Gillebertus and Malachias and Christianus who were the Popes Legates here about 500. yeares agoe This Gillebertus an old acquaintance of Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury in the Prologue of his booke De usu ecclesiastico directed to the whole Clergie of Ireland writeth in this maner At the request yea and at the command of manie of you dearely beloved I indevoured to set downe in writing the canonical custome in saying of Houres and performing the Office of the whole Ecclesiasticall Order not presumptuously but in desire to serve your most godly command to the end that those diverse and schismaticall Orders wherewith in a maner all Ireland is deluded may give place to one Catholick and Romane Office For vvhat may bee said to be more undecent or schismaticall then that the most learned in one order should be made as a private and lay man in another mans Church These beginnings were presently seconded by Malachias in whose life written by Bernard wee reade as followeth The Apostolicall constitutions and the decrees of the holy Fathers but especially the customes of the holy Church of Rome did he establish in all Churches And hence it is that at this day the canonicall Houres are chanted and song therein according to the maner of the whole earth whereas before that this was not done no not in the citie it selfe the poore citie of Ardmagh he meaneth But Malachias had learned song in his youth and shortly after caused singing to be used in his owne Monasterie when as yet aswell in the citie as in the whole Bishoprick they eyther knew not or would not sing Lastly the work was brought to perfection when Christianus Bishop of Lismore as Legate to the Pope was President in the Councell of Casshell wherein a speciall order was taken for the right singing of the Ecclesiasticall Office and a generall act established that all divine offices of holy Church should from thenceforth be handled in all parts of Ireland according as the Church of England did observe them The statutes of which Councell were confirmed by the Regall authority of King Henry the second by whose mandate the Bishops that met therein were assembled in the yeare of our Lord 1172. as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth in his historie of the Conquest of Ireland And thus late was it before the Romane use was fully settled in this kingdome The publick Liturgie or service of the Church was of old named the Masse even then also when prayers only were said without the celebration of the holy Communion So the last Masse that S. Colme was ever present at is noted by Adamnanus to have beene vespertinalis Dominicae noctis Missa He dyed the midnight following whence the Lords day tooke his beginning 9º viz. Iunij anno Dom. 597. according to the account of the Romanes which the Scottish and Irish seeme to have begunne from the evening going before and then was that evening Masse said which in all likelyhood differed not from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Leo the Emperour in his Tacticks that is to say from that which wee call Even-song or Evening prayer But the name of the Masse was in those dayes more specially applied to the administration of the Lords Supper and therefore in the same Adamnanus we see that Sacra Eucharistiae ministeria and Missarum solemnia the sacred ministerie of the Eucharist and the solemnities of the Masse are taken for the same thing So likewise in the relation of the passages that concerne the obsequies of Columbanus performed by Gallus and Magnoaldus we finde that Missam celebrare and Missas agere is made to be the same with Divina celebrare mysteria and Salutis hostiam or salutare sacrificium immolare the saying of Masse the same with the celebration of the divine mysteries and the oblation of the healthfull sacrifice for by that terme was the administration of the sacrament of the Lords Supper at that time usually designed For as in our beneficence and communicating unto the necessities of the poore which are sacrifices wherewith God is well pleased we are taught to give both our selves and our almes first unto the Lord and after unto our brethren by the will of God so is it in this ministerie of the blessed Sacrament the service is first presented unto God from which as from a most principall part of the dutie the sacrament it selfe is called the Eucharist because therein we offer a speciall sacrifice of praise thankesgiving alwayes unto God and then communicated unto the use of Gods people in the performance of which part of the service both the minister was said to give and the communicant to receive the sacrifice as well as in respect of the former part they were said to offer the same unto the Lord. For they did not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament as the Romanists doe now adayes but used the name of Sacrifice indifferently both of that which was offered unto God and of that which was given to and received by the communicant Therefore we read of offering the sacrifice to God as in that speech of Gallus to his scholler Magnoaldus My master Columbanus is accustomed to offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of salvation in brasen vessels Of giving the sacrifice to man as when it is said in one of the ancient Synods of Ireland that a Bishop by his Testament may bequeath a certain proportiō of his goods for a legacie to the Priest that giveth him the sacrifice and of receiving the sacrifice from the hands of the minister as in that sentence of the Synod attributed unto S. Patrick He who deserveth not to receive the sacrifice in his life how can it helpe him after his death and in that glosse of Sedulius upon 1 Cor. 11.33 Tarry one for another that is saith he untill you doe receive the sacrifice Whereby it doth appeare that the sacrifice of the elder times was not like unto the new Masse of the Romanists wherein the Priest doth eate and drinke alone the people being only lookers on but unto our Communion where all that are present at the holy action do eate of the Altar as well as they that serve the Altar Againe they that are communicants in the Romish sacrament receive the Eucharist in one kinde onely the Priest in offering of the sacrifice receiveth the same distinctly both by way of meate and by way of drinke which they tell us is chiefely done for the integritie of the Sacrifice and not of the Sacrament For in the Sacrifice they say the severall elements be consecrated not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or now is in heaven but the bread into his body apart as betrayed broken and given for us the wine into his blood apart as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes and dedication of the new Testament which
White field among whom there was contention about the order of Easter For Lasreanus the Abbot of the monastery of Leighlin unto whom there were subject a thousand and five hundred monkes defended the new order that lately came from Rome but others defended the old This Lasreanus or Lazerianus is the man who in other Legends of no greater credite then this wee now have in hand is reported to have beene the Bishop of Romes legat in Ireland and is commonly accounted to have beene the first Bishop of the Church of Leighlin His principall antagonist at this meeting was one Munna founder of the monastery which from him was called Teach-munna that is the house of Munna in the Bishoprick of Meath who would needs bring this question to the same kinde of triall here that Augustin is said to have done in England In defence of the Roman order Bede telleth us that Augustin made this motion to the Brittish Bishops for a finall conclusion of the businesse Let us beseech God which maketh men to dwell of one minde together in their fathers house that he will vouchsafe by some heavenly signs to make known unto us what traditiō is to be followed by what way we may hasten to the entry of his kingdome Let some sick man be brought hither and by whose prayers he shall be cured let his faith and working be beleeved to be acceptable unto God and to be followed by all men Now Munna who stood in defence of the order formerly used by the Brittish and Irish maketh a more liberall proffer in this kinde and leaveth Lasreanus to his choyce Let us dispute briefely saith he but in the name of God let us give judgement Three things are given to thy choyce Lasreanus Two bookes shall be cast into the fire a booke of the old order and of the new that wee may see whether of them both shall be freed from the fire Or let two Monkes one of mine and another of thine be shut up into one house and let the house be burnt and wee shall see which of them will escape untouched of the fire Or let us goe unto the grave of a just Monke that is dead and rayse him up againe and let him tell us after what order we ought to celebrate Easter this yeare But Lasreanus being wiser then so refused to put so great a matter to that hazzard and therefore returned this grave answer unto Munna if all be true that is in the Legend We will not goe unto thy judgement because we know that for the greatnesse of thy labour and holinesse if thou shouldest bid that mount Marge should be changed into the place of the White field and the White field into the place of mount Marge God vvould presently doe this for thy sake So prodigall doe some make God to be of miracles and in a maner carelesse how they should fall as if in the dispensing of them he did respect the gracing of persons rather then of causes In what yeare this Councell of the White field was held is not certainly known nor yet whether S. Munna be that whited wall of whom we heard Cummianus complaine The Synod of Strenshalch before mentioned was assembled long after at Whitby called by the Saxons Streanesheale in Yorkeshire the yeare of our Lord DCLXIIII for the decision of the same question Concerning which in the life of Wilfrid written at the commandement of Acca who in the time of Bede was Bishop of Hangustald or Hexham in Northumberland we reade thus Vpon a certaine time in the dayes of Colman metropolitan Bishop of the citie of Yorke Oswi and Alhfrid his sonne being Kings the Abbots and Priests and all the degrees of Ecclesiasticall orders meeting together at the monastery which is called Streaneshel in the presence of Hilde the most godly mother of that abbay in presence also of the Kings and the two Bishops Colman Aegelberht inquiry was made touching the observatiō of Easter what was most right to be held whether Easter should be kept according to the custome of the Brittons and the Scottes and all the Northren part upon the Lords day that came from the XIIII day of the Moone untill the XX. or whether it were better that Easter Sonday should be celebrated from the XV. day of the Moone untill the XXI after the maner of the See Apostolick Time was given unto Bishop Colman in the first place as it vvas fit to deliver his reason in the audience of all Who with an undaunted minde made his answer and sayd Our fathers and their predecessors who were manifestly inspired by the holy Ghost as Columkille was did ordayne that Easter should be celebrated upon the Lords day that fell upon the XIIII Moone following the example of Iohn the Apostle and Evangelist who leaned upon the brest of our Lord at his last Supper and was called the lover of the Lord. He celebrated Easter upon the XIIII day of the Moone and we with the same confidence celebrate the same as his disciples Polycarpus and others did neyther dare we for our parts neyther will we change this Bede relateth his speech thus This Easter which I use to observe I received from my elders who did send me Bishop hither which all our fathers men beloved of God are knowne to have celebrated after the same maner Which that it may not seeme unto any to be contemned and rejected it is the same which the blessed Evangelist Iohn the disciple specially beloved by our Lord with all the Churches which he did oversee is read to have celebrated Fridegodus who wrote the life of Wilfride at the command of Odo archbishop of Canterbury expresseth the same in verse after this maner Nos seriem patriam non frivola scripta tenemus Discipulo eusebij Polycarpo dante Iohannis Ille etenim bis septenae sub tempore Phaebae Sanctum praefixit nobis fore Pascha colendum Atque nefas dixit si quis contraria sentit On the contrarie side Wilfride objected unto Colman and his clerkes of Ireland that they with their complices the Pictes and the Brittons out of the two utmost Iles and those not whole neyther did with a foolish labour fight against the whole world And if that Columb of yours saith he yea and ours also if he were Christs was holy and powerfull in vertues could he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the Apostles unto vvhom the Lord said Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevayle against it and I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Which last words wrought much upon the simplicitie of King Oswy who feared that when he should come to the doors of the kingdome of heaven there would be none to open if he were displeased who was proved to keepe the keyes but prevayled nothing with Bishop Colman who
worke of their owne hands to doe ordeine and dispose of it at their owne will And shall not God the maker and creator of all things be allowed the like authoritie over all and singular men to doe decree purpose ordeine and dispose of them and everie of them being his creatures even as pleaseth himselfe What a grosse strange iniurious and unreasonable dealing were this in men not to allow that in God which they allow in themselves Doth not Christ Iesus himselfe yet further give a full and sufficient answer in this case saying thus Is it not lawfull for mee to doe as I vvill vvith mine owne is thine eye evill because I am good Consider well these words for they shew plainly that God may doe with all his creatures as pleaseth himselfe and that if God bestow mercie kindnesse love and favour toward one which he bestoweth not upon another for this goodnesse and liberalitie of God no other should have an evill eye or envious heart or a murmuring or blasphemous tongue Besides God is Debtor to no man Why then should anie exclaime against God for that he was not elected to salvation nor had saving graces given unto him whilest he lived For is God compellable or standeth he tied and bound to give anie men salvation and saving graces whether he will or no or otherwise then at his owne pleasure Againe VVho hath been his Counsailer saith the Apostle Was it fit or meet thinke you that God the creator of all should not doe and determine of all his workes and creatures which he made without calling silly men or other the worke of his hands to counsaile Doe or will men hold it reasonable to aske counsell or advise of the things â—hemselves doe make what use it shall serve for or what shall become of it or doe not men first purpose and determine of everie thing they make before it be made to what use it shall serve and to what end it shall be And if these things be thus amongst men shal not the like be allowed unto God O the intolerable audaciousnesse of men that dare thus stand in contention against God their maker Although therefore it be true that by the transgression of Adam the Elect and the Reprobate were both sinners alike and in respect of themselves both worthie of condemnation alike yet it pleased God who hath full and free power in himselfe to doe whatsoever hee will to put a difference betwneene them and to shew mercie to the one sort and not to the other Yea in verie deed how could it be otherwise seeing both Iustice and Mercie were thus determined of God to be shewed among the children of men upon their fall For if all had beene saved where had beene his Iustice And againe If all had beene damned where had beene his Mercie To the end therefore that both his Iustice and Mercie might appeare to sinfull men it is that some men upon the fall of Adam be thus to goe to damnation and other some to salvation If as yet anie man conceive not the depth of this high point of Gods predestination let him not reiect nor monster-like blaspheme that which hee understandeth not but let him in all humilitie reverence and iustifie God in all his words and workes admiring and wondring at the height and depth of that wisedome which hee is not able to reach unto And let him in this matter doe as S. Paul did crying out thus O the depth of the riches both of the vvisedome and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Iudgements and his vvayes past finding out And let him also stay with patience untill the day of the declaration of the iust iudgement of God for such a day there is as S. Paul expressely affirmeth So that howsoever wicked blasphemous and ungodly men doe sometimes speake most impiously of God and of his doings herein yet at that day of the declaration of the iust Iudgement of God if not sooner it will be manifested that all the Iudgements decrees and doings of God are iust and such as no exception can be taken against And let men learne in the meane time to accuse and condemne themselves and their owne wayes as uniust and unequall and ever iustifie God and acknowledge his wayes and workes to be as they are most holy most iust and most equall as God himselfe also declareth by his Prophet Ezechiel And let us all confesse that according to his owne vvill he vvorketh in the army of Heaven and in the Inhabitants of the earth and that none can stay his hand nor may say unto him vvhat dost thou as it is written in the Prophesie of Daniel And let us likewise say as the Saints speak in the Revelation saying thus Thou art vvorthy O Lord to receive glory and honour and power for thou hast created all things and for thy vvills sake they are and have beene created CAP. IX Concerning the Sacraments and that there be but two Sacraments of the New Testament properly so called namely Baptisme and the Lords Supper and that Confirmation Pennance Marriage Orders and Extreme unction be no Sacraments properly And that the Sacraments administred doe not give grace ex opere operato by the vvorke or action wrought or done but grace commeth and is given another way THe word SACRAMENT is sometimes taken in a generall or large sense and so it may comprehend all manner of Signes which God gave men at anie time to assure them of the undoubted truth of his promise in anie matter whatsoever In which sense the Tree of life in the Garden may be said to be to Adam a Sacrament or signe of his life received from God and that he should not die so long as he continued in his obedience The Rainebow also in this sense might be termed a Sacrament that is a signe to Noah and his posteritie that the world shall never more be destroyed with a floud of waters and sundrie such like But we here speake not of Sacraments in such a general signification or large acception of the word but as it is strictly and properly taken viz. of such Sacraments as God hath left to be usual and ordinarie in the New Testament and appointed to be signes and scales of our communion with Christ and of that righteousnesse we have by faith in him In this sense a Sacrament being taken is a visible signe and seale ordayned of God vvhereby Christ and all his saving graces by certaine outward rites are signified exhibited and sealed up unto all the faithful of which sort there be two namely Baptisme and the Lords Supper Baptisme succeedeth in the place of Circumcision and the Lords Supper in the place of the Passeover And as Circumcision was not onely a visible signe but also a seale to Abraham of the righteousnesse he had by faith in Christ so is Baptisme likewise the other Sacrament also of the Lords
