Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	body_n	bread_n	sacramental_a	3,200	5	12.1852	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50622	Papimus Lucifugus, or, A faithfull copie of the papers exchanged betwixt Mr. Iohn Menzeis, Professor of Divinity in the Marischal-Colledge of Aberdene, and Mr. Francis Demster Iesuit, otherwise sirnamed Rin or Logan wherein the Iesuit declines to have the truth of religion examined, either by Scripture or antiquity, though frequently appealed thereunto : as also, sundry of the chief points of the popish religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and antiquity, yea, to the ancient Romish-Church : to all which is premised in the dedication, a true narration of a verbal conference with the same Iesuit.	Menzeis, John, 1624-1684.; Dempster, Francis.	1668 (1668)	Wing M1725; ESTC R2395	219,186	308

adde Doctor Strang de interpretatione perfectione Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 8. Where you might have found a full account of the right means of interpreting Scripture and of the right way of useing these means and consequently of the difference betwixt them that used them rightly and others who doe not use them duely Fourthly I resolved a Querie of yours whether without the preaching of the Word the means of interpretation may be used and the true sense of Scripture attained But of all these things in your reply like a perfect Fuge bellum you take no more notice then to asperse them as long Digressions about the rules of interpreting seripture A rare and compendious confutation I confesse But if I did extravague in these discourses was it not in following such a vagrant guide as you Doe you not play the Devil first to temp me to thse D. gressions and then to accuse me for them Yea doe you not show your self a silly fool to wound your self through my sides For if it be an impertinent Digression for me to answere your Queries must you not be an impertinent fool to propound them But perhaps you thought it your wisdome rather to come off with this reflexion of folly then to adventure to graple with these things which would prove too hard for you After you had waved all these particulars lest you should seeme to say nothing at all to that Section you fall upon a word which I spake in answere to another of your judicious Queries Viz. Whether these of a false Religion might duely use al the means of interpretatiō To which I answered De jure they ought to use them though De facto and in sensu composito they did not use them which I confirmed by some Scripturs To confute this my answere What say you if they of a false Religion say as much of as And who questions but they may say it Our lips are our own say the worst of men And who is Lord over us Psal 12 verse 4. Have we not sufficient experience of the licentious tongues of your Romanists doth it therefore follow that you doe duely use the means of interpretation and not we Si accusare sufficiat quis innocens We doe not desire any man to receive our expositions because we affirme them to be true nor are we so brutish as to suffer your Romish interpretations to be obtruded upō us on your bare affirmatiō If you would come downe out of the clouds and not insist stil on generals you should find it is upon convinceing grounds from the series of the context other Scripturs the Analogie of faith c. That we reject your Romish senses and embrace these which are approved by PROTESTANTS As for Example there is a great Controversie betwixt you and us touching the sense of these words of Christ Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body You will have them to be understood in A proper and lueral sense and by the Priests pronounceing or rather whispering them in Latine the Body of Christ to be substituted under the Accidents of bread We on the contratie affirme the sense of these words as is usual in Sacramental speaches to be Figurative the Bread being called the Body of Christ because it is a Sacramental figne and exhibitive Symbol of his Body You will find Armies of arguments brought by our Divines particularly By Whitaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. To justifie our sense and to confute yours I shall at the time give you but a hint of this one According to your received Romisn glosse these words of Christ should be inexplicable false and imply a manifest contradiction therefore you Romish glosse must surely be false The Sequel is clear The Antecedent I prove And first I say these words of Christ should be inexplicable Straine your wit and squeeze your Authors to tell me what Hoc or the pronowne This can signifie Surely it can neither signify bread nor the Accidents of bread else the Proposition were not proper For al know that one Disparat cannot be properly predicated of another Nor can it signify The Body of Christ For according to you Christs Body is not there until al the Words be finished But the pronowne This doth clearly demonstrat something then present when it was spoken What therefore remains but that with other your Authors you betake your self to the desperat refuge of your Individun̄ vagum Eus in confuso Contentum sub speciebus and what is that but something you know not what Was Christs understanding clouded with such confusion that he knew not what he meant when he said This But besides when ever any thing is truely predicated of an Individuum vagum though it be disjunctivly enunciated of many things yet it is determinatly verified of some one thing and therefor suppose the pronown Hoc or This were taken as an Individuu●● vagum yet it must signifie something then present identificated with The Body of Jesus But that is impossible according to you seeing Christs Body is not present untill all the words be uttered More of the Vertigo of your authors touching this particular may be seen in the forementiond writers But I not onely said that this Proposition of Christ according to your Romish glosse would be Inexplicable but also False and Imply a contradiction For it implyes a manifest contradiction that a true affirmative proposition De praesenti should produce its object But this proposition which must be true as being Christs and which all see to be affirmative De praesenti according to your Romish glosse doth produce its object For according