they did eat the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians otherwise his reasō prooues not the point which he hath in hand namely that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corinthians Reason VI. And it is said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath so it may be saide that the sacrament of the Lordes supper was made for man not mā for it therefore man is more excellent thē the sacrament But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the body and blood of Christ then is the sacrament infinitely better then man who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ and made a member of his mysticall bodie whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacrament or outward elements indeede are not better then man the ende beeing alwaies better then the thing ordained to the ende It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall Againe in the supper of the Lord euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ God and man though not the godhead now by this carnall eating we receiue not whole Christ but onely a part of his manhoode and therefore in the sacrament there is no carnall eating and consequently no bodily presence Reason VII The iudgement of the ancient Church Theodoret saith The same Christ who called his naturall bodie foode and bread vvho also called him selfe a vine he vouch safed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie NOT CHANGING NATVRE but putting grace to nature whereby he meanes consecration And The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature For they REMAINE IN THEIR FIRST NATVRE and keepe their first figure and forme and as before may be touched and seene and that which they are made is vnderstood beleeued adored Gelasius saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie and blood of Christ yet so as the SVBSTANCE OR NATVRE OF BREAD AND VVINE CEASETH NOT. And they are turned into the diuine substance yet the bread and wine REMAIN STIL IN THE PROPERTIE OF THEIR NATVRE Lumbard saith If it be asked what conuersion this is vvhether formall or substantiall or of an other kinde I am not able to define And that the Fathers held not transubstantiation I prooue it by sundrie reasons First they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against hereticks which argument they would not haue vsed if they had beleeued a popish reall presence Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them who neuertheles were barred the Lordes table And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies tooke the bread after the administration was ended for common bread Againe it was once an order in the Romane church that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread which had bin consecrated But this order cannot stand with the reall presence in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and bloode Nicholaus Cabasilas saith After he hath vsed some speach to the people he erects their mindes and lifts their thoughts from earth saith Sursum corda Let vs lift vp our heartes let vs THINKE ON THINGS ABOVE and not on things that are vpon the earth They consent say that they lift vp their hearts thither where is their treasure and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father Obiections of Papists I. Their first reason is Ioh. 6. 55. My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed therefore say they Christs body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunke accordingly Ans. The chapter must be vnderstood of a spirituall eating of Christ his bodie is meate indeede but spirituall meate and his bloode spirituall drinke to be receiued not by the mouth but by faith This is the very point that Christ here intendes to prooue namely that to beleeue in him is to eate his flesh and to drinke his bloode are all one Againe this chapter must not be vnderstoood of that speciall eating of Christ in the sacrament for it is saide generally v. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you and if these very words which are the substance of the chapter must be vnderstood of a sacramentall eating no man before the comming of Christ was saued for none did bodily eate or drink his bodie or bloode considering it was not then existing in nature but onely was present to the beleeuing heart by faith II. Obiect An other argument is taken from the wordes of the institution This is my body Ans. These wordes must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure his bodie beeing put for the signe and seale of his bodie It is obiected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speake as plainely as they cā now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament and therefore he spake plainely without any figure Ans. Christ here speaketh plainely and by a figure also for it hath bin alwaies the vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of sacraments to giue the name of the thing signified to the signe as Gen. 17. 10. circumcision is called the couenant of God in the next v. in way of exposition the signe of the couenāt Exod. 12. 11. the paschal lambe is called the Angels passing by or ouer the houses of the Israelites whereas indeed it was but a signe thereof 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock was Christ 1. Cor. 5. 7. The Passeouer was Christ. And the like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament cōcerning the cup which the Papists themselues confesse to be figuratiue when it is said Luk. 22. This cuppe is the new testament in my blood that is a signe seale and pleadge thereof Againe the time when these wordes were spoken must be considered and it was before the passion of Christ whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed and cōsequently neither of thē could be receiued in bodily manner but by faith alone Againe Christ was not onely the author but the minister of this sacrament at the time of institution thereof and if the bread had beene truly turned into his bodie and the wine into his blood Christ with his owne hands should haue taken his owne bodie and blood and haue giuen it to his disciples nay which is more he should with his owne hands haue taken his owne flesh and drunken his owne bloode and haue eaten himself For Christ himselfe did