Supper not only a signe but a seale also to everie several particular faithfull man of the full and free remission of all his sinnes and of that immaculat perfect complete righteousnesse which hee hath by and in Christ Iesus Where therefore you may note by the way that the Doctrine of Assurance of Salvation is a most certaine true and undoubted doctrine inasmuch as these verie Sacraments themselves doe assuredly testifie and seale up the same even to everie several and particular faithfull and godly person that receiveth them S. Augustine somtimes useth the word in the large sense and acception but when hee speaketh of Sacraments in the more proper and strict sense he reckoneth them as wee doe saying Haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta These be the two Sacraments of the Church And againe he saith that Christ and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many Baptisme and the Lords Supper So S. Ambrose likewise treating purposely of the Sacraments speaketh of two as the reformed Churches doe Yea Innocentius the third speaking of them maketh mention of these two which we receive not of the rest which we refuse And even Cardinal Bessarion also saith Haec duo sola Sacramenta in Evangelijs manifestè tradita legimus VVee reade these twoâ—Sacraments onely to be manifestly delivered in the Gospel It is true that Bellarmine proveth the word Sacrament to be sometime given in some writers to the other five but that is as I said before when the word is taken in a general or large signification for anie Signe or token in which case it may indeed more properly be called a Signe then a Sacrament These five therefore namely Confirmation Pennance Matrimony Orders and Extreame unction wee reject from being Sacraments properly and strictly so called the other two namely Baptisme and the Lords Supper wee embrace as being altogether perfect and sufficient not onely to enter and plant a man into the Church but also to cherish increase confirme strengthen and maintaine him in it unto the end and therefore no need is there of anie moe to be Sacraments for anie of those uses ends or purposes 2 First then touching Confirmation It is granted that the Christians in the ancient Church caused their Children after that they came to yeares of discretion to come before the Bishop who examined them in the principles and fundamental points of Religion and instructed them further for their confirmation therein and that this action might have the more reverence and esteeme hee laid his hands upon them and praied unto God for them that hee would encrease and continue the good things that hee had begun in them But howsoever this was a laudable usage yet doth it not follow that therefore it was a Sacrament Yea your maner of Confirmation with Chrisme or Oyle for you make this Oyle to be the outward signe of this your supposed sacrament hath no institution or commandement from Christ therfore it can be no Sacrament for it is well knowne that everie sacrament must have an outward visible signe or element ordained and appointed of God for that purpose as in Baptisme the outward visible signe or element is water and in the Lords Supper the outward visible signes or elements be bread and wine and all these of Gods owne instituting and appointing But what institution or appointment from God can be shewed for this your Chrisme or oyle to be used as a visible signe in Confirmation Iust none at all in Gods booke Inasmuch therefore as this outward visible signe of Chrisme or Oyle used in Popish Confirmation is none of Gods instituting it can be no sacrament It is true that wee finde in the Scripture that the Apostles sometimes used Imposition or laying on of hands but therein wee reade of no Oyle or Chrisme they used Yea moreover by that their imposition or laying on of hands the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost were given as appeareth in the same places of Act. 8.17.18.19 c. Act. 19.6 which power of giving the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost by that meanes is now ceased and is not to be found in the Popish Church at this day nor in anie other Church and therefore should not be attempted Howbeit as touching another kinde of Imposition of hands used in the ordination of Ministers shall be afterwards spoken 3 Concerning Pennance The Papists call it Pennance which the Greekes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Poenitentia or rather Resipiscentia and wee call it Repentance which consisteth properly in the change of the mind and affections and not so much in the outward afflicting and punishing of the bodie Yea the outward afflicting and punishing of the bodie anie manner of way howsoever is to no purpose if there be not inwardly a true change of the minde and affections You may call it Pennance if you will externally so to punish the bodie but allowable or good Christian repentance it will never be without a change of the minde and alteration of affections and becomming a new man For Repentance is an outward true godly sorrow for sinnes committed ioyned with fervent prayer unto God for the forgivenesse of them and hath in it an earnest desire purpose and endevour not to commit them anie more and is indeede a dying to sinne and a walking in newnesse of life and is testified by fasting weeping and mourning and by such outward tokens and declarations of it as wee reade of in holy Scripture to be approved Now that this which wee call Repentance and the Papists call Penitencie or Pennance is no Sacrament proper to the New Testament is hereby manifest First because it was in the time of the Old Testament and ever since the time of mans fall and transgression required in all ages and of all persons that they should repent for their sinnes committed Secondly it wanteth a visible signe instituted of God for this purpose to make it a Sacrament such as water is in Baptisme and such as bread and wine is in the Lords Supper and for want of this outward signe also it can therefore bee no Sacrament But Bellarmine saith that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Pennance when after his resurrection he said to his Apostles VVhose sinnes yee remit they are remitted and vvhose sinnes yee retaine they are retayned and he saith further that the vvords of absolution be the outward signe and that the remission of sinnes is the grace therby signified This is farre fetcht to prove it a Sacrament But first I demand of Bellarmine or of anie other How words of Absolution or anie words whatsoever uttered and spoken can be an outward and visible signe Words be audible I know when they be uttered and spoken but how are they visible when they cannot be seene for not audible but visible signes be required to a Sacrament Yea if words uttered by a Pastor or Minister
be a sufficient outward signe to make a sacrament then should the preaching of the Gospel and ministerie of the word be also a sacrament which hath that outward signe the grace also of reconciliation unto God wherein absolution and remission of sinnes is included thereunto belonging And by such reckoning would there be no difference betweene the ministerie of the Word and the ministerie of Sacraments But as I said before not an audible voice uttered but a visible signe and that of Gods owne instituting and appointing is required to make a Sacrament Yea although Christ in Ioh. 20.23 gave authoritie to his Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel to declare and pronounce absolution and remission of sinnes to beleeving and repentant persons yet thereupon it followeth not that therefore Repentance should be a Sacrament for everie good godly and allowable thing is not by and by to be called a Sacrament in that sense of the word that we here speake of Yea you may by as good reason aswell make faith and beleefe a Sacrament as repentance for Faith is also necessarie and requisite for the remission of sinnes as well as Repentance But there is indeed no cause or necessitie that Repentance or Penance as yee call it should be made a Sacrament for this purpose because Christ hath appointed other to be Sacraments serving to this use and end namely to testifie and seale up remission of sinnes to everie faithfull and repentant sinner viz. Baptisme and the Lords Supper For Baptisme is expressely affirmed to be the Baptisme of repentance for remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 And so saith S. Peter also Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes So that Baptisme is a Sacrament and seale unto us of the remission of all our sinnes as well actual as original upon our faith and repentance And so is also the Lords Supper another Sacrament given for the same use end and purpose viz. to signifie testifie assure and seale up unto us the remission of all our sinnes whatsoever or whensoever committed upon our repentance faith in Christ Which thing Christ himselfe also declareth when he teacheth it to be a Sacrament of that blood of his which was shed for manie for remission of sinnes 4 And that Marriage or Matrimony is also no Sacrament proper to the new Testament and the Christian Church is a thing verie evident First because it was a thing instituted in Paradise and was before the Law and under the Law and in the times of the old Testament used and observed aswell as under the new Testament Secondly because Marriage may be as it is amongst Infidels and unbeleevers and such as be out of the Church societie of the faithfull For the Matrimonie of Infidels is lawfull God instituting it for all mankind and therefore it cannot bee a Sacrament proper to the Christian Church and to the members of Christ onely Thirdly because it is not common and commanded to all Christians For it is not required nor of necessitie that all in the Church should be married for everie one hath his proper gift of God some one way some another Fourthly it hath no promise of remission of sinnes or of salvation annexed unto it as Sacraments ought to have being strictly and properly taken Fiftly it hath no outward visible signe nor word of Institution from Christ to make it a Sacrament and therefore it can bee none For whereas Bellarmine saith that the word of Institution is I take thee c. and the externall signe bee the persons that be married These bee strange conceites For first these words I take thee c be words devised of men and not of Christ his institution and be words only expressing the mutuall consent of the parties that are to bee married Againe the outward visible signe in a Sacrament must bee material and real and not personal as water is in Baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper and therefore the persons married cannot be the outward visible signe Besides the married persons be the receivers of this pretended and supposed Sacrament so that they cannot bee also the signe For the signe and the receiver in every Sacrament must needs bee divers and distinguished If anie obiect and say that Marriage is the signe of an holy thing namely of the spirituall coniunction betweene Christ and his Church I demand who instituted it to bee so Yea it was not instituted to that end to bee a Sacrament of our coniunction with Christ howsoever it may resemble it but for other ends and purposes as namely to avoide fornication and adulterie c. But further all signes comparisons or resemblances of holy things must not bee counted Sacraments in that sense of the word wee speake of For then how manie Parables comparisons or similitudes there be of holy and heavenly things in Scripture so manie Sacraments should wee have and then the Rainebow the Sabboth a graine of Mustard-seede Leaven a Draw-net a Vine a Doore and sundrie such other things should wee make Sacraments But the greatest reason whereof they are most confident is out of Ephes. 5.32 which their vulgar translation and the Rhemists read thus This is a great Sacrament Howbeit in the Original which is ever to be followed the words bee these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a great mysterie Now everie thing that is a mysterie is not by and by to be concluded to be a Sacrament for then godlines shold be a sacrament because it is said to be a misterie 1. Tim. 3.16 Gods wil is also said to be a misterie Ephes. 1.9 The obstinate unbeleefe of the Iewes untill the fulnes of the Gentiles be come in is likewise called a misterie Rom. 11.28 That all shall not die but that some shal be changed at the cōming of Christ to Iudgment is also affirmed to be a misterie 1. Cor. 15.51 Yea Iniquitie is also called a misterie 2. Thes. 2.7 And yet none I thinke will be so unwise as to conclude all these to be therfore sacraments But the Apostle himselfe preventeth answereth this obiection affirming that this great misterie he speaketh of consisteth not in carnal Matrimonie but in the spiritual coniunction betweene Christ and his Church This is a great mysterie but I speake saith hee concerning Christ and his Church So that the marriage betweene Christ and his Church and the coniunction and knitting of them together which is not natural and carnal as that of the husband and the wife is but spiritual is the great misterie or secret he there expresseth himselfe to meane speake of And therefore doth Cardinal Caietane ingenuously confesse upon this text of Ephes. 5.32 that these words prove not Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And indeed it is verie evident to all that duly consider that text and the circumcumstances of it that the Apostle bringeth not marriage
in that place as a similitude to represent the neere coniunction betweene Christ and his Church but contrariwise hee bringeth and mentioneth the great love of Christ and the neere mistical coniunction between him and his Church as a similitude and argument to declare and enforce the love that shold be of the husband toward his wife For that is the maine matter scope and point of exhortation the Apostle there aymeth at as is expresse and apparant by the 25. Verse and so from thence to the end of that Chapter 5 Now concerning Orders By Orders wee understand the ordination of Ecclesiastical Ministers to their ministery by Imposition or laying on of hands Here then I would be glad to know why or for what reason they should hold this to be a Sacrament Is it because it is a good worke and an holy action But it is answered before that everie good worke and godly and holy action is not to bee reckoned for a Sacrament Or doe they make it a Sacrament because it hath in it an outward signe of an holy thing accounting the ordination or consecration to the ministerie to bee the holy thing and the imposition or laying on of hands in that action and for that purpose to bee the outward signe But hereunto is answered that everie outward signe of an holy thing or of an holy action is not sufficient to make a Sacrament for then Prayer with lifting up of hands should bee likewise a Sacrament end sundrie such like But it must be an outward signe of this particular holy thing namely of the remission of our sins and of our coniunction and communion with Christ or otherwise it is no Sacrament in that sense of a Sacrament which wee speake of Yea it must bee not onely a signe but a seale also of that our uniting and coniunction with Christ as is before declared which thing because the act of Ordination of Ministers by imposition of hands is not therefore it can be no Sacrament Againe the Sacraments be such as bee common belong to all sorts and degrees of Christians aswell to the lay sort as to Ecclesiasticall Ministers as appeareth by the example of these two confessed and undoubted Sacraments viz of Baptisme and the Lords Supper but these orders be proper and peculiar unto those onely that bee of the Ecclesiasticall Ministerie and extend no further and therefore they can bee no Sacraments in that sense of Sacraments that wee speake of 6 The last supposed Sacrament in the Popish Church is Extreme unction or last anointing or annealing as they cal it But how do they prove this to be a sacrament We reade indeed in Mark 6.13 that the Apostles of Christ being sent abroad did cast out Divels and annointed manie that were sicke with oyle and healed them But wee see this reckoned amongst the rest of the miracles which those Apostles had power given them to doe in those times of the first preaching and planting of the Gospell to win the greater credit unto it Agreeably whereunto it is said that They went forth and preached everie where the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signes following But beside that it is thus reckoned among the rest of the miracles the effect or event did also declare it to bee miraculous because as manie as were in those daies annointed by them were healed as the Text it selfe affirmeth Now can or doe Popist Priests in like sort in these daies by their annointing with oyle cure and heale the sicke and diseased as they in the Primitive and Apostolicke Church miraculously did All men know they neither doe nor can S. Iames likewise saith to the Christians of those Primitive and Apostolicke times in this sort Is anie sicke among you let him call for the Presbyters or Elders of the Church and let them pray for him and annoint him with oyle in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sicke and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sinnes they shall be forgiven him For Sinnes commonly bee the cause of mens sicknesses and diseases And because God pardoneth such as repentantly acknowledge and confesse their sinnes and faults and not such as hide them and will iustifie themselves therein hee addeth further saying thus Acknowledge your faults one to another and pray one for another that yee may bee healed for the prayer of a righteous man availeth much if it bee fervent teaching them hereby that they ought freely to conferre one with another touching their diseases and sicknesses to confesse the sins which bee the cause of them one to another that so they might helpe one another with their praiers unto God for their recoverie for S. Iames doth not say that it was the bare anointing with oyle that did heale or save a man from death or raise him up from that his sicknesse wherewith hee was visited but it was Annointing with oyle in the name of the Lord that is such as had prayer invocation and calling upon the name of the Lord ioyned with it And therfore in the next words he sheweth that praier was added and that it was the prayer of faith that did preserve or save the sicke and that recovered and raised him up againe What then is there in all this to prove this Vnction or the annointing with oyle to bee a Sacrament Is it because in this healing there was used an external ceremonie or an outward visible signe but it is before shewed that that is not sufficient to make a Sacrament yea then might the curing of the diseased by the water of the Poole of Bethesda Ioh 5.2 3 4. c. be called a sacrament the annointing of the blind mans eies with clay made with spittle together with his washing in the Poole of Siloam Ioh. 9.6.7 might also by as good reason bee termed a Sacrament and sundrie other such actions wherin outward visible signes were used should become Sacraments which it were absurd to affirme in that sense of the Sacraments we here speake of But this Vnction or annoynting with oyle in the Apostles times can be no Sacrament in that sense of a Sacrament that wee speake of for sundry reasons First because it served onely for the healing and curing of the bodie For as for the forgivenesse of sinnes there mentioned and prayer used for that purpose they tended all in this case to this end to worke the effect of healing for the cause of the sicknesse which was sinnes being remooved by the prayers of the faithfull the effect which was the sicknesse or disease caused by those sinnes was also remooved Secondly it was a gift of healing that was in those daies miraculous to cure and heale the sicke in that manner which miraculous and extraordinarie power of healing is now long since ceased and because it was a thing miraculous and extraordinarie and is not ordinarie and perpetual it