to you it substitutes the Body of Christ under the accidents of bread either by Adduction or Reproduction Ergo this proposition according to your Romish glosse implyes a manifest Contradiction The Major is clear because if a true proposition De praesenti should produce its object then in the Iustant of nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true and not true True ex hypothesi for it is supposed to be a true proposition Not true because not conforme to its object For it affirmes its object to be De praesenti yet in that Instant of nature the object is not for it is the instant of Priority before the object And consequently if this proposition This is my Body doe substitute Christs Body under the accidents of bread His Body should be under these accidents before it be under them For it should be under them in the first Instant of nature wherein this proposition is conceived else the proposition should be false And yet it should not be under them because the proposition as the productive cause of the presence of Christ must be presupposed for One instant of nature before its effect But what speake I of Instants of nature Is it not at least requited to the truth of an Affirmative proposition de

praesenti that the object thereof doe exist in that article of time wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced But according to you Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced for according to you Christs Body is not in the Sacrament till all the Words be ended Therefore the proposition according to your Glosse cannot be true And yet it must be true as being the word of him who is truth it self And consequently it must be Ture and Not True Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigma's but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth in so much that what one of them affirmes the other confutes As these hints prove the falshood of your Romish glosse so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS is manifest from the Series of the context For if by the pronowne Hoc or This Christ meaned the bread then the sense of the proposition must be figurative But by the pronowne This he surely understood the bread Ergo c. The Major is clear because disparats cannot be predicated of one another but Figuratively The Minor is easily proven Because what he tooke blessed and did breake of that he said This is my Body as is clear from the Series of the context But undoubtedly he tooke blessed and brake the bread therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronowne This. And consequently the sense must be Figurative Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS Said not Austin Contra Adimantum cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui That is when he gave the signe and figura of his Body And long before him Tertullian Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem cap. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Corpus suum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo ad est figura Corporis mei Could Calvin or Beza have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christs proposition to be Figurative I know your two Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron have scrued up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation But Spalatensis Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles cap. 6. à num 22. Ad numerum 164. not to mention other Authors hath copiously examined and fully vindicated all these testimonies and clearly demonstrated that the Church in the first Eight Centuries was in the same judgement as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Reformed Churches By this touch the judicious Reader may discerne whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds The like might be shewed if our expositions and yours were compared of other much tossed Scripturs such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18 Upon this rock I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of truth Iob. 21.16 Feed my sheep c. And this were the most compendions way to try whether your expositiō or ours were the more genuine This also was the advice of Augustine of old Lib. 3. Contra Maximin Arianum cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Ar●minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illus detineris Seripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque proprys sed utrisque commun●bus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratic cum ratione concertes It is true throogh prejudice interest or blindnes men may oppose the most luculent truth after all these meanes But then the whole defect is as we have often advertised you Ex parts subjecti on the part of the subject And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scripturs perspicuity in al things necessarie to Salvation In your next section as you declined a tryal by Scripture so likewise you shun to have your Religion tryed by Antiquity and you pretend two noble shifts The first is that according to us al these in the first three Centuries were fallible and therefore though our Religion were conforme to theirs it will not follow that it is the True Religion I doubt if ever any had to doe with such a shamelesse tergiversing fellow For First suppose it were true that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion and I admit their Religion as to all essentials to be a Test whether ours be true or not with what face can you decline it Know you not that Maxim of Law Testem quem quis inducit pre se tenetur recipere contrase Secondly how could you say That we affirme that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible seeing in these centuries were the Apostles whome we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine But Thirdly by saying That we mantains that all in these ages even excepting the Apostles and pen-men of holy writ were fallible and subject to errors you discover your self to be either grosly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS or to be a base scurvie sophister which will appeare by distinguishing two words in your assertion For First the particle All may be taken either Collectively or Distributively And Secondly Errors of Religion are of two sorts Some in points fundamental and essential some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity This being premised I propose this Distinction If you meane that we mantaine that All in these ages Collectively taken that is the whole Catholick Church may erre in Fundamentals and Essentials it is a most absurd falshood for PROTESTANTS mantaine no such thing We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church Isa 59. ver 21. Matth. 