God and of Saints in heauen glorified being absent from vs. Ans. To kneele to the chaire of estate is no more but a ciuill testimony or signe of ciuill reuerēce by which all good subiects when occasion is offered shewe their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull princes And this kneeling being on this manner and to no other end hath sufficient warrant in the word of God But kneeling to the image of any Saint departed is religious and consequently more then ciuill worship as the Papists themselues confesse The argument then prooueth nothing vnlesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship III. Differ The Papists also teach that God may be lawfully worshipped in images in which he hath appeared vnto mem as the Father in the image of an old man the Sonne in the image of a man crucified and the Holy Ghost in the likenes of a doue c. But we hold it vnlawfull to worship God in by or at any image for this is the thing which as I haue prooued before the second commandement forbiddeth And the fact of the Israelites Exod. 32. in worshipping the golden calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie albeit they worshipped not the calfe but God in the calfe for v. 5. Aaron saith To morrovve shall be the solemnitie of Iehovah whereby he doth giue vs to vnderstand that the calfe was but a signe of Iehouah whome they worshipped Obiect It seemes the Israelites worshipped the calfe For Aaron faith vers 4. These be thy Gods O Israel that brought thee out of Egypt Ansvv. Aarons meaning is nothing els but that the golden calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God And the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe as vpon a stage he is called a King that representes the King And Augustine saith that images are wont to be called by the names of things whereofthey are images as the counterfeit of Samuel is called Samuel And we must not esteeme them all as madde men to thinke that a calfe made of their earings beeing but one or two daies olde should be the God that brought them out of Egypt with a mightie hand many daies before And these are the points of difference touching Images wherein we must stand at varience for euer with the Church of Rome For they erre in the foundation of religion making indeede an idol of the true God and worshipping an other Christ then we doe vnder new tearmes maintaining the Idolatry of the heathen And therefore haue we departed from them and so must we still doe because they are Idolaters as I haue prooued The X. point Of reall presence Our consent I. We holde and beleeue a presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the Sacrament of the Lords supper and that no fained but a true and reall presence which must be considered two waies first in respect of the signes secondly in respect of the communicants For the first we hold and teach that Christs bodie and bloode are truly present with the bread and wine being signes in the sacrament but how not in respect of place of coexistence but by sacramentall relation on this manner When a word is vttered the sound comes to the eare and at the same instant the thing signified comes to the minde and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of are both present together Euen so at the Lords table bread and wine must not be considered barely as substances and creatures but as outward signes in relation to the bodie and blood of Christ and this relation arising from the very institution of the Sacrament standes in this that when the elements of bread wine are present to the hand and to the mouth of the receiuer at the very same time the bodie and bloode of Christ are presented to the minde thus and no otherwise is Christ truly present with the signes The second presence is in respect of the communicants to whose beleeuing hearts he is also really present It will be said what kinde of presence is this Ans. Such as the communion in the sacrament is such is the presence and by the communion must we iudge of the presence Nowe the communion is on this manner God the father according to the tenour of the Euangelicall couenant giues Christ in this sacrament as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man not by part and peecemeale as we say but whole Christ God and man on this sort In Christ there be two natures the godhead and manhood The godhead is not giuen in regard of substance or essence but onely in regard of efficacie merits and operation conueied thence to the manhood And further in this sacrament Christs whole manhood is giuen both bodie and soule in this order First of all is giuen the verie manhoode in respect of substance and that really secondly the merits benefites thereof as namely the satisfaction performed by and in the manhoode to the iustice of God And thus the intire manhood with the benefits thereof are giuen wholly and ioyntly together For the two distinct signes of bread and wine signifie not two distinct giuings of the bodie apart and the blood apart but the full and perfect nourishment of our soules Againe the benefites of Christs manhoode are diuersly giuen some by imputation which is an action of God accepting that which is done by Christ as done by vs and thus it hath pleased God to giue the passion of Christ his obedience Some againe are giuen by a kind of propagation which I cannot fitly expresse in tearms but I resemble it thus As one candle is lighted by an other one torch or candle-light is conuaied to twentie candles euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer is deriued from the storehouse of righteousnes which is in the manhood of Christ for the righteousnes of all the members is but the fruit thereof euen as the naturall corruption in all mankinde is but a fruit of that originall sinne which was in Adam Thus we see how God for his part giues Christ and that really To proceede when God giues Christ he giues withall at the same time the spirit of Christ which spirit creates in the heart of the receiuer the instrument of true faith by which the heart doth really receiue Christ giuen of God by resting vpon the promise which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse to euery true beleeuer Now then when God giues Christ with his benefits and man for his part by faith receiues the same as they are giuen there riseth that vnion which is betweene euery good receiuer and Christ himselfe Which vnion is not forged but a reall true and neare coniunction nearer then which none is or can be because it is made by a solemne giuing and receiuing that passeth betweene God and man as also by the bond of one and the same spirit To come then to the point considering
foundation to the very bottom And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the truth first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture and secondly confute the reasōs which they bring for themselues III. Our reasons Reason I. Heb. 9. v. 15. and 26 and cap. 10. v. 10. The holy ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once Therefore not often and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper the text is plaine The Papists answer thus The sacrifice of Christ say they is one for substāce yet in regard of the manner of offering it is either bloodie or vnbloodie and the holy ghost speakes onely of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ which was indeede offered but once Ans. But the author of this epistle takes it for graunted that the sacrifice of Christ is onely one and that bloodie sacrifice For he saith Heb. 9. v. 25. Christ did not offer himselfe often as the high priests did v. 26. For thē he must haue oftē suffered since the foundatiō of the world but now in the end he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and v. 22. VVITHOVT SHEDDING OF BLOOD is NO remission of sinne By these wordes it is plaine that the scripture neuer knewe the two fold maner of sacrificing of Christ. And euery distinction in Diuinitie not founded in the written worde is but a forgerie of mans braine And if this distinction be good how shall the reason of the Apostle stand He did not offer himselfe but once because he suffered but once Reason II. The Romish Church holdes that the sacrifice in the Lordes Supper is all one for substance with the sacrifice which he offered on the crosse if that be so then the sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a cōtinuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse or els an iteration or repetition of it Now let them choose of these twaine which they wil if they say it is a continuance of the sacrifice on the crosse Christ being but the beginner and the Priest the finisher thereof they make it imperfect for to continue a thing till it be accomplished is to bring perfection vnto it but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected as by his owne testimony appeares when he said consummatum est it is finished Againe if they say it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice thus also they make it imperfect for that is the reason which the holy ghost vseth to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testamēt were imperfect because they were repeated Reason III. A reall and outward sacrifice in a sacrament is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord for one end thereof is to keepe in memory the sacrifice of Christ. Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daily and really sacrificed the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice Againe the principall ende for which the sacrament was ordained is that God might giue we receiue Christ with his benefits and therfore to giue and take to eate drink are here the principal actiōs Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ the priest receiue him of God but contrariwise he giues offers Christ vnto God and God receiues some thing of vs. To helpe the matter they say that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ beeing already made But this answere still maketh against the nature of a sacrament in which God giues Christ vnto vs whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man and man giues something to god a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to apply any thing vnto vs that is giuen of God Reason IV. Heb. 7. 24. 25. The Holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the newe testament and all Leuiticall priests in this that they were many one succeeding another but he is onely one hauing an eternall priesthood which cannot passe from him to any other Nowe if this difference be good then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest of the new testament and no other with or vnder him otherwise in the new testament their should be more priests in number then in the old If they say that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ and that the priest is but an instrument vnder him as they say I say againe it is false because the whole oblatiō is acted or done by the priest himselfe and he which doth all is more then a bare instrument Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and blood for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediatour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith that the priest in his masse is a priest properly and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice differing onely in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and in the very Canon of the masse they insinuate thus much when they request God to accept their giftes and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature vnto God Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church A certaine Counsell held at Toledo in Spaine reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion The wordes of the Canon are these Relation is made vnto vs that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer sacrifices in one daie but in one day if they offer many sacrifices to God in ALL THE OBLATIONS THEY SVSPEND THEMSELVES FROM THE COMMVNION Here marke that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine seruice because none did communicate no not the priest himselfe And in an other Counsell the name of the Masse is put onely for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that praiers supplications Masses which shall be alowed in the Councel be vsed And in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed of the making or compounding of Masses for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie blood of Christ admits no composition Abbat Paschasius saith because we sinn daily Christ is sacrificed for vs MYSTICALLY and his Passion is giuen in mysterie These his words are against the reall sacrifice but yet he expounds himselfe more plainly cap. 10. The blood is drunke IN MYSTERIE SPIRITVALLY and it is all SPIRITVAL which we eate and c. 12. The priest distributes to euery one not as much as the outward sight giueth but as much as FAITH RECEIVETH c. 13. The FVL similitude is outwardly and the immaculate flesh
temporall blessings In the first age he appointed vnto him for meate euery hearb of the earth bearing seed and euery tree wherein there is the fruite of a tree bearing seed Gen. 1. 18. And as for flesh whether God gaue vnto him libertie to eate or not to eate we hold it vncerten After the flood the Lord renewed his grant of the vse of the creatures and gaue his people libertie to eat the flesh of liuing creatures yet so as he made some things vncleane and forbad the eating of them among the rest the eating of blood But since the comming of Christ he hath inlarged his word and giuen libertie to all both Iewes Gentiles to eate of all kindes of flesh This word of his we rest vpon holding it a doctrine of deuills for men to commaund an abstinence from meates for conscience sake which the Lord himselfe hath created to be receiued with thanksgiuing Socrates a Christian historiographer saith that the Apostles left it free to euery one to vse what kinde of meate they would on fasting daies and other times Spiridion in lent dressed swines flesh and set it before a stranger eating himselfe and bidding the stranger also to eat who refusing professing him selfe to be a Christian therefore saith he the rather must thou doe it for to the pure all things are pure as the word of God teacheth vs. But they obiect Ier. 35. where Ionadab commanded the Rechabites to abstain from wine which commandement they obeyed and are commended for doing well in obeying of it therefore say they some kinde of meates may lawefully be forbidden Ans. Ionadab gaue this commandement not in way of religion or merit but for other wise and politicke regardes For he inioyned his posteritie not to drinke wine not to build houses not to sowe seede or plant vineyards or to haue any in possession but to liue in tents to the ende they might be prepared to beare the calamities that should be fall them in time to come But the Popish abstinence from certaine meates hath respect to conscience and religion and therefore is of another kind and can haue no warrant thence II. Obiect Dan. 10. 