often But saith he as it is appointed unto men to die once c. So Christ was once offered c. Bellarmine also averres that unto a true sacrifice it is required that the thing which is offered unto God for a sacrifice be plainly destroyed that is that it cease to be what it was before So that if Christ bee offered up in the Eucharist a true and proper Sacrifice then hee must be destroyed hee must cease to be what he was before Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirme this of Christ let all judge Bellarmine indeed afterward indeavours to answer this argument Let us see what he saith The argument hee propounds thus The sacrifice that is offered must be slaine Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Masse he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slaine To this hee answers thus The sacrifice of the Masse is a most true sacrifice and yet doth not require the killing of that which is offered For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life and which is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life as when Lambes Calves Birds and the like are offered whose destruction consists in death But when the forme of the sacrifice is of a thing without life as of Bread Wine Frankincense and the like killing cannot be required but only such a consuming of the thing as is agreeable to it In the Masse therefore Christ is indeed offered who is a thing having life and he is offered in the forme of a thing having life in respect of representation where onely a death representative is required but not death indeed But as he is a reall and properly so called sacrifice he is offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the order of Melchisedech and therefore in the forme of a thing without life Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing but Eating I have rehearsed his words at large that so his answer may be seene at full But though there be many wordes which hee useth yet it is somewhat hard to know what hee meaneth Certainly this is a very strange kinde of sacrifice that he speaketh of Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the forme of a thing that hath life and also in the forme of a thing that is without life And as hee is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life hee is onely offered in respect of representation but as he is offered in the forme of a thing that is without life hee is really and indeed offered So that Christ being offered in the forme of a thing that hath life his death is represented but he being offered in the forme of a thing that is without life his death is not represented and much lesse is it really executed and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed These things do but very unhandsomely hang together But whereas hee saith that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it I demand is Christs Body so eaten as that it ceaseth to be what it was before If it be not as certainly it is not Christs Body being now glorified and so free from all mutation then is it not truly and properly sacrificed Bellarmine himselfe telling us as I have shewed before that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed is so destroyed as that it ceaseth to be what it was before To talke here of consuming the species or forme of bread so that it ceaseth to be what it was before is nothing to the purpose for they maintaine that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Masse And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christs being offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered For either by himselfe or by the Priest that saith Masse Not by himselfe for here we speak of Christs being offered in the Eucharist which is not administred by Christ hee being now in Heaven Nor by the Priest on Earth there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech but Christ only Psal 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15 c. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth that is properly so called and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be offered For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it and such as the sacrifice is such also must the Priest be hee must be a Priest properly so called if it be a sacrifice properly so called But there is no such Priest upon Earth there being none as I have shewed after the order of Melchisedech nor yet any after the order of Aaron for that order is abolished as all the Leviticall sacrifices are And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture Againe in a sacrifice properly so called it must be some sensible thing as our Adversaries themselves acknowledge that is offered But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist for by what sense is hee there discerned And therefore neither is hee there truly and properly sacrificed Neither was this Doctrine viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist received in the Church of Rome for more then 1100 years after Christ as appeares by the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard who propounds the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly a sacrifice and whether Christ be sacrificed daily or were only once sacrificed And to this hee answers that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and an offering because it it a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation that was made in the Altar of the Crosse And Christ died once on the crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once Here we plainly see that he determines that Christ is not properly sacrificed in the Sacrament but improperly in that his sacrificing of himselfe upon the crosse is remembred and represented in the Sacrament which is no more then the Apostle saith viz. that Christs death is shewed forth in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose as Lombard doth cite him Although we offer daily it is for the remembrance of his death We also offer now but that which we doe is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered To this purpose also he cites Austine Now for the places alledged by the Marquesse the first viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concerne the Eucharist but generally the spirituall worship and service which the Prophet foreshewed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament and which should not be confined and limited to one certaine place and as the solemne worship and service of God in the time of the old
