are affirmed of other because they haue an externall vnion and coherence which is most vsuall in all the sacramental speeches both of the old new Testament Circumcision is the Couenant the Rock was Christ c. 5 As that predication is vnderstood Matth 3 This is my beloued Sonne that is whatsoeuer ye see is my beloued Sonne so are the wordes of Christ to be vnderstood in the supper as This is my body that is that which yee see is my body So that the bread remaineth no longer bread Answer 1 Howsoeuer the predication be vnderstood Matthew 3 the contrarie will rather follow thereof For by reason of the neare coniunction of the two natures in Christ the one is predicated of the other in Concreto but there is no Transsubstantiation or changing of one nature into the other 2 Christ was the Sonne of God both in respect of his deitie and of his humanitie And therefore this speach is nothing like those of the Sacrament 6 Seeing that the predication is changed so that the breade is afterward not called bread but the Lords bodie it must needes bee that the subiect that whereof it is spoken must bee changed also therefore there is Transsubstantiation Answer There is a great change but it is of vse and qualitie not of substance Therefore after the consecration it is called blessed and holy breade the communion of the body of Christ and is not common vulgar breade But it followeth not there is a change therefore by Transsubstantiation 7 Tropes and figures are not to bee admitted in the wordes of the supper For it is to bee supposed that Christ would then speake plainely without figures but if Transsubstantiation be not granted there must needes be admttted some figure Therefore c. Answ All figures and improper speeches are not obscure but they are when they be vsuall and knowen most cleare and significant Now there bee no other figures or tropes in the Lords Supper but such as are and alwaies were vsuall in Sacraments and familiarly knowen to the Church 2 How will the Papists auoid a trope in those words of Christ Luk 22 20 This cupp is the New Testament in my bloud Is the cupp properly the Newe Testament 8 Breade before the consecration the Fathers call breade but afterward they call it the body of Christ Ans And so doo wee For though it be in nature bread euen after the consecration as Paul oftentimes calleth it yet is it sacramentally the body of Christ 9 In the liturgie of Saint Iames Transsubstantiation is approued Answere This is a testimonie from a forged and counterfaite writing 10 All things are possible with GOD therefore Transsubstantiation Answere From what GOD can doo to what hee will is no good consequence It is a fond reason to argue as Papists doo from the absolute omnipotencie of GOD without his Word or Promise Heere follow certaine shiftes of our Aduersaries 1 Breade after the phrase of the Hebrues is often taken for nourishment so whereas the body of Christ is the nourishment of the soule it may well be called breade by Paul euen after the consecration Ans It followeth not breade in some places signifieth nourishment therefore in the Lords Supper breade dooth not signifie bread All these propositions be meere particulars and therefore nothing followeth thereof 2 Some things which haue beene changed in nature haue kept their olde name in the scripture as the Rod of Moses that was turned into a Serpent So may breade after it is transsubstantiated keepe the name of breade Ans 1 They should first proue that there is Transsubstantiation but this argument of the Papists presupposeth Transsubstantiation which we denie It is therefore a begging of the thing in question 2 They bee meere particulars from which nothing will follow 3 The Ancient Church admitted of the Phrase Sub specie that is vnder the shape or Accidents Therefore they intimate hereby that the breade and wine remaine not Ans Our Aduersaries trifle with an aequiuocation of the worde Species For the Fathers tooke it for the one part or kinde of the outward Element in the Sacrament as it is also meant in that question betweene vs and the Papists
strange gentle Reader if this councel had been beaten to powder with lightning and thunder from Heauen which hath mangled turned vp side downe and broken the Testament and last will of the Son of God giuen vs in charge by the eternall Wisedome of GOD with such friuolous foolish and idle reasons Thus forsooth the Sacraments are to be handled so great ought to bee the authoritie of the Sonne of God in his Church with what burden of conscience then doo our Aduersaries defend this mangling Contrariwise our aduersarieâ— do dispute 1. Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of Mee that is administer the Supper in remembrance of Mee but this agreeth onely to Priests not to Laicks Therefore neither doth the Cup belongeth vnto the Laicks seeing it pertaineth â—ot to them to administer the Supper Ans 1 By this reason the Laicks should be thrust not from one but from both kinds of the Sacrament 2 The word Doe hath not only reference to him that administreth but to the coÌ„municants too Otherwise seeing the apostles did not administer in the 1 supper but onely receiued the Sacrament froÌ„ Christ they also should haue communicated but vnder one kinde 2 All the Apostles were Priests therefore the vse of the Cup and that precept Drinke ye c. belong to Priests onely Ans 1 Then the Primitiue CHVRCH did amisse and Paul the Apostle too who deliuered the Supper vnto the lay people not mangling the Communion of the Laicks as they call them but in such wise as hee had receiued it from the Lord that is so as it was deliuered vnto him 2 Againe by this reason the latity should bee excluded not from the cup onely but from the whole Sacrament 3 It cannot be that Apostles were then Priests that is sayers or doers of masse because then the masse had no beeing at all that the Apostles were made priests at the Supper it is a tale framed without authoritie of the scripture If it bee obiected that they were made Priests before when they were sent to preach the schoole-diuines denie it who say that they were made Priests at the supper and reduce the Apostles at the time of their sending forth into the order of exâ—rcists not of priests 6 Christ did not so institute both kindes that it may not be lawfull also to communicate vnder one kinde onely Answ 1 The Antecedent proposition is most false for it cannot be shewed in scripture that Christ did institute both kindes as a thing indifferent and arbitrarie 2 The words of Christ are vnanswerable Drinke ye all of this Now vnlesse they can shew a restriction or limitation in the scripture of this vniuersall proposition it remaiueth an vniuersall in his full force 3. It is a Doctour like interpretation Drinke ye all that is it is not needfull that all drinke Then those vniuersall sayings shall also bee so expounded Come vnto me all ye that are wearie that is it is not needefull that all which are wearie and heauie laden should come vnto me c. A rare kinde of Diuinitie no doubt 4 The true body of Christ is not without Concomitance bloude therefore seeing the bloude is contained also vnder hat kinde it is sufficient to communicate vnder one kinde onely Answer 1 This argument deserueth thunder claps and eternall brimstone Christ forsooth seemeth foolish to them who not considering that his bloud was coÌ„tained vnder his bodie instituted vnnecessary things in his last will as not hauing his wits well about him for feare of death But Wisedome is iustified of her children 2 And if vnder the breade there were the bodie not voide of bloude yet we should not so satisfie Christs commandement who commanded vs not to eate but to drinke drinke drinke his bloud 5 Paul saith whosoeuer shall eate this bread or drinke c. 1. Corin 11 17. there by the disiunctiue particle or is granted a Communion vnder one kinde Answer 1 If that were Paulls meaning then were it lawfull to communicate with the cup only without breade which seeing our Aduersaries denie they doe thereby expose the vanity of this argument to bee derided 2 Paul when hee describeth the institution of the Supper in its proper place 1 Corinth 11 24. 25 26 28. Vseth no disiunctiue particle 3. Our Aduersaries in running to the Greeke text doe against the councell of Trent which enioyneth the ould vulgar latine translation of the Bible to bee helde for authenticall in disputations so that no man may dare or presume to reiect it vpon any pretence what seeuer Sess 4 Decret 2. 6 Paul saith in the Greeke texte All wee are Partakers of one breade and those words et de vno calice and of one cup though they be in the olde translation yet they are not in the Greeke text Therefore Paul allowed a Communion vnder one kinde Answ 1 It is a failacie of composition and Division because those wordes are seuered from the entire and perfect reasoning of Paul by which words he argueth afterwarde from the communion of the cup as in the beginning hee did from the communion of the breade saying yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cuppe of deuills From these words a man might conclude by the same consequence as the Papists vpon their authoritie doe that it were lawfull to communicate with the cup onely without breade 7 Paul saith let vs keepe the feast in vnleauened breade 1 Cor. 5 8. There Paul maketh no mention of the cup insinuating one kinde onely Ans Paul speakes of the newnesse of life of the regenerate by an argument drawen from a rite of the Passeouer whereby they abstained from leauen This is then an idle inconsequent reason For these are Pauls words whole and entire let vs keep the feast not with olde leauen neither in the leauen of maâ—â—tiousnesse and wickednesse but with the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth These are nothing to the Lords supper there are then foure termes 8 Christ celebrated the supper vnder one kind onely before his two disciples in Emaus Luke 24 30. Ans 1. There is described Christs vsuall custome wherein hee vsed to breake bread at dinner or supper and to blesse it neither doth there appeare any shew of the celebration of the Supper in this storie The words are not said This is my body they are not bid eate or call to remembrance the Lords death neither is it said that the two Disciples did eate but it seemeth rather that they broke off their Supper straightwaies for ioy 9. Paul celebrated the Supper vnder one kinde onely in the ship Act. 27 35. Ans There is nothing at all of the Supper but of alaying their hunger vnlesse our Aduersaries would haue it that the heathen and vnconuerted Souldiours did communicate too and that they grewe to bee merie in the celebration of the Supper of the Lord as at a feast or banquet for both these are comprised in that rehearsall of Saint Luke The
which now are prayed vnto never were at all such as George Christopher c. are fained to haue beene Wee haue no examples of the inuocation of Saints and Angells in the Scripture but we haue examples to the contrary 1 Paul Barnabas would not be worshipped Act 14 14 15. 2 So the Angel of the Lord forbade himselfe to be worshipped Reuel 19 10 and 22 8 9. GOD accounteth all the worship of a Creature according to the worship of God idolatrie and esteemeth it as an Apostacy from GOD. 1 By the example of the Samarâ—tans who worshipped the creature together with GOD 2 King 17 41. 2 My people hath committed two euils they haue forsaken Mee the fountaine of liuing waters and digged to themselues broken cisternes Iere 2 13. 3 The Gentiles offended for that they woâ—shipped and serued the creature paraton ktisanâ—a beside the Creator Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus 1 Euen as in Princes Courts there is neede of some mediatour to procure accesse to Princes so when we would pray vnto God we haue neede of the Saints to be our mediatours Answ 1 Similitudes proue nothing 2 A certaine widowe calling to the Emperour of Rome for justice when he answeared I am not at leisure to heare thee then quoth she haue no leisure neither to be Emperour It is a similitude ill befitting this thing for it is a fault if Princes themselues refuse to heare their subiects either for negligence or pride And if they refuse because promiscuous admittance of all might bee dangerous to their persons or because themselues cannot doe all but leaue many things to their officers these bee infirmities which belong to men but no way to God For God is not as man 2 It is a point of Christian humility to seeke for a Mediatour when thou iudgest thy selfe vnworthâ—e Hos 11 9. Answ 1. We haue neede of humility but of true humility which is such that we esteeme our selues and the merits of all Saints more vnworthy than we may obtaine mercy for them but for Christs sake alone This is true humility which doth not leade vs from Christ Seeing then our Aduersaries meane another humility than this by this ambiguity of the word humility there arise foure termes 2 The popish humilitie is repugnant to the commandemeÌ„t of God For God saith Call vpon me in the day of trouble The Papists wil answer Lord humility teacheth me not to cal vpon thee because I am vnworthy 3 He that honoureth the friends of the Prince doth that which is acceptable to the Prince So the worship of Saints may be acceptable to God Ans 1 Againe our Aduersaries deale by Similitudes and coniectures in a matter of such difficulty 2 That saints are to bee honoured or reuerenced no man denieth but they may not so be honoured as that God be thereby robbed of his honour which is done by inuocation but they are honored by publishing the vertues wherewith God indued them and by imitating the godlinesse wherin they flourished 4 Christ is of greater dignitie than that we may dare to come vnto him because hee is made higher than the heauens Therefore we haue need of the mediation of Saints Ans 1 The Antecedent is false as hath bin shewed before And Christ calleth vs to come vnto him saying Come vnto me al c. Mat 11 28. 