be so evident in it self why do not all Papists agree with you but rather oppose you 2. Your reason is most ridiculous 't is this The true Church was before any false one therefore succession is proper to the true Church If you had been speaking of antiquity your argument would have had some force in it but antiquity and succession are different things constituting two distinct notes of your Church Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches succession only at the continuation of them But I think your mind was upon antiquity for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ for you say There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ c. To which I answer 1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive their succession from Christ or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies also But 2. Those Churches that are now or have lately been Heretical may yet derive a personal succession from Christ in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles but have since degenerated Thus it is with the Greek Churches and your Roman Church and probably was with the Arians who though they wanted doctrinal succession yet might have personal there being Bishops of note who maintained that Heresie In the former regard its true which you say that the Arian derivation climbeth no further then Arius there 's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons though you seem to take no notice of it Lastly you return to the Protestant Church and whereas it s said There have been named in several ages the Albigenses the Apostolici Wickliff Hus. You Answer None of these were Protestants c. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants the Albigenses otherwise called Waldenses were Protestants Parsons confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel Pars 3. Con. part 3. Hist of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit an 1595. Id. p. 67. A French Historian writes thus of them Who in spite of all the Potentates in Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day For the further clearing of this take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis 1. Of France about the year 1540. and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father Creator of all things of the Son advâ—cate and Intercessor for mankind of the Holy Ghost Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church which they said to be assembled of all the chosen having Jâ—sus Christ for Head of Ministers of the Maâ—istrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honor but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practice it Of Baptism which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign represeâ—ting unto us the Regenerati n of the Spirit and Mortification of the Members Of the Lords Supper which they hold for a thanksgiving and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ Of Marriage which they say was not forbidden to any by h w much it was Holy and ordained oâ— God Of good work wherâ—in they ought to imploy themselves continually â—f Mans tradition which they ought to shun protesting in Sums that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed This positive Confession I have taken verbatim out of the French Historian to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome was not above other Bishops That prayers for the dead and Purgatory were devised by the Priests for their own gain That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced that confirmation and extream unction were no Sacraments That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven since they cannot help us That auricular confession was a trifling thing That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying was vain That Oyl and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitom Historian page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them and now let the reader judge whether they were Protestants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protestants 1. They hold not in all points with them For this you cite divers Authors But I answer 1. I confesse the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Masse is to be said once only every year Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time and minister to them that require it The same Guido saith they held that the words of consecration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread but Aeneas Sylvius Antonius and Luxemburg say the contrary affirming that they thought it sufficient to speak the Sacramental words only Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme but Reinerus the French Historian and others free them from it 2. Their confessions shew that there is very small difference betwixt them and the Protestants 3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants yet they might be Protestants perfect complyance is not absolutely necessary to constitute a person a member of the Church Many of the members of the Church of Rome Corinth Galatia c. did not agree in all points with those Churches yet were members of them The French Papists go under the name of Catholiques yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council and that the Council of Trent was Oecumenical and Lawfull The books of many named Catholiques have been censured for unsound speeches and because they have not held in all points with your Churh yet are Catholiques still The Apostle supposeth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule yet some may be otherwise minded Phil. 3.15 which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant 2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves Answ 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants the argu-is this They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants The Waldenses hold not
probably understood of persons brought unto Jesus Christ from among the Gentiles Rom. 15.16.12.1 Isa 66.20 and of their religious services as praise Psal 50.13.14 Hebr. 13.15 Prayer Rev. 8.3 The ordinary gloss understands Thymiama orationum the incense of Prayers so doth Paulus Burgensis Orationes c. The Prayers of innocent and holy persons are acceptable to me in every place Thus Irenaeus Hos quoque offerre vult c. He will have us to offer our gift at the Altar without ceasing Iren. ado haers l. 4. c. 34. ad fin Now the Altar is in Heaven thither our Prayers and offerings are directed Remigius calls these spirituall sacrifices which succeed the Jews carnall ones than which what can be more plain against the sasacrifice of the Mass which is a carnall sacrifice 1.3 We grant the Eucharist is a sacrifice in those respects that some of the Ancients call it so 1. In respect of the prayers and praises which we offer to God in the administration of it Thus Eusebius saith Itaque sacrificamus Euseb apud Lyran in Mal. 1. c. Therefore we sacrifice and offer incense celebrating the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us giving thanks unto God for our Redemption and offering to him Religious Hymnes and holie Prayers we Sacrifice therefore to the most high God the Sacrifice of Praise c. Hence is the name