3. Daniel beeing in heauines for three weekes of daies abstained from flesh and his example is our warrant Ans. It was the manner of holy men in ancient times when they fasted many daies together of their owne accordes freely to abstaine from sundrie things and thus Daniel abstained from flesh But the Popish abstinence from flesh is not free but stands by cōmandement and the omitting of it is mortal sinne Againe if they will follow Daniell in abstaining from flesh why doe they not also abstaine from all pleasant bread and wine yea from ointments and why will they eate any thing in the time of their fast whereas they cannot shew that Daniel eate any thing at all till euening And Molanus hath noted that our ancetours abstained from wine and dainties and that some of them ate nothing for two or three daies together Thirdly they alleadge the diet of Iohn Baptist whose meate was Locusts and wild honie and of Timothy who abstained from wine Ans. Their kinde of diet and that abstinence which they vsed was only for temperance sake not for conscience or to merit any thing thereby let them prooue the contrarie if they can Thirdly and lastly we dissent from them touching certaine endes of fasting For they make abstinence it selfe in a person fitly prepared to be a part of the worship of God but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe and therefore no part of Gods worship and yet withall being well vsed we esteeme it as a proppe or furtherance of the worship in that we are made the fitter by it to worship God And herevpon some of the more learned sort of them say Not the worke of fasting done but the deuotion of the worker is to be reputed the seruice of God Againe they say that fasting in or with deuotion is a worke of satisfaction to Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of our sinnes Wherein we take they doe blasphemously derogat from Christ our Sauiour who is the whole and perfect satisfaction for sinne both in respect of fault and punishment Here they alleadge the example of the Ninevites and Achabs fasting wherby they turned away the iudgements of God denounced against them by his Prophets We answer that Gods wrath was appeased towards the Ninevites not by their fasting but by faith laying holde on Gods mercy in Christ and thereby staying his iudgement Their fasting was onely a signe of their repentance their repentance a fruite and signe of their faith whereby they beleeued the preaching of Ionas As for Ahabs humiliatiō it is nothing to the purpose for it was in hypocrisie if they get any thing thereby let thē take it to themselues To conclude we for our parts doe not condemne this exercise of fasting but the abuse of it and it were to be wished that fasting were more vsed of all Christians in all places considering the Lord doth daily giue vs new and special occasions of publike and priuate fasting The thirteenth point Of the state of perfection Our consent Our consent I will set downe in two conclusions I. All true beleeuers haue a state of true perfection in this life Math. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your father in heauen is perfect Gen. 6. 9. Noah was a iust and perfect man in his time and walked with God Gen. 17. 1. Walke before me and be perfect And sundrie kings of Iuda are said to walke vprightly before God with a perfect heart as Dauid Iosias Hezekias c. And Paul accounteth himselfe with the rest of the faithfull to be perfect saying Let vs all that are perfect be thus minded Phil. 3. 15. Now this perfection hath two partes The first is the imputation of Christs perfect obedience which is the ground and fountaine of all our perfectiō whatsoeuer Heb. 10. 14. By one offering that is by his obedience in his death and passion hath he consecrated or made perfect for euer them that beleeue The second part of Christian perfection is synceritie or vprightnes standing in two things The first is to acknowledge our imperfection and vnworthines in respect of our selues and hereupon though Paul had said he was perfect yet he addeth further that he did account of himselfe not as though he had attained to perfection but did forget the good things behinde and indeauoured himselfe to that which was before Here therefore it must be remembered that the perfection whereof I speake may stande with sundrie wants and imperfections It is saide of Asa that his heart vvas perfect vvith God all his daies and yet he pulled not dovvne the high places and beeing diseased in his feete he put his trust in the Physitians and not in the Lord. Secondly this vprightnes standes in a constant purpose endeauour and care to keepe not
Pope saith to the Emperour I which AM SVBIECT TO YOVR COMMANDEMENT haue euery way discharged that which was due in that I haue performed mine allegiance to the Emperour and haue not concealed vvhat I thought on Gods behalfe And Pope Leo the fourth after Gregorre 200. yeares acknowledged the Emperour Lotharius for his soueraigne prince and professed obedience without gainsaying to his Imperial commandemeÌ„ts To conclude whereas they say that there is a double head of the Church one imperiall which is Christ alone the other ministerial which is the Pope gouerning the whole Church vnder Christ I answer this distinction robbeth Christ of his honour because in setting vp their ministeriall head they are faine to borrow of Christ things proper vnto him as the priuiledge to forgiue sinnes properly and the power to gouerne the whole earth by making of lawes that shall as truly binde conscience as the lawes of God c. The nineteenth point Of the efficacie of the sacraments Our consent Conclus I. We teach and beleeue that the sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits vnto vs. Conclus II. We teach further that the sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the foresaid benefits vnto vs. Thus farre we consent with the Romane Church The difference The difference betweene vs standes in sundrie points First of all the best learned among them teach that sacraments are phisicall instruments that is true and proper instrumentall causes hauing force and efficacie in them to produce and giue grace They vse to expresse their meaning by these comparisons When the scriuener takes the pen into his hande and writes the action of writing comes from the penne mooued by the hand of the writer and in cutting of wood or stone the diuision comes from the sawe mooued by the hand of the workman euen so the grace say they that is giuen by God is conferred by the sacrament it selfe Nowe we for our parts holde that Sacraments are not physicall but meere voluntarie instruments Voluntarie because it is the will and appointment of God to vse them as certen outward meanes of grace Instruments because when we vse them aright according to the institution God then answerably conferres grace from himselfe In this respect only take we them for instruments and no otherwise The second difference is this They teach that the very action of the Minister dispensing the sacrament as it is a worke done giues grace immediatly if the partie be prepared as the very washing or spâ—inkling of water in baptisme and the giuing of bread in the Lords supper euen as the orderly moouing of the penne vpon the paper by the hand of the writer causeth writing We hold the contrarie namely that no action in the dispensation of a Sacrament conferreth grace as it is a worke done that is by the efficacie and force of the very sacramentall action it selfe though ordained of God but for two other waies First by the signification therof For God testifies vnto vs his will and good pleasure partly by the word of promise and partly by the sacrament the signes representing to the eyes that which the word doth to the eares beeing also types and certen images of the very same things that are promised in the worde and no other Yea the elements are not generall and confused but particular signes to the seuerall communicants and by the vertues of the Institution for when the faithfull receiue the signes