2 This is not humilitie but diffidence reproued condemned by God 5 Let my name bee called vpon these children and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac c. Genes 48 16. Therefore the Saints are to bee called vpon in prayer Answ 1. The Papists deny that inuocation of Saints was in vse in the olde Testament the Fathers as their fable is beeing then in Limbus Why then doo they alleadge a testimony of the olde Testament 2 It is an hebrue phrase to call or name ones name ouer another that is to bee reckoned in his family as seauen women shall take holde on one man saying let thy name be called or named ouer vs that is let vs be called by thy name and so bee thou our husband Isay 4 1. 6 Though Moses Sâ—amuel stood before me yet mine affections could not bee toward this people Iâ—r 15 1. Ezech 14 14. Ans 1 A conditionall speech proueth nothing vnlesse the condition be first granted And the sense of the text doth shew that these men did not then stand before God for the people 2 The Papists themselues doe denie that they tâ—en stoode before God but they say they were in Limbus Therefore they alleadge this saying against their conscience 7 The Fathers in the olde Testament did often pray for the merites sake of the Patriarches as Iacob Genes 32 9. Moses Exod 32 13. Deute 9 27. Psal 132 10 c. Ans Let the places be considered it wil be manifest that they provoked not to the persons or merits of the patriarches but to the Couenant which God of his meere fauour and mercy had made with the Patriarches their posterity The argument then is altogether impertinent 8 As Absolon when he was reconciled to his father was not by and by admitted into his fathers presence 2 Sam 14 24. So sinners reconciled vnto God may not goe straight into Gods presence but must vse intermediate persons namely the Saints departed Ans 1 There is great difference between the reconciliation with God and reconciliation with a ciuill Magistrate and neither prescribeth any rule vnto other The argument then is vnfit and drawen from things of vnlike and different qualitie 2 The Heauenly Father is glad of the returne of his prodigall son and goeth out to meete him not waiting til some daies man make way for the sonne to his father Luke 15 20. 9 As Adonias did not himselfe goe vnto Salomon but sent his mother before whom the King set at his right hand so we send before vs the mother of Christ who is placed at the right hand of Christ 1 King 2 19. Answ 1. The Kingdome of Christ is one thing and an externall politick kingdome is an other neither can it be proued that the Kingdome of Christ is to bee gouerned on the same fashion as politick kingdomes vse to be 2 From this place we may conclude against our Aduersaries that as Adonias obtained nothing by his Mother so those which seek for the intercession of Saints sâ—al obtaine nothing nay they shall haue the heauenly King Christ angry with them 10 Call now if any will answere thee turn thee to some of the Saints Iob 5 1. Ans 1 The right translation is to which of the Saints wilt thou turne thee and the meaning is looke and see whom thou canst find to agree to thee or to which of the saints or holy men thou wilt be take thee for the defence of thy cause The godly will not and the vngodly cannot defend thy cause Where then shalt thou find any defence 2 Or Iobs friends bid him look
Monkes will never be perswaded to practise 2 Error Whereas in the Church of God it is left at libertie for any man to fast at any fit time yet the Papists are so bound to their fastes by lawes at sette times that he may incurre the danger of his head who shall breake his fast at those times Which also is repugnant to Christian liberty Let no man condemne you in meate or drinke or in respect of an holy day or of the new Moone or of the Sabbath dayes Colos 2 16. 3 Error The Papists teach that fasting hath the nature of a merite and that it is a satisfaction for actuall sins and punishments This is repugnant to the doctrine of the merite and one only satisfaction of our Saviour and to the article of Iustification as was declared in his proper place Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute 1 The Ninivites and others haue by fasting obtained a mitigation of punishments therefore fasting is meritorious Ans 1. They that obtained the spirituall grace of God obtained it by faith for without faith no man can please God Heb. 11. 6. 2 And whereas others obtained a mitigating or deferring of temporal punishments it belongeth not to this disputation wherein the question is not of temporall grace but of the grace of iustification So the wicked King Ahab by fasting and humbling himself in sack-cloath obtained the deferring of temporall evils but escaped not eternall punishments 1 King 21 29. 4 Error Heere in the Papists erre also that of a wrong zeale they thrust vpon the Church the fast of Lent without any authoritie from God Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason 1. Christ fasted forty dayes Matth. 4 2. but every action of Christ is our instruction therefore c. Ans 1. This fast was miraculous neither is there any thing in it which agreeth with the Popish fast But and if every action of Christ be our instruction then we must worke miracles too 2. We should also in like manner abstaine 40 daies altogether from all meate 3 We haue no commandement to imitate this fact of Christ 4. And if we must imitate every action of Christ in particular then wee should with a whip scourge the Popish Merchants of holy things out of the temples But woe to the Pope with his Simoniacal mates if this dealing should be vsed 2. Moses and Elias fasted 40 daies Ans 1 If their example should bind others to imitate them then the fast of Lent should haue beene instituted in the olde Testament also which seeing it was not done the vanitie of this argument is apparent 2 Both their fastes were miraculous and vnimitable 3 Lent fast is the tithing of the daies of the yeare Therefore it was well ordained of the Church Ans These be fictions of idle braines without the word of God Will-worships therefore to be condemned 4 The Canons of the Apostles doe commend the fast of Lent Ans 1 They be counterfait Canons which our Aduersaries themselues dare not altogether denie vnlesse they they be without both iudgement and shame 2 There are many things in those Canons which the Papists themselues at this day doe reiect 5 Error He that violateth the law of fasting or of Lent is sorer punished amongst our Aduersaries than he that transgresseth the law of God Why doe yee transgresse the commandement of God for or by your tradition Mat. 15 3. 6 Error There are many mockeries in this Popish Lent fast They permit most delicate fishes to bee eaten which are more dainty than any beefe or veale such as are Pikes Sea-pikes Salmonds Giltheads Gudgions Lampreyes Eeles Oysters c. These meates may bee and vse to bee daynties manie times in the more costlie banquettes of rich men or perhaps of noble personages It is a fit course forsooth to tame the flesh by dainties In the meane while they refraine not from wine but reserue the strongest wine for Lent time taming the flesh if it please you with strong wine according to that of the Proverbs Prou. 23 31 33. That the hypocrites may seeme to fast till evening they sing their Evensong at dinner time that afterward they may freely banquet and take their repast as if God did not know the houre of the day but by their service and singing In the evening they make a Collation so they call it with divers delicate sawces confections spices almonds and wine and in the mean time they beare the world in hand that they fast notably They sell Indulgences for money to eate butter flesh egges white meates c. in Lent time committing Simonie and making way for advaâ—ntage and gaine by fastes The iudgment of the holy Ghost of such manner of Fastes Crye aloude spare not lifte thy voice like a Trumpet and shewe my people their transgression and to the house of Iacob their sinnes Yet they seeke me dayly and will know my wayes euen as a nation that did righteously and had not forsaken the statutes of their God they aske of me the ordinances of iustice they will drawe neere vnto God saying wherefore haue we fasted and thou seest it not c. Is it such a fast that I haue chosen that a man should afflict his soule for a day and to bow downe his head as a bulrush and to lye downe in sackcloth ashes wilt thou call this a fasting or an acceptable day to the Lord Is not this the fasting that I haue chosen to loose the bands of wickednesse c. Isay 58. 1 2 c. When ye fast looke not sowre as the hypocrites for they disfigure their faces that they might seeme to men to fast Verely I say vnto you they haue their rewarde Matth. 6 16. Bodily exercise profiâ—eth little 1 Tim 4 8. Where Paul doth not speake of the exercises of the body vndertaken for healths sake but of abstinence from those things which are in themselues left free and indifferent and such exercises he maketh no great reckoning of A Popish shifte The Pope doth not say that meates are euill Therefore the place of Paul 1 Tim 4 1 3. belongeth not to him Answ 1. Neither dooth Paul say that erroneous spirits shall say that meats are euill but that they shall bring in an abstinence froÌ„ certaine meates vnder what preâ—ense of Religion soeuer it bee done 2 And the place Coloss 2 20 c which we cited is more cleare than that it can bee shifted off The Pope therefore remaineth a Doctor that teacheth the doctrine of deuils CHAP. 23. Of Repentance WHereas the Pope of Rome hath thrust his errours into the article of Repentance also wee will likewise briefely propose them 1 Error Contrition which otherwise neither ought nor can be excluded from repentance is required by our Aduersaries not simply in Repentance but they teach that sinnes are blotted out and satisfied for by contrition which wee ascribe to Christ alone who was wounded for our transgressions Isa 53 5 according as the Scripture teacheth vs as
Answer 1. The Epistle to the Hebrewes cap 8 vers 10 doth so expound these words that hee compareth together the constraint or coaction of the law of Moses to wit the involuntarie and enforced obedience and the renovation of the mind by the Spirit of the Gospell whereby the beleeuers by the Sanctification of the Spirit wrought by the preaching of the Gospell doe performe a willing voluntary obedience to God the wil of man being set at liberty by the Spirit of God and doe delight in the Law of â—od and haue no more stony hearts but fleshly tractable to performe obedience vnto their Lord. 2 What priuiledge soeuer is graunted by this gratious promise the Pope Cardinalls and the rest of that Hierarchie haue no reason to challenge it as proper to themselues seeing the Apostle applyes it as doth also the Prophet to all euen the least of Gods children They shall no more teach euerie man his neighbour saying know the Lord for they shall all know mee from the least to the greatest of them as it followeth in the next words Ierem. 31 34 and Heb. 8 11. 3 Yee are the Epistle of Christ ministred by vs and written not with inke but with the Spirit of the liuing God not in tables of stone but in the fleshy tables of the heart 2 Corinthians 3 3. Answ 1. Paul compares the commendatorie letters whereby some of the falâ—e Apostles did glory in their ministerie and the worke it selfe which ought to commend the work-man and shewes that he hath no neede of letters of commendation because the effect of his preaching in the Corinthians did testifie that his Ministerie ioyned with the holy Spirit was powerfull and effectuall It will by no meanes therefore hence follow that there is one inward and an other outward Scripture 2 The contrary doth rather follow hereof because the holy Ghost was powerful by the meanes of Pauls ministerie that therfore it was a mediate and not immediat word wherby it pleaseth him to save those that believe Rom 1 16. 4 Yee have no neede that any Man should teach you but as the same annointing teacheth you all things c. and you have an oyntment from him which is holy and yee haue knowen all things 1 Ioh 2 20 27. Therefore we must have recourse not to the Scripture but to the annointing of the Spirit Ans 1 That Saint Iohn speaketh of the annointing which Christians receive by the preaching of the Gospell these wordes do shew Let therfore abide in you the same which yee have heard from the beginning verse 24. Also I write no new commandement vnto you but an old commandemeÌ„t which ye have had from the beginning c. verse 7. Therefore S. Iohn dooth not teach that there is a two-fold Scripture but declareth that they were inlightned by the publike ministery of the Word endued with the Holy ghost that now they do know by those thinges which they had heard how they ought to behave theÌ„selues in all things 2 It is therefore no good conclusion from the publike mediate ministerie to the immediate writing of the Spirit seeing there bee foure termes 3. If such an inwarde writing had been sufficient what need had there bin of Iohns outward writing 5 All thy Children shall be taught of God Isai 54 13. Ioh 6 45. Ans 1. The Prophet Christ do speake of the knowledge of Christ which should be more plentifull in the new Testament than is was in the olde but never a whit of the inward and outward Scripture 2. If they mean an immediate teaching then fall they into the absurditie of the Enthusiasts Schwenfeldians if they meane a mediate teaching let them know that the holy Scripture is that medium that meanes which is able to instruct vs to Saluation 2 Timoth 3 17. 