therefore can be no Sacrament For who is hee at this day that hath this miraculous gift of healing the sicke by annointing them with oyle I Popish Priests had it it would appeare in their extreame unctions and annointings but no such thing appeareth For what sicke man doe they recover or restore to health by that meanes Yea they use not this their unction and annoyling but when the sicke partie lyeth in extreamitie of sicknesse and is no way likely to recover and indeed most usually dieth notwithstanding these their annointings and whatsoever else they doe Thirdly the Sacraments whereof wee speake be such as bee common and appliable to all the members of Christ aswell when they bee well and in health as at other times But this their extreame Vnction belongeth and is applied onely to those that bee sicke and at such times as they be in their extreamest sicknesse and therefore it can bee no Sacrament Fourthly they use this forme of words in it By this annointing and his most holy mercie God doth forgive thee whatsoeuer thou hast offended by seeing hearing smelling tasting and touching Whereby appeareth that they make this their extreame Vnction to extend but onely to such sinnes as the man hath committed by seeing hearing smelling tasting touching that is to say by those his exterior five senses But those that bee true Sacraments indeed as is evident by Baptisme and the Lords Supper bee not so particularly limited or restrained but be Sacraments to a faithfull and godly man of the full remission and forgivenesse of all sinnes committed not onely by those his five outward senses but anie other waie else whatsoever either by thought word or deede And therefore this their extreame Vnction can bee no Sacrament rightly and properly so called 7 Now remaineth to be shewed that even those that be the verie true Sacraments indeede doe not give grace ex opere operato For they verie erroneously attribute remission of sinnes to the Sacraments administred as namely to Baptisme and the Lords Supper ex opere operato even by the verie worke done and performed whereas it is not in verie deede the external water in Baptisme administred that hath this power and vertue in it to take awaie sinnes or to cleanse and purge them neither is it the consecrated bread and wine in the Lords Supper that hath this power and vertue in it For so to suppose and imagine were to â—ttribute that to the outward signes or Sacraments which rightly and properlie belongeth to Christ Iesus inasmuch as hee onelie is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world and it is his blood onely that cleanseth us from all sinne as S. Iohn expresly witnesseth and all the rest of the Scripturs accord For which cause it is againe said in the Revel of S. Iohn that it is Christ that hath washed us from our sinnes in his blood Seeing then it is Christ and his blood onely that washeth purgeth and cleanseth in verie deede and materially from all sinnes the water in Baptisme administred must not have this power and vertue attributed unto it nor also the consecrated bread and wine in the Lords Supper received You will then demand why or in what sense it is that in the scripture the water in Baptisme is said to cleanse to sanctifie to regenerate I answere that it is said so to doe not that it hath these vertues inclosed in it or did these things efficiently or materially but for that it doth them sacramentally and significatively that is to say in plainer termes because the water in Baptisme is a Sacrament signe and seale unto us of that regeneration sanctification and cleansing which wee have through Christ For it is Gods spirit that efficiently worketh faith repentance regeneration sanctification or whatsoever other supernatural grace in a man and not the element of water And therefore also did S. Iohn Baptist say to those whom he baptized thus I Baptise you with vvater unto repentance but hee that commeth after mee is mightier then I whose shooes I am not worthie to beare he shall baptise you with the holy Ghost Where you plainely see that S. Iohn Baptist acknowledgeth that he in his Baptisme administred by him gave but water and that it was Christ that gave the holy Ghost and consequently that in the elemental water the holy Ghost was not conteined nor included but was to come another way Saint Peter hath a like speech saying That Baptisme doth save us not that it is the material cause of our salvation for Christ Iesus only is our Saviour in that sort but for that it is a sacrament signe and seale of that salvation which we have by Iesus Christ. And thus you see how all the scriptures stand well together and be rightly reconciled whereas otherwise according to their sense there would be a confusion and repugnancie Yea if it were true that the verie external act of Baptisme performed did ipso facto regenerate clense sanctifie and save then should all without exception that be baptised be also regenerated clensed sanctified and saved soules But this you neither do nor will affirme and therefore no reason have you to affirme the other whereupon this must necessarily follow In like sort if consecrated bread and wine externally distributed and received in the Lords Supper did ipso facto give grace and remission of sinnes then might Iudas that Traytor or anie other the most wicked and ungodly reprobate that externally receiveth that bread and wine receive also grace and remission of sinnes thereby which it were verie grosse and absurd for anie to affirme Yea S. Paul himselfe sheweth that there be some unworthy receivers that be so farre from receiving grace and remission of sinnes by it that contrariwise They eate and drinke Iudgement or condemnation to themselves as hee speaketh and directly witnesseth CHAP. X. Concerning the Popish Masse and the Popish Priesthood thereto belonging NOw give mee leave to tell you how detestable a thing your Popish Masse is which ye neverthelesse so much and so highly reverence being misled by the doctrine of your Teachers For yee say that your Priests doe therein offer up Christ Iesus everie day or often to his Father and that in a bodily manner and affirme it moreover to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of men What can anie that professe Christ or Christianitie be so absurd as to beleeve that Christ is often or daily offered up in a bodily manner to his Father for the sinnes of men Doe not the Scriptures themselves proclaime that Christ Iesus was in that his bodily sacrifice to be offered but Once and not often and doe they not withall expressely testifie that with that one Oblation or offering He hath consecrated for ever them that are sanctified What needeth then or how can there be anie more bodily offerings of him then that one whereby hee offered himselfe once upon the
against them that in this sacrament of the Lords Supper not the bare formes or accidents of bread and wine but the verie substance it selfe of bread and wine doth remaine But thirdly why doe they say that Melchisedech sacrificed in bread wine when there is no such thing in the Text Hee offered no sacrifice of bread and wine but brought forth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham and his Armie And so saith Iosephus Melchâ—sedech gave liberal entertainment to the Souldiers of Abraham and suffered them to vvant nothing for the sustenance of their life This another writer likewise approveth saying Melchisedech king of Salem offered unto him bread and vvine which Iosephus as it were expounding saith he ministred to his Armie the dueties of hospitalitiâ— and gave him great plentie of things necessarie and besides he blessed God vvhich had subdued to Abraham his enemies for Hee vvas a Priest of the highest God Yea even the Hebrew word also which signifieth not obtulit or sacrificavit but protulit or eduxit declareth the same for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hotsi quod perinde sonat ac si dicas exire fecit hoc est eduxit seu protulit which is asmuch as that Melchisedech caused bread and wine to come forth or to be brought out to Abraham and his companie but it hath no such sense in it as that he sacrificed bread and wine Whereupon the Greekes have also translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit hee brought forth But yet further to shew unto you that Christ is the only Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and in what sense he is so that Epistle to the Hebrewes thus compareth Christ and Melchisedech together That as Melchisedech was both a King and a Priest so likewise is Christ And as Melchisedech was a King of righteousnesse and of peace so is Christ for he brought in everlasting righteousnesse as it is said in Dan. 9.24 and is also the true King of peace as having by his mediation made peace betweene God and Vs. Yea as Melchisedech was not only a King but a Priest also of the most high God so is Christ who with the sacrifice of himselfe upon the Crosse hath redeemed all his people and blesseth them and maketh intercession for them Againe Melchisedech is said to be without father without mother without kinred having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life which things be thus affirmed of Melchisedech because in the Scriptures neither his father nor his mother nor his ancestors nor his death are recorded And such a one is Christ the sonne of God without a father as he is Man and without mother as he is God being Eternal without beginning of daies or end of life And as Melchisedech is said to be and continue a Priest for Ever so is Christ who liveth and continueth ever a Priest by reason of that his everlasting and unremoveable Priesthood perpetually resident and inherent in his owne person Thus Melchisedech a Type and figure of Christ and Christ himselfe be resembled and compared together By all which you may infallibly perceive that Christ onely and none but he is or can be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and consequently that Popish Priests be extremely audacious and impudently impious that dare and doe challenge to themselves to be Priests according to that order 3 Howbeit there be Priests neverthelesse under the New Testament for all true Christians whosoever be Priests and are expressely so entitled in the holy Scriptures not that anie of them are to offer up Christ in a bodily sacrifice but that they are to sacrifice their owne bodies as S. Paul declareth by killing and mortifying their owne lusts and concupiscences and other their vile affections and consecrating themselves wholly unto God and his service Christ hath made us saith S. Iohn Kings and Priests even to God his Father S. Peter likewise saith thus Yee are a chosen generation a royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people set at libertie that ye should shew forth the vertues of him that hath called you out of Darkenesse into his marveylous light And againe he saith Ye as lively stones be made a spiritual house an holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. In which places you see that All generally whosoever that bee the member of Christ are and be termed Priests and withal you see the reason why they are so entitled namely not because they are to offer anie bodily sacrifice of Christ but in respect of spiritual sacrifices as S. Peter here expressely calleth them which they are to offer up unto God Of which sort is the sacrificing of their owne bodies before mentioned by S. Paul and the sacrifices likewise of praises and thankesgivings and of praier which ascendeth up like incense unto God the sacrifice also of righteousnesse of doing good and giving almes and distributing to those that be in necessitie and such like for all these be called sacrifices And hereby also is verified the Prophecie in Malachy where God saith thus From the rising of the Sunne unto the going downe â—f the same my Name is great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering for my Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts I say this Prophecie is verified not by anie supposed carnal or bodily sacrificing of Christ in the Popish Masse which is a most ungodly and impure thing but by those spiritual sacrifices before mentioned which All Christians everie where are to offer up unto God Neither ought it to seeme strange to anie that all the Members of Christ generally be they men or women be thus termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacerdotes that is Priests for yee see it is by the Scriptures cleere and evident and therefore must be confessed Wherefore also Tertullian saith Nonne Laici Sacerdotes Be not Lay people also Priests As for those that beare Ecclesiastical office in the Christian Church they have no where throughout all the New Testament this terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacerdotes that is Priests specially or properly given unto them but they are there evermore called by other names as Bishops Pastors Doctors Presbyters Deacons Ministers and such like so carefully doth the whole New Testament shunne that word Sacerdotes that is Priests from being attributed to the Ministers of the Gospel speciallie or peculiarlie but useth it as a name general and common to all Christians It is true neverthelesse that in the ancient Fathers they bee sometimes called Sacerdotes and the Lords â—able also is sutably in the same ancient Fathers sometimes called an Altar Howbeit these be not proper but alluding and tropical speeches signifying that as in the Iewish Church they had an Altar and Priests to offer sacrifices thereupon so in the Christian
have commended unto you it being spiritually understood shall quicken you What can bee spoken more plainely yea this point Christ himselfe cleareth yet further in the 51. Verse of that Chapter saying The Bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world Where wee must of necessitie understand not the bread in the Sacrament but himselfe and his flesh and Bodie crucified and sacrificed upon the Crosse to bee that Bread he there speaketh of So that to applie Christ crucified by faith unto a man as his Saviour and Redeemer whether it bee in the Sacrament or at anie other time without receiving the sacrament is to eate his flesh and to drinke his blood as S. Augustine againe expoundeth and declareth it De Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 21. de Civit. lib. 21. cap. 21. And this is yet further manifest by conferring the 54. Verse of that Chapter with the 40 Verse For whereas Christ in the 54. Verse speaketh thus VVhosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I vvill raise him up at the last day to declare the true meaning of those words he speaketh after this sort in the 40. Verse producing the same thing in effect and saying thus Every man which seeth the Sonne and beleeveth in him shall have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day By comparing of which two verses together it appeareth that to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his blood is in that place nothing else but for a man to beleeve in him and so to apply him as a Redeemer and Saviour to himselfe in particular for eternal life Which thing he againe declareth in the 47. Verse saying thus Verily verily I say unto you hee that beleeveth in me hath everlasting life But hee yet further explicateth the matter in the 56. Verse and sayeth thus Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in mee and I in him Whereby appeareth that to eate Christs flesh and to drinke his blood is all one with this to have Christ dwelling in us and us in him Now then how doth Christ dwell in us S. Paul answereth and telleth us directly that Hee dwelleth in us by faith It is then still undeniably manifest that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his blood is nothing else but as I said before to beleeve in Christ or to have a true livelie faith in him wherby we apprehend and applie him as a Redeemer Saviour unto our selves in particular and whereby it is that hee dwelleth in us and wee in him and so are united unto him not by a carnal but by a spirituall meane and union And so S. Paul againe sheweth that the union or coniunction which wee have with Christ is not by anie bodilie but by a spirituall meane and manner for hee that is ioyned unto the Lord is one spirit saith he and therefore also doth S. Paul call Christ spirituall meate and spirituall drinke and saith that even those Ancestors of the Ievves which lived in Moses time long before the Incarnation of Christ did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the spirituall Rocke that follovved them and that Rocke vvas Christ. These Ancestors of the Ievves that thus did eate Christ and drinke Christ so long before his Incarnation aswell as we could not possibly eate him in a bodilie manner or carnall fashion for Christ as yet in their times had not taken his humanitie or manhood nor was incarnate it remaineth then that they did eate him and drinke him by their faith and after a spiritual manner for in a carnal or bodilie sort as is apparant they could not possiblie eate or drinke him And seeing that they did eate the same spirituall meate and did drinke the same spiritual drinke that wee doe it must be granted that wee likewise doe not otherwise eate Christ or drinke Christ but in the same manner namely spiritually and by faith But againe if those words of Christ in that sixt Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell were to bee understood as yee suppose then it would also follow that Iudas that traytor or anie other Reprobate whosoever that did receive that sacramental Bread and Wine should also bee saved and have eternal life for in that Chapter Christ saith expreslie thus VVhosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life But whosoever externally eateth the Sacramental bread and drinketh the Sacramental wine hath not eternal life for as S. Paul sheweth There bee some that eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup unworthily and so eate and drinke Iudgement to themselves and therefore the external eating of the sacramental bread and drinking of the sacramental wine is not the eating of the flesh of Christ nor the drinking of his blood which is spoken of and intended in that place Yea at that time when these words were spoken the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not yet instituted as Lyra also well observeth These reasons then may suffice to satisfie reasonable men for answer to that sixt Chapter of S. Iohn which yee so often urge in vaine because by this time I trust you perceive how that your supposed bodilie presence of Christ in the Sacrament by waie of Transubstantiation cannot thereout possiblie be forced or concluded But yet further to the end it may not seeme strange unto you that Christ should call the bread his bodie when it was not in very deed his bodie naturally and substantially but a signe remembrance and figure of that his bodie you are to understand that it is an usuall and ordinarie phrase and speech in Sacraments and namelie aswell in Sacraments of the old Testament as of the new to call the signe by the name of the thing signified As for example Circumcision was one of the Sacraments among the Iewes and the Paschal Lambe was another under the old Testament Now Circumcision was directly called the Covenant which neverthelesse was not the verie Covenant it selfe but a signe of the Covenant For the Covenant it selfe was this that In Abrahams seed all nations should be blessed and that God would be their God and they his people So againe the Paschall Lambe was directlie called the Passeover when as neverthelesse it was not the verie Passeover it selfe but a signe and token of the Passeover For the verie Passeover it selfe was this that an Angell passed over the houses of the Israelits sparing them and smote the Egyptians their enemies and this is also called eating the Passeover when as but the signe of the Passeover onely namely the Paschall Lambe was eaten In steede of Circumcision Baptisme succeedeth amongst Christians and in the place of the Passeover succeedeth the Lords Supper What marvaile then can it bee or should it bee to anie Christian that Baptisme