c. It is answered that there were two conversions the first of the Brittains the second of the Saxons we onely require this justice from you as you are English not Welch-men for the Church of England involves all the Brittains within her Communion for the Brittains have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England Now if Your Majestie please I expect your further Objections King My Lord I have not done with you yet though particular Churches may fall away in their severall respects of obedience to one supreme Authority yet it follows not that the Church should be thereby divided for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit and the bond of peace the Church is still at unitie as so many sheaves of corne are not unbound because they are severed Many sheaves may belong to one field to one man and may be carryed to one barne and be servient to the same table Unity may consist in this as well as in being hudled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest I have an hundred pieces in my pocket I find them something heavie I divide the summe halfe in one pocket and halfe in another and subdivide them afterwards in two severall lesser pockets The moneys is divided but the summe is not broke the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together because it belongs to the same man and is in the same possession so though we divide our selves from Rome if neither of us divide our selves from Christ we agree in him who is the Center of all unitie though we differ in matter of depending upon one another But my Lord of Worcester we are got into such a large field of discourse that the greatest Schollers of them all can sooner shew us the way in then out of it therefore before we goe too far let us retire lest we lose our selves and therefore I pray my Lord satisfie me in these particulars Why doe you leave out the second Commandement and cut another in two why doe you with-hold the Cup from the Laytie why have you seven Sacraments when Christ instituted but two why doe you abuse the World with such a fable as Purgatory and make ignorant fooles believe you can fish soules from thence with silver hookes why doe you pray to Saints and worship Images Those are the offences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ of these things I would be satisfied Marq. Sir although the Church be undefiled yet she may not be spotlesse to severall apprehensions For the Church is compared to the Moon that is full of spots but they are but spots of our fancying though the Church be never so comly yet she is described unto us to have black eye-browes which may to some be as great an occasion of dislike as they are to others foyles which set her off more lovely We must not make our fancies judgements of condemnation to her with whom Christ so much was ravished For Your Majesties Objections and first as to that of leaving out the second Commandment and cutting another in two I beseech Your Majestie who called them Commandments who told you they were ten who told you which were first and second c. The Scripture onely called them words those words but these and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Commandments but two Tables the Church did all this and might as well have named them twenty as ten Commandments that which Your Majestie calls the second Commandment is but the explanation of the first and is not razed out of the Bible but for brevitie sake in the manualls it is left out as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath and others wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name their Number and their Distinction may in their breviats leave out what she deems to be but exposition and deliver what she thinks for substance without any such heavie charge as being blottable out of the booke of life for diminishing the word of God For withholding the Cup from the Laytie where did Christ either give or command to be given either the Bread or the Wine to any such Drink ye all of this but they were all Apostles to whom he said so there were neither Lay-men or women there If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it either in one or both kinds they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly but not question the Churches Actions She that could alter the Sabbath into the Lords day and change the dipping of the Baptised over head and eares in water to a little sprinkling upon the face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the difference of Seasons and Countries may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments Neither was this done without great reason the world had not wine in all her Countries but it had bread Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake that they might not be unlike to one another but all receive alike that they should onely receive the Bread which was to be had in every place and not the Cup in regard that Wine was not every where to be had I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing for Bread and Wine doe signifie Christ crucified I appeal to common reason if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the bloud lie by it If you grant the Churches Power in other matters and rest satisfied therein why do you boggle at this especially when any Priest where Wine is to be had if you desire it he will give it you But if upon every mans call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault which may be but supposed to be found the people would never stop untill they had made such a through Reformation in all parts as they have done in the greatest part of Germany where there is not a man to Preach or hear the Gospell to eat the Bread or drink the Wine you never pickt so many holes in our Coates as this licentiousnesse hath done in yours For our seven Sacraments she that called the Articles of our Faith 12 the Beatitudes 8 the Graces 3 the Virtues 4 called these 7 and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind and why Sacrament either in Name or Number should be confin'd to Christs onely Institution I see no cause for it If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise as he did Marriage shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was instituted by Christ when he was upon the Earth If Christ institutes the Order of giving and receiving the holy Ghost shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders If Christ injoynes us all repentance