from God by the handes of the Minister it is as much as if God himselfe with his owne mouth should speake vnto them seuerally and by name promise to them remission of sinnes And things said to men particularly doe more affect and more take away doubting then if they were generally spoken to an whole companie Therefore signes of graces are as it were an applying and binding of the promise of saluation to euery particular beleeuer and by this meanes the oftener they are receiued the more they help our infirmitie and confirme our assurance of mercie Againe the sacrament conferres grace in that the signe thereof confirmes faith as a pledge by reason it hath a promise annexed to it For when God commaundes vs to receiue the signes in faith and withall promiseth to the receiuers to giue the thing signified he bindes himselfe as it were in bonde vnto vs to stand to his owne word euen as men binde themselues in obligations putting to their handes and seales so as they cannot go backe And when the signes are thus vsed as pledges that often they greatly increase the grace of God as a token sent from one friend to another renews and confirmes the perswasion of loue These are the two principall waies wherby the sacraments are said to conferre grace namely in respect of their signification and as they are pledges of Gods fauour vnto vs. And the very point here to be considered is in what order and manner they confirme And the manner is this The signes and visible elements affect the senses outward and inward the senses conuay their obiect to the minde the minde directed by the holy Ghost reasoneth on this manner out of the promise annexed to the sacramenâ— He that vseth the elements aright shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright in faith and repentance saith the minde of the beleeuer therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kind of reasoning caused in the minde the argument or proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements beeing signes and pledges of Gods mercy The third difference The Papists teach that in the sacrament by the worke done the very grace of iustification is conferred We say no because a man of yeares must first beleeue and be iustified before he can be a meete partaker of any sacrament And the grace that is conferred is onely the increase of our faith hope sanctification c. Our reasons Reason I. The word preached and the sacrameÌ„ts differ in the maÌ„ner of giuing Christ and his benefits vnto vs because in the word the spirit of God teacheth vs by a voice convaied to the minde by the bodily cares but in the sacraments annexed to the word by certen sensible and bodily signed viewed by the eye Sacraments are nothing but visible words and promises Otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ himselfe saith that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh which he vvas to giue for the life of the vvorld and what can be saide more of the Lords supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are partakers of the bodie blood of Christ in baptisme and Hierome to Edibia that in baptisme vve eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ. If thus much may be saide of baptisme why may it not also be saide of the word preached Againe Hierome vpon Ecclesiastes saith It is profitable to be filled with the bodie
of Christ and drinke his bloode not onely in mysterie but in knovvledge of holy Scripture Now vpon this it followes that seeing the worke done in the word preached conferres not grace neither doth the work don in the sacramēt confer any grace Reason II. Math. 3. II. I baptize you with water to repentance but he that commeth after me is stronger then I he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence it is manifest that grace in the sacrament proceedes not from any action in the sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disioyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of his spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect To this purpose Paul who had saide of the Galatians that he traueled of them beget them by the Gospel saith of himselfe that he is not any thing not onely as he was a man but as he was a faithfull Apostle thereby excluding the whole Euangelicall ministerie whereof the sacrament is a part from the least part of diuine operation or efficacie in conferring of grace Reason III. The blessed Angels nay the very flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe but all this efficacie or vertue is in and from the godhead of the sonne who by meanes of the flesh apprehended by faith deriueth heauenly and spirituall life from himselfe to the members Nowe if there be no efficacie in the flesh of Christ but by reason of the hypotasticall vnion howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediatly Reason IV. Paul Rom. 4. standes much vpon this to proue that iustification by saith is not conferred by the sacraments And from the circumstance of time he gathereth that Abraham was first iustified and then afterward receiue circumcision the signe and seale of this righteousnes Now we knowe that the generall condition of all sacraments is one and the same and that baptisme succeeded circumcision And what can be more plaine then the example of Cornelius Act. 10. who before Peter came vnto him had the commendation of the feare of God and was indued with the spirite of prayer and afterward when Peter by preaching opened more fully the way of the Lord he the rest receiued the holy Ghost And after all this they were baptized Now if they receiued the holy Ghost before baptisme then they receiued remission of sinnes and were iustified before baptisme V. Reason The iudgement of the church Basil. If there be any grace in the water it is not from the nature of the vvater but from THE PRESENCE OF THE SRIRITE Hierome saith Man giues vvater but God giues the holy Ghost Augustine saide Water toucheth the bodie and washeth the heart but he shews his meaning elsewhere There is one vvater saith he of the Sacrament an other of the Spirit the water of the sacrament is visible the water of the Spirit invisible That vvasheth the body AND SIGNIFIETH what is done in the soule By this the soule is purged and sealed Obiect Remission of sinnes regeneration and saluation is ascribed to the sacrament of baptisme Act. 22. 21. Eph. 5. Gal. 3. 