Sacrament in remembrance of that his death and passion For whereas in Matth. 26.26 it is said that when Christ had taken bread hee blessed S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul all three of them as it were expounding what that meaneth in steede of those words hee blessed doe say that Hee gave thankes Mar. 14 22. Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 By the word blessing then mentioned in S. Mâ—thew is meant Thankesgiving as by conferring him with the other three doth plainely appeare Yea this doth also appeare even by S. Mathew himselfe For whereas S. Mathew saith That Iesus tooke the Bread and when hee had blessed hee brake it and gave it c. hee saith likewise that hee tooke the Cup and when hee had given thankes hee gave it c. Mat. 26.26.27 thereby shewing that to blesse in S. Mathew and to give thankes is all one And this also serveth well to declare and expound those other words of S. Paul concerning the Cup in 1. Cor 10.16 where he saith thus The Cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ He calleth it the Cup of blessing which we blesse saith Chrysostome because when wee have it in our hands with admiration and a certaine horrour of that unspeakeable gift wee praise and blesse Him for that hee hath shed his blood that wee should not remaine in errour and hath not onely shed it but made us all partakers of it And so doth also Photius and OEcumenius expound those words The Cup of blessing which vvee blesse that is say they vvhich having in our hands vvee blesse Him vvho hath gratiously given us his blood that is vvee give him thankes Iustin Martyr toward the end of his 2. Apologie saith thus VVee receive vvith the action of thankesgiving the consecrated meaâ—e blessed by prayer S. Augustine in his third Booke of the Trinitie Cap. 4. saith VVee call that the bodie and blood of Christ Iesus vvhâ—ch vvee receive for the health of our soules it being taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayer And Gregorie the first Bishop of Rome in his 7. Booke of Epistles Epist. 63. saith that The Apostles did consecrate by prayer Yea Pope Innocentius the third also in his third Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse doth himselfe hold that Christ did not consecrate by these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie but that hee had consecrated before those words were uttered Consecration then in a Sacrament is of no such nature operation or force as to make anie change or alteration in the substance of a thing but onely in the qualitie use or end And this you may verie clearely and demonstrativelie perceive by the vvater consecrated and applied in Baptisme for before it be consecrate to that use it is but common and ordinarie water But after it is consecrate it is then become another thing namely a sacred signe of the washing and cleansing wee have by Christ and yet neverthelesse it is still water as touching the substance of it as it was before although in the qualitie and use it bee altered So likewise is it of bread and wine in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper before Consecration it is but ordinarie and common bread and wine but after Consecration they are become holie signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and yet are they still bread and wine as touching the substance of them as before though they bee thus altered in the use and qualitie And so saith Ambrose Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur They are the same things still for matter and substance vvhich they vvere before and yet be changed into another thing in respect of the use and qualitie An example for better explications sake and to take away all doubt in this matter he giveth in a man before he be consecrate and sanctified and after he is sanctified Tu ipse eras c. Thou thy selfe vvast faith he before thou vvast sanctified but thou vvast an old Creature But after thou vvast sanctified or consecrated thou begannest to be a nevv Creature So that he is the same man still as touching matter and substance after his consecration or sanctification that hee was before albeit in qualitie hee bee thus altered and changed And this also witnesseth S. Chrysostome Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in illo remanserit The bread after it is sanctified or consecrated hath this dignity to bee called the Lords Bodie although saith he the nature of bread still remaine in it Theodoret likewise most plainelie telleth us that Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt a natura sua manet enim in priori substantia figura forma The mystical signâ—s after sanctification or consecration doe not depart from their ovvne nature for they still remaine in their former substance figure and forme Yea even Gelatius himselfe a Bishop of Rome saith also that after consecration Non desinit esse substantia panis natura vini There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread and the nature of vvine These so direct and expresse speeches and most evident testimonies of the ancient times concurring with the Scriptures bee they not sufficient to satisfie all that bee reasonable and equal christians that there is no transubstantiation in this Sacrament or real bodily presence of Christ to the bodily Mouth of the Receiver For that there is a real bodilie presence of Christ to bee apprehended by the mouth of the Soule that is by the faith of the Receiver is a thing granted and so affirmed by S. Augustine who expreslie saith that Faith is the mouth vvherby vvee eat and drinke Christ and the hand vvhich vve stretch to heaven to lay hold upon him sitting there And so saith S Ambrose also Fidei tactus est quâ— tangitur Christus It is by faith that vvee touch Christ. Yea this is so cleare as that the verie Church of Rome it selfe in ancient and former times beleeved heerein as wee doe as is manifest at large in the second distinction of Consecration and in the glosse likewise upon the Canon hoc est where it is said that the consecrated bread is called the Bodie of Christ Non propriè sed impropriè nec rei veritate sect significante mysterio Not properly but improperly and not in the truth of the thing but in a mysterie signifying it Thus then as touching this point it is more then evident that Rome is departed from that shee was in former times But hence arose moreover their adoration of the bread at their elevation wherein most grosse Idolatrie is committed inasmuch as it still remaineth Bread after consecration as you see And I wonder they tremble not at this their most horrible Idolatrie so often as they thinke upon it or use it For even the rudest and most barbarous Heathens were never
chiefe or supreame not onely in respect of Dukes Earles or other temporall Governors as the Rhemists would have it but in respect of all the rest likewise were they Bishops Pastors Clergie men or whosoever for hee writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens but to Christians and amongst them not to the Lay people onely but to such also as were Presbyters and did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the office of Bishops amongst them requiring even them as well as the rest to yeeld their subiection and submission unto him And doth not S. Paul also require the same subiection and obedience to be performed by all maner of persons to their King and Princes For thus he saith Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordayned of God VVhosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Iudgement or Condemnation And againe hee saith VVherefore ye must be subiect not onely because of vvrath but also for Conscience sake Now then if every one must be subiect to Kings Princes and these higher Powers which thus beare the civill sword as both these Apostles of Christ doe here cleerly testifie it is apparant that Kings and Princes and these higher powers be and must needs be granted to be supreame to whom all the rest within their Dominions be thus required to be subiect Yea S. Paul writing that his Epistle to the Church of Rome and requiring every Soule therein to bee subiect to these higher Powers sheweth that not onely Lay people but all within the Ecclesiasticall order also even as manie as have soules should be subiect to these higher powers And therefore S. Chrysostome upon this place saith directly Sive Apostolus sive Evangelista sive Propheta sive quisquis tandem fueris c. Everie soule must be subiect to the higher powers yea though you bee an Apostle or an Evangelist or a Prophet or whosoever you be And he further addeth saying Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subiectio For neither doth this subiection overthrow pietie or godlinesse And so saith Theodoret likewise upon this Text Sive est Sacerdoâ— aliquis sive Antistes sive Monasticam vitam professus us cedat quibus sunt mandati Magistratus whether he be a Priest or a Prelate or professe a Monasticall life hee must submit himselfe to those to whom Magistracie is committed Theophilact upon the same Text speaketh in like sort Vniversos erudit sive Sacerdos sit ille sive Monachus sive Apostolus ut se principibus subdant cuiusmodi subiectio nil prorsus est Dei sublatura cognitionem S. Paul instructeth all saith he whether he be a Priest or a Monke or an Apostle that they should subiect themselves to Princes which kind of subiection will in no sort take away the knowledge of God Likewise speaketh Oecumenius Instruens omnem animam audiens ut licet Sacerdos quispiam sit licet Monachus licet Apostolus potestatibus subijciatur That S. Paul teacheth and instructeth everie soule that though he be a Priest though a Monke though an Apostle he must be subiect to these higher Powers Bernard also writing to the Archbishop of Senona alleageth this Text Let every soule be subiect to the higher powers and addeth further Si omnis anima vestra Quic vos excepit ab universitate If everie soule must be subiect then must your soule also for who hath excepted you from this universalitie Yea Aeneas Silvius who was himselfe afterward a Pope of Rome called Pope Pius the second alleaging this Text saith Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit nec excipit animam Papae Let everie soule be subiect to the higher powers neither saith hee doth he except herein the soule of the Pope himselfe And Gregory who was also himselfe a Pope of Rome in an Epistle to the Emperor Mauritius in the person of Christ saith thus unto him Sacerdotes meos manui tuae commisi I have committed my Priests to thy hand And in another Epistle hee saith that Dominari non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit God hath made the Emperor ruler not only over Souldiers but over Priests also Hee further calleth the Emperors his Lords saith that Potestas super omnes homines dominorum meorum pietati coelitus data est Power over all men is given from heaven to the pietie of my Lords And this supremacie doth also Optatus expresly acknowledge saying Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Above the Emperor is not anie but God onely that made the Emperor And this againe did all the ancient Christian Church acknowledge in Tertullians time saying thus Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem Wee Christians honour our Emperor as the man next unto God and inferior onely to God Againe hee saith that they held their Emperors to be under the power of God onely à quo sunt secundi post quem primi from whom they bee the second and after whom they be the first Kings therefore who have the like preeminence authoritie within their kingdomes that the Emperors had within their Empire must of all that will be right and Orthodox Christians bee acknowledged to have the Supremacie or which is all one the supreme government over all persons within their own kingdomes and dominions of what sort soever whether they be Lay or Ecclesiasticall And this is further confirmed by the sixt Toletan Councel which speaking of Chintillanus the King saith thus Nefas est in dubium deducere eius potestatem cui omnium gubernatio superno constat delegata Iudicio It is an heinous offence to call his power into doubt to whom it is apparant that the governement of all is committed by Gods appointment How intollerably iniurious then is the Popish Clergie which will not acknowledge this subiection but if it so fall out that anie of them be Robbers Traytors Rebels Murtherers or how great offendors soever in a Commonweale yet hold themselves neverthelesse free by reason of their Order from â—riall for those offences in Kings Courts This you see is directly repugnant to the Institution and word of God and to the opinion and practise of the Primitive and ancient Church and was moreover long sithence condemned as it was well worthie by Marsilius of Padua as a new devise and not so new as pestiferous occasioning the ruine of States and inducing a plurality of Soveraignties in one kingdome yea from hence all scandals grow and which standing saith he civill discord shall never have an end Is not then the position of such Priests and Iesuites as Emanuel Sa is iustly to bee condemned who in his Aphorismes at the word Clericus affirmeth that Clerici rebellio in
some have done that the King is therein called Supreme head of the Church they are deceived The words of the Oath at this day to take away all offence that any might conceive in that point being not supreme HEAD but supreme GOVERNOR And as touching this Title of Governor within his owne Dominions none can with anie reason gainesay it inasmuch as beside that which is before spoken King Alfred reigning long sithence was likewise called Omnium Britanniae Insulae Christianorum Rector The Governor of all the Christians vvithin the Isle of Britanny The Councell also held at Mentz in Germanie the yeare 814 in the time of the Emperor Charles the great and Pope Leo the third calleth likewise the Christian Emperor Carolus Augustus Governor of the True Religion and Defendor of the holy Church of God c. And a little after they say thus VVee give thankes to God the Father almighty because he hath granted unto his holy Church a Governor so godly c. In the yeare 847. there was also held another Councel at Mentz in the time of Leo the fourth and Lotharius the Emperor where they againe call the Emperor Verae Religionis strenuissimum rectorem a most puissant Governor of the true Religion The like was ascribed to King Reccesumthius in a Councell held at Emerita in Portugale about the yeare 705 in these words VVhose vigilancie doth governe both secular things vvith very great piety and ecclesiasticall by his vvisedome plentifully given him of God Where you see it expressely acknowledged that the King is a Governor both in causes secular and ecclesiasticall And this Councell of Emerita had also good allowance of Pope Innocent the third in his Epistle to Peter Archbishop of Compostella as Garsias witnesseth So that the Title of Governor even as touching matters ecclesiasticall as well as civill or secular attributed to the King he governing in them after a Regall manner and not in that Ecclesiasticall manner which Bishops and Clergie men use can no way justly be misliked but must in all reason be well approved and allowed Howbeit I grant that King Henry the eight and King Edward the sixt had that Title of Head in their times given unto them but not of the universal Church upon earth as the Pope hath but of the Church onely within their owne Dominions and not within their owne Dominions neither in such sort and sense as the Pope taketh upon him to be Head over all the Churches in the world that is to rule and governe them at his own pleasure and as he lift himselfe Indeed Stephen Gardner Bishop of Winchester when he was in Germanie upon the Kings affaires was there a very ill Interpretor of that Title Supreme head of the Church vvithin his owne Dominions given to King Henry the eight reporting that the King might thereby prescribe and appoint new ordinances in the Church concerning faith and doctrine as namely forbid the marriage of Priests and take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in things concerning Religion might do what he listed This manner of declaring the Kings power and authoritie under that Title did so much offend the reformed Churches that Calvin and the writers of the Centuries did complaine of it and that iustly and worthily bearing that sense but in no other sort or sense did they dislike it Yea even that Title of Supreme head being rightly understood needed not to have offended anie for they had iâ— in no other sort or sense then the King of Israel likewise had the title of Head of the Tribes of Israel of which Tribes the Leviticall Tribe was one Or then Theodosius that Christian Emperor had the like within his Empire of whom Saint Chrysostome saith that non habet parem super terram He hath no peere or equall upon earth and affirmeth moreover of him that hee was summitas Caput omnium super terram hominum the Head and one that had the Supremacy over all men upon earth Yea by the Title of supreme Head attributed to King Henry the eight and King Edward the sixt was no more meant but the verie same that was afterward meant to the late Queene Elizabeth of blessed memorie or to King Iames our now Soveraigne Lord under the title of Supreme Governor for that they are both to be taken intended in one the selfe same sense is verie manifest even by a direct clause in an Act of Parliament viz. the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 1. in which also is declared how the Oath of Supremacie is to be expounded And the words of that Statute be these Provided also that the Oath viz of Supremacie expressed in the said Act made in the said first yeare of her raigne shall be taken and expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queenes Maiesties Iniunctions published in the same first yeare of her Maiesties raigne that is to say to confesse and acknowledge in her Maiestie her heyres and successors none other authoritie then that vvhich vvas challenged and lately used by the noble king Henry the eight and king Edward the sixt as in the said Admonition more plainly may appeare Where first you may observe the Authoritie attributed to King Henry the eight and to King Edward the sixt and to Queene Elizabeth as touching this point intended and declared to be all one And secondly you see it enacted how the Oath of Supremacy is to bee expounded namely that it is to be taken expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesties Iniunctions published in the same first yeare of her Raigne The words of which Admonition therefore as more amply conteyning the explanation of the same Oath I have here thought good to adde for your better and most full satisfaction in this matter The Title whereof is this An Admonition to simple men deceived by the malicious HEr Maiesty forbiddeth all her subiects to give eare or credite to such perverse and malicious persons vvhich most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notifie to her loving subiects how by the vvordes of the Oath of Supremacy it may be collected that the Kings or Queenes of this Realme possessioners of the Crowne may challenge authoritie and power of Ministery of Divine offices in the Church vvherein her said subiects be much abused by such evill disposed persons for certainly her Maiestie neyther doth nor ever vvill challenge any other authority then that vvhich vvas of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme that is to say under God to have the Soveraignety and rule over all maner of Persons borne vvithin these her Maiesties Dominions and Countries of vvhat estate eyther Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soever they be So as no forraine Power shall or ought to have any superioritie over them And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the
aside The vvages of sinne saith S. Paul is death But the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. Note that hee calleth Eternall lâ—fe not the wages or merit of Men but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The free gift of God bestowed gratis without anie purchase merit or desert of ours albeit Iesus Christ our Lord purchased it for us and paid a great price for it in our behalfe through vvhom and whose merits it is that we obtaine it Hearing saith S. Augustine that death is the vvages of sin vvhy goest thou about O Thou not Iustice of man but plaine pride under the name of Iustice vvhy goest thou about to lift up thy selfe and to demand Eternall life vvhich is contrarie to death as a vvages due Chrysostome also upon this place speaketh thus Hee saith not eternall life is the revvard of your good vvorkes but eternall life is the gift of God That he might shevv that they are delivered not by â—heir ovvne strength or vertues and that it is not a debt or vvages or a retribution of labours but that they have received all those things freely of the gift of God Theodoret likewise upon this place observeth that the Apostle saith not here revvard but gift or grace for eternall life is the gift of God for although a man could performe the highest and absolute Iustice yet eternall ioyes being vveighed vvith temporall labours there is no proportion And so saith S. Paul himselfe that The afflictions of this life non sunt Condignae are not vvorthy the glorie that shall be shevved unto us It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merces a revvard is promised to those that doe good workes but it is as before is shewed merces ex gratià non ex debito a revvard of grace or favour and not of debt or desert as even S. Paul himselfe distinguisheth So that God giveth the Crowne of righteousnesse not to the merit or worthines of our workes but to the Merit or Worthines of Christ and as due to us by his promise onely freely made unto us in Christ. The Crowne therefore of eternall life is of mercie and favour in respect of us but of Iustice and desert in respect of Christ who hath purchased it for us by his merits and worthines Wherefore S. Augustine saith well that fidelis dominus qui se nobis debitorem fecit non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed omnia nobis promittendo The Lord is faithfull who hath made himselfe a debtor unto us not by receiving anie thing of us but by promising all things unto us Againe he saith Non dicimus Deo Domine redde quod accepisti sed redde quod promisisti VVee say not to God Render that O Lord vvhich thou hast received of us but render or give that vvhich thou hast promised Againe he saith That God crovvneth his ovvne gifts not our merits vvhen he crovvneth us What vvorthinesse soever then is in us it is by Gods acceptation and his accounting of us to bee such in through Christ not by reason or in respect of any of our owne personall merits or worthinesse For vvhat hast thou saith S. Paul that thou hast not received and if thou hast received it vvhy dost thou glorie as though thou hadst not received it The gifts and graces of God in a man should make him humble and thankefull and not make him proud as though he