Author of the Treatise intituled De unctione Chrismatis who goes under the Name of Cyprian but appeares to have been some other shewes that this anointing which they use in confirmation was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law Bonaventure also who lived betwixt 1200 and 1300 yeares after Christ held that Confirmation was neither dispensed nor instituted by Christ And if it were not of Christs instituting it can be no Sacrament properly so called onely Christ as the Councell of Trents Catechisme doth acknowledge being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacrament And therefore the Councell of Trent denounceth Anathema against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christs institution For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the Marquesse alledgeth it is nothing to their Confirmation For 1. There was laying on of hands but no anointing with Chrisme nor signing with the signe of the Crosse 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost as speaking with strange Tongues c. as Cajetan himselfe upon the place observeth and he solidly proveth it by this that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the handes of the Apostles Besides Acts 19. 6. which place Bellarmine doth joyne with the other it is expressely said when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them and they spake with Tongues and prophecied That therefore which the Scripture speakes of the Apostles laying handes on some that had beene Baptized and conferring the holy Ghost upon them is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation there being neither the matter nor the forme nor the effect of that pretended Sacrament Bonaventure saith plainly The Apostles did dispense neither the matter nor the forme And for the effect we have had already Cajetans Confession viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation For the other place of Scripture viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation which they will have to be administred with an ointment made of Oile and Balsome whereas that Scripture speakes of no anointing why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers which also wee reade of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19. whereby as hath beene shewed the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers Thus Theophylact upon the place expounds it of laying on of hands whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come and to worke miracles Cajetan also understands it in like manner of that laying on of hands which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians For the Fathers alledged it is granted that the Fathers doe often speake of anointing and that they speake of it as of a Sacrament But diverse things are to be considered 1. That the word Sacrament is by ancient Writers taken very largely Bellarmine confesseth that in the vulgar Latine Translation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called So Cassander saith that besides those seven which the Church of Rome accounteth Sacraments there are some other things used among them which by a more large acception of the word are sometimes called Sacraments And that of those seven Sacraments it is certaine the Schoolemen themselves did not thinke them all to be alike properly called Sacraments And he instanceth in this very Sacrament of confirmation shewing that some of the Schoolmen namely Holcot did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme The same Author tells us that one shall hardly finde any before Peter Lombard who was 1145 yeares after CHRIST that did set downe a certaine and determinate number of the Sacraments But the Councell of Trent hath decreed If any shall say that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord or that they are either more or lesse then seven viz. Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreme unction Order and Marriage or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called let him be anathema We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is 2. Some of the Fathers doe expressely tells us that the anointing which they used hath no foundation in the Scripture Basil speaking of it askes what written word hath taught it And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institution of it in the Scripture and that they have it onely by Tradition which yet hee saith is most certaine and no lesse to be believed then the written word it selfe But we are bidden goe to the Law and to the Testimony and are told that if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isai 8. 20. 3. The Fathers so peake of their anointing as that they seeme to make it onely an Appendix of Baptisme Wee came to the water thou wentest in saith Ambrose then presently hee addes Thou wast anointed as a wrestler So Tertullian Being come out of that laver wee are anointed with the blessed anointing I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from that used in Confirmation but Bellarmine cites those words as meant of confirmation So those very words of Cyprian which the Marquesse citeth Then they bee fully sanctified and be the Sonnes of God if they be borne of both Sacramments those very wordes I say doe argue that Cyprian though he seeme to speak of two Sacraments yet indeed accounted them but one Sacrament in that he makes one and the same effect of both viz. to be borne whereas they of Rome make birth onely the effect of Baptisme and strength the effect of Confirmation Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments because hee saith both Sacraments For so he might speak in respect of two severall signes though both used in one and the same Sacrament Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments he means the consecrated bread and wine which though they make but one Sacrament yet because they are two sacramentall signes he calles them two Sacraments 4. Whereas the Fathers used to adde Confirmation presently after Baptisme whether it were one of years or an infant that was Baptized as is acknowledged by Bellarmine and other Romanists now they