3. It were strange If the Papists would attribute this inward writing and gift of vnderstanding Scriptures which they claime by these places to the common lay people among them yet all these places are meant of all the faithfull vnder the gospell as it is evident by the words circumstances of the places cited CHAP. 6. Of Councells THE Papists in defence of their errors obiect vnto vs the authority of certain CouÌ„cells as sacred and such as may not bee gaine sayde We willingly imbrace those Councells whose decrees speake out of the holy scripture alleaged in his true meaning but if any where they swarue from the truth we think they ought to bee examined by the rule of the holy Scripture and do believe that no faithfull man is bound to stand to their authority if they decree any thing against Scripture But above all we detest their Idolatrous councells And that which I have sayd is built on these grounds following We reade in the holy scriptures that some Councells have erred 1 The Councell which was for the condemning of Christ Mat 26 27. 2 The Councell which condemned Peter and Iohn Act 4 5. 3 The councell which condemned Stephen Act 7. 4 The Councell that was gathered against Paul Act 22 23. Certain Councells celebrated in the time of the antient Fathers and afterwards have erred for example 1 Manie Councells forbade the Ministers of the Church to marrie contrary to the expresse Word of God 2 The Councell of Constance admitted the mangling of the Lords Supper 3 The Trent Councell hath confirmed Carte loads of errors So some other councells which for brevity sake I passe over in silence have either decreed false opinions or have approved them being inuented of others before Which to bee so our Divines have plainely proved in their severall Treatises Becavse some Councels disagree one with an other in their whole constitutions which See Erasmus in his annotatioÌ„s on the 1 Corinth 7 no man can deny who hath read and compared together the decrees of all the Councells Reade but the decrees of Gratian and thou shalt often times finde diverse and contrarie Canons concerning one and the same matter alleaged of him in the same distinctioÌ„ The Papists themselues receive not all things nor all Canons in all Councells Take for example the Canons which are caried about vnder the name of the Apostles Manie Canons of Councells are countersaite For the Bishops of Rome have beene conuicted of forgerie for corrupting the Canons of the Councell of Nice In one and the same Councell in divers copies the words number of the Canons are different Look the Tomes of the councells They be men that are gathered together in Councells and seeing they be men why may they not bee deceived and lye as the Scripture speaketh Psalm 116 11. for neither is the Spirit of God tyed to those persons Contrarily thus our Aduersaryes reason thus 1 All the faithfull were bounde to the obseruation of the Councell of Ierusalem Acts 15. Therfore they be bound to keepe the councels of Bishops Ans There is great difference between the Councell of the Apostles and
infallible as beeing receiued from heauen Heere therefore wee are to handle three questions 1 Whether the Church of Rome or our Church bee the true Church 2 Whether wee ought to grant that there is an invisible Church 3 Whether the Church can erre First of al in the entrance we must obserueâ— that there may many waies arise ambiguitiâ— in the word Church First it doth signifie indefinitely Ambiguitie in the word Church euery Church or congregation and is taken both in the good and bad paâ—â— for any kinde of assembly or congregation whence also the Scripture maketh mentioâ— of the malignant Church Secondly it is tâ—ken for the company of them which aâ— called by the outward ministerie of thâ— word and Sacraments wherein are gathâ—red both good and bad Matthew 13. Thirdlie it is taken for the inuisible Church or the company of them which vse the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments to their saluation and are truely beleeuers which also may bee called the companie of the Elect. Fourthly it is taken foure maner of waies in respect of the foure fold outward face of the Church 1 For the most pure Church of the Apostles 2 for the Church of the Fathers wherein there was a more sincere state of doctrine than in after-ages yet it was not altogether voide of superstition 3 For the Church of Antichrist which is ouerflowne with horrible Idolatrie as with a kinde of deluge 4 For the reformed Church restored according to the conformitie of the Apostolick Church A fift signification the Papists haue made vs vnderstanding by the Church not a company of teachers learners but the Pope Cardinalls Bishoppes Monkes c. By obseruing of these distinctions we shall detect many stratagems of the Papists seeing they play continually with the ambiguitie or equiuocation of the word Church and in their arguments they bring sometimes fiue termes But now let vs come to the questions Question 1. Whether the Church of Rome which at this day blasphemes the Gospell of Christ curseth and persecuteth the professours thereof or ours be the true Church Wee denie that the Church of Rome is the true Church for these reasons Because they want the true notes and the true definition of the Church therefore neither haue they the definitum that is the Church 1. The Church heareth the voice of Christ Iohn 10 27 Which is reuealed in the Scripture which the Papists do not heare and that 1 in refusing it for their Iudge 2 in making decrees in many thinges against it 3 In giuing it but cold and slender commendation 2. Because they haue not the sincere ministration of the Sacraments and that 1 in forging new Sacraments 2 in defiling Baptisme with humane superstitions 3 in making Monasticall habite state equall to it 4 In changing the Lords supper into a sacrifice 5 And in the Câ—munion of lay people in maiming it of the one kinde that is by taking the cup froÌ„ the people they haue not therefore an vncorrupt Ministerie and consequently their Church may not be called a true Church Because they haue not so much as the notes which the Papists themselues require in the definition of a Church 1. Their Church hath not vnitie 1 Because they striue amongst theÌ„selues about manie things 2 They haue not vnitie by reason of the foure-fold face and condition of the Church before noted 2. Their church is not holy because they trust in their own holines which before god is not holines but as filthy clouts Isai 64 6. 3. It is not Catholick 1 Because they haue not the consent of the whole world for the Greeke Church hath alwaies dissented from them in diuers points 2 because they defend not the vniuersall true doctrine of all times therefore they neither agree with the Church of the Apostles nor yet with the Church of the Fathers 4. It is not Apostolick because they agree not with the Apostles doctrine seeing verie many of their thinges are not Apostolick but superstitions raked together and compiled of sundry Authors Take for example there of the Canon of the Masse and the mangling of the Lords Supper which was vnknowne for many ages and at length established by the Counsell of Constance Likewise Indulgences the feast of Corpus Christi other moe without number concerning which looke Polidor Virgil. lib. 4. cap. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 As also the whole 5 6 7 8 bookes But of such like superstitions of the Romaine Church that they be contrary to the Scripture shal hereafter bee spoken in their proper places sufficiently Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason thus 1 The Church of God hath had the name of the Church euer since the Apostles time therefore it is the true Church Answ 1. It followeth not It was long agoe Simil. This woman was long since a Maid therfore nowe she cannot be an harlot therefore now it is 2 There is no good argument from the bare name of a thing to the thing it selfe 3 Neither yet doe wee denie but that there doth at this day remaine some Church in the City of Rome to wit of such as bee yong children girles and simple men which simply believe in Christ their Saviour and trust nor in their owne merits Neither is it to be doubted but that there be some intelligent and wise men in Rome who with all their hearts derest the Popes impietie and tyrannie But all these are not that Roman Church with the authoririe wherof our Aduersaries do seeke to oppresse and beare vs downe 2 The Fathers themselves did account the Roman Church for the true Church Ans 1 Here be foure termes For in the Antecedent the worde Church is taken for that face or condition of the Church which was in the Fathers time in the consequent for that state wherin Antichrist doth raigne Now it followes not it was so twelue or thirteene hundred yeares ago or vpward therefore it is so now 3 The state of the Roman Church is most antient therefore the Roman Church by reason of his antiquity is the true Church Ans 1 We denie the Antecedent for the testimonies alleaged before out of Polidor Vergill 2 not simply that which is ancieÌ„t is to be received but that which is most ancient For the Devill is ancient but God is more ancient 3 Antiquity cannot make that good which in it selfe is bad 4 The Church of Rome is the Vniversall and Catholicke Church therefore it is the trve Church Ans Wee denie the Antecedent For if by the word Catholicke be meant that which agreeth with the Catholicke and so with the Apostles doctrine then the Antecedent is absolutely false But if the Church of Rome be called Catholicke by reason of the multitude of those that take parte and cleave to that side then the multitude of them that err is no iust defence for the error Otherwise in the time of Arrianisme the Apostolicke CHVRCH as beeing brought to a great paucitie shoulde
and therefore the place is fitly and properly translated There are diuersities of gifts 2 Wee haue receiued grace for grace Iohn 1 16. 1 This is a Doctour like exposition made of their meere Doctour like authoritie without reason wee haue receiued grace that is the grace of iustification for grace that is for the first preuenting grace but the meaning of Saint Iohn is because the sonne of God was in highest grace and fauour with his heauenly father therfore the father doth embrace vs also with his grace and louing kindnesse for his sonnes sake in whom we beleeue 2. That grace in this place is opposed vnto merites the wordes next following doe declare for the law was giuen by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Heere Christ and Moses are opposed betwixt themselues as it were in the proper differences of their offices that is of wrath by the lawe and of grace by the Gospell 3 Grace is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. therefore it is an infused and inherent habite Answere 1 It is a fallacie of composition and diuision arising from the construction of the words for the word gift is not simplie and alone construed with the word grace but with saluation by grace which if it might should haue been expressed in one word Brieffely plainely the Apostle saith not Grace is the gift of God but that ye are saued by grace that is the gift of God 2 and for the same cause the gift in this place is not a habite for gift is opposed there to workes and merites as being a thing that is bestowed of meere fauour 4 It is a good thing that the hart be established with grace Heb 13 9 Answere 1 It is a begging of the question because this is controuersed whether Grace doe in these wordes signifie an infused habite 2. In that very place the Apostle opposeth Grace to the vaine confidence of workes against them who put confidence in meates drinkes c. Therefore by the nature of contraries it appeareth that the worde grace is heere taken for the free fauour and mercy of God so the argument hangeth not together for in the Antecedent Grace is taken for the fauour of God in the consequent for an infused habite CHAP. 10. Of Iustification SEeing our aduersaries doe diuerse wayes wrâ—p and inuolue this disputation let vs devide it into certaine and distinct members and questions Question 1. And first of all whereas the word Iustification wrested to a wrong signification by our aduersaries as if to iustifie were of an vniust man to make one iust habitually or by a habite infused and seeing they hisse at imputed righteousnesse let vs consider the true signification of the word which is no other but to be absolved from the guilte of sinne that it bee not imputed but pardoned which appeareth to bee so by the reasons following Because the word Iustification is a borowed word from the court and place of iudgement which in his proper and naturall signification is vsed in the Scripture for to absolue acquitte from fault and guilte as 1 Wo to them that iustifie the wicked for a reward Isai 5 23. 2 The righteous shal bee iustified and the wicked condemned Deuter 25 1 3 Euerie man that hath a matter might come vnto me that I might iustifie him as the originall hath and is translated agreeable to the sense more plainely that I might doe him iustice 2 Sam. 15 4. 4 He that iustifieth the wicked and hee that condemneth the iust euen they both are abomination Note that the whole acte of Iustification is very liuely described in the scripture as a kind of iudiciall acte processe the person guilty is called to the barre is accused witnesses are brought he is condemned or acquitted c. to the Lord Prov. 17 15. So doth the same word keepe the same signification borowed from the court and iudicial proceedings in the Article of Iustification in the Scripture 1 Who shall laie any thing to the charge of Gods chosen It is God that Iustifieth who shall condemne c. Rom 8 33 34 heere yee see words and phrases borowed froÌ„ the court and Iudiciall proceedings to accuse to condemne to iustifie c. The equivalent termes of iustification or other words vsed to signifie iustification doth proue the same 1 Reconciliation is taken for Iustification Rom 5 9 10 2 Corinth 5 19 2 Remission of sinnes is taken for Iustification 1 Blessed is he whose wickednesse is forgiuen Psal 32 1 2 Iesus shall saue his people from their sinnes Matt. 1 21. 