27. Tit. 2. Ans. Saluation and remission of sinnes is ascribed to baptisme and the Lords supper as to the word which is the power of God to saluation to all that beleeue and that as they are instruments of the holy Ghost to signifie seale and exhibit to the beleeuing minde the foresaid benefits but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehēded is faith and sacraments are but proppes of faith furthering saluation two waies first because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs yea God giues grace and saluation when we vse them wel so be it we beleeue the word of promise made to the sacrament whereof also they are seales And thus we keepe the middle way neither giuing too much nor too little to the sacraments The XX. point Of sauing faith or the way to life Our consent Conclus I. They teach it to be the propertie of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankind by Christ. Conclus II. They auouch that they beleeue and looke to be saued by Christ and by CHRIST ALONE and by the MEERE MERCY of God in Christ. Conclus III. Thirdly the most learned among thē hold and confesse that the obedience of Christ is imputed vnto them for the satisfaction of the lawe and for their reconciliation with God Conclus IV. They auouch that they put their whole trust and confidence in Christ and in the meere mercy of God for their saluation Conclus V. Lastly they hold that euery man must apply the promise of life euerlasting by Christ vnto himselfe and this they graunte we are bound to doe And in these fiue points doe they and we agree at least in shewe of wordes By the auouching of these 5. Conclusions Papists may easily escape the hands of many magistrats And vnles the mysterie of popish doctrine be well known any common man may easily be deceiued and take such for good protestants that are but popish priests To this ende therefore that we may the better discerne their guile I will shewe wherein they faile in each of their conclusions and wherein they differ from vs. The difference Touching the first conclusion they beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they also beleeue the bookes Apocriphal which antiquitie for many hundred yeares hath excluded from the canō yea they beleeue vnwrittē traditiōs receiued as they say from Councils the writings of the Fathers and the determinations of the Church making them also of equall credit with the written worde of God giuen by inspiration of the spirit Nowe we for our partes dispise not the Apocripha as namely the bookes of the Macchabees Ecclesiasticus and the rest but we reuerence them in all conuenient manner preferring them before any other bookes of men in that they haue bin approued by an vniuersall consent of the Church yet we thinke them not meete to be receiued into the Canon of holy scripture and therefore not to be beleeued but as they are consenting with the written word And for this our doing we haue direction from Athanasius Origen Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea As for vnwritten Traditions they come not within the compasse of our faith neither can they because they come vnto vs by the hāds of men that may deceiue and be deceiued And we hold and beleeue that the right Canon of the books of the old and new Testament containes in it sufficient direction for the Church of God to life euerlasting both for faith an manners Here then is the point of difference that they make the obiect of faith larger then it should be or can be and we keepe our selues to the written word beleeuing nothing to saluation out of
difference We dissent not froÌ„ the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance it selfe but in the damnable abuses thereof which are of two sorts generall and speciall Generall are these which coÌ„cerne repentance wholly coÌ„sidered they are these The first is that they place the beginning of repentance partly in themselues and partly in the holy Ghost or in the power of their naturall freewill being helped by the holy ghost whereas Paul indeede ascribes this worke wholly vnto God 2. Tim. 2. 15. Proouing if God at any time will giue them repentance And men that are not weake but dead in trespasses and sinnes can not do any thing that may further their conuersion though they be helped neuer so no more then dead men in their graues can rise from thence The second abuse is that they take pennance or rather repentance for that publike discipline and order of correction that was vsed against notorious offenders in the open congregation For the scripture sets downe but one repentance and that common to all men without exception and to be practised in euery part of our liues for the necessaâ—ie mortification of sinne whereas open ecclesiasticall correction pertained not to all and euery man within the compasse of the Church but to them alone that gaue any open offence The third abuse is that they make repentance to be not onely a vertue but also a sacrament whereas for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ and vpward it was not reckned among the sacraments yea it seemes that Lumbard was one of the first that called it a sacrament and the schoole-men after him disputed of the matter and forme of this sacrament not able any of them certenly to define what should be the outward element The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacie of repeÌ„tance for they make it a meritorious cause of remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting flat against the word of God Paul saith notably Rom. 4. 24. We are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ which is in Christ Iesus whome God hath sent to be a reconciliation by faith in his blood In these words these formes of speach redemption in Christ reconciliation in his blood by faith freely by grace must be obserued and considered for they shewe plainely that no part of satifaction or redemption is wrought in vs or by vs but out of vs only in the person of Christ. And therefore we esteeme of repentance only as a fruit of faith the effect or efficacie of it is to testifie remission of our sinnes and our reconciliation before God It will be said that remission of sinnes and life enerlasting are promised to repentance Ans. It is not to the worke of repentaÌ„ce but to the person which repenteth and that not for his owne merits or worke of repentance but for the merits of Christ which he applyeth to himselfe by faith And thus are we to vnderstand the promises of the gospel in which workes are mentioned presupposing alwaies in them the reconciliation of the person with God to whome the promise is made Thus we see wherefore we dissent from the Romane Church touching the doctrine of repentance Speciall abuses doe concerne Contrition Confession and Satisfaction The first abuse concerning contrition is that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect They vse now to helpe the matter by a distinction saying that the sorrowe in contrition must be in the highest degree in respect of value and estimation and not in respect of intention Yet the opinion of Adrian was otherwise that in true repentance a man should be grieued according to all his indeauour And the Romane Catechisme saith as much that the sorrowe conceiued of our sinnes must be so great that NONE CAN BE CONCEIVED TO BE GREATER that we must be contrite in the same manner we loue God and that is vvith all our heart and strength in a most VEHEMENT SORROVVE and that the hatred of sinne must be not onely the greatest but also MOST VEHEMENT and perfect so as it may exclude all sloth and slacknes Indeed afterward it followes that true contrition may be effectuall though it be imperfect but how can this stand if they will not onely commend but also prescribe and auouch that contrition must be most perfect and vehememt We therefore onely teach that God requires not so much the measure as the trueth of any grace and that it is a degree of vnfained contrition to be grieued because we cannot be grieued for our sinnes as we should The second abuse is that they ascribe to their contrition the merit of congruitie But this cannot stand with the all-sufficient merite of Christ. And an auncient Conncell saith God inspires into vs first of all the faith and loue of himselfe NO MERITS GOINâ— BFORE that we may faithfully require the sacrament of baptisme