sacifice I answer doubtlesse Bellarmines reading was sufficient to informe him that diverse ancient Writers call Baptisme a sacrifice Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith that the meaning of those words there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes is that there is no second Baptisme to be expected For by sacrifice hee saith is there meant the crosse Christs Sacrifice on the crosse and Baptisme wherein that sacrifice is represented After the same manner and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrewes Estius also upon the place saith that Chrysostome and his followers by sacrifice there understand either Baptisme or rather the death of Christ as it doth operate in Baptisme And Melchior Canus affirmes that most of the ancients did call Baptisme a sacrifice saying that there remaines no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated And he gives this reason why they spake so viz. because in Baptisme we die together with Christ and the sacrifice of the crosse by this Sacrament is applyed unto us for full forgivenesse of sinnes Therefore saith he by a metaphore they called Baptisme a sacrifice and said that after Baptisme there remaineth no sacrifice because there is no second Baptisme Thus then it may sufficiently appeare that there is nothing either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice properly so called but that both Scriptures and Fathers are against it In the next place VVe say saith the Marquesse that the Sacrament or Orders confers grace upon those on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed you both deny it to be a Sacrament notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them VVe have Scripture for what we hold viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy and with laying on the hands of the Presbytery So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cypr. Epist ad Magnum Optat. Milevit the place beginneth Ne quis miretur Tertull. in Praescript the place beginneth Edant origines Answ That Orders or the Ordination of Ministers is a Sacrament truly and properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper they of the Church of Rome do hold and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it Protestants on the other side though they doe not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination yet they deny that it is a Sacrament in that sense as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments A Sacrament properly so called as the name is attributed to Baptisme and the Lords Supper is a Signe and Seale of the covenant of Grace confirming unto us that Christ is ours and we his that in him we are justified and through him shall be saved Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people Gen. 17. 11. a Seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament not serving to signifie and seale the covenant of Grace as Baptisme and the Lords Supper doe Bellarmine saith that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament as that he plainly shewes it to be no such Sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are As for the true office of a Presbyter or Elder saith hee which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ I willingly account it a Sacrament For there is a ceremony first taken from the Scriptures and then also such as Paul doth testifie not to be empty and superfluous but a faithfull token and pledge of spirituall grace But presently after hee addes Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost not for the expiating of sins but for the right governing of the Church Thus much also is yeelded by Chemnitius whom yet Bellarmine would make to dissent from Calvin There is saith hee a promise added that God will give grace and gifts whereby they who are lawfully called may rightly faithfully and profitably performe and execute those things which belong unto the Ministery Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost And afterwards againe This serious prayer saith hee used in the Ordination of Ministers because it builds upon Gods Precept and Promise is not in vaine And this is that which Paul saith The gift which is in thee by the laying on of hands Hee addes immediately If ordination be thus understood viz. of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments the Apology of the confession at Auspurge hath long agoe declared what our Churches hold viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament And there it is added neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament For we have shewed before that the word Sacrament is of a large acception Thus Chemnitius whereby it may appeare that neither doth he dissent as Bellarmine pretends he doth from Melancthon the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge though I have not now liberty to consult that Author And thus also it appeares that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred or confirmed by it yet they doe not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament and that some interiour grace is conferred by it and that because of those very words of the Apostle which our Adversaries stand upon the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands But Bellarmine will easily prove he saith that Ordination is a true Sacrament For saith hee the grace that is promised unto it is no common gift as Prophecy or the gift of Tongues but justifying Grace And this he proves by that Ioh. 20. Receive yee the holy Ghost For that gift which may be in the ungodly is never hee saith in the Scriptures called absolutely the holy Ghost He addes also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination was the spirit of love and of power and of a sound minde as it followes vers 7. I answer the places alledged doe not prove that justifying grace is promised or by promise annexed unto Ordination For 1. It is not true that the gift which may be in the wicked is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost For Acts 19. 6. it is said of some that when Paul laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them