3 To giue knowledge of saluation vnto his people by the remission of their sinnes Luke 1 77 3 To cover sinnes is vsed for Iustification Blessed is he whose sinne is couered Psal 32 1 4 The holy Scripture doth describe Iustification by the words imputation reckoning accounting c as 1 God was in Christ and reconciled the world vnto himselfe not imputing their sinnes vnto them 2 Corinth 5 19. 2 Blessed is the man vnto whome the Lord imputeth not iniquitie Psal 32 2 3 As Dauid declareth the blessednesse of the man vnto whome God imputeth righteousnes without workes Rom 4 6 4 Abraham belieued God and it was counted to him for righteousnes Rom 4 â— 5 To him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Rom 4 5. 6 It is not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnes but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed for righteousnes which beleeue in him c. Rom. 4. 23 24 Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason 1 To iustifie by force of grammaticall composition of the word is all one as to make a man iust of one who before was not iust therefore to iustifie is to make iust Ans 1 Heere be foure termes in the Antecedent the signification of the word iustificatioÌ„ is taken grammatically in the consequent it is taken according to that signification which belongeth properly to Diuinitie 2. The true signification of the word is to be sought for in the proper science wherin the question is contained 2 By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many Esai 53. 11 therefore hee doth iustifie them by an infused habite Ans It is a fallacie called ignoratio elenchi for the necessarie determination or limitation is omitted which followeth in the next words for he shal beare their iniquities which wordes declare that iustification is to bee vnderstoode heere by imputation for they are iustified by his bearing their sinnes as if themselues had borne and wyped away their owne sinnes 3 Holinesse shall preserue and iustifie the heart that is shall cause that the heart bee made iuste Ecclesiastic 1. 17. Answere 1 The booke is not Canonicall and therefore in a point of such moment his authoritie is not sufficient â— in the Greeke text the word iustification is not found 3 Neither if to iustifie in this place
The Apostles did annoint many sicke men with oile and healed them Mark 6. 13 therefore Extreame vnction is a Sacrament enâ—oined by Christ to the Apostles Ans 1. That annointing was a temporarie thing neither hath it any commaundemeÌ„t that we should do the like 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul Act 19. 12. and the shadowe of Peter whereby manie sicke men were healed Acts. 15. 15. should be Sacraments 3. The text speaketh of miraculous gifts which because they endured but for a time doe not come within the coÌ„passe of Sacraments 3 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray for him and annoint him with oile c. Iames 5. 14. Answer 1. It followeth not Iames speaketh of oile therefore of oile of Extreame vnction magicallie exorcized 2. That annointing was not extreame vnction but was for the recoverie of health whereas on the contrarie side extreame vnction is administred in Poperie to them which are readie foorth-with to die when there is no hope of any recoverie 3 The meaning of Saint Iames is that praier should be made for the sick that their sinnes may bee forgiven them whereby they haue drawne sicknes vpon them but thence ariseth no Sacrament 4. Caietan no meane Cardinall among the Papists saith this place cannot bee vnderstoode of extreame vnction but of the miraculous annointing spoken of Mark 6. Whereof hee giveth three reasons 1 Because Iames doth not say Is anie man sicke vnto death but simply is any man sicke 2 The end and effect heereof is the easing of the sicke but of remission of sins he speaketh not but only conditionally wheras Extreame vnction is not administred but at the point of death is directly intended for remission of sinnes 3 Iames bids call for many Ministers to one sicke man both to pray for him and to annoint him which is much different from the rite of Extreame vnction So one of their owne pillars hath wyped them of two places at once This of Iames and the sixth of Marke which are the onely shewes of authoritie the Papists haue for this forged Sacrament CHAP. 15. Of Transsubstantiation OVr Aduersaries doe expound the sacramentall vnion in the Eucharist to bee by manner of Transsubstantiation whereby they imagine that after the words of consecration the elements doe altogether vanish away and are changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ so that besides the bare accidents which are seene tasted and felt there remaineth no whit of the elements in the Sacrament but we denie that there needes any such fiction of Transsubstantiation for the making of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that for these reasons The nature of a Sacrament requireth that there be together an earthly and an heavenlie lie matter as Irenaeus saith or not that the substance be changed but that grace be adioined as Theodoret speaketh Because there be other meanes of Sacramentall vnion than by Transsubstantiation alone as is apparent in Baptisme Christ saith not This shall bee made my body or this is changed into my body but This is my body to wit by sacramentall relation and vnion as in other Sacraments Paul the heavenly Interpreter of Christs words doth not admit Transsubstantiation but doth so interprete the sacramentall vnion that stil the visible elements remaine or the bread of the Sacrament after the consecration hee calleth bread still to giue vs to vnderstand that the substance of the bread remaineth still 1 The bread saith he which we breake that is distribute after the consecration is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. All we are partakers of one bread 1. Corinth 10. 16. 3. As often as yee shall eate this bread 1 Cor 11. 26. 4. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vers 27. 5. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread verse 28. So haue the Fathers explaned this mysterie that they declare that the elements remaine as Receaue that in the bread spiritually by faith which hanged vppon the Crosse Augustine These manner of speaches in the Scripture are almost alike God is man This is my beloved sonne In which phrases is noted the most neare and straite vnion of the two natures in Christ farre straiter and more neare than this of the Sacrament and yet is not concluded the transsubstantiation of one nature into another or the abolishing of either nature Vpon the opinion of Transsubstantiation many absurdities doe follow 1 So Christ should be said to haue a twofold body or two bodies whereof the one should bee taken from the virgine Marie and the other should be made of bread 2. We should not receaue the body crucified for vs but a certaine other thing which an houre before was not that bodie but bread nay which a little before had no being in nature which is absurd and impious contrarie to the wordes of Christ whereby he promiseth vs that bodie that was given for vs and that bloud which was shed for vs. 3. Accidents are heereby made to bee without a subiect as if when the snow is melted the whitenes of the snow should remaine alone with out a subiect 4. Mise that gnawe the consecrated bread cannot gnaw bare accidents alone Therefore either accidents are substances that they may be subiect to the grinding of teeth or the glorified body of Christ is subiect to elementarie passions and naturall sufferings both of which are most absurd The like question may bee made concerning the burning of the Eucharist what it is that burneth whether bare accidents or the body of Christ 5 Infinite such other grosse absurdities may bee seene in the Writings of that famous man Wilhel Holderus de mure exenterato wherein are recited many other such like things according to the opinion of the Schoole men Our Aduersaries themselues doe not beleeve that there is Transsubstantiation 1. And therefore they seeke out other and more goodly words as annihilation of the elements or a ceasing of them to be desinition they call it 2. Gerson amongst his reasons for the communion vnder one kinde bringeth this as a reason why the cup should bee denied to the people because the wine might bee corrupt and turned into Flies and vineger If the wine be truly transsubstantiated then can it not bee corrupted vnlesse wee will say that Flies and vineger may be generated of the glorified body oâ— Christ or that they are generated of accidents there being no corporeall matter or substance required thereunto 3 Transsubstantiation was not belieued in the whole Church before * I take is this is a fault in the print that the Autor meaÌ„t to say 1300 yeares as â— câ—tur â— writers also do CeÌ„â— 13 cap col 622 for in the 13th centurie after Christ was the Councell of Lateran vnder InnoceÌ„tius the 3d. whereof the Autor heere speaketh which was the 〈◊〉 generall CouÌ„cell wherein TranssubstaÌ„tiation was
whether the people are to receiue sub vtraque specie vnder both kinds that is both the breade and the wine not vnder both accidents which were a senselesse speach but they take the word Species for a shape or accident which the Fathers meant not CHAP. 16. Of the adoration inclusion and carying about of the Eucharist as also of the Sacraments out of their vse THe adoring carying about and shutting of the Eucharist in a boxe vseth to bee glosed with this colour especially among the Papists for that they say that the Eucharist is and remaines a Sacrament besides and out of the vse thereof turning that into an argument or proofe which is a controversie therefore are wee also to make a question heereof Question 1. Whether the Eucharist remaine a Sacrament out of the vse thereof We denie it for these reasons Because seeing Sacraments are actions they consist onely in vse and action that they may bee Sacraments which action and vse ceasing the Sacrament it selfe ceaseth also Seeing our Aduersaries themselues doe not account Baptisme to bee a Sacrament out of his vse as in which the wordes of the action are contained in the institution and moe wordes of the action doe concurre in the Lords Supper than in the institution of Baptisme much lesse also may the Eucharist remaine out of his vse than Baptisme may Where the whole action is not neither is there the whole Sacrament but when the Consecration is rent and seperated from the communicating or receauing there is not the whole action neither is there therefore the whole Sacrament Christ doth prescribe a certaine end and vse Eate drinke Christ instituted this vse for this Sacrament wherefore this vse ceasing the Sacrament ceaseth also Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1. When Christ pronounced these words This is my body the Disciples had not eaten as yet and yet the words of Christ were true then before they did eate therefore it was a Sacrament also even before and without the vse thereof Ans 1. If we made the action and vse onelie to consist in eating and drinking then the argument would follow but we doe not define that action to consist onely in eating and drinking but in doing all those thinges which Christ either by his example or commaundement bids vs doe as namely to receaue the bread to breake blesse distribute and eate it to giue God thanks and to shew the Lords death It was not therefore out of the vse of the Sacrament when Christ reached the bread to his Apostles 2. Luke omitteth these wordes Take eate intimating thereby that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist out of the vse thereof Answere 1. By a fallacie of Division those things are severed asunder which ought out of foure rehearsalls of the institution to haue beene ioined together for that which Luke omitted the other two Euangelists and Paule haue supplied The whole action then is not to bee taken from some one of them alone but iointly and together from them all 2 They conclude heere any thing of everie thing for what coherence is Luke omitted some words therefore he did omit them for none other cause but to shewe that the Sacrament out of his vse is neuerthelesse a Sacrament 3. Christ faith this is he saith not It shall bee made my body heereafter to wit in the eating Answere 1. It was answered a while agoe that the action and vse doth not consist in eating alone And therefore in the acte of the Supper the bread is rightly called the bodie of Christ even before the eating that it shall not be needefull to say This shall bee made the body of Christ 2 And Christ in these wordes would simply say this much I giue you my body to be eaten 4 If the Eucharist bee not a Sacrament out of his vse it would followe that not the wordes of Christ but our vse doth make a Sacrament Answere 1. Christs will whom wee ought to obey in eating and drinking maketh the Sacrament and not our vse The vse of the Sacrament therefore relyeth vpon the words of institution and how then doe wee ascribe it to vs and not rather to the word of Christ while wee doe that which is commaunded by the wordes of Christ It is therefore a fallacie supposing that to bee a cause which is none 5. In the Primitiue Church the Deacons were woont to carie parts of the Eucharist to the sicke therefore the Eucharist remaines a Sacrament out of the vse Ans These parts were caried to the sicke that they should take them and eate them as Communicants and partakers of the common action according to Christs institution and therefore that was not out of the vse of the Sacrament It is therefore a loose conclusion from the Sacrament in vse to the Sacrament out of his vse 6. Ecclesiasticall writers doe report that some were wont to carie the Eucharist home with them and to reserue it Ans 1. And it may be doubted whether they did well or no 2. Other mens abuse doth not make a rule for vs and impose a necessitie to doe or approoue the like And the Reader may heere obscrue that the Papists doe vsuallie in their Sophisticall reasons suppresse that proposition which is weake and lyable to open exception as knowing that they cannot proue it but this is not to deale sincerely with the Church of God 7. But when afterward some daies being passed after the consecration they did in the time of persecution eate the consecrated bread which they had reserved who would denie but that they receaued the body of Christ especially being as they were so deuoutly affected Ans 1. Wee may not make rules of those things which happen in case of necessitie 2. Neither may we thinke that those deuout Christians in that agonie of persecution did receaue the reserved Eucharist without the memorie of Christs passion without godly praiers and giving of thankes All which seeing they belong to the vse and action of the Supper it may not bee saide that they receaved the Sacrament out of the vse And the elements which they vsed were destinated to the vse of the Lords Supper Question 2. VVhether the Eucharist bee to bee adored Our Aduersaries doe adore it with divine worship onely due to God not onely in the vse therof but out of the vse too in their Oratories and in publicke processions when it is caried about We say that the Eucharist is to be reverenced as an holy mysterie but not to bee adored or worshippeed and that foâ— these reasons Because the Sacraments doe consist of an earthly and an heavenly matter therefore when the Sacrament is adored the element and the earthly matter is adored which is Artolatria a worshipping of bread Out of the vse the worshipping of the Eucharist is more absurd Idolatrie for out of the vse Sacraments cease to bee Sacraments and so they worship bread which is not so much as holy or sacramentall bread True adoration