Eucharist given to the Lords Supper 2. In respect of Christs Sacrifice which is there represented and as it were renewed by the memory of it Cassand Consult Act. 24. p. 999. Thus Christ is said to be crucified before the Galatians eyes Gal. 3.1 Cassander sets it forth thus according to the judgment of Antiquity Non hic novum Sacrificium c. Here is no new Sacrifice but the same which was offered on the Cross and a mystical commemoration of that Sacrifice which was performed on the Cross and a representation of Christs Priesthood and Sacrifice continued in heaven whereby here is not wrought any new expiation or remission of sins but we desire that Sacrifice which was oce offered on the Cross may become effectual unto us To this purpose he brings in the testimony of Ambrose or Chrysostome saying In Christo semel c. They once offered up a Sacrifice Christ sufficient for our salvation Why then do we everie day offer Although we dailie offer it s onlie in remembrance of Christs Death In respect of the natures of Bread and Wine which were brought by the people and as it were presented to God In this regard so far as I understand him Irenaeus calls the Lords Supper a Sacrifice and he hath divers expressions to this purpose Lib. 4. c. 33. Christ gave counsel to his Disciples to offer up to God the first fruits of his creatures If you ask how we are to consider God when we offer to him he tells us a little after The Church in the whole world doth offer unto God who gives us food the first fruits of his gifts More fully to this purpose c. 34. It behoves us to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures as Moses saith thou shalt not appear before the Lord emptie and the reason is Gods Dominion over us in regard whereof the Jewes had their Tythe consecrated to God and we that have obtained greater libertie then they ought freely to devote what we have to the Lords use as the poor Widdow gave her Mite into the Treasures Again in this same Chapter we ought to be thankful to our Maker offering unto him of the first fruits of his creatures and this Oblation the Church onlie offers to God in a pure manner offering unto him of his creatures with thanksgiving Now the Jewes they offer not because their hands are full of blood and they receive not the word by whom we offer unto God Mark it not said whom but by whom we offer unto God Now that this Father was ignorant of Transubstantiation is most evident by what he saith lib. 5. When therefore the Wine and Bread receive the Word of God they become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which our bodily substance is made and increased which cannot be said of meer species of bread or Christs body Erasmus ingeniously confesseth of him that he saith nothing clearly of Transubstantiation I have been longer in this Father because you seem to build much upon him 4. Inst Altars We have an Altar whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle Hebr. 13. Answ Although many Protestants dislike the name Altar Yet the thing it self is not disliked by any whether you understand by this text Christ as Theodoret apud Lyran and the glosse or that which the Apostle calls the table of the Lord. 1 Cor. 10.21 and which is called by Gregory Nissen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an holy table an Altar inviolable One and the same thing is an Evangelical Altar and an holy Table 5. Inst Power in Priests to forgive sins whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them and whole sins ye shall retain they are retained John 20. Answ No Protestants do deny power of forgivenesse of sins to the Ministers of Christ The differenc betwixt you and us is not about the thing it selfe whether there be a power in them but about the quality of it as whether it be a judiciary or a Ministerial power whether they properly forgive or but declare Gods forgivenesses of penitent sinners We deny them a judiciary and proper power of forgiveness which belongs only to God but acknowledge their Ministerial 6. Confession Confesse your sins one to another Jam. 5. And many of them that believed came confessing their Sins Act. 19. Answ Protestants acknowledg the usefulnesse of confession when a Christian is troubled with the burden of some sin whether it be made to a Christian friend that is able to advise comfort or pray for him or to a Minister of the Word but deny the absolute necessity of set confession of all known sins in the ears of a Priest The Scriptures you urge prove not Popish confession Not the former for it bids us confesse one to another i. e. according to the glosse Coaequalibus to our equals but your Priests would be loath to be numbred among the common people as their equals only Nor the later for that speaks of some only that came and of their confession of their Deeds as the Rhemists only And it s very probable only their sorceries and witchcraft which they manifested their dislike of by the burning of their books whereby they had learned to practise their wicked deeds 7. Inst Justification by works Do you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only Jam 2. Answ We own and subscribe to the truth of St James's assertion yet believe it must not clash with that of Saint Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
still hereticks and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle To say there is no express command for the Cup therfore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away is false for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing though there be no express command for the thing You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread which you seem to grant in saying that in the primitive times the people sometimes received the cup not the bread which they durst not have done if there had been an express command for receiving the bread Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine If it be not sacrilegious then it is evident your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them If it be sacrilegious then it s as evident that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a particular command and that its truely sacrilegious to take away the cup from them 4. There is a Command for both Let a man examine himselfelf and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administred under both kinds This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me i. e. as Dionysius expounds it take this cup and drink of it So t is said He took the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it Mat. 26.27 You answer These words indeed Doe thâ—s in commemoration of me Drink ye all of this imply a Commandement but concerning onâ—ly Priests to whom as the pâ—wer of making so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper The Reason is because hereby as the words clearly bear he chiefly aâ—mes at a remembrance of his death and passion which including a separation of his soul from his body and of his blood from his flesh cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a command are they not as express and full a command as can be 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them there are divers