deserved them and a great deale more by reason of them If a man give another 100. l. which hee useth well doth hee thereby deserve or can hee therefore claime as of merit or dutie to have at that mans hand 100000. l. Men for good works and benefits done may deserve praise and thankes amongst men but what man by doing of his dutie deserveth praise or thankes at Gods hand or What Servant for doing his Masters service and commandement can thereupon claime to be his Masters heire VVhosoever glorieth should glorie in the Lord as S. Paul teacheth But if men doe merit then have they somewhat of their owne wherein to glorie But God alloweth no matter of glorie in men with him or in his sight neither have they indeed anie matter of glory in them because whatsoever graces or goodnes men have they have received it of God to whom they ought to bee thankefull and for which they stand bound to performe all manner of dutie unto him So that how much merit men take to themselves so much doe they detract from the merits of Christ and so much praise glorie and thankes doe they pull from God to whom all praise glorie honour and thankes rightly and properly belong and are to be rendred Yea the Kingdome of heaven is a reward infinitely above the value of all mens workes and therefore must needes bee given of grace and cannot be merited by men But against mens merits and their workes of satisfaction whereby they intend to satisfie Gods wrath and Iustice for sinnes which is onely satisfiable by the death and sufferings of that Immaculate Lambe Christ Iesus enough hath beene before spoken and therefore I here forbeare to speake anie further of them 4 But in this matter of vvorkes this is not to be passed over or omitted that they also hold workes of Supererogation as they call them whereby they say Men doe more then they are bound unto by Gods Commandements and so doe merit not onely their owne salvation but the salvation also of others or something toward it Can these be accounted good vvorkes or that be held for a good and right religion wherin such monstrous things be taught and maintained It is more then anie meere man is able to doe perfectly and exactly to keepe and performe the vvhole lavv and Commaundements of God for so S. Paul himselfe expreslie affirmeth it to be a thing impossible because of the vveakenesse that is in all sinnefull flesh and so have the ancient Fathers likewise before testified and taught Why then doe these men talke of doing all and more then all the Commaundements of God Indeed if anie thinke to come to heaven by Doeing as he in the Gospell did the Ansvvere which Christ gave in that case is right and fit for him that Hee must keepe the Commandements for Moses describing the righteousnesse vvhich is of the Lavv saith That the man vvhich Doth those things shall live by them But the righteousnesse vvhich is of faith speaketh as S. Paul sheweth on another fashion and consisteth in a firme beleeving in Christ For Christ who performed the law for us it being a thing impossible for us to doe is the End or accomplishment of the Lavv for righteousnesse to everie one that beleeveth as hee there againe affirmeth And yet must none therefore hereupon conclude God to bee Cruell Tyrannicall or uniust in giveing such a Law as is impossible for men to keepe for at the first
Crosse Your selves againe doe say that this bodily offering up of Christ in your Masse is unbloudie and consequently hath in it no effusion of bloud whereupon it must needs be granted that therefore it cannot possibly be a propitiatorie sacrifice or take away the sinnes of men For the Scripture saith expressely that without effusion of bloud there is no remission of sinnes But beside all this there is also no other Priest appointed of God for the offering up of Christ Iesus in a bodily sacrifice but Christ Iesus himselfe only who therefore did performe it in his owne most sacred person and is also the only Priest according to the order of Melchisedech For yee must be put in minde that the Scripture mentioneth not Priests plurally according to the order of Melchisedech as though there were or might be manie or sundrie according to that order but it mentioneth onely One according to that Order affirming this one to be Iesus Christ as the Epistle to the Hebrewes manifestly declareth Yea verie plainely doth that Epistle shew that though there were in the Old Testament under the Levitical and Aronical Priesthood many that were Priests in succession one after another the death of the one causing the other so to succeede yet is it not so in the New Testament under that Priesthood which is according to the Order of Melchisedech where is shewed that Christ Iesus who is the only Priest according to that Order hath neither Vicars nor successors in that his Priesthood nor possibly can have because himselfe never dieth but liveth and continueth a Priest for ever according to that order For which cause it is there further said directly that he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such a Priesthood as doth not passe goe or is convaied from him to anie other Seeing then there neither be nor ought to be anie moe Priests according to the Order of Melchisedech but only One which is Christ Iesus and that this Christ Iesus was in bodily sacrifice to be offered also but Once and not oftner and that himselfe is also the sole and onely Priest allowed and appointed of God to make that bodily oblation which bodily oblation of his is also only propitiatorie How intolerably blasphemous and abominable be and must needs be those Popish Priests that dare arrogate to themselves that particular honor office place and person of Iesus Christ and say that they offer him up in a bodily manner and that often and that their sacrifice of the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice We know that Christ instituted a Sacrament in bread and wine in commemoration and remembrance of his bodie crucified and his bloud shed for our sinnes But that bodily sacrifice of his was not performed by anie but by himsefe nor was it done at this time of his instituting of this Sacrament but afterward when actually and in verie deed he made that sacrifice of himselfe upon the Crosse and said Coâ—summatum est It vvas then finished And therefore when Christ said at his last Supper to his Apostles and consequently to the rest of his Ministers their successors Hoc facite c. Doe this in remembrance of me hee bad them to administer that Sacrament in such maner and sort as he did it but hee did not thereby make them Priests to offer him up in a bodily and propitiatorie sacrifice as is by Popish Priests most impiously and absurdly suggested and surmised And yet it is granted that ancient Fathers do cal this supper of the Lord a sacrifice but they so call it a sacrifice in respect it is a memorial of that bodily sacrifice of Christ performed upon the Crosse as even Peter Lombard himselfe expressely telleth you As also it may be called a sacrifice in respect of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiving and other spiritual sacrifices which at these times the godly offer up unto God For which cause those ancient Fathers doe also call it an Eucharist that is a Thanksgiving noting it even thereby also to be not a Propitiatorie but an Eucharistical sacrifice A memory of this sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse vve have received saith Eusebius to celebrate at the Lords Table by the signes of his body and of his healthfull bloud according the divine Lawes of the New Testament Christ saith S. Augustine is our Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech vvho offered himselfe a sacrifice for our sinnes and hath commended the similitude of that sacrifice to be celebrated in the remembrance of his passion VVee keepe saith Theophilact a remembrance of the Lords death And againe VVee keepe a memory of that Oblation vvherein he offered himselfe Our high Priest saith Chrysostome is he vvhich offered the sacrifice that purgeth us c. But this vvhich vvee doe is done in remembrance of that vvhich was done by him for doe yee this saith Christ in remembrance of mee And againe he saith VVee celebrate the remembrance of a sacrifice By all which and sundrie other sayings which might be cited if need were out of ancient Fathers you may easily perceive that howsoever they call this Sacrament a sacrifice they meane it not to be anie Propitiatorie or Bodily sacrifice but that in the proper appellation it is rather to be termed as themselves here declare a similitude memorial or remembrance of that sacrifice of Christ which himselfe performed upon the Crosse. 2 And yet the Rhemists and other Popish Teachers say that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech specially in this respect of the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud instituted at his last supper in the formes of bread and wine in which things they say Melchisedech did sacrifice But first they cannot prove that Christ instituted this sacrament of his last supper to be his verie bodily sacrificing of himselfe yea it is before apparantly disproved for his verie bodily sacrifice was done only by himselfe upon the Crosse and that but once and that sacrifice only is propitiatory and no other And how is it possible that that which is a representation similitude remembrance and sacrament of that sacrifice should be the verie sacrifice it selfe But secondly why doe they or anie other talke of foâ—â—es of bread and wine for yee know that they were not the formes or accidents of bread and wine but verie substantial bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth to Abraham and his people for their refreshing after their battell and slaughter of the kings Yea if they had beene bare formes and accidents of bread and wine and not verie bread and wine in truth and in substance they would have given Abraham and his companie but verie small and slender refreshing This example therefore of Melchisedech in giving not the formes or accidents of bread and wine without the substance but verie bread and wine substantially to Abraham and his souldiers for their refreshing doth prove strongly
should bee termed Regeneration which is not the verie Regeneration it selfe but a signe and token of regeneration for the Regeneration it selfe is the renewing of the man to the Image of God wherin hee was at first created which is a thing begun to bee wrought in him in this life not by the verie externall act of Baptisme performed and administred but inwardlie by the operation of the holy Ghost And likewise it ought for the same cause to seem nothing strange to anie that the Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is called his bodie when as neverthelesse it is not his verie natural and substantiall bodie but a figure signe and token of that his bodie As for the reason which yee draw from the omnipotencie or almightinesse of Christ whereby hee is able as yee saie to make his verie essentiall and naturall bodie out of bread you must first proove that it is his will to have it so made before ye dispute of his power or omnipotencie For no man doubteth but that he can doe manie things which neverthelesse hee doth not doe nor will doe It is an Axiome in the Art and rule of reasoning that a Posse ad Esse non valet argumentum and therefore that God can doe such a thing and such a thing ergo hee hath done it is no good argument But that you may the better conceive the weakenesse of this your argument grounded upon Gods omnipotencie in this matter take another like unto it in this sort Christ saith of the Cup This is my blood And he by his omnipotencie is aswell able to make the very Cup his verie essentiall and natural blood as the bread his bodie ergo the verie Cup is his verie essentiall and natural blood Againe Christ saith that hee is a Vine and that hee is also Bread and by his omnipotencie hee is aswell able to make himselfe a verie Materiall Vine or verie materiall Bread as he is to make bread his natural bodie ergo hee is a verie Materiall Vine or verie Materiall Bread These arguments bee like yours when you say thus Christ saith the Bread is his body and he is by his omnipotencie able to make it his verie essential and natural bodie Ergo it is his verie essential and natural bodie I hope by this time yee see the vanitie and absurditie of this maner of reasoning But you still urge the words of Christ and say that hee saith It is his bodie and wee must not say you make him a Liar and therefore it is his verie essential and natural bodie God forbid that anie of us should goe about to make Christ a liar who is all Truth and the teacher of all Truth neither doth anie of us go about it but we say that Christ is true in those his words but men speake more then is true when out of those words of his they teach and affirme that the bread is become by way of Transubstantiation his verie essential and natural bodie For Christ doth not say so that it is his verie essential and natural bodie by way of Transubstantiation as they inferre but his wordes are onelie that it is his bodie And it may bee and is his bodie as I said before though it be not his bodie by way of Transubstantiation For if it be as it is his bodie figuratively sacramentally and significatively I trust his words are found true enough without anie such Popish grosse supposition Because Christ saith the Cup is his bloud shall he therefore be supposed a liar or untrue except the verie material Cup be beleeved in verie deed to be his verie essential and natural bloud by way of Transubstantiation or because Christ saith that he is a Vine shall he by and by be concluded to be false or untrue unlesse it be beleeved that therefore he is turned and transubstantiated into a verie natural and substantial Vine But moreover if it be Christs natural and substantial bodie in verie deed as you say it is shew us some way how we may be induced to beleeve it or how it may be proved or appeare to be so you answer that Christ his body is there miraculously But I replie againe that if it be there miraculouslie it must be there visibly and so appeare to the outward senses for it is of the propertie of everie miracle to be visible and to appeare to be so to the eie to the rest of the outward senses as when Christ turned water into wine it did appeare to be no longer water but wine to the outward senses So likewise when Moses rod was turned into a serpent it appeared to the eie outward senses to be no longer a Rod but a Serpent If therefore the bread be turned as yee say miraculouslie into the verie natural bodie of Christ it must likewise appeare visiblie to the eie and to the outward senses so to be namelie no appearance of bread must anie longer be there and on the other side onlie the verie natural bodie of Iesus Christ must appeare to the eye and the outward senses of the Receiver but cleane contrariwise there is no natural bodie of Christ Iesus appearing to the eie and outward senses of the receiver after consecration but bread onlie ergo the verie natural bodie of Iesus Christ is not there miraculouslie as Papists most absurdly affirme But although they cannot shew Christ his verie natural bodie to be there by way of transubstantiation yet say they they doe beleeve it to be so and they say withall that it is as well to be beleeved as the creation of the world the resurrection of the dead a virgin to beare a childe namely Christ Iesus such like But whilst they speake thus I pray let them tell mee can their supposed real bodilie presence of Christ in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation be as well proved by the Scriptures as the creation of the world the resurrection of the dead the bearing of a childe by a virgin or as the rest of the things which they meane and are directlie found in the Scriptures I am sure it cannot for all that can be said for your Transubstation hath beene examined againe and againe but no such matter can be proved or appeare Why then doe they match those things together which be nothing like Yea why be anie so unwiselie confident as to say they beleeve and verilie beleeve this real bodilie presence of Christ in the Sacrament by way of transubstantiation when they can no way shew it by anie maner of proofe or probabilitie What will men beleeve unremoveably beleeve things without wit sense reason or religion for which they have no maner of colour or warrant at all in Scripture from God or his word If they be such credulous people they may beleeve if they will anie thing whatsoever be it never so incredible or absurd for if their will and fancie shall be held for a sufficient râ—â—son who
shall be able to diswade them Howbeit I would desire you to be better advised and though it be to the utter overthrowing of your fancies and wills to yeeld to that puissant and unvanquishable truth which not onlie reason but all right faith and religion also requireth at your hands for even faith and religion aswell sense and reason perswadeth against that monstrous conceipt of Transubstatiation and of the natural bodie of Christ to be eaten with the bodilie mouth For further declaration whereof doe but consider some absurdities and inconveniences wherewith it is accompanied First you thereby make the Lords Supper to be no Sacrament for if it be a Sacrament it must of necessitie have aswel an outward visible signe of an holie thing as the holie thing it selfe The outward visible signe in this point is the bread and the holie thing whereof it is a signe is the verie natural bodie of Christ which was crucified for us Now you sâ—y That after consecration there is no bread at all remaining but onlie the verie natural bodie of Iesus Christ and so making no bread at all to be there you also make no outward visible signe to be there and consequentlie make it no Sacrament Secondlie if there be no bread remaining but onlie the Accidents of bread that is whitenesse roundnesse and such like without a substance as yee hold then beside that it is most absurd by the rules of reason to hold that anie accidents can be without their substance I pray further tell me what it is that the communicant receiveth and eateth for we thinke everie man should be ashamed to say that he eateth bare accidents and not the substance of bread But for cleere proofe S. Paul affirmeth it expreslie to be still bread after consecration and that accordinglie the communicant eateth bread neither will the bare accidents of bread without the substance nourish anie man Thirdlie how absurd and unseemlie a thing is it for one man to eate up another as if it became Christians to be Caniballs or Anthropophagi that is such as were eaters of men and yet if this Popish opinion were true should Christians be eaters even of the bodie of a man and of the best mâ—n that ever lived even of their owne Saviour and Redeemer Iesus Christ both God and man and that in a most grosse and carnal manner which is a most impious and most inhumane barbarous conceit Fourthlie it is well knowne that Christ Iesus is true man and hath all the properties of one that is a true man being like unto man in all things sinne only excepted as the Scripture witnesseth And therefore as he is a true man and hath a true humane bodie like other men sinne onelie excepted that his humane bodie cannot possiblie be in two or manie places at once no not after his resurrection as S. Augustine expresly witnesseth no more then the bodies of other men For which cause the Angel said of Christ Non est hic surrexit enim He is not here for he is risen This speech of the Angel sheweth contrarie to your conceit that the humanitie and bodie of Christ even after his resurrection is not in diverse places at once as his Deitie and Godhead is and that it cannot be in anie more places then one at a time because when his bodie was in the grave it was not anie where else and when it was risen ouâ— of the grave then it was not there but in another place as the Angel declareth Yea whilest you make his humanitie to be multi-present what doe yee else but confound his humanitie and fall into as manifest an errour as is the Heresie of the ubiquitares If anie alledge that the humanitie of Christ and his Deitie be inseparable and that therefore wheresoever his Deitie is there is also his humanitie and consequently because his Deitie or Godhead is everie where his humanitie also or manhood must be likewise everie where This is but a sophistical and deceitfull kinde of reasoning wherewith none should be ensnarled for although it be true that the Deitie and humanitie of Christ be inseparable in him in respect of his person in whom they are united both together making but one Christ yet are they not so inseparable but that the one may be and is namelie his Deitie or Godhead where the other is not For example the Deitie or Godhead of Christ is indeed everie where and filleth heaven and earth as it is said in the Prophet yea the heaven of heavens cannot conteine him as Solomon saith and consequently that Deitie was also even in the grave of Christ after he was risen from death and yet was not his humanitie or manhood there as the Angel himselfe hath before assured us So that although wheresoever his humanitie or manhood is there is also his Deitie or Godhead yet it followeth not contrariwise that wheresoever his Deitie or Godhead is there also is his humanitie or manhood Again doth not Christ Iesus himselfe say thus The poore ye have alwayes with you but me ye shall not have alwayes How could these words be true except wee confesse that he may be and is absent from us in his humanitie and manhood although he be alwaies present with us in respect of his Deitie and by his power and spirit In which respect he hath also said that Hee vvill be vvith his Church to the end of the vvorld You perceive then how Christ is present and how absent namelie that he is alwaies present everie where in his Deitie but not so in his humanitie or manhood And for further proofe hereof doth not Christ Iesus say againe expressely thus It is expedient for you that I goe away for if I goe not away the Comforter will not come unto you Againe he saith I leave the vvorld and goe to the Father And againe he saith Now am I no more in the vvorld but these are in the world and I come to thee Holy Father keepe them in thy Name even them vvhom thou hast given mee What meaneth all this but that Christ Iesus after his resurrection was to ascend into heaven and so to goe away to depart to leave the vvorld and to be as himselfe there speaketh no more in the vvorld Must not this needs be intended in respect of his manhood and bodily presence for most certaine it is that in respect of his Deitie power and spirit he is with us to the worlds end and for ever as before is said And therefore also doth S. Peter witnesse that in respect of that his manhood or humanitie the Heavens must conteyne him untill the time that all things be restored vvhich God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the vvorld began For which cause also we beleeve according to our Creede that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead If then ever since his ascention hee be