cannot be without faith Romanes 14. 23. and faith is not without the word of God Romaines 10. 17. Seeing then we haue no word whereby we are bidden to worship the Eucharist faith falleth which is the primarie ground and stay of adoration If the Eucharist bee to be adored then by the like reason Baptisine should bee adored too because of the presence and effectuall operation of the holy Ghost But our Aduersaries denie this latter and therefore wee the former When Christ reached the Eucharist to his Disciples wee doe not reade any where that the Apostles rose vp and worshipped the Sacrament which out of doubt they would haue done if the Sacrament should haue beene adored Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason 1. Transsubstantiation takes away all occasion of Idolatrie therefore say they wee are vniustly accused of Idolatrie Ans 1. Transsubstantiation is a principle simply false therefore it is a begging of the question 2. If Transsubstantiation were granted yet it could not bee prooved that it should haue place out of the vse of the Sacraments these are therefore rotten and ruinous foundations 2. If it bee rightly adored in the vse why not rightly also out of the vse Ans Because the Sacrament out of the vse is no Sacrament As was declared a while agoe 3 Wheresoeuer Christ is there hee is to bee adored but Christ is in the consecrated host therefore he is to be worshipped in the hoste Answer 1 Wee worshipp Christ in the Eucharist for wee say at the Communion wee praise thee wee worship thee c. but wee worshipp not the Eucharist nor CHRIST as there carnally present 2 The maior proposition as it is proposed by the Papists is not simply and in all respects true For Christ was in Peter the Apostle yet Peter would not suffer himselfe to be worshipped Act 10 25 26. 4 If the manhoode of Christ which yet is a creature bee â—ightly adored because of the hypostaticall vnion why may not the bread be adored too because of the Sacramentall vnion Answere 1 There is great difference betweene the Sacramentall vnion and the personall vnion the one maketh one person and subsistence the other dooth not 2 The flesh of Christ never subsisted by any proper subsistence of his own before the incarnation but as soone as it beganne to haue a beeing it subsisted in the person of the Sonne of God and that not by any proper subsistence of his owne Hereof it commeth to passe that whosoeuer doth adore the Sonne of God that is the second person in Trinitie the same dooth also rightly adore the flesh of Christ which things seeing they be nothing so in the breade and wine of the Euchariste the case is nothing alike 3 The Sacramentall vnion is onely by relation and may bee dissolued the personall vnion is a most neare ioyning of two natures in one person which neuer can be dissolued 4 Concerning the worshipping of the flesh of Christ wee haue the word and examples in the Scripture but we want both for the worshipping of the Eucharist as was saide a while a goe QVESTION 3. Concerning carying about and inclosing the Eucharist in a boxe we deeme all those things impious Because they haue no commandement of God Because they are contrarie to the commandement of eating and drinking the Sacrament Because in so doing the sacramentall action is pulled a sunder to wit the consecratioÌ„ from the vse and pertaking of it The vse of the Supper is turned into an action altogether different from the institution of Christ The feast of Corpus Christi and the carrying about of the Sacrament were now late brought in and set on foote by the Bishops of Rome about an hundred and an halfe of yeares agoe If the commandement of Christ concerning the true vse of the Sacrament were performed there would remaine none occasion of shutting vp and carying about of the Sacrament There bee no examples of the Apostles for it For Paul who writeth to the Corinthians of the Eucharist most exactly yet doth not so much as in one worde mention anie shutting of it vp carying it about or adoring it Neither can there bee shewed in the purer primitiue Church anie so much as a step and token thereof CHAP. 17. Of the Masse THe Papists haue turned the sacrameÌ„t of the Note here the â—nrse is to bee obserued a-against soÌ„e of the Papists who peruert the state of the question in this disputation and say that they striue onely for the sacrifice of Eucharist or thanksgiuing these same are stracken with a curse by the councel of trent Lords Supper into a sacrifice wherein they offer daily the consecrated breade and winâ— to God the Father for the sinnes of the liuing and the dead And more ouer they contend that in the Eucharist there is not onely a sacrifice of remembrance and thanksgiuing but that there is also a propitiatorie sacrifice For so saith the Councell of Trent Sess 6. cap. 2 can 3. If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the Masse is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed vpon the Crosse and not a propitiatorie Sacrifice or that it doth profit him alone that receiueth it and that it ought not to bee offered for the huing and the dead for their sinnes punishments satisfactions and other necessities let him bee accursed But wee acknowledge no such visible Sacrifice in the Church neither do we finde in scripture anie other propitiatorie Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of Christ and this sacrifice of the Masse wee doe reâ—ect for the reasons following Because to make of the Lords Suppera propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the deade is contrarie to the institution of our Lord Iesus Christ and it is to disanull pernert his Testament 1 Christ did not command to offer his body and bloud but to eate and drinke them 2. And there is not so much as one word in al the action and institution of the supper which might inferre any mention of a Sacrifice 3 Neither do we reade that Christ offered himselfe in his supper as if by his owne example hee would institute masse for if hee offered himselfe to his heauenly Father in his supper then should hee not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation once made Heb 7 27 9 26. 28 and 10 10. 14. but with a double oblation twise made namely once in his supper once vpon the Crosse which is false absurd But if he offered not himselfe in his supper as it is most true he did not then neither can his example which wee should follow lay vpon vs the office of sacrificing 4. Paul receiued of the Lord the institution of the Eucharist but made mention of no sacrifice at all which the Apostle especially seeing hee boasteth that hee had shewed all the councell of God Acts 20 27 ought not to haue omitted if there should haue been anie respect of a
of a spirituall sacrifice saying let vs offer the sacrifice of praise vnto God c. verse 15. and to doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices GOD is well pleased verse 16. 4 Daniel prophecieth of Antichrist that hee shall take away the daily sacrifice Dan 8 11 and 11 31. But that cannot be vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing which Tyrants cannot raze out of the hearts of men but of the outward and visible sacrifice which is the Masse Answer 1. Daniel speaketh principally of Antiochus who having defiled the lawfull worship of God did abolish the daily sacrifice for the space of three yeeres and an halfe allegorically he speaketh it of the Antichrist of Rome who hath abolished the true and sincere publicke service of God and in the place thereof hath set his Idoll service 2 There is more in the conclusion than in the premisses for it followeth not Antichrist shall abolish the daily sacrifice therefore that sacrifice can bee none other but the sacrifice of the Masse whereas notwithstanding there be other and farre truer sacrifices of Christians which are abrogated and corrupted by antichrist as the daily sacrifice was of old by Antiochus such as are godly praiers which are called sacrifices Heb 5 7. Reu The Popes of Rome are very carefull of the fulfilling of this prophecie which notwithstaÌ„ding themselues haue fulfilled long since very diligently 5 8. and 8 4. which the Antichrist of Rome hath robbed Christ of and commaunded them to be offered to Saints such as are also the sincere preaching of the Gospell and the right administration of the Sacraments all which are in such horible sort turned vpside downe mangled and corrupted by the Bishop of Rome that it may well bee said that they are abolished and that this prophecie of the abolisâ—ing of the spirituall true and most acceptable sacrifices to God the daily sacrifices of Christians is of a truth fulfilled in him 5. The types of the olde Testament of the dailie Sacrifice did decipher the daily sacrifice of Christians to wit the Masse Answer The Sacrifices were types of that one and onely sacrifice of Christ but not of the ministerie of the newe Testament saue onely spiritually Hebr 7 and 9 and 10 chapter But heere in this matter of the Masse there is no strife concerning spirituall sacrifices therefore the argument is of no force seeing it hath foure termes 6. FroÌ„ the rising of the sunne to the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place Incense shall bee offered vnto my name and a pure offering Malachie 1 11. But there can be no purer offering than the body and blood of Christ therefore the Prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of the Masse Answere Paul biddeth men lift vp cleane and pure handes in praier euery where 1 Tâ— 2 8. which is the same with that sacrifice of praier invocation of Davids Psal 141. 2. There are therfore other spirituall sacrifices which are also called cleane Heere is then a fallacie a non distributo ad distributum arguing by two particulars as if the one were contained vnder the other as a particular vnder his generall for there bee moe sacrifices of the new Testament none of which is that one which our Aduersaries catch at for beside that one onely sacrifice of Christ there bee these also reckoned in the holy Scriptures 1. The Ministerie of the Gospell Rom 15 16. 2. The conuersion of the Gentiles Rom. 15 16. Phil. 2 17. 3 The Praiers of Christians Hebr 5 7 Revel 5 8 and 8 4. 4 The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Heb 13 15 5 Liberality towards the poore and for the maintenance of the Ministerie Heb 13 16 Phil 4 18 6 Mortification of the olde man and renovation Rom 12 1. 7 Endurance of persecution or martirdome for the name of Christ Philip 2. 17. Therefore if there were no where in the World anie popish or idolatrous massing sacrifice yet the prophecy of Malachie should be neuerthelesse fulfilled among Christians by these spirituall sacrifices Now the spiritual sacrifices of Christians are called cleane because our heauenly Father dooth accept them for cleane and perfect for Christs merits sake 7 The Pascall Lambe was a type of the holy supper But the Lambe was not onely eaten but also offered So it is requisite in the Eucharist also not onely to eate but also to offer Answ 1 Thence this onely followeth that our Lambe CHRIST IESVS was to be sacrificed But that we should offer him that bâ— the type which was fulfilled in Christ cannot be proued 2 Wee haue before declared that the rite of sacrificing yearely was abolished by the one onely sacrifice of the true Lambe 3 If all things that belonged to this type should be applied to the Lords Supper then because it was needefull that the Lambe should bee killed they shall make themselues a bloudy sacrifice in the masse which our Aduersaries themselues holde absurd 4 Yea and that which is more we reade no where that the Paschall Lambe was offered or sacrificed but that it was killed For both the Hebrew word and the Greeke word which Paul vseth 1 Cor 5 7 doth not alwaies signifie to sacrifice but to kill Therefore the Popish argument falleth to the ground 8 There shall bee a handfull of corne in the papists in their scarcitie of arguments are driuen to 〈◊〉 to the Rabbiâ—â— the earth euen in the top of the mountaines c. Psal 72 16. Rabbi Salomon expoundeth these words of a kinde of Cakes in the daies of the Messias Therefore the Psalme speaketh of the eleuation of the masse wherein the breade is lifted vp aboue the shâ—uen crowne of the Priest An This is a scuruie argument to drawe the spirituall fertility and plentifulnesse of the Church to the propitiatorie sacrifice of the masse But such as the matter is such be their arguments 9 Christ saith facite hoc but facere doth sometimes in the scripture signifie to sacrifice Therefore it is all one as if Christ had sayde facite that is sacrifice hoc this that is my body Answ 1 They bee meere particulars whence nothing will follow 2 The word facere when it is put absolutely without expresse mention of a sacrifice doth never signifie to sacrifice except in that verse of Virgils Bucolicks Cum faciam vitula pro frâ—gibus ipse veâ—ito But Virgill will not stablish a massing sacrifice 3 And if the word facere in the holy supper doe signifie to sacrifice and Christ spoke those wordes to all Christians Hoc facite in mei Commemorationem Doe this in remembrance of Mee it will follow that all Christians ought to offer the massing sacrifice and so all shall be Priests though they be not oyled and shauen 10 Christ saith Hoc facite Doe this to wit that which you see mee doe But Christ offered Himselfe then to his heauenly Father Therefore he