after baptisme doe the things that please him And we for our parts hold that God requires contrition at our haÌ„ds not to merit remission of sinnes but that we may acknowledge our owne vnworthines be huÌ„bled in the sight of God distrust all our owne merits further that we may make the more account of the benefits of Christ whereby we are receiued into the fauour of God lastly that we might more carefully auoide all sinnes in time to come whereby so many paines terrors of conscieÌ„ce are procured And we acknowledge no coÌ„trition at all to be meritorious saue that of Christ whereby he was broken for our iniquities The third abuse is that they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell to be good and profitable and to it they applie the saying of the Prophet The feare of God is the beginning of vvisdome But seruile feare of it selfe is the fruite of the lawe which is the ministerie of death and condemnation and consequently it is the way to eternall destruction if God leue men to themselues and if it turne to the good of any it is onely by accident because God in mercie makes it to be an occasion going before of grace to be giueÌ„ otherwise remorse of conscience for sinne is no beginning of repentance or the restrainment of any sinne but rather is that properly the beginning of vnspeakable horrours of conscience and euerlasting death vnlesse God shew mercie And yet this feare of punishment if it be tempered and delaied with other graces gifts of God in holy men it is not vnprofitable in whoÌ„ there is not onely a sorrow for punishment but also and that much more for the offence And such a kinde of feare or sorrow is commanded Malac. 1. 6. If I be a father where is my feare if I be a Lord where is my feare And Chrysostome saith that the feare of hell in the heart of a iust man is a strong man armed against theeues and robbers to driue them from the house And Ambr. saith that Martyrs in the
veniall and not against the lawe but beside the lawe But this which they say is against the petition for a debt that comes by forfiture is against the bond or obligation Nowe euery sinne is a debt causing the forfiture of punishment and therefore is not beside but directly against the lawe 4. In this clause as we forgiue our debters it is taken for granted that we may certenly knowe that we are in loue and charitie with meâ— when wâ— make reconciliation why then may not we knowe certenly that we repent and beleeue and are reconciled to God which all Romane Catholikes denie 5. In the last wordes and lead vs not into temptation we pray not that God should free vs from temptation for it is other whiles good to be tempted Psal. 26. 1. But that we be not left to the malice of Sathan and held captiue of the temptation for here to be bed into temptation and to be deliuered are opposed Now heÌ„ce I gather that he which is the child of God truely iustified and sanctied shall neuer fal wholly and finally from the grace of God and I conclude on this manner That which we aske according to the will of God shall be graunted 1. Ioh. 5. but this the child of God asketh that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father and left captiue in temptation This therefore shal be graunted 6 This clause Amen signifies a speciall faith touching all the former petitions that they shall be graunted and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sinnes which the Romane Church denieth To come to the last place to the Institution of the sacrament of the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. v 23. In which first of all the Reall presence is by many circumstances ouerthrowne Out of the wordes he tooke and brake it is plain that that which Christ took was not his body because he cannot be said with his owne handes to haue taken held and broken himselfe but the very bread Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but This that is bread is my body 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the body Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not theÌ„ really giuen to death 4. The cup is the newe testament by a figure why may not the bread be the body of Christ by a figure also 5. Christ did eate the supper but not himselfe 6. We are bidden to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present 7. Christ bids the bread to be eaten in a remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent 8. If the Popish reall presence be granted then the body blood of Christ are either seuered or ioyned together If seuered then Christ is still crucified If ioyned together then the bread is both the body blood of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood 2 Againe here is condemned the administration of the sacrament vnder one onely kind For the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Math 26. 27. And this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes do this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me v. 25. And no power can rehearse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church These fewe lines as also the former treatise I offer to the vewe and reeding of them that fauour the Romane religion willing them with patience to consider this one thing that their religion if it were Catholike and Apostolike as they pretend it could not be contrarie so much as in one point to the groundes of all Catechismes that haue beene vsed in all Churches confessing the name of Christ euer since the Apostles daies And whereas it crosseth the said grounds in sundrie points of doctrine as I haue prooued it is a plaine argument that the present Romane religion is degenerate I write not this dispising or hating their persoÌ„s for their religion but wishing vnfainedly their conuersion in this world and their saluation in the world to come FINIS To the Reader Pag. 235. l. 20. I say that Christ obaied the law for him selfe not because he did by his obedience merit his own glorie but because he was to be a perfect and pure high priest not onely in nature but also in life and as he was a creature he was to be conformable to the law Faults to be amended thus Pag. 1. l. 1. for 3. read 4. p. 9. l. 2. read Apostolicke p. 19. l. 17. read formeth and l. 23. read indeauour p. 39. l. last read too p. 48. l. 18. read or p. 55. l. 2. read holy p. 126. l. 2. read be p. 138. l. 13. read pertaining p. 142. l. 23. read matters p. 161. l. 5. read containe and l. last read chastitie p. 168. l. 5. read persecution p. 187. l. 7. read men p. 192. l. last read cannot p. 222. l. 5. read right p. 260. l. 9. read particular p. 265. l. 14. read I thinke p. 284. l. 2. read deputies Faults escaped in the places of Scripture Pag. 1. v. 3. pro 4. p. 4. c. 18. pro 17. p. 6. c. 18. pro 17. p. 7. v. 18. pro 8. p. 19. v. 5. pro 7. p. 22. v 2. pro 1. p. 43. v. 20. pro 28 29. p. 50. v. 21. pro 22. p. 52. v. 36. pro 63. p 75. v. 13. pro 12. p. 127. v. 12. pro 21. p. 135. v. 20. pro 8. p. 139. c. 8. v. 1. pro c. 1. v. 8. p. 164. v. 38. pro 37. p. 227. v. 18. pro 29. o Epist. 17. Eâ—stâ— Paula ad Marcellam Serm. in CaÌ„t. 33. Epist. 125. C. in nomine dist 23. referente Iuello 2 Thess. 2. d ExameÌ„ pacâ—â—qâ—â— imprimè de nou vâ—â—u a Caen 1590. d Hypogn 3. Ser. 15. de verb. Apost de grat â— arbitr 1. c Posse velle actu velle recipere c August de correp grat c. 12. d Epist. 105. e Fulgent lib. Prad f Bernard l. de libâ—ro arbitrio e Aug. contra Iul. l. 5. cap. 3. c ad Valer. lib. 1. c. 24. d Lib. 2. contra Iul. e Tract 42. in Ioh. c quoadimputationem d quoad exâ—â—tiam b contra Iuâ— l. 6. c. 6. e Bellar. l. 3. pag. 1129. cl Gal. 3. 14. Mark 11. 24. 1. Ioh. 5. 14. Ioh. 6. â—6 c de verbis Dei serm 28. d Tract 5. epist. Ioh. Bellar. dâ— Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 7. d Iren. lib. 5. cap. 17. Chrysostom homil ad Neoph. e namely for himself f as any one starre partakes in the whole light of the Sunne with the rest of the starres so farforth as the said light makes it to shine e we haue posse velle he had no more but posse si vellet he wanted velle quod posset August de corrept grat cap. 11. b de verbis Dei serm 7. c