in respect of his bodily presence and manhood departed from the world and in that respect is as himselfe affirmeth no more in the vvorld but in heaven untill the day of the general judgement as S. Peter also and our Creede doe teach us how grosse and absurd yea what misbeleevers be Papists that dare affirme him cleane contrarie to his owne testimonie and the testimonie of S. Peter and the rest of the Scriptures and contrarie also to the verie Creed it selfe to be still in the world in that his manhood and bodily presence It is high time therefore for all to renounce and forsake this monstrous and detestable errour if they will be right Christians and right beleevers As for that Text where it is said No man ascendeth up to heaven but he that descended from heaven even the sonne of man vvhich is in heaven It is easily answered and resolved for most true it is that the Sonne of man Christ Iesus was even then in heaven in his Deitie at such time when hee was also upon the earth in his humanitie So that in respect of that his Deitie or Godhead it is that being upon the earth he was neverthelesse also in heaven and not in respect of his manhood or humanitie for his manhood or humanitie or bodily presence was then on the earth and could not also be in heaven at one and the selfe same time as is before declared S. Iohn saith that Every spirit vvhich confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God but this is the spirit of Antichrist Now what is it else to denie Iesus Christ to be come in the flesh but to denie him to be true man and like unto men in all things sinne onely excepted Whilest men therefore thus denie Christ to be come in the flesh that is to have all the properties of a True man and to be like unto other men in all things sinne onely excepted how can they cleere themselves but that they must be enforced to yeeld and confesse that they be herein led not by the spirit of Christ but by the spirit of Antichrist Yea whilest they thus say that Christ is in his manhood and natural bodie present upon earth what doe they else but denie or impugne not onely those Articles of the Creed viz. that Christ is ascended into heaven and that there hee sitteth at the right hand of God his Father and that from thence he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead But this Article also that Iesus Christ vvas borne of the Virgin Mary and was incarnate and made man of her substance For this doubtlesse is the right Iesus Christ in whom wee are to beleeve but by this their doctrine they contrariwise beleeve in another Iesus Christ namely in such a one as they affirme by this their Transubstantiation to be made of another substance namelie out of the substance of a piece of bread And how can such a Christ so made of the substance of a piece of bread be the true Christ Of which and of all other sorts of false Christs the true Christ Iesus himselfe hath given us sufficieÌ„t forewarning Fiftly they herein make their Massing Priest after their words of consecration uttered to be the maker of his Maker namelie of Iesus Christ And that Iesus Christ is thus made anew everie day or so oft as their Masse is celebrated How manie thousand Iesus Christs by this meanes will they have in the world But can anie be so absurdlie impious as to beleeve or suppose that Christ Iesus can be made out of the substance of a piece of bread by a Priest by vertue of anie words of consecration uttered or by anie devise whatsoever Can anie creature possibly make his Creator or the thing made make his maker Fie on these and all other such senselesse detestable abominations Diverse other absurdities also of the Papists might here be further alledged but these before mentioned will I hope suffice to declare the most grosse and most notorious false exposition of the Popish Church concerning those wordes of Christ This is my Body in the Lords Supper wherby they strangely suppose a Transubstantiation and a carnal eating of Christ his verâ—e natural bodie contrarie to the Scriptures and contrarie to all sense reason right faith and true Religion For ye must learne so to expound Scripture as that yee make all the rest of the Scriptures to stand and agree with that sense you set upon it so that there may be no repugnancie But the sense and exposition which the Popish church setteth upon those words of Christ namely This is my Body is cleerely repugnant to other Scriptures and even to the verie Articles also of the Creede aswell as to all sense and reason as is before apparant and therefore it cannot possibly be the right sense nor true exposition What remaineth then but that the right and true sense and meaning of those words is and must needs be the same which the Protestants set upon them because that their exposition is consonant agreeing to the rest of the Scriptures and to all the Articles of the Creede aswell as to all sense and reason and is also sutable and correspondent to the like usuall ordinarie phrase and manner of speech in other and former Sacraments amongst the Iewes the old people of God under the old Testament according to which maner of speech Christ also spake when he instituted this Sacrament of his Supper under the new Testament calling according to the usuall Sacramental phrase the signe by the name of the thing signified Which thing I trust is now so cleare and evident as that none can iustly anie longer make anie doubt or question of it 5 But yet for the fuller discussing hereof it will not be amisse here to speake a few words touching Consecration because upon Consecration it is that they seeme to build their before mentioned error of Transubstantiation Let us therfore consider what Consecration is and what it importeth or worketh To Consecrate then is to take a thing from the prophane or ordinarie and common use and to destinate or appoint it to some holy use and end And if wee would know how things come to bee consecrate or sanctified S. Paul saith that everie Creature of God is good and nothing to bee refused if it bee received with thankesgiving For it is sanctified saith hee by the word of God and prayer Sanctification then or Consecration of a thing doth here appeare to bee by the institution and word of God and by praier or invocation whereof thankesgiving is a part And therefore the Lord Iesus before he brake the bread and gave it hee Blessed that is he gave thankes to his Father that hee out of his love to men had appointed him to bee the Redeemer for the satisfying of his Iustice in the behalfe of his elect and had given him authoritie to institute this
such grosse Idolaters as to worship a peece of â—read for God Yea even that Heathen man Cicero could say Quem tam amentem esse putas qui id quo vescâ—tur Deum creda esse VVhom doe you thinke to be so mad as to beleeve that which he eateth to be God Is it not then high time for all that love their owne salvation utterly to forsake that monstrous and Idolatrous Church of Rome which is become thus extreamely degenerate and deformed 6 But the Popish Church hath yet further mangled and maimeâ— this sacrament of the Lords supper most audaciously and Sacrilegiously in that contrarie to the Institution of Christ and practise of the Apostolicke primitive Church it depriveth the Laie people of receiving anie consecrated wine As though the Laie people might not receive aswell the consecrate wine as the consecrate bread Did not Christ say Drinke yee all of this and doth not S. Paul shew directly that the Laie people in his time did aswell drinke of that Cup as eate of that Bread Yea the late Councell of Constance doth confesse that in the Primitive Church the Laie people did communicate in both kindes and received aswell the wine as the bread and yet for all that doe they there decree against it Must not this needs bâ— the spirit of Antichrist which dareth thus in their Councells to contradict and decree against the Institutions of Christ and the manifest and confessed practise of the primitive Church For feare of spilling some of them say the Laie people may not receive the consecrated wine As though the Priest might not also sometimes spill it upon some accident aswell as they or as though the like inconvenience of letting fall of the consecrated bread by some accident might not aswell bee feared But how commeth it to passe that the Popish Councell and Church taketh upon them to bee herein wiser then Christ and all his Apostles and then the Primitive churches For Christ ordained and so the Apostolicke and Primitive churches practised and observed that the Laie people should aswell drinke of the consecrated wine as eate of the consecrated bread without anie such feare of inconvenience or inconveniences as the Popish church hath sithence that time found out devised But they say that per concomitantiam by a concomitancie forsooth the blood is included in the bodie of Christ so that if the lay people receive the bread which say they after consecration is the verie natural bodie of Christ they do therein withall receive the blood of Christ because in the bodie say they the blood also is included And thus hath one error begotten another with them as is indeed the fashion of all errors to do for Vno absurdo dato sequuntur infinita But if this their doctrine of concomitancie be true then by the same reason also it may suffice the Priest to receive likewise the consecrated bread onely without the wine And why then doth the Priest drinke of the consecrated wine for is not the blood of Christ per concomitantiam by their concomitancie aswell included in the bread which they say is the body of Christ to him as to the lay people Can anie tolerable or allowable reason be yeelded by your Priests or Church for these things May they not then all bee ashamed thus grosly to abuse and delude the world But now if that which is confessed to bee the Primitive and Apostolike Church administred the Lords supper to Laie people in both kinds namely aswell in wine as in bread How can anie suppose the Popish church which hath decreed and observeth the cleane contrarie to be herein like unto that Primitive and Apostolicke Church And if that primitive and Apostolicke Church were as questionlesse it was guided by the holie Ghost the Spirit of Truth must not your Priests Teachers and Church observing teaching and decreeing the contrarie needs bee supposed â—o be led not by that but by another spirit And what other spirit then can it be but the spirit of Error of opposition to Christ even the spirit of Antichrist Yea farre degenerate even in this point also is the Church of Rome from that it was in the daies of Pope Gelasius in whose time it was decreed that All they should be excommunicated that would receive but in one kinde 7 But yet a further wound also hath the Papacy given to this Sacrament of the Lords Supper by diverting and turning it from a communion of the faithfull into a private Masse or into such an action as wherein the Priest eates and drinkes alone without anie Communicants with him the people onely looking on Did Christ thus celebrate his Supper alone and did the rest that were his Disciples onely looke on and not communicate Wee know that Christ willeth them both to eate and to drinke at that Table and not to bee lookers on onely And so in the Primitive and Apostolicke Churches not the Pastor alone but the people also together with him did communicate And in verie deede what is more absurd then to bid men to a Supper to looke on onelie and neither to eate nor drinke S. Chrysostome complaineth of this corruption beginning to creepe in in his time O custome saith hee O presumption In vaine is the daily Sacrifice offered in vaine doe wee stand at the Altar seeing no bodie communicateth And a little after hee saith thus The Lord saith these things to us all who stand by heree unwisely and rashly for everie one that partakes not of the Mysteries is unwise and rash in standing by And hee addeth further saying Tell mee If a man that is bidden to a feast wash his hands aâ—d be placed at the table and yet eates not doth hee not wrong him that â—ad him vvere it not better that such a one were not present So thou art present thou hast sung the Hymne and in that thou hast not retyred thy selfe with them that are unworthy thou hast made profession that thou art of the number of those that are vvorâ—hie Hovv then dost thou stay and not partake ef the Table thou art therefore unvvorthy also to partake of the Prayers Yea the rule even of the Church of Rome it selfe in ancient time said to bee Pope Agapets which is Dist. 2. de Consecra Can. peracta is delivered in these words VVhen Consecration is finished all that vvill not bee put out of the Church dore must Communicate for so the Apostles ordained and so the Church of Rome observeth Marke well these words for thereby you see how farre differing at this day the deformed and new Church of Rome is in this point also from that it was in former and ancient time But againe can anie be so besotted as to thinke that onely by looking on hee communicateth or that by the eating and drinking of another as namelie of the Priest himselfe can bee fed or nourished Can the eating or drinking of another preserve your life if
wrought in anie sort by mans hand should be worshipped Adoratione latriae with that worship that is properlie belonging to God himselfe May not those men that be thus enamored with Images and that hold these opinions be therein supposed to be as senselesse as the verie Images themselves For what is this else but to worship stockes and stones and the worke of mens hands with divine honour And can there be a greater or a more grosse Idolatrie committed Yea S. Augustine noteth it as the heresie of the Carpocratians that they vvorshipped the Images of Iesus and of Paul Whereas some therefore say that the honor which is given to the signe or Image doth ever redound and is given to the Prototypon to that whose signe or Image it is and consequentlie that the honour given to the image of God and of Christ is honour done to God himselfe and to Christ himselfe this appeareth not to be true Yea even amongst men if the respect that is yeelded to the picture or Image of a friend or of anie great man shall be accepted as honour due to the man himselfe whose picture and Image it is intended to be it must be with these conditions viz. first that it be a right and true picture and image of the man for if it be nothing like him but more like some other man or some other creature hee hath no reason to take it for his picture or image much lesse to thinke himselfe thereby honored Secondlie it must have an allowance or at least no disallowance in respect of him to whose honour he intendeth to make it if he meane that the other shall accept and take it as an honour done unto him for if he to whose honor it is intended disallow it or signifie his minde that he will not have his picture drawne or his image made to be so honoured it can be no honour acceptable to him in that case but it will rather move offence and be ill taken if it be done How much more then will God be offended with these things For beside that no man can make a true and perfect picture or Image of him that is both God and Man God hath further directlie disallowed and forbidden these Images and all Images and Similitudes whatsoever to be vvorshipped In Gregories time Images were not allowed to be worshipped yea Pope Gregory himselfe well liked of Serenus Bishop of Massilia in this point viz. for that he forbad Images to be vvorshipped As for that second Councell of Nice therefore which was after Pope Gregories time gathered under Irene the Empresse inasmuch as it was assembled to overthrow the former godlie Councels of Constantinople and Ephesus which decreed against Images and the worshipping of them it ought to carrie no credite or esteeme and the rather because that second Councell of Nice was also afterward againe further condemned in the West by another Councell held at Frankford Which thing Carolus Magnus himselfe in his booke made against Images doth also testifie The same is likewise testified by sundrie other Authors Yea Epiphanius in his daies would not allow so much as an Image of Christ or of anie Saint to be at all in Churches for comming to a Church at Anablatha and there seeing in a Vaile an Image painted as it vvere of Christ or of some Saint he affirmed it to be contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures to have anie such Image in a Christian Church and therefore caused it to be taken down And the Councell of Eliberis also decreed the like against the having of Images in Churches How much more then would these men have condemned the Worship of the verie Images themselves 6 A sixt point of Idolatrie in the Popish Church is that they worship the Crosse also and pray unto it saying O Crux ave Spes unica hoc passionis tempore auge pijs iustitiam reisque dona veniam Hayle O Crosse our onely hope in this time of the passion Increase righâ—eousnesse to the godâ—y and give pardon to the guilty Yea Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor as they call him saith the Crosse is to be worshipped with latria and giveth two reasons of this Adoration saying thus Crux Christi in qua Christus crucifixus est tum propter repraesentationem tum propter Membrorum Christi contactum latria adoranda est The Crosse of Christ vvhereon Christ vvas crucified both because of the representation and also for that it touched the members of Christ is to be vvorshiped with latria that is with that vvorship that is proper and due unto God But be these reasons sufficient in this case The Gospel was so cleerely preached to the Galathians as if there had beene a lively Image of Christ crucified set before their eies was therefore the verie Ministerie or Preaching of the Gospel whereby Christ crucified was thus depainted out to be adored or worshipped with that worship that is due and proper to God The breaking of the Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth represent unto us the breaking crucifying of Christ his Body upon the Crosseâ— and the pouring out of the wine in the same Sacrament representeth also the shedding or effusion of his Bloud upon the same Crosse for us shall therefore the breaking of the Bread or the pouring out of the vvine be adored and worshipped with that worship that is due unto God And yet is the Preaching and Ministerie of the Gospel as likewise the administration of the Sacraments of Gods owne institution but no institution commandement or warrant from him can be shewed for making a wooden Crosse or anie kind of Crosse to be a representatioÌ„ of Christ crucified And yet if such an institution could be shewed for the Crosse it followeth not that therfore it is to be worshipped with that worship that is proper and due unto God no more then VVater in Baptisme or Bread and VVine in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper are so to be worshipt although they be Gods institutions or no more then the Brazen Serpent which was also Gods institution in times past amongst the Iewes was therefore so to be worshipped What Is the vvooden Crosse or anie Crosse whatsoever become a God that it should thus be worshipped As for the other reason if because the Crosse touched Christ it be therefore to be worshipped why should not also the Nailes and the Crowne of Thornes and the Speare or Lance wherewith he was pierced be likewise so adored or worshipped or why should not Iudas Iscariot who likewise touched Christ betraying him with a Kisse and those wicked Iewes that apprehended and tooke him and that Woman also that vvashed Christs feet with her teares and wiped them with the haires of her head yea and the Pinnacle of the Temple whereon Christ was set and all those manie places of ground whereon Christ stood and all those sundrie persons which he touched and which