reasons to the contrary 1. If it concerned onely Priests then the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all because with this is joyned the command of eating the bread and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible 2. Christ you say in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kinde But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element as appears by the Evangelist Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin Supr It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests the precept therefore must also concern them 3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles Now they were not Massing Priests for first its the common opinion amongst you that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till after Christs resurrection when he sent them and breathed on them Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests when there were no Priests with him 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others did represent Bishops not ordinary Priests who as Aquinas severall times affirms were the successours of the seventie Disciples 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve which is questionable it is most evident that they did represent believers and that the command concerned them Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors viz. Paschasius Rathertus Chrysostome Theophylactus Cyprian Origen and Augustine Cass de sacr Com. sub utraque spec p. 1019. And certainly if it were not thus the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth and that in order to their practice they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he but not them You bolster up your selves much by your word Make to whom as the power of making c. hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing hereby shut out the people froÌ„ the cup. But without any reason for if it could prove any thing it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests then the Cup seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice the wine after consecration being reall and true blood But I wonder seeing our criticall adversaries are so full of this word that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it Make this if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti that render the Greek Do this Sure they were convinced that this conceit was but worthy of private observation and therefore creeps in with the note onely but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely Take eat This is my body drink you all of it He gave it to them and they all drank of it S. Luke saith Do this not mentioning taking or eating or drinking of it S. Paul unites them in one saying Take Eat This do in remembrance of me So that to do this is to take and eat the bread and drink the wine according to Christs Institution which doth principally concern the people And this Dyonisius Carthusiensis doth propound as probable And its further observable that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words Do this he onely useth it with reference to the bread which belongs say you to the people not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion The precept which you mention out of S. John Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood c. which you say extends to the Laitie I shall not much build upon because I conceive it s not spoken of the Sacramentall eating and drinking This onely I shall gather from it that Christ is perfect nourishment and that as his flesh is meat so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure
invent different Doctrines and new heresies Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgment in them that seperate The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretiques and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will adde two more 1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church a note of the true Church this is Bellarmine's sixt note but it seemes Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not 2. The Doctrine say some of you in answer to us is the form of the true Church therefore In inferre it cannot agree to any false one the form being intrinsecall and proper to that which it doth inform not common to others as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judgements But you urge two things viz. 1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth Answ 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth as you propound it but whether true Doctrine that is the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures and professed by Christians be a mark of the true Church we affirm it is 2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers but one and the same as there is one Lord one Spirit one Church so is there one faith which the Scripture reveals unto us 2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors as the means whereby it is conveyed to us therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle Answ 1. But that your memory is weak you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement you might find that when we say True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors but sometimes Wolves and therefore if you had not misled us we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy 2. You answer It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory but I know you cannot do it your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture others not the Apostles Doctrine which you were to have proved not by consequence but expresly in plain and formall tearms Lastly some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn But I will particularly examine your Instances 1 Inst Traditions 2 Thess 2. Hold the traditions whether it be by word or Epistle Answ 1. It s most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach was nothing but Scripture Act. 26.20.22 Especially see Act. 17.1 2 3 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures Annot. on Deutr. 4.2 Your Dowaists say unwritten traditions are contained implied included in the Scriptures such the Apostle preached 2. True and Apostolick traditions we willingly imbrace yea we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them That which Clemnitius saith is the judgement of Protestants Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth which their immediate successours received from them Exam. Concil trident p. 1. d. trad p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture and we reject none of them but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture we receive and reverence So another saith if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolick Church and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them and this is Apostolicall Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion I appeal to Medina Medri l. 6. de sacr hom Continent c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditions of 84. Canons saith he gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8. 2 Inst Reall presence Joh. 6.51.55 56 57. Luk 22.19 Matth. 