eate the bread and drinke the wine that he might with his own person consecrate his last supper as he had consecrated baptisme before And if these wordes should be properly vnderstood euery man must be a manslaier in his eating of Christ. Lastly by meanes of popish reall presence it comes to passe that our bodies should be nourished by naked qualities without any substance which in all philosophie is false and erronious To helpe this the like absurdities some Papists make nine wonders in the sacrament The first that Christs bodie is in the Eucharist in as large a quantitie as he was upon the crosse and is now in heauen and yet exceedes not the quantitie of the bread The second that there be accidents without a subiect The third that bread is turned into the bodie of Christ and yet is not the matter of the bodie nor resolued to nothing The fourth that the body increaseth not by consecration of many hosts and is not diminished by often receiuing The fifth that the bodie of Christ is vnder many consecrated hosts The sixt that when the host is diuided the bodie of Christ is not diuided but vnder euery part thereof is vvhole Christ. The seauenth that when the priest holds the host in his hand the bodie of Christ is not felt by it selfe nor seene but the formes of bread and vvine The eight that vvhen the formes of bread and wine cease the bodie and bloode of Christ ceaseth also to be there The ninth that the accidents of bread and wine haue the same effects vvith the bread and vvine it selfe vvhich are to nourish and fill On this manner it shall be easie for any man to defend the most absurd opinion that is or can be if he may haue libertie to answer the arguments alledged to the contrary by wonders To conclude seeing there is a reall communion in the sacrament betweene Christ and euery beleeuing heart our dutie therefore is to bestow our hearts on Christ endeauouring to loue him and to reioyce in him and to long after him aboue all things all our affiance must be in him with him wee beeing nowe on earth must haue our conuersation in heauen And this is the true reall presence which the auncient Church of God hath commended vnto vs for in all these liturgies these wordes were vsed and are yet extant in the popish masse Lift vp your hearts we lift them vp vnto the Lord. By which wordes the communicants were admonished to direct their mindes and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God Thus saide Augustine If vve celebrate the ascension of the Lord vvith deuotion let vs ascend vvith him and lift vp our hearts Againe they vvhich are alreadie risen with Christ in faith and hope are inuited to the great table of heauen to the table of Angels VVHERE IS THE BREAD The eleuenth point Of the sacrifice in the Lords Supper which the Papists call the sacrifice of the Masse Touching this point first I will set downe what must be vnderstoode by the name Sacrifice A sacrifice is taken properly or improperly Properly it is a sacred or solemne action in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vnto God for this end to please and honour him thereby Thus al the sacrifices of the old testament and the oblation of Christ vpon the crosse in the new Testament are sacrifices Improperly that is onely by the way of resemblance the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices And in handling this question I vnderstande a sacrifice both properly and improperly by way of resemblance Our consent Our consent I propound in two conclusions Conclus I. That the supper of the Lord is a sacrifice and may truly be so called as it hath bin in former ages that in three respects I. Because it is a memoriall of the reall sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and containes withall a thanksgiuing to God for the same which thanksgiuing is the sacrifice and calves of our lips Hebr. 13. 15. II. Because euery communicant doth there present himselfe bodie and soule a liuing holy and acceptable sacrifice vnto God For as in this sacrament God giues vnto vs Christ with his benefits so we answerable giue vp our selues vnto God as seruants to walk in the practise of all dutifull obedience III. It is called a sacrifice in respect of that which was ioyned with the sacrament namely the Almes giuen to the poore as a testimonie of our thankefulnes vnto God And in this regard also the ancient Fathers haue called the sacrament an vnbloodie sacrifice and the table an altar the ministers priests and the whole action an oblation not to God but to the congregation not by the priest alone but by the people A Canon of a certaine Council saith We decree that euery Lords day the oblation of the altar be offered of euery man and woman both for bread and wine And Augustine saith that vvomen offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord that it might be offered by the priest to God And vsually in ancient writers the communion of the whole bodie of the congregation is called the sacrifice or oblation Conclus II. That the very bodie of Christ is offered in the Lordes Supper For as we take the bread to be the bodie of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ vpon the crosse And thus the fathers haue tearmed the Eucharist an immolation of Christ because it is a cōmemoration of his sacrifice vpon the crosse Aug. Epist. 23. Neither doth he lie which saith Christ was offered For if sacraments had not the resemblāce of things whereof they are sacraments they should in no vvise be sacraments but from a resemblance they often take their names Againe Christ is sacrificed in the last supper in regard of the faith of the cōmmunicants which makes a thing past and done as present Augustine saith When we beleeue in Christ he is offered for vs daily And Christ is then slaine for euery one vvhen he beleeues that he is slaine for him Ambrose saith Christ is sacrificed daily in the mindes of beleeuers as vpon an altar Hierome saith He is alwaies offered to the beleeuers II. The difference They make the Eucharist to be a reall externall or bodily sacrifice offered vnto God holding and teaching that the minister is a priest properly and that in this sacrament he offers Christs bodie and blood to God the father really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine We acknowledge no reall outward or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sinnes but onely Christs oblation on the crosse once offered Here is the maine difference betweene vs touching this point and it is of that waight and moment that they stiffely maintaining their opinion as they doe can be no Church of God For this point raseth the