commaunded that his bodie should bee offered in the masse Ans 1 The minor or second proposition is false for if Christ offered himselfe to his Father in his supper after the manner of the masse and the masse be as the Trent councell defineth it a propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the dead for sinnes punishments and satisfaction and other necessities c. then was there at that time satisfaction made to the heauenly Father alreadie by a sacrifice in the supper for the sinnes and punishments of men and Christ offered himselfe the second time vpon the altar of the Crosse when there was no further neede which required him so to doo and the heauenly Father would haue one and the same debt twise paied vnto him and those debts are payed the third time ouer at this day while Christ is offered againe in the masse But if Christ at length offered himselfe vpon the altar of the Crosse it is false that he offered himselfe to his Father in his supper 2 The word facite doe in these wordes is referred to a certaine action that is to the reiterating of the celebration of the Lords supper in the Church of the blessing and distributing of the breade and wine of the eating and drinking of the remembrancing shewing CHRISTS death and of giuing of thankes for Gods benifits c. 11 Christ was offered in the supper after an vnbloudie manner and vpon the Altar of the Crosse after a bloudie manner Ans If so then was he not offered once but twise which is contrary to the Epistle to the Hebrues cap 7 ver 27 9 28 10. 12. 2 And the scripture doth not anie where say that Christ should bee offered after vnbloudie sort 12 The distinction betweene a bloudie vnbloudie sacrifice hath the ancient Fathers for Autors thereof Ans The auncient and purer Fathers distinguish betweene the bloudie sacrifices of the Olde Testament and the spirituall sacrices of christians in the New Testament But what is this to the visible massing sacrifice of the Papists 13. Hee was offered because he would Isay 53 7. Therefore Christ is offered in the masse and hee offered himselfe in the supper Ans Who can choose but laugh at suc◠a reason first the translation which they follow is false quite disagreeing from the originall and then doth it follow that because Christ was a sacrifice vpon the Crosse that therefore he is sacrificed in the supper 14 Christ is a Priest for euer therefore that he may for euer be offered it must needs be that he did institute in his Supper an eternall sacrifice that is such as is dayly to be offered Ans 1. By this argument it would follow that it should bee necessarie not that the Priests but that Christ should offer himselfe daily for not the massing sacrificers but christ is the Priest for euer 2 It would follow also seeing they presse the word Eternitie or for euer that the sacrifice should remaine to be offered still in the World to come after the last iudgment 3 The Apostle speaketh of eternall efficacie and vertue of Christs Priesthood whereby he one and the same to day and yesterday hath for euer sanctified them which were to be sanctified Which while our Aduersaries apply to their sacrificers there arise foure termes 4 And Christ abideth neuerthelesse a Priest for euer although there bee no where anie sacrifice of how Christ is a Priest for euer the masse For 1 in sanctifying vs he bringeth vs to his Father 2 He alwaies maketh intercession for vs. 3. He is able for euer to saue them that come vnto him which are all the offices of the high Priest 15 Melchizedeck was a type of Christ but Melchizedeck offered bread wine Gen 14 18 Therefore it must needes bee that Christ offered his body and bloud in his Supper Ans 1 If it were true that Melchizedeck offered breade and wine which yet is not true nothing els would follow but that Christ offered bread and wine which our aduersaries thēselues would not grant For they auouch that the bread and wine doth not remaine in the holy supper but that they are annihilated so transsubstantiated that nothing remaineth beside the body bloud of Christ There are therfore 4 termes 2 But neither did Melchizedeck offer but brought forth as the Hebrew word signifyeth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abrahams souldiers as the text doth clearely teach 3 Neither is Melchizedeck sayde to bee a type of Christ in this whether offering or bringing forth of breade and wine But first in respect of the name of Melchizedeck the King of righteousnesse Secondly because hee was King of Salem and Christ is King or Prince of peace Isay 9 6. Thirdly because Melchizedeck was together both a King and a Priest and so is Christ Fourthly because the progenie of Melchisedeck is not related so is Christ a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedeck Psalm 110. 4 All which whereas the Epistle to the Hebrues dooth most clearely and distinctly say yet it saith nothing of the masse It is therefore a fallacie from that which is spoken but in some respect onely to the same taken absolutely and in all respects 16 The text Genes 14 18. saith for he was a Priest but it is the office of Priests to offer sacrifices Therefore Melchisedeck then offered breade and wine Ans The hebrue text hath not the particle for but readeth thus and he was a Priest of the most high God and blessed him that is Abraham There is then no reason of the consequence Melchizedeck was a Priest and blessed Abraham therefore hee offered vnto God bread and wine let the Papists at length be ashamed of such Paralogismes 17. Paul compareth together the table of the Lord and the table of Devils which comparison cannot be entire seeing there is an offering in the table of Devils vnlesse there be also an offering in the table of the Lord 1 Cor 10. 21. therefore there must needes be a sacrifice in the Lords Supper Answere In the place of Paule cited by our Aduersaries it is not said that the Heathen did offer on their tables sacrifices to Devils neither that there was any offering at the table or celebration of the Lords Supper But this Paul treateth of that Christians cannot with good conscience both eate the body of Christ at the Lords table and neverthelesse in the banquets of the heathen eate of those meates which were offered vnto Idols for all sacrifices were not wholly consumed with fire but a good part thereof was reserved for costly banquets And what make these things for the confirming of the sacrifice of the Masse 2 Bee it that at their tables they offered those meates to Devils how doth it follow that there must needes be an oblation at the Lords table too vnlesse they haue some strange Logicke to shew contrarie to the olde receaved axiomes that thinges which are compared together must needes
agree in euery particular point 18. The body and bloud of Christ bee propitiatorie for our sinnes In the holy Supper there is the body and bloud of Christ therefore the Masse is propitiatorie for our sinnes Ans 1. The body and bloud of Christ is not in the sacrament saue only sacramentally and spiritually and therfore cannot be there offered 2. By the same reason it would followe that in euery place where Christ was on earth there should be a propitiatorie sacrifice The vertue and efficacie of Christs sacrifice doth at all times flow from the flesh of Christ but it was made a propitiatorie sacrifice but once and that vpon the Crosse it is offered and given in the Supper and receaved of the beleevers by faith 3. There is a changing of the predication for in the minor it is said The body and bloud are in the Sacrament in the conclusion therefore the Masse is propitiatorie Were it granted that their Masse were nothing but the Sacrament duly administred that the body of Christ were carnally there yet there would no more follow but this that in the Masse there is that which is propitiatorie for sinnes And if it be propitiatorie in bare being why needeth it to be sacrificed that it may be propitiatorie 19. The Fathers of the Church called the Eucharist by the name of a sacrifice therefore the Masse is a sacrifice Answer 1. It is a fallacie heaping vp moe questions for one for it is one question whether the Fathers called the Supper a sacrifice which is not yet sufficient for the purpose and another in what sence they called it a sacrifice whether as the Papists meane it or otherwise 2 It is a fallacie from a thing spoken but in some respect to the same taken absolutely for the Fathers called it a sacrifice in some respect onely as namely 1. because all sacred rites may be called by the common word of the olde Testament sacrificia sacrifices quasi a faciendo sacra from doing holy sacred actions 2. Because in the Supper there is a commemoration of that one onely and true sacrifice of Christ they gaue that name to the action from the more chiefe and principall respect 3 Because of praiers which were poured out in the celebration of the Supper which are called sacrifices as was before declared 4 Because of praise thanksgiving which were vsed in the celebration of the Supper and are called sacrifices in the Epistle to the Hebrewes 5. Because of their offering of first fruites and food which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loue-feasts 6 Because the spirituall sacrifices faith hope charitie c are exercised stirred vp by the vle of the Supper 3 The Papists should proue that the ancient Fathers ever taught that the Masse is a propitiatorie sacrifice for the sinnes of the living and the dead but this they will never doe 20. The Church hath alwaies acknowledged the Masse for a sacrifice therefore it is a noveltie to denie the Masse to be a sacrifice Answer The Antecedent is prooved false 1 because there is no Masse in the newe Testament 2 Neither can it be shewed in the Primitiue Church as was before alleadged out of the booke of Valentinus Vannius who hath plainely proved that the Popish sacrifice of the Masse was not in the Church of Christ for the space of 600 yeares or thereabout 3 Because the chiefe thinges in the Masse are newe of late invention and were heaped together at sundry times one after another some by one Pope and some by another And such novelties are iustly reiected by vs. 21. The Masse is an application whereby that which Christ merited for vs is applied to everie man in particular Answere 1 It cannot bee said to bee any application vnlesse it bee thereunto so ordained by God Now wee haue a two-fold application onely of the merites of Christ recorded in Scripture Whereof the one is by the word and faith without any externall element and the other by the elements and rites in the Sacraments ordained thereunto But the Masse is a thing altogether different from the Lords Supper therefore it maketh nothing for the applying of Christs merite Moreover the Masse hath no testimonie from the Scripture of either of these manners of applying Neither therefore doth it applie the merite of Christ 2 And because the Masse hath no coÌ„mandement of God it may not be lawfull for men to tye the grace of God to mans inventions 22. In the Masse there is remembrance of the passion and death of Christ therefore the Masse is to be reverenced Ans 1. The remembrance of the passion death of Christ ought to bee done by the celebration of the Lords Supper which Christ ordained and instituted but not by the theatricall celebration of the Masse which was not instituted by Christ 2 The Papists striue not onely for the remembrance of the Lords death in the Supper but for a propitiatorie sacrifice as the Canon of the counsell of Trent hath it There is therefore more in the consequent than in the Antecedent 23. There are many good things contained in the Masse therefore c. Ans And there be very many idolatrous things contained in the Masse And Magick is therby made good because Magitians vse good and holy wordes for good mingled with evill doth not make that which is evill to become good but that which was good of it selfe is corrupted by the evill as when a man mingleth poison with good wine 24 The Masse is a representation of the death and passion of Christ Now seeing a representation doth worke more strongly than a bare commemoration the Masse cannot displease God Answere 1. Because a representation seemeth stronger and more forcible to men it doth not therfore seeme stronger to God also for my thoughts are not as your thoughts Isai 55 8. 2 Seeing that representation is a kinde of commemoration they which contend for a representation alone are stricken by the Pope with a curse in the Canon before cited 3 Neither doth the first Supper of Christ beare a representation in which Supper our Aduersaries themselues doe not admit of a representation 25. Luke maketh mention of the * Liturgie of the Apostles Act. 13 2. therefore the Apostles celebrated Masse Ans 1. The word Liturgie is vnderstoode of any service of God and therefore their owne vulgar Authenticall translation rendreth it ministrantibus illis and our English 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accordingly as they ministred to the Lord. 2 Seeing the most of the thinges in the Popish Masse are new how I pray you doth the Masse sute with this allegation of the Apostles who were dead sundrie hundreds of yeares before the Popish Masse was borne 26. We reade of many miracles that were done at the Masse of the Papists therefore it is not to be reiected Answer 1. The most of those miracles are such as If those mirâ—â—les bee tâ—ue how châ—nceth it thaâ— now theâ—e bee no