to shew how the other words in the Text be also verified in the Pope whilest he taketh upon him to forgive sinnes as fully absolutely as God himselfe whilest he taketh upon him to depose Kings and to dispose of their kingdomes at his pleasure whilest he taketh upon him not onely to order and dispose of earthly kingdomes but also to rule and order the whole Church of God upon earth at his owne will what doth hee else but sit in the Temple of God as God and so shew himselfe as if be vvere God yea whilest he advanceth himselfe above all Bishops Kings Princes and Emperors of the World and above all general Councels also so that hee will not be censured or controlled by anie of these or by anie of their lawes or constitutions and which is yet more whilest hee advanceth himselfe even above the divine Scriptures then selves dispensing with them at his pleasure what doth he else but so carrie himselfe as if he were God or rather above God But againe what doth he else but sit in the Temple of God as God and so shew himselfe as if he were God whilest he ruleth and raigneth in mens consciences like God yea or rather above God himselfe for common experience sheweth that the men and women that be under his subiection and of his Church and superstition be more devoted and more regardfull to know and obey his will and his ordinances and constitutions then they be to know and obey God his word and commandements It is then verie evident that the Pope is at the least as a God unto them and that upon him they as confidently relie as upon God himselfe affirming and supposing him to have an infallibilitie of iudgement and such a special direction by the Holy Ghost as that he cannot possibly erre in anie thing he teacheth decreeth or determineth Yea doth he not sit in the Temple of God as God so shew himselfe as if he were God when he not onely taketh upon him the proper and peculiar powers honours preeminences rights and authorities belonging unto God as is before declared but even the verie title and name also of God For with a verie bould face hee acknowledgeth himselfe to be called God urgeth the title and challengeth it and further they say of him that he is Dominus deus noster Papa Our Lord God the Pope And doe not also these Verses dedicated to him and accepted of him sufficiently declare the same Oraclo vocis mundi moderaris habenas Et meritò in terris crederis esse Deus That is By Oracle of thy voyce thou rul'st and govern'st all And vvorthily a God on earth men deeme and doe thee call 6 But S. Paul proceedeth and saith thus Remember yee not that vvhen I vvas yet vvith you I told you these things and novv yee knovv vvhat vvithholdeth that hee might bee revealed in his time for the mysterie of iniquitie alreadie vvorketh only bee vvhich novv vvithholdeth shall let untill hee bee taken out of the vvay and then shall that vvicked or lavvlesse â—an bee revealed Here hee sheweth what it was that did withhold and keepe backe Antichrist that hee did not appeare in his colours in those times of the Apostles albeit the Mystery of that Iniquiâ—y was not then altogether idle but was even then a working in such close manner as it could This same To chatechon vvhich vvithholdeth and letteth and hindereth Antichrist that hee could not then appeare was the Romane Empyre as Tertullian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome and others doe expound it For so long as the Romane Empyre stood in his full and florishing estate Antichrist could not rise to that his power and height And therefore that Antichrist might appeare and shew himselfe in his glorie and greatnesse it was requisite that the Emperour of Rome should give place and depart from that Cittie where the seate of the Empyre then was that so the Pope might possesse it and make it his seat according to that prophesie in the Revelation of S. Iohn before mentioned where it is foretold that that great City of Rome was to become the head and Metropolitan Citie for the Antichristian Kingdome And the issue and event hath shewed it selfe answerable For the Emperor Constantine removed and translated the seat of the Empire from Rome in Italy unto Bizantium otherwise called Constantinople in Greece and after that began the Emperors by little and little to loose their right in Italy so that at the last Rome the ancient seate of the Empyre with a great part of Italy fell into the Bishop of Rome his hands and now and for the space of manie hundred yeares hath the Bishop of Rome otherwise called the Pope not the Emperour there had his seate This is so evident as that it needeth no further declaration Wherefore to goe forward S. Paul saith that The comming of Antichrist shall bee by the vvorking of Satan vvith all povver and signes and lying vvonders and in all deceivablenesse of unrighteousnesse amongst them that perish because they received not the love of the truth c. This is before shewed to agree verie fitly to the Kingdome of Poperie For who boast so much of Miracles as they And yet even touching the Miracles in their Legends Claudius Espencaeus himselfe saith No Stable is so full of dung as their Legends are full of fables Canus also taxeth even Gregories Dialogues and Bedaes Historie in this point And Caietan further taxeth as uncertaine the Miracles done even by those that bee the Canonized Saints in Poperie Why then will they still bee so credulous as to beleeve their Miracles to obiect them or to rely upon them For if you doubt of the reall bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament they will tell you that it hath beene confirmed by Miracle If you doubt of Purgatorie and whether Masses Trentalls Praiers or such like do the Soules of the dead anie good they will also tell you of a Miracle or of some strange Vision Revelation or Apparition of some dead person to prove the same And so to comprehend all in few words for the confirmation of their whole religion they will tell you strange tales of Miracles Apparitions and wonders wrought by their Popes Priests Iesuites Monkes and other their supposed holy men and holy women of their religion Howbeit God himselfe hath herein given us a good rule and direction saying thus If there arise among you a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreames and give thee a signe or vvonder and the signe and the vvonder vvhich hee hath told thee come to passe saying Let us goe after other gods vvhich thou hast not knovvn and let us serve them thou shalt not hearken to the vvords of that Prophet or unto that Dreamer of dreames for the Lord your God proveth you to knovv vvhether you love the Lord your God vvith all your heart and vvith all your soule yee
respect of his Episcopal or Spiritual And for this cause also the one is said to arise out of the Sea and the other out of the Earth Rev. 13.1.11 for in respect of his Episcopal supremacie and Pseudoprophetical demeanour hee arose from the Earth it receiving his original from below and from the Earth and not from Heaven and in respect of his Imperial dominion hee arose out of the Sea because the Ruines of the Empire by meanes whereof hee arose to that his Imperial Greatnesse were not otherwise wrought but by the wavering and disquiet turbulencies that were in the World in those daies So that howsoever it is called the first Beast and the second Beast in distinct considerations yet upon the matter they both make but one Antichrist And therefore in Rev. 17. is there mention made but of One Beast only which supported the Whore of Babylon Yea Fatentur omnes pertinere omnino ad Antichristum verba illa Iohannis c. All men confesse saith Bellarmine himselfe that those vvords of Iohn in Rev. 13.11 c. doe undoubtedly belong to Antichrist Now then let us examine and see if they be not all verified in the Pope and Papacy First it is said that this second Beast had two hornes like a Lamb but he spake like the Dragon Duo Cornua similia Agni scilicet Christi cuius duo Cornua sunt duo Testamenta He shal have two Hornes like to those of the Lambe that is like to those of Christ vvhose two Hornes be the two Testaments as Lyranus Primasius and Augustine also expound them Whereby appeareth that Antichrist shall outwardly pretend great sanctitie sinceritie humilitie and simplicitie and as if hee did all things by good authoritie and strength of the holy Scriptures the two Testaments the Old and the New and yet in verie deed his voice and speech that is his doctrines decrees lawes canons and constitutions should bewray and discover him to be but a Wolfe in Sheepes clothing and no lesse cruell and malignant against the true Church of God then the verie Dragon Doth not everie man perceive that these things doe rightly fit the Pope For who maketh a greater outward shew of sanctitie pietie and Christianitie then he and what doth he else but pretend the strength and authoritie of the two Testaments namely of the holy Scriptures for warrant and maintenance of the false doctrines errors heresies hee teacheth and holdeth Can anie man outwardly pretend greater humi litie then he when he entitleth himselfe Servus servorum Dei a servant of Gods servants and yet for all that he taketh upon him by his claimes and actions to be Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium the King of Kings and Lord of Lords So that howsoever hee pretendeth humilitie yet wee see hee is farre from it And howsoever hee pretendeth the authoritie of the holy Scriptures viz the two Testaments for the strengthning and confirmation of his religion doctrine and doings alledging them to be shadowed out and figured in the two Hornes of his Myter yet partly by reason of the unsound and false translations of those Scriptures which he defendeth and authorizeth against the truth of the Originals and partly whilest he perverteth and misinterpreteth the true Scriptures themselves and equalleth also his Traditions unto them and moreover dispenseth with them at his pleasure and preferreth his owne authoritie and the authoritie of his Church above them and so maketh them to speake in another sense and otherwise then ever they meant it is apparant that being thus used and abused they be at the most but like the two Hornes of the Lambe as this Text speaketh and be not the verie two hornes themselves that is they be not the pure incorrupt and undoubtedly true Scriptures themselves but corrupted differing from them Pope and Popery then appeareth to consist all in shewes semblances and likenesses of veritie sanctitie and pietie and have it not in verie deed and substance And therefore not without good cause did diverse Bishops make their complaint long sithence in their Epistle to Pope Nicholas recorded in Aventine saying in this sort unto him Thou bearest the person of a Bishop but thou playest the Tyrant under the habite and attyre of a Pastor vvee feele a VVolfe It is a lying Title that calleth thee Father thou in thy deeds shewest thy selfe to be another Iupiter being the servant of servants thou strivest to be the Lord of Lords c. But moreover doth not the Pope speake like the Dragon that is like the Divell for by the Dragon in the Revelation is the Divell understood when he saith that the Kingdomes of the world be his and that he hath power to dispose and give them to whomsoever hee will For did not the Divell speake the verie same to Christ in the Gospel Yea the Pope is as they write Totius orbis Dominus The Lord of the vvhole vvorld and hath Coelestis terrestris potestatis Monarchiam The Monarchy or soveraignetie both of the heavenly and earthly power and to him forsooth they apply that Prophecie Dominabitur à mari ad mare à flumine usque ad terminos orbis He shall rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the vvorld Yea they attribute that unto him which Iesus Christ spake of himselfe saying that All power is given unto him both in heaven and earth Matth. 28.18 Be not these most abominable blasphemous and divelish speeches being attributed to the Pope But yet further what doth hee else but speake like the Dragon that is like the Divell whilest he teacheth that doctrine of Divells mentioned in the Epistle to Timothy as shal afterward appeare and whilest he maintaineth a wrong worship of God a false faith and an Apostatical and Antichristian religion against the right most pure and onely true religion of Christ extant in the booke of God the holy and canonical Scriptures 3 Againe it is said that this second Beast did exercise all the power of the first Beast and that before him And who is so ignorant but hee knoweth that the Pope exerciseth all the power of the first Beast that is of the Latine or Romane State and that before him or before his face that is to say even at Rome and in the presence of the Romane State For hath not the Pope gotten that which was the seate of the Emperor namely Rome and made it his seate And is not the Emperor put downe from having anie Headship or Soveraigne Authoritie there Yea doth not the Pope there take upon him to exercise all the Imperial power authoritie tamen sine nomine Romani Imperatoris yet vvithout the name of the Emperor of Rome as Bellar. himself also saith that Antichrist must doe For this Imperial Authoritie aswell as his Ecclesiastical that is to say both his supremacies as before is shewed hee claimeth and holdeth under the name and title
and consequently this Apostacie and prohibition of Meates and Marriage in hycrisie that is under colour and pretence of sanctitie pietie and religion when revera there appeareth to be no sanctitie pietie or good religion in them being to fall out and to be accomplished neither in the primitive first or elder times nor yet in the last times but in the latter times as it were betweene them both doth for that reason also more aptly and fitly agree to these latter Hereticks the Papists then to those old and ancient Heretickes before mentioned And therefore it still appeareth by this Text and Prophecie of S. Paul to Timothy that the Church of Rome is the undoubtedly Apostaticall and Antichristian Church and consequently that the Pope the head thereof is the undoubted grand Antichrist CHAP. V. Answering certaine Objections of the Adversaries concerning Antichrist OBIECTION I. THE Bodies of the two witnesses that were slaine did lie in the streets of the great Citie which spiritually is called Sodome and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified Rev. 11.8 Ansvver By the great Citie there is meant not Hierusalem as you suppose but Rome otherwise called Babylon which throughout the whole Booke of the Revelation is called the great Citie as namely Rev. 14.8 Rev. 16.19 Rev. 18.10.16.18 19.21 and Rev. 17.18 c. except onely once that this Title is given to Hierusalem but then also not to the earthly but to the new and heavenly Ierusalem which will advantage your cause nothing at all Rev. 21.10 Neither indeed was our Lord crucified within the Citie of Hierusalem but without Heb. 13.12 Now Rome is said to bee the City where our Lord was crucified both because by Authoritie of that City it was that Christ himselfe was put to death for hee suffered under Pontius Pilate the Romane Emperors Deputie and also because there and from thence it is that hee still suffereth and is persecuted in his Members For the persecution done to anie of his members is by him accounted as done to himselfe Act. 9.4 And therfore also be those two Martyres or witnesses of Christs Truth said to be slaine and to have their bodies lye in the streets of the great City that is within the compasse and precincts of Romes authoritie and dominion Againe that great Citie Rome is there called Sodome for her pride and monstrous vncleannes and Egypt for her Idolatrie and crueltie towards Gods people and Babylon for her so long and miserable deteyning them in spiritual captivitie S. Hierome also herein is directly against you who Ep. 17. ad Marcellam earnestly contradicteth your opinion contending and maintaining that it cannot bee meant of Hierusalem in Iewry It therefore still remaineth firme that not Hierusalem but Rome is the Seat of Antichrist Obiect 2. I am come saith Christ to the Iewes in my fathers nume and yee receive mee not If an other come in his ovvne name him yee vvill receive Ioh. 5.43 Ans. This Text also maketh nothing for you For you expound it as if Christ had spoken definitely of one singular man to bee Antichrist whom the Iewes should receive whereas Christ speaketh indefinitely of any False-teacher whosoever that should come in his owne name that is not sent of God And sure it is that the Iewes have received more then one of such as have come in their owne name as namely Theudas Iudas Galilaeus Barcocabas c. In the text it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indefinitely and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definitely as it is used in Ioh. 18.16 and Ioh. 20.2 3 4 And therfore also doth Nonnus in his paraphrase upon this place expound those words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if anie other come whosoever hee bee c. Yea the very words of Christ bee directly Hypothetical or conditional If another come and not Categorical or affirmative of Antichrist or of anie other in particular as ye conceive and mistake And further whereas Christ speaketh of those Iewes that were then and there present to heare those his words you understand him to speake of such Iewes as should bee by your opinion a little before the end of the world at which time it is and not before that you suppose Antichrist shall come Howbeit the purpose of Christ in that place is not to foretell what manner of people the Iewes should bee so long after namely toward the end of the world but how in respect of their present disposition they were then at that time affected namely that him that came in his fathers name that is that was sent from God they refused and yet if anie should come in his owne name that is not sent of God him they were readie to receive But lastly why should you thinke that the Iewes before the end of the world shall receive Antichrist for their Messias when as S. Paul contrariwise hath foretold and assured us that the Iewes before the end of the world shall bee converted to Christ and his religion Yea it is before verie evident that Antichrist shall not bee a Iewe nor an observer of the Iewish religion but a pretended Christian and such a one as shall sit in the Temple of God and bee the head of the Apostacie apostated and revolted Christians of which sort and number the Infidels and unbeleeving Iewes cannot be For how can they bee said to bee Apostataes or to make anie apostacy or departure from Christ who never formerly embraced him nor received the profession of him Obiect 3 Christ is one certaine and singular man therefore Antichrist must bee so also Ans. It followeth not yea howsoever there is but one true Christ yet are there many Antichrists as S. Iohn expreslie affirmeth 1. Iob. 2.18 and many false Christs and false Prophets as Christ himselfe declareth which shal Shew great signes and wonders insomuch that if it were possible they should deceive the very elect Mat. 24.24 And yet also since the time that the Pope got the headship and Soveraignetie of Rome is Antichrist one as the Pope of Rome is one that is not in number and nature as one certaine and singular man but one at once by law and institution though successively so manie as since that time have enioyed the same Popedome Obiect 4. Hee is Antichrist which denieth the Father and the Sonne 1. Ioh. 2.22 Ans. The Pope and Popish Church also denie the Father and the Sonne in such sort as belongeth to Antichrist and Antichristian people to doe that is to say not openlie and professedly but in a covert and disguised manner For VVhosoever denyeth the Sonne the same hath not the Father saith the same S. Iohn 1. Io◠2.23 The like testifieth Christ Iesus himselfe in Iob. 5.23 So that to denie the Sonne is to denie the Father also inasmuch as the one cannot be denied without denial of the other And that the Pope and Papacie do denie the Sonne namely Christ Iesus viz. in respect of his Person and in