only in respect of infants The Marquesse it seems considered that there are expresse testimonies of Antiquity for the salvation of some of years that die unbaptized 2. And why is there not the same hope for infants Why must Baptism be more absolutely necessary for them then for others The Romanists themselves distinguish of baptisme and tell us of the baptisme of water of the Spirit and of blood or martyrdome and hold either of the two last to be available unto salvation without the first Is not God able to baptize Infants with his Spirit though they want the baptisme of water And where hath he said that he will not do it It is without doubt saith Bellarmine that true conversion doth supply the want of the baptism of water when any not through contempt but through necessity die without it Now it is without doubt that God can if he please work spiritual regeneration in Infants that are not baptized with water and that if they die without that baptisme it is on their part meerly of necessity and not of contempt And if children dying unbaptized do necessarily perish for want of baptisme then Christian parents must sorrow for the death of such children as they that have no hope whereas the Apostle forbids Christians to sorrow for the dead in that manner 1 Thess 4. 13. Bellarmine also confesseth that divers great eminent writers of the Church of Rome as Cajetan Gabriel and others have thought it not agreeable to the mercy of God that innumerable infants should perish without any fault of theirs meerly for want of that outward baptisme which it was not in their power to have And Cassander testifieth that in his time many very learned men did hold that though children died without baptism yet the desire of the Church and especially of their parents to procure them baptisme if it could have been is accepted of God and available to those children as if they had been baptized 3. The Ancients were as much for the necessity of Infants receiving the Eucharist as for the necessity of their being baptized Austine as Maldonate relates in many places makes the Eucharist so necessary as to deny that Infants can be saved without it For which opinion also the same Jesuite cites Pope Innocentius and saith that for 600. yeares it did prevail in the Church Yet the Romanists have taken leave to depart from the Ancients in this therefore in reason they may give us leave to depart from them in the other except the authority of Scripture can be proved to be against us 4. Concerning the estate of Infants dying unbaptized the Romanists themselves generally recede from the opinion of Austine whom here the Marquesse doth alledge against us For he saith that there is no middle place for Infants but that either they must inherit the kingdome of Heaven or else must endure everlasting fire and this latter he makes to belong unto all that die without baptisme But they of the Church of Rome are of another mind For they make the damned to be in one region of Hell where they are in torment and Infants that die unbaptized in another region of Hell where they suffer no pain but only the losse of Heaven and that happinesse which the Saints enjoy They have no reason therefore to urge us with Austin when as themselves do not accord with him The Church held then saith the Marquesse divers Degrees in the Ecclesiastical regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Sub-deacons the Acolythe Exorcist Reader and Porter Here are eight several sorts of Ecclesiastical officers which are reckoned as so many several orders For so presently after the Marquesse addes And in the Episcopal order acknowledged divers seats of jurisdiction of positive right c. Thus he makes Episcopacie and so the rest each of them a distinct order and that as it seems of divine right But 1. for Episcopacie the School-men hold it to be no distinct order Lombard the Master of them reckons but seven distinct orders to wit all these here mentioned excert Bishops and sayes that anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the same So also Bonaventure whom the Church of Rome hath canonized for a Saint and stiles the Seraphical Doctor he also I say professedly disputing the question whether Episcopacie be an order concludes that it is not but only a dignity and that a Bishop is in that respect of like nature with an Archpresbyter or Dean an Archbishop a Patriarch and a Pope And he cites also Hugo de S. Victore who was somewhat more ancient then Lombard as being of this opinion Cassander saith that the Divines and Canonists do not agree in this whether Episcopacie be to be reckoned amongst orders But all he saith agree in this that in the Apostles time there was no difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but that afterward for the keeping of order and the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was set over the Presbyters and the power of ordaining was reserved unto himonly Hierome is plaine to this purpose to wit that at first Bishops and Presbybyters were the same and he proves it by Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 2. For the last five orders to wit Subdeacons Acolythe Exorcist Reader and Porter they have no foundation at all in Scripture we finde there no mention of them And Lombard confesseth that the office of Deacons and of Presbyters are by way of excellency called holy orders for that the primitive Church had onely those two and the Apostle gave precept concerning them onely So also Cassander saith it is manifest that Deacons and Presbyters are properly called holy orders for that the primitive Church had those onely And this he saith is testified by Pope Urban and noted by Chrysostome and Ambrose And as for the five lesser and inferior orders he saith that now in the Church of Rome they are altogether confused and almost abolished The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church had one Supereminent by Divine Law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universal Church and the want of whose presence either by himself or his Legats or his confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universal unlawful 1. The name of Pope anciently was common to all Bishops Hierome calls Alipius an African Bishop Pope Alipius So also he stiles Austine in divers Epistles which he wrote unto him 2. That the Bishop of Rome to whom the name of Pope in after times came to be appropriated is Supereminent by divine Law was no part of the Ancients Creed Indeed of old the Bishops of Rome by reason of the wealth and glory of the City did live in a very pompous and stately fashion so as in their feasts to exceed Kings And thereupon there was great striving for the place when Damasas whom the Marquesse here points at as so highly honoured