the sacrifice of Abel and Meschizedeck If our Aduersaries referre these words to the olde accustomed offerings they make mockeries seeing this manner is now ceased amongst them and they pray for that which is no where But if they refer them to the present sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the masse what is this else but to make intercession to the heauenly Father for his Sonne Christ Againe how absurdly is that most precious sacrifice of Christs own body bloud compared with the sacrifice of Abel which it may be was a Lambe or a Goate but these witlesse men make no more reckoning of Christs sacrifice than of a goate or a Lambe There is comparison made with the sacrifice of Melchizedeck whereas yet there is An error in the sacrifice of Melchizedeck who did not sacrifice but brought forth bred and wine nothing in Scripture as hath alreadie beene shewed that Melchizedeck did offer breade and wine The sacrifice of Christ is compared with that sacrifice which is not neuer was and neuer shall be The Canon sayth that they offer the bread of life to the heauenly Father But where are they bid to offer the breade of life Whereof we reade nothing in the whole course of the scripture but that the bread of life should be eaten not offered The Canon is contrarie to the article of Christs ascension when it commandeth the Angels to carie the hoste before the face of God to the high altar What And did not Christ ascend vnto his Father And is there neede that he should now after all appeare before his Father that he should be caried from the earth aboue to his Father Againe seeing Christ is neuer in his glorifyed bodie absent from his Father what do the Angels carie according to the Canon of the masse if breade then they commit idolatrie if his body then hath Christ two bodies one whereof is present in Heauen with the Father and the other is now after all caried from the earth by the Angels And lastly that we may not seeme heere to make a large refutation of the Canon whatsoeuer praise prayer thankesgiuing was wont to be vsed in the primitiue Church in the celebration of the Supper and offerings of charity all that though the manner of those offerings bee abrogated with which that part of the seruice should rightly haue beene abrogated too all that I say our Aduersaries do so retaine that they haue of a foolish ordinance trasferred to the bread of the Eucharist present in the Supper all those which formerly belonged to an action altogether different from this As anie man may easily finde moe than be heere alleadged if hee doo but onely reade the Canon of the masse In the meane while the Councell of Trent striketh all them with acurse which say there be errors contained in the Canon of the masse But it is â—uident how it wanteth no errors but abouÌ„deth with them This is also one of the Abuses of the masse that 8 Abuse Masse sayd in Latine it is celebrated not in a knowen tongue and such as the people vnderstand but in a strange and indeed only in the latine tongue which we reproue for these causes Because in the supper there ought to bee a coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of the death passioÌ„ of Christ which how can it be done in a tongue which the people vnderstand not And how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thankes seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest 1 Corin 14 16. Paul writ the institution of the Lords Supper to the Corinthians rather in their mother tongue than in an other Before the receiuing of the Supper to the fruitfull vse thereof it is needfull to admonish and exhort the communicants before hand that the people may examine themselues This admonishing hath no place where the holy Supper is celebrated in a strange tongue Paul though hee commend the gifte of tongues yet woulde haue all thinges in the Church ordered to edification but by a strange tongue he that vnderstandeth it not is not edified neither can the hearers faith be strengthened by that speech which hee knoweth not what it meaneth I had rather in the Church saith Paule speake fiue words with mine vnderstanding that I might also instruct others than tenne thousand worâ—s in a strange tongue 1 Cor 14. 19. for this purpose reade that whole chapter Paul had rather in the publike congregation of the Church speake so that hee might bee vnderstoode but the Papists had rather in the meeting of the Church speake that they be not vnderstood Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason thus 1. Masse is to be saide in Latine that they which come to vs out of France Italy England may vnderstand it and thereby set the vnitie of the Church Ans 1 By the like reason wee should not preach in the Dutch tongue but in the Latine amongst Dutch men that strangers which come vnto vs may vnderstand and heare the consent of our doctrine 2 The whole flocke and company of the godly are not to bee neglected for the cause of a stranger or two whereas notwithstanding there is often times never a one present 3 If there be a necessitie that all strangers should vnâ—erstand Masse how much more needefull â—â—at the whole Church at home should vnderstand 4 It is not certaine that all strangers doe vnderstand the Latine tongue 2. The words of some one language for example of the Dutch tongue are in sundâ—y places of the land different and disagreeing which falleth not out in the Latine tongue Answere 1. The Papists may bee ashamed of such sencelesse Paralogismes for by the same reason it should bee vnlawfull to preach in Dutch 2. And why doe not the Iesuites at this day for the same reason cease to publish their writings in the Dutch tongue But a fit cover for such a pot such as is the Popiâ—â— Religion such are the Popish reasons 3. If service should be said in the vulgar tongue then there would be a prophanation of the mysteries of Religion Answere 1. This is the sore that our Aduersaries cannot abide should bee touched for they are afraide least the grosse absurditities of the Canon of the Masse should bee espied even of the Laicks 2 By the like reason it should not bee any more lawfull to reade the Gospels appointed for Sondaies wherein are many high Mysteries of faith contained in the vulgar tongue before the people but mysteries of Religion whiles they are proposed to the Church and explaned are nothing at all by this meanes prophaned vnlesse they account the Church as Swine and Dogges before whom it is not lawfull to cast sacred things 4. Strangers which vnderstand not our vulgar tongue would laugh at our service which they vnderstand not Answer 1. And what if the common people deride the Masse because they vnderstand it not being saide in Latine 2. And what if those strangers vnderstand not the
Latine tongue neither will they not therefore deride it too If when the whole Church is come together in one all speak staÌ„rge languages that is if nothing be done in the vulgar tonge there come in they that are vnlearned or they which beleeue not will they not say that ye are out of your wits as Paul saith 1 Cor. 14 23. Note that what is here spoken of the saying of Masse in Latine may also bee vnderstood of praiers rehearsed in Latine onely It is an abuse of the Masse also that they â— Abuse Masse for the dead offer the Masse not so much for the living as for the dead residing as the Papists thinke in Purgatorie and that they perswade them selues that the Masse doth profit the dead and that they are helped by the multitude of Masses the vanitie whereof how great it is shall bee declared afterward in the question of Purgatorie and therefore we will surcease from that labour now let it suffice that wee haue rehearsed now some fewe errors and abuses of the Masse in steede of many CHAP. 18. Of Communion vnder one kindâ— THE Antichrist of Rome hath moreover mangled the holy Supper of Christ and hath bereaved the people of the one part or kind of the Supper namely the Cup which hee pretendeth to appertaine not to the lay people but to the Priests onely but wee greatly reproue this mangling of the Supper as a kinde of sacriledge and that for most iust reasons Because it doth directly oppugne the sacred first institution of the Supper by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. For Christ instituted an entire whole Sacrament consisting of two kindes or rather of two parts and not a maimed Sacrament 2. Neither did hee institute two Sacraments of the Supper whereof the one which is for the Priests should consist of two parts or as they speake of two kinds the other for the people but of one This maiming of the Supper is repugnant to the expresse words of Christs Commaundement 1. Drinke yee a word of the Imperatiue Moode all of this Math. 26. 27. 2. And all of them drank of it according to his commandement Mar. 14 23. This was not barely commanded but in the vertue of a Testament which no man may disanull 1. For the Cup which our Aduersaries bereaue the people of is the Cup of the new Testament 1 â—oâ— 11. 25. Luk 22 20. 2. This is my bloud of the newe Testament Math. 26. 28. Mark 14 24. The Lord tyed the commemoration of his death to the Communion of the holie Cup also therefore the commemoration of the bloud Christ shed belongeth equally vnto all and consequently the Cup also As Christ ordained the bread as a means to partake his body which was given for vs that receaving the bread according to his ordinance we should therewith by â—aith receaâ—e his body also so hath hee ordained the Cuppe as a meanes for receaving his bloudâ— therefore seeing the lay people haue neede to receaue the bloud of Christ shedd for their sinnes it is needefull also to receaue it in the Cup the ordinarie meanes thereof and not in the bread Those thinges which Christ by the great wisedome of his Father did sever from them selues in the bread and the wine those doe our Aduersariâ—s confound together It is prooued that the ancient and Primitiue Church did communicate vnder both â—indes 1. By the example of the Corinthians to Note The B b in the counsell of Constance coÌ„sesse that the CoÌ„munion vnder one kinde was neither instituted by Christ nor vsed by the faithfull of the Primitiue Church those Papists the whom Paul prescribes the entire institution of the Supper equally to all 1 Corinth 11. 26 27 28. 2 By the Ecclesiasticall Histories in the times of the Fathers 3 By the confession of our Aduersaries in the Canons of the counsell of Constance which haue these words Though Christ did administer to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament vnder both the kindes of bread wine yet notwithstanding this the Communion vnder which would proue the CoÌ„munion vnder one kind by the Scripture doe reproue the counsell of CoÌ„stance for a lie and doe hold that the Counsell may erre one kinde onely is to be held for a law And againe Although in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receaved of the faithfull vnder both kindes yet notwithstanding this the custome being brought in c. 8 Seeing therefore that the Communion vnder one kinde was neither ordained by Christ nor vsed of the Apostles this constitution of Communion vnder one kinde onely can neither be Divine nor Apostolick but Antichristian as having had no place in the Church of Christ for many hundred yeares And when as afterward it crept into the Church by little and little in some places not every where it was at length confirmed brought in publickly by the counsell of Constance The lightnes of those reasons which they bring for the mangling of the Supper ought This booke was published by Gerson in the yeare 1417. August 20. to make it iustly hated of godly men Now wee will very briefly note the reasons of the counsell of Constance as Gerson hath explaned them in a particular booke for that purpose and these be they 1 If the cuppe were granted to the people there were danger of sheading 2 Danger in carying it from place to place 3 In the siâ—â—inesse of the vesselles which should bee Sacred and not commonly handled and touched by the Laickes 4 In mens long beards 5 In the reseruing of it for the sight For vineger might be generated in the vessell add moreouer that in summer time flyes might breedâ— in it some times the wine might puâ—rifie 6 Manie would abhorre to drinke it when manie others had drâ—nkâ— before them 7 In what vessell could there bee so much wine consecrated as would bee required at Easter time for some thousands of CoÌ„municants 8 There would bee losse in the chargeable prouiding of wine For in some places it is hardly gotten other where it is sould deere 9 There would be danger least it should congeale 10 Hereof would arise a danger of a false conceit as if there were as great worthinesse in the Laickes about receiuing Christs body as is in the Priests 11 It would be thought that the Communion of the cuppe hath beene heretofore and now were necessarie and so all the Doctors of the Cleargie and the Prelates which haue not opposed themselues against the contraâ—ie custome by their preâ—ching writing should haue offended 12 The power vertue of this sacrament would be deemed to be more in the receiuing than in the consecration of it 13 It woulde follow that the Church of Rome did not iudge soundly of the sacraments neither were herein to be imitated 14 It would follow that the Councell of Constance did erre in faith good manners 15 It would beâ— an occasion of Schismes in Christianity Had it beene