respect of his officeâ— though not directly yet indirectly and by way of Consequent and in such manner and forme as becommeth Antichristianisme is before shewed in divers particulars Obiect 5 Antichrist is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2. Thes. 2. The man of sinne the Sonne of perdition and the lawlesse person This Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth shew him to bee some one singular man or particular person onely and no moe Ans. You are much deceived in so concluding or thinking by reason of the Greeke Article For although it bee true that the Greeke Article there hath his Emphasis or force to point at some certaine thing yet this certaine thing may be aswell a certain kinde of men as namely of Popes going in succesioÌ„ one after another as one singular or particular person Neither doth Epiphanius haeresi 9 quae est samaritanoruÌ„ teach otherwise concerning this Greeke article then other learned men doe For thus he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vbi enim adiungitur articulus ad unum aliquod definituÌ„ clarissimuÌ„ omnino quaedam Emphasis propter articulum sine verò articulo sumendum est vocabulum indefinitè de re aliqua vulgari Quemadmodum si dixerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen quidem expressimus sed non perspicuè monstravimus definitum aliquem Regem enim dicimus Persarum Thedorum Elamitarum Sin verò cum appositione arâ—iculi dixerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra dubium quid significetur subindicatur enim per articulum ipse Rex quaesitus vel de quo sermo fuit vel qui notus est vel qui dominatur in Regione aliqua c. So that it is true that Epiphanius will by the Greeke Article added have some certaine or definite thing to bee noted or pointed out and so say wee also but what that certaine or definite thing is before appeareth Learned men doe wonder that so learned a man as Bellarmine is should so farre bee mistaken in so plaine a matter For doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. 10.10 12.13 because of the Greeke Article added denote onely one particular man and no more that is to say but onelie one in all the world to bee a Theese or an hireling or when Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. in Mat. 12.35 doth hee meane that onely some one good mâ—n out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things and that onely one evill man out of the evill treasure of his heart bringeth forth evill things or doth hee not rather meane in a generalitie or communitie every or anie good man whosoever or anie evill man whosoever in that case Againe when it is said in Luk. 4.4 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liveth not by bread onely but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God It is not meant of one Individuum or singular person onelie but in a generalitie or communitie of anie or every one that hee liveth by that meanes So againe S. Paul would that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of God should be perfect instructed to every good work 2. Tim. 3 17 he doth not meane because of the Greeke article added that only one man of God but in a generality or community that everie or anie man of God whosoever should bee so perfect and so well instructed Againe when it is said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the high Priest alone went once everie yeare into the second Tabernacle it is meant not of one particular high Priest onely but of the whole order of high Priests And so by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hinderer and that which hindered Antichrist from appearing in his height is not meant because of the addition of the Greeke article that onelie one Emperour but the whole succession of the Emperors of Rome even the State of the Romane Emperors which was then florishing was the hinderer of that his revealing or appearing and so also doe the ancient fathers themselves expound it as is before declared Neither is this anie unwonted or unusual speech For wee speake so commonly and say that the Emperor goeth before Kings meaning thereby not one particular Emperor onely but the whole State and succession of Emperors And when wee say likewise The King goeth before all Dukes and Earles it is not meant onely of this King or that King but generallie of all Kings of the verie State and succession of Kings So also when our Adversaries themselves doe say The Pope is head of the Church they meane not this Pope or that Pope onely in Individuo but generally the whole Order State and succession of Popes And therfore when the grand Antichrist that is the Pope of Rome is thus called The man of sinne c. Thereby likewise is and may verie well bee intended not one singular man onely or this Pope or that Pope in Individuo but generally the whole State Ranke Order of the Popes succeeding one another Obiect 6. Antichrist shall call himselfe in expresse termes god ostendens se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod sit Deus shewing himself that he is God as it is in the Greeke Ans. But your latin translation which you hold for the only Authentical which agreeth in sense with our translation is Ostendens se tanquam sit Deus shewing himself as though he were God Howbeit beause you urge the Greeke Text which we ever allow We therunto answer first with Aecumenius that Non ait Dicens sed ostendens hoc est operibus signis ac miraculis nitens ostendere quod sit Deus The Apostles words concerning Antichrist be not as you suppose That hee shall say that hee is God but shewing that is by his workes signes and miracles endeavouring to shew that hee is god And secondly wee answer that the Pope is in expresse termes called god well alloweth of that title and thereby proveth that hee cannot bee iudged by men in the Canon Satis the 96 Distinct. Againe the Glosse of the Extravagant Cum inter hath these words To thinke that our Lord God the Pope the author of the foresaid Decretal of this had no power to decree as he hath decreed would bee iudged an heresie Here likewise you see that they call him Our Lord God the Pope in expresse termes In Italy also upon the gate of Tolentum is this inscription To Paul the third the most high and mighâ—ie God upon earth In the Councell of Lateran and 9 Session in the yeare 1514 one of the Secretaries of the Popes chamber speakes thus to Leo the 10 The lookes of your Divine Maiestie with the beame-darting splendor of which my weake eyes are dimmed Stapleton in the Preface of his Booke of the Principles
thereunto expressely said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such as perish and are to goe with him to destruction Can anie thing then be more evident Now that the Pope of Rome is The man of sinne that is according to the Hebrew phrase a verie notorious sinner or a most sinfull man and consequently well deserveth to be called the sonne of perdition who can doubt of it inasmuch as he is in Christendome like Ieroboam in Israel who not onely was a great sinner in his owne person but caused also Israel to sinne or like Ahab with his Iezabel who did exceed Ieroboam in wickednesse or worse then these For must not hee needs be a verie notorious wicked man who being at first a Bishop equal with the rest of his fellow Bishops was not so content but with his wings of pride and ambition would mount above them all Yea who with that his unmeasurable pride hath exalted himselfe not onely above all those his fellowes but even above his superiors also namely above all Kings Princes and Emperors of the world nor yet so content proceeded further claiming authoritie also even over the Angels of heaven for so it appeareth by the Bull of Pope Clement the sixt before mentioned where hee saith Mandamus prorsus Angelis Paradisi c VVee straightly command the Angels of Paradise c. And in another place he forbiddeth Hell also from taking anie hold of those that should crosse themselves for the holy warres But hath hee here ceased No for he hath gone yet further clayming the power and authoritie of God himselfe and even the name of God also to be given him and which is yet a further degree beyond all degrees he hath exalted himselfe even above God himselfe amongst his followers as before appeareth But to shew this matter yet further by some other particulars And to begin with the word of God the sacred and canonical Scriptures doth not Hee and his Clergie extremely dishonour and vilipend them 1. In that they preferre their corrupt Latine translation before the originals of the Greeke and Hebrew 2. In that they make Apocryphal bookes to be of equall authoritie with the Canonicall 3. In that they equall their Traditions with the Canonicall Scriptures 4. In that they number their Decretall Epistles also amongst the canonical Scriptures 5. In that they accuse the holy Scriptures as not conteining sufficient matter of instruction for a mans salvation without their Traditions 6. In that they take upon them to expound those Scriptures according to their owne fancie sense and pleasure and as they list themselves 7. In that they preferre the authority of their Church before the authoritie of the scriptures and the Popes authoritie above both Concerning the Sacraments also how have they perverted those Two which be of Christ his institution and have added to the number of them making seven in all And this is one note of Antichrist as S. Hierome upon 2. Thess. 2. observeth that he should change attempt to increase the Sacraments of the Church The Sacraments they also strangely hold to give grace ex opere operato by vertue of the verie worke done and performed And touching Baptisme have they not horribly polluted and abused it And concerning the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper have they not also taken away the one halfe of it from the people and moreover turned it into such a fearefull and abominable Idolatrie viz. of adoring and worshipping a peece of bread for God as that amongst the verie Pagans and Heathens the like hath not beene seene The vertue also efficacie end fruit and benefit of Christ his comming into the world they have likewise cleane overturned debased or diminished 1. in that themselves take upon them either in the whole or in part to be their owne Saviours and Redeemers by their owne merites and workes of satisfaction as they call them to Gods Iustice as also by suffering satisfactorie punishments in their owne persons for their sinnes after this life ended in their supposed Purgatorie 2. for that in their detestable Masse their Priests take upon them to offer up Christ everie day or often in a bodily maner and that as a sacrifice propitiatory for the taking away of the sinnes of men when in verie deed that Bodily propitiatorie sacrifice was offered but Once and that by Christ himselfe onely and namely upon the Crosse. 3. In that they hold not Iustification in Gods sight to be by faith in Christ but by a righteousnesse inherent in their owne persons nor will allow a man to make a particular application of Christ to himself to be his Saviour Redeemer or anie way to be rest so assured which what is it else but to bereave a man of all sound comfort and benefit by Christ For what profite comfort or benefit is it to anie to know and beleeve that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer indefinitely or to others if he know not or beleeve not that he is a Saviour and redeemer to himselfe in particular For so farre even the Divels themselves doe goe beleeving all to be true that God speaketh in his word and that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer to others and hereat they tremble as S. Iames speaketh It is not enough therefore for men that desire to be saved to beleeve historically all the Articles of the Creed to be true or whatsoever God speaketh in his word to be true or that Christ is a Saviour and Redeemer to others for thus farre as is evident even Divels and Reprobates may goe but they must goe further by applying the truth of all the Articles of the Creede and of the promises of salvation made in Gods word and of Christ Iesus to bes a Saviour and Redeemer in particular to themselves by a speciall faith 4. In that they allow not Christ to bee the sole and onely Mediator and Intercessor betweene God and his People but will needs have other Mediators and Intercessors for them besides him namely the blessed Virgin Marie and other Saints and Angels The Ecclesiastical discipline likewise especiallie in the point of Excommunication they have extreamely perverted abusing it most grosly impiously and traiterously to the deposing of Kings and Princes from their Thrones and Kingdomes and to the disanulling of the subjection and loyaltie of Subiects and to the raysing of treasons and rebellions within their Kingdomes And as touching Prayer Almesdeeds Fasting and all the chiefe duties workes of Christianitie they have also utterly marred corrupted them For their usuall fasting is not an abstinence from all kinde of meates and drinkes ioyned with fervent and repentant Prayers unto God and other holy exercises divine meditations during that time or day of the fast as true Christians and rightly religious fasts ought to bee but consisteth in a difference of meates as namely in an abstinence from flesh and eating fish and whit-meates Yea all their Fastings Almes-deeds and
the Archbishop vvas dead Calomagnus the King of Scotts and the troupe of his Officers with the under-courtiers and the concourse of all that countrey with the same affection of heart cryed out that the holy Priest Livinus was most worthily to be advanced unto the honour of this order The King more devoute then all of them consenting thereunto three or foure times placed the blessed man in the chayre of the Archbishoprick with due honour according to the will of the Lord. In like maner also did king Ecgfrid cause our Cuthbert to be ordayned Bishop of the Church of Lindisfarne and king Pipin granted the Bishoprick of Salzburg to our Virgilius Duke Gunzo would have conferred the Bishoprick of Constance upon our Gallus but that hee refused it and caused another upon his recommendation to be preferred thereunto As the Pope intermedled not with the making of our Bishops so neyther can we finde by any approved record of antiquitie that anie Visitations of the clergie were held here in his name much lesse that any Indulgences were sought for by our people at his hands For as for the Charter of S. Patrick by some intituled De antiquitate Avalonicâ wherein Phaganus and Deruvianus are said to have purchased ten or thirtie yeares of Indulgences from Pope Eleutherius and S. Patrick himselfe to have procured twelve yeares in his time from Pope Celestinus it might easily be demonstrated if this were a place for it that it is a meere figment devised by the Monkes of Glastenbury Neyther doe I well know what credite is to be given unto that stragling sentence which I finde ascribed unto the same author for I will still deale fairely and conceale nothing that I meet withall in anie hidden part of antiquitie that may tend to the true discoverie of the state of former times whether it may seeme to make for me or against me If any questions doe arise in this Iland let them be referred to the See Apostolick Onely this I will say that as it is most likely that S. Patrick had a speciall regard unto the Church of Rome from whence he was sent for the conversion of this Iland so if I my selfe had lived in his dayes for the resolution of a doubtfull question I should as willingly have listened to the judgement of the Church of Rome as to the determination of anie Church in the whole world so reverend an estimation have I of the integritie of that Church as it stood in those good dayes But that S. Patrick was of opinion that the Church of Rome was sure ever afterward to continue in that good estate and that there was a perpetuall priviledge annexed unto that See that it should never erre in judgement or that the Popes sentences were alway to be held as infallible Oracles that will I never beleeve sure I am that my countreymen after him were of a farre other beleefe who were so farre from submitting themselves in this sort to whatsoever should proceed from the See of Rome that they oftentimes stood out against it when they had little cause so to do For proofe whereof I need to seeke no further then to those verie allegations which have beene lately urged for maintenance of the supremacie of the Pope and Church of Rome First Mr. Coppinger commeth upon us with this wise question Was not Ireland among other countries absolved from the Pelagian heresie by the Church of Rome as Cesar Baronius writeth then he setteth downe the copie of S. Gregories epistle in answer unto the Irish Bishops that submitted themselves unto him and concludeth in the end according to his skill that the Bishops of Ireland being infected with the Pelagian errour sought absolution first of Pelagius the Pope but the same was not effectually done untill S. Gregory did it But in all this the silly man doth nothing else but bewray his owne extreme ignorance For neyther can he shew it in Cesar Baronius or in anie other author whatsoever that the Irish Bishops did ever seek absolution from Pope Pelagius or that the one had to deale in any businesse at all with the other Neyther yet can he shew that ever they had to doe with S. Gregory in anie matter that did concerne the Pelagian heresie for these be dreames of Coppingers own idle head The epistle of S. Gregory dealeth onely with the controversie of the three chapter◠which were condemned by the fifth generall Councell whereof Baronius writeth thus All the Bishops that were in Ireland with most earnest studie rose up jointly for the defence of the Three Chapters And when they perceived that the Church of Rome did both receive the condemnation of the Three chapters and strengthen the fifth Synod with her consent they departed from her and clave to the rest of the schismaticks that were eyther in Italy or in Africk or in other countries animated with that vaine confidence that they did stand for the Catholick faith while they defended those things that were concluded in the Councell of Chalcedon And so much the more fixedly saith he did they cleave to their error because whatsoever Italy did suffer by commotions of warre by famine or pestilence all these unhappy things they thought did therefore befall unto it because it had undertaken to fight for the Fift Synod against the Councell of Chalcedon Thus farre Baronius out of whose narration this may be collected that the Bishops of Ireland did not take all the resolutions of the Church of Rome for undoubted oracles but when they thought that they had better reason on their sides they preferred the judgement of other Churches before it Wherein how peremptorie they were when they wrote unto S. Gregory of the matter may easily be perceived by these parcells of the answer which he returned unto their letters The first entry of your epistle hath notified that you suffer a grievous persecution which persecution indeed when it is not sustayned for a reasonable cause doth profite nothing unto salvation and therefore it is verie unfit that you should glory of that persecution as you call it by which it is certaine you cannot be promoted to everlasting rewards And whereas you write that since that time among other provinces Italy hath beene most afflicted you ought not to object that unto it as a reproach because it is written Whom the Lord loveth hee chasteneth and scourgeth every sonne that he receiveth Then having spoken of the booke that Pope Pelagius did write of this controversie which indeed was penned by Gregory himselfe he addeth If after the reading of this book you will persist in that deliberation wherein now you are without doubt you shew that you give your selves to be ruled not by reason but by obstinacie By all which you may see what credite is to be given unto the man who would beare us in hand that this epistle of S. Gregory was sent