in life and death advantage This as appears by the date of the Epistle Calvin wrote at Geneva the second day of May in the year 1564. and as Bucholcerus in his Chronology notes out of Beza the twenty seventh day of the same moneth he dyed The Marquesse page 99. speaks of Marriage as anciently held by the Church to be a true and proper Sacrament This particular I omitted having spoken of the rest which he there mentioneth to wit Confirmation Orders and Extreme Unction in answer to that which elsewhere he saith of them For Marriage therefore 1. There is nothing in the Scripture to prove it a Sacrament properly so called That of the Apostle so much insisted on This is a great mystery Ephes 5. 32. Their own Cardinal Cajetane upon the place confesseth to make nothing to the purpose 2. That the Fathers call Marriage a Sacrament doth not evince that they thought it to be of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper For as I have before shewed they often use the word Sacrament largely and apply it to divers things which even in our Adversaries account properly are no Sacraments 3. Durandus an acute and learned School-man who lived about the year 1320. doth hold that though Marriage be a sign of a holy thing to wit the conjunction of Christ and the Church and so in a large sense a Sacrament yet it is no Sacrament strictly and properly so called nor of the same nature with the other Sacraments of the New Testament to wit Baptisme and the Lords Supper and this he confirms by divers arguments I know Bellarmine indeavours to answer Durandus his arguments but his answers are consuted by Amesius and others and therefore I will not stand about them I will only prove from Bellarmine himself that Marriage is properly no Sacrament Every Sacrament properly so called is administred by some other and not by the same party to whom it is administred But Marriage is not administred by some other but by parties themselves that are married whiles they mutually expresse their consent one to the other Therefore Marriage is no Sacrament properly so called Bellarmine doth own both the Proposition and the Assumption and therefore he may not deny the Conclusion This is argumentum ad hominem as they call it of force against Bellarmine I do not see what he could or any holding his principles can answer to it But to make the argument simply and absolutely convincing I will frame it otherwise For indeed the Proposition laid down by Bellarmine is not simply and absolutely true to wit Every Sacrament properly so called is administred by some other and not by the same party to whom it is administred This is not essential to a Sacrament for then the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament to the Minister himselfe but only to those that communicate with him And so if Abraham did circumcise himselfe as is probable he did his Circumcision should have been no Sacrament unto him which is most absurd Thus therefore I frame the argument Every Sacrament of the New Testament is to be administred by such as are peculiarly appointed of God to be Ministers of his holy things But Marriage is not administred by such Therefore it is not a Sacrament of the New Testament In the Proposition I say Every Sacrament of the New Testament because whether it were so in respect of Circumcision the story of Zippordh and some other places of Scripture perhaps may make it questionable But for the Sacraments of the New Testament our Saviour hath ordained those that are Ministers of the word to have the administration of them also Mat. 28. 19 20. And the Apostle bids Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. The Sacraments therefore being the mysteries of God only the Ministers of Christ are now the stewards and dispencers of them But this is not necessarily requisite in the point of Marriage that a Minister should dispence it Though ordinarily a Minister be imployed in the celebration of Marriage for the instructing and exhorting of the parties married and for praying unto God for his blessing upon them yet this is not by Christs peculiar appointment but only as our Adversaries confesse by the Churches order and therefore not simply necessary Marriage were every way compleat though no Minister were imployed in it though in divers respects that is expedient but howsoever properly the parties themselves that are married are they by whom Marriage is administred whiles they give themselves each to other The End Errata in the First Part. Pag. 114. Properly read piously p. 121. deceived r. deceased p. 122. saw r. slew p. 123. work r. rock p. 124. that r. not p. 136. supposition r. suspition p. 166. Patres lege fratres p. 205. reply r. rely p. 214. thy merit r. my merit ibid. die r. did nomen l. nomine p. 215. discente l. dicente p. 222. So say the Translators c. That hath reference to those words Some may and indeed do say c. ibid. inevitable r. inevitably be being blot out being p. 230. If the Apostle had adde these words considered mankind as corrupt he would not have said p. 231. fastned r. fashioned p. 235. were affirmed r. we affirm p. 252. to r. do p. 262. liking r. living p. 291. Lombard who blot out who Errata in the Second Part. Pag. 26. this same r. the same p. 40. at least r. at furthest p. 45. commending r. contending * It was published Anno 1649. * See the Advertisement to the Reader perfixed to the late Kings workes set forth together in one volume †It is intituled as I remember Herba Parietis or The Wall-flower * Hamon L'Estrange Esquire Arch. of Christs personall raign on Earth Page 50. and 55. Mede on Revel 11. 7. Qui in historiarum Ecclesiasticarum lectione versati sunt Christiani populi ignorantiam Romanae sedis authoritatem simul auctam facilè animadvertere potuerunt Vicissimque ut bonarum literarum instauratione facessere caepit ignorantia ita Pontificis autoritas paulatim im ninui labascere visa est Gentillet Exam. Concil Trident. lib. 1. Sect. 7 8. vide plura Illud autem inclemens obruendum perenni silentio quòd arcebat docere Magistros Rhetoricos Grammaticos ritûs Christiani cultores Am. Marcell de Julia. lib. 22. * Naseby Fight Lincol. min. to K. James pag. 11. 13. Chem. Ex. Contr. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. Also Eucher p. 63. Questionum asceticarum secundum eptt regula trecentissima sexagessima * Saint Aug. so interprets this place upon the 37. Psal also S. Amb. upon 1 Cor. 3. and Ser. 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. cap. 13. ad vers Joan. S. Greg. lib. 4. dialog c. 39. Orig. hom 9. in c. 15. Exod. Ad Argent An. 1525. c Luther anvival tit de