argument then is this hunger is alaied with bread therefore the lay-people may communicate vnder one kinde onely 10. In the Church of the Apostles the faithfull communicated vnder one kinde of bread onâ—ly Act. 2 42 Ans 1. The breaking of bread in that somwhat The connsel of CoÌ„stmâ—e doth conâ—es in expresse words that in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was vsâ—d to be receaved of the faith full vnder both kinds obscure place may as well bee vnderstoode of the communitie of goods and rereceaving the poore into their fellowship as of the Communion in the Supper for by the circumstances it should rather be meant that their bread was broken in their houses and not in the Church that is that the Christians lived of their goods in common neither is this interpretation or sence absurd 2 But bee it granted that the speach is there of the Supper yet it being a Synecdochicall speach where the whole is signified by a part it will not exclude the Cup. 11. Christ bad vs pray Giue vs this day our daily bread c. therefore the lay people ought tâ— communicate vnder one kinde Answere 1. The Priests say the same prayer let them then abstaine also from the Cup. 2 The word Bread in the Antecedent is taken for food and rayment in the consequent for Communion vnder one kinde so there are foure termes 12. The Fathers when they speake of the Supper doe oftentimes mention the bread onely and not the Cup also Ans 1. They name the Supper so by a figure Synecdoche from the more principall part signifying the whole but the figure Synecdoche hath not an exclusiue power but vnder one part includeth the other two â— The counsell of CoÌ„stance doth grant that in the Primitiue Church in the time of the Fathers the Communion was vsed vnder both kindes 3 If such sayings of the Fathers doe exclude one part of the Sacrament why doth this exclusiâ—e belong to the Laicks onely and is not extended to the Priests also 13. The ancient Canons did thrust bad Priests downe to the Communion of the Laicks therefore Communion vnder one kindâ— for the Laicks was then in vse Answer The Communion of the Laicks was a punishment for evill Priests because Thâ— a godly Laicke a evill Priest are esteemed of the Papists alike they were suspended from their office the power of consecrating whereby they did minister and distribute in the holy Supper was taken froÌ„ them and a place was appointed for them amongst the Laicks In which signification the Communion of Laicks is taken in the Antecedent because therefore it is taken otherwise in the consequent there are foure termes 14. In ancient time they caried the consecrated bread home with them but there is nothing saide of the carying of the Cup therefore c. An. The question is not what was done but whether it were rightly done and according to the rule of Christs institution 15. The Communion vnder one kinde is an ancient Tradition Ans 1. The counsell of Constance saieth no as hath beene said sundry times 2 The Tradition of Christ and the Apostle Paule concerning the Supper is farre more ancient Let this tradition then which is of no such antiquitie giue place to the more ancient 16. The Church hath power to change the Sacraments because at this day all holde that thaâ— change is lawfull whereby the Supper is translated from the evening to morning meetings Answere 1. The change of the circumstance of time in the celebration of the Lords Supper belongeth not to the substance of the Sacrament but to the accidents and circumstances to reason then from these to changes in the substance is against art and reason 2 And that was spoken to the Church Turne not aside to the right hand nor to the leaâ—t Deut. 5 32. 17. Of the sonnes of Eli it is written Appoint â—e I pray thee to one of the Priests offices that I Eckius in his Enchiridion may eate a morsell of bread 1 Samuel 2 36 therefore the Communion vnder one kind is due to the Laicks Answere I will onely reckon vp the severall Termes that bee in this argument 1 The sonnes of Eli. 2 Lay Christians 3 The Priests office or maintenance by the revenues of the Priesthoode 4 The Lords Supper 5 The repulse from the Priests office 6 Admission to the Supper 7. A morsell of bread 8 The Sacrament vnder one kinde Is not this a verie fertill argument of many termes and how prodigall are our Aduersaries in termes CHAP. 19. Of Purgatorie OVr Aduersaries lay it for a ground that as there bee three sorts of men some good some bad and some of a meane sort betwixâ— both so there shall be three estates of mens soules after this life that they are either altogether blessed or â—uerlastingly damned or else in the temporall punishment of Purgatorie And this last sort of soules to wit those that bee in Purgatorie hath much augmented their rents and revenues for the Papists â—each that those soules may â—e hâ—lpen by the prayers of the liuing purchased by golde and siluer yea by lands and other revenues also of these things then let vs treate briefelie Question 1. Seeing that which is not hath no proprieties first the question is whether there be a Purgatorie Our Aduersaries say there is we say no for these reasons Because the Scripture teacheth vs nothing of Purgatoriâ— neither in the letter nor in the sence thereof but the Scripture containeth all things necessarie to salvation Yea aâ— often as Christ and the Apostles speake of the estate of soules after this life they mention onely two estates either of eternall life or of hell torments 1 Hee that shall beleeue and be baptized shall bee saved but hee that will not beleeue shall be damned Mark 16 16. 2 Verily verily I say vnto you hee that heareth my word and beleeveth in him that sent me hath euerlasting life and shal not come into condemnation but hath passed from death vnto life Ioh. 5 24 3. Hee that beleeveth in the sonne hath euerlasting life and hee that obeyeth not the sonne shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Ioh 3 36. 4. He that believeth in him shall not bee condemned but hee that believeth not is condemned already Ioh. 3 18. 5. So in the parable Luke 16 there are onely two places after death mentioned euerlasting life wherein was Abraham and Lazarus and eternall damnation wherin was the glutton neither is there granted any passage from the one to the other 6. Christ at his comming maketh onely two flockes to wit the blessed and the damned Matthew 25 and Christ saith nothing of the purging of them which are of the meane sort betwixt the other two by Purgatorie whereas notwithstanding in that congregation of all men the three sorts of men the good the bad and those of meane sort betwixt both shall all appeare before the tribunall seate of Christ 7 So
propitiatorie sacrifice in the supper 5 Paul bids vs to shew the Lords death not to represent it by a stagelike spectacle not to sacrifice 1 Cor. 11 26. For to shew the Lords death and to sacrifice are things altogether different The doctrine of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse dooth twhart the perfect satisfaction of Christ For if CHRIST haue satisfied for the sinnes of al men with one sacrifice once offered and that propitiation of his bee sufficient what neede is there so often to iterate a propitiatory sacrifice in the Masse 1 Hee Christ not the masse is the propitiation or reconciliation not onely for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world 1 Ioh. 2 2. 2 And therefore vpon the crosse he cryed It is finished Ioh 19 30. But the masse twharteth also the priesthood The Priesthoode of Christ is not commō to him with anie man of Christ 1 For Christ alone could offer himselfe for a propitiatorie sacrifice neither could any man offer vp Christ but hee himselfe alone Therefore Popish priests vnlesse they willingly say that they are new Christs can not offer a propitiatorie sacrifice 1 Christ did it once when hee offered vp himselfe Hebr 7. 27. 2 Not that hee should offer himselfe often Heb. 9 25. 3 Otherwise the masse-priestes should bee Priests after the order of Melchifedech which agreeth to Christ alone 4 Neither doth anie man take vnto himselfe this honour but hee that is called of God as was Aaron So likewise Christ tooke not to himselfe this honour to be made the high Priest but he that sayd vnto him c Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchifedech Heb 5. 4 5. c. 2 It is repugnant also to the doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ in respect of the perfect and plenarie sacrifice which is not to be iterated For herein is the priesthood of Christ opposite to the Priesthood of the olde Testament that the sacrifices thereof ought to bee iterated but the sacrifice of Christ had no neede to bee iterated 1 Christ needed not daily as those high Priests of the olde Testament to offer vp sacrifice for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that did hee once when he offered vp himselfe Heb. 7. 27. 2. The lawe having the shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things can never with those sacrifices which they offer yeere by yeere continually sanctifie the commers thereunto for would they not then haue ceased to haue beene offered c. Heb. 10. 1. 2. 3. After hee had saide This is the Testament that I will make with them c. and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these things is there is no more offering for sin Heb. 10. 16. 17. 18. 4. Christ by his own bloud entered once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for vs not such a redemption as is to be iterated every day Hebrewes 9. 12. 5. Not that hee should offer himselfe often as the high Priest entred into the holy place every yeere with other bloud for then must he haue often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world hath hee appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe And as it is appointed vnto men Once to die and then commeth the iudgment So Christ was once offred to take away the sins of many Heb. 9 25 26. c. 6. By the which will we are sanctified even by the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once made Heb. 10. 10. 7. And every Priest namely of the olde If our Adversaries say that they offer the same onely sacrifice of Christ here let them see that there is not granted an iteration of the same sacrifices in the new testament Testament appeareth daily ministring oft times offereth one maner of sacrifice which can never take away sinnes but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for ever at the right hand of God c. For with one offering he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Heb 10. 11. 12. c. The sacrificing Priests do daily as much as in them lieth kill and crucifie Christ in the Masse wherefore the Popish Masse is so much the more abhominable which is indeede harsh to mans eares but that it is true will appeare by the places of Scripture following 1. Without shedding of bloud is no remission Heb 9 22. 2. Where a Testament is there must be the death of him that made the testament Heb 9 16. 3. If Christ must bee often offered then should he haue often suffered Hebrewes 9 26. The Masse was vnknowne in the primitiue Church for some certaine ages as shall afterward bee declared in particular and as Maister Valentine Vannius hath proved in a severall booke published and to this day never touched by any of the Aduersaries Many Massing ceremonies were of a certaine blinde zeale brought in out of the olde Testament shadowes forsooth mingled with the light Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute 1. It is needfull that the Church haue some visible sacrifice to helpe mans infirmitie withall Ans 1 No man denies that we need visible helps for the strengthening of our faith but to faine choose and appoint such sacrifices is not in our power but belongeth to God alone 2. Such visible helps and staies of our faith God hath given vs in the Sacraments wherewith it is meete wee should rest content and not frame new ones at our owne pleasure 2 Euery Priest is taken from among men c. that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for men Heb. 5. 1. Therefore it is needfull that the Priests of the Church haue some thing which they may offer to God for sinnes Ans 1. If the Apostle in this place had compared together the Priests of the olde Testament and the Priests of the newe Testament then the argument would followe But he makes the comparison betweene the Priests of the olde Testament and the Priest Iesus Christ which was prefigured by them This then is all that followeth that it was necessarie that Christ should offer some sacrifice for our sinnes And so there is more in the conclusion than in the premisses 2 Wee doe not reade any where in the newe Testament that there were Priests appointed who should offer visible sacrifices but there were ordained Ministers of the word and Gospell 3. Wee haue an Altar Hebrewes 13 10. therefore it is necessarie that we haue oblations also and sacrifice Ans 1. This is a Paralogisme of all Particulars thus In our Altar which is spirituall is required a sacrifice therefore it can bee no other sacrifice but that of the Masse 2 It is a fallacie from that which is spoken but in some respect to the same taken absolutelie for the Apostle doth not simply speake of euery sort of sacrifice but treateth expreslie