26.28 Ans This is a Jesuitical slander for protestants do not deny the Reall presence nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it Rivel sum Contr. Tan. 1. Tract 3. q. 18. Inst we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament as learned Rivet observes this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit is answered in these words His most excellent Majestie and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence T is true we hold not a gross i. e. as the same Author explains it When the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes and together with them conveyed into the mouth stomack and bodily parts but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiving the externall signes by his naturall parts receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operative faith and this is most evident by that 6. of John 3. Inst Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation Mal. 1. Answ 1. This Text is in none of the Apostles writings however being Scripture I answer 2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it It s your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose 3. It may be more
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose
Spiritus c. They are Spirit as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spirituall sence and so they vivifie they have a Spirituall understanding the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner Your pleas for this opinion are vain 1. You say The question was not what says he that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous Christ having immediately before confirmed the signification of his first words This is my Body By other latter Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you and they both heard and understood the language he spake in Reply 1. Pray where are those first words This is my Body You shut your eyes and laid aside your honesty when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer But suppose them there tell us next how those latter words doe confirme the signification of them 2. When you tell us they knew what he said and both heard and understood the language he spake in you will shew your self a notorious trifler Wil it follow that because they knew his words heard understood his language that therfore they understood his meaning I trow not Those that read the hard of places of Pauls Epistles did both hear understand the language he spake in yet knew not his meaning and therefore wrested them to their own perdition The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Nicodemus understood Christs language but not his meaning about regeneration You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and understand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language yet they did remaine ignorant of their true meaning as all prudent Expositors confess and your Rhemists expresly affirm saying Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable which is plain by the sentence following where he warneth tâ—em that his words be spiri life of high mystical meaning and not vulgarly and grosly to be taken as they took them 2. You adde Therefore except you will say that Christ answered not to the purpose his scope and aime must be to declare his power to the â—nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said and that directly in answer to the Caperâ—aits question you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut mangled into pieces for so they understand the eating of his flesh and thereupon grounded their question How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces for the effecting of this they expected a proof of his power if you will have it so Now this your selfe will grant impossible being contrary to the will of God the measure of his power therefore you must confess that Christ spake not to the purpose as you object against us Or grant as the truth is that they understood not Christ's meaning and therefore that he answered concerning the manner of their eating not his power of giving his flesh c. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words You answer He doth it effectually and home by saying my words are spirit A Spirit having strength and vertue to do more then all bodyes put together can either do or conceive Reply A goodly Argument and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread Christ is a Spirit is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten then all Spirits have the same power But Sir why cannot a man a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally I see no difficulty in it nor need of any spiritual power to effect it if there be but Popish or other Cannibals that will eat it 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sence for you take not spirit for breath but properly Are words living and intelligent beings as Spirits are But I suppose this quaint Exposition was hammered out of your own brain and though it agrees neither with Fathers nor your elder brethren yet because it opposeth the wicked Calvinists you like it well And indeed so do I both because it shews you to be a most ingenious learned acute and reverend Expositor and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions Objection 2. The second Objection say you The Roman Church committeth idolatry in her adâ—ration at Mass bowing to the Name of Jesus Altars Images and Relicks You answer 1. By the Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven thing nor adore it Exod. 20. is neither forbid the Art of Engraving Carving Printing Painting Casting Sowing Embroydering nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures Reply 1. The Art of Engraving c. is certainly lawful yet the exercise of it hath its limitations which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads 1. That nothing be engraven c. but what ought to be engraven c. whereby is forbidden the engraving carving painting any lascivious pictures tending to excite lust but especially as to our purpose painting engraving and carving any images of the divine Persons thus Moses tells the Jews Ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude only ye heard a voyce Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves for ye saw no maÌ„ner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves Deut. 4.14 15 16. and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likenesâ— of male and female c. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ Euseb Eccles l. 7. c. 17. and imputes the Erection of Christs Image to an heathenish Custome saying It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things for the men of old of an Heathenish custome were wont to honour after this manner such as they counted Saviours Lorichius doth excellently set forth this Ger. Lorich instit Cathol in praecept fol. 95. Est praeterea abusus imaginum c. There is saith he besides an abuse of Images in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity which is truly a most pestilent heresie for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity then to paint the Father like a crooked old man the Son in the form of a young man and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowle What can Ideots learn from such a