28 ver 20. c. But if the whole Catholick Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age then the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth It is True sundrie of your Writers either through Ignorance or through their calumniating Genius have charged this on PROTESTANTS that they mantaine that the Church may utterly fail But this is so impudent a slander that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants cap. 13. Notandum sayeth he Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere nam Calvinus cateri Heretici id concedunt If therefore this be your meaning you charge PROTESTANTS falsly But if you onely meane that All in these ages taken Distributively remember that now we speake not of Apostles or of pen-mē of holy writ or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetick spirit might erre in things not Fundamental this is granted Yet this hinders not but that the truth of our Religion may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church For though every one Distributively taken may erre in Integrals yet seeing Al

of the nature of supernaturall faith for the assent one gives to the law exponed by a Judge is not a supreame assent and so does not require in him that beleeves a knowledge of any infallible assistance and yet according to the degree of the firmnes of this assent he must have a knowledge of a correspondent ability in the Judge for otherwise he might beleive with as great firmnes another man giving the sense of that law though he knew that he hade little or no skill of law In the end of your Paper yow take the Person of a puffed up Goliah complaining of the weakenesse of yowr adversarie as an that brings nothing but childish nonsense against yow and protests that yow will altogether leaze this stage except there be substitute againes yow some 〈◊〉 qualified Antagonist that yow may with some reputation wrestle with him But this your braging will be reputed not so much an effect of pride as of sillinesse and pusillanimitie that seeing how you cannot longer subsist having voyded all your Magazin and spent all your powder you would use braging words as a meane to save your reputation in this retreat But though by this way you provided so and so for your own reputation how doe you provide for the reputation of your Religion that you leave with this blot and aspersion that there can be showen no difference betwixt it and a false Religion and so leaves it in the same condition with a man whose honestie being called in question and much pleaded for did at last obtaine a favourable sentence whereby he was judictallie declared to be such an honest man that there was no difference betwixt him and a knave July 6. 1666. Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits sixth Paper which was not delivered to him till July 9. An Answere to the Jesuits sixth Lying and Railing Paper I Have oft heard but now I find that Fides Jesuitice est fides Punica Who but a Devil or a Jesuit would have had the Impudencie to say that I had Disowned and recanted all the Grounds which hitherto I had brought for the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS as you have been bold to affirme both in the Tiole and afterwards in the body of this your sixth Paper When I read this I remembred that word of Austin lib. 1. Contra Iulianum cap. 5. Mirum est si in facie hominis tantum intervallum sit inter frontem et linguam ut frons non comprimat linguam It is strange said he that there should be such a distance betwixt the front of a man and his mouth that the shame of his forehead should not represse the impudencie of his tongue But there is a truth in that saying of Seneca Contra Sycophantarum morsum non est remedium Produce if you can my own words wherein I have resiled from one ground that ever I brought let be from all Would ye not have done this to verfie such an ignominious challenge had ye not been conscious to your self of Impudent lying I remember indeed that in my last Paper I did discover your Roguery in representing some grounds as distinct which are not distinct to make your Readers imagine I had made such a foollish muster of grounds as you draw up But never did I passe from any of them I know likewise that I did convict you of a base prevarication in substituting that as a third ground assigned by me which was never given by me as a ground of our Religion at all but as a reason as is obvious to any of the weakest capacity why I was not tyed at this time to have given you any grounds albeit Ex superabundanti I had condescended to give you some Yet in stead of clearing your self of that prevarication or deprecating pardon for it you adde a grosser saying that I had recanted all the grounds which I had formerly given Doe you not by such dealing stigmatize your self to be as Aegesippus said of Pilat lib. 2. De exeidio Hieros cap. 5. Viruns nequam parvs facientem mendacium Henceforth therefore you are required when you goe about to examine any thing in my Papers to propose it in my own termes else I must desire the Reader to looke upon it as the forgery of a Sycephant This your horrid prevarication will I beleeve derogat faith from the rest of your reproaches But I confesse you have all the advantages of an effronted Calumniator since like a man of prostitute reputation you neither concerne your self in proving the accusations which you bring against your Adversary nor in answering these recriminations which are retorted upon you Yet seeing the lines which I have sent to you may bid a defyance to you or any Momus or Zoilus I shall make no other Reply to these virulent and groundlesse reproaches wherewith this your last Paper is stuffed but what Michael the Arch-Angel did to the Devill Jud. verse 9. Increpet te Dominus You must againe be remembred for I find you wilfully forgetfull of your duety that neither as yet in this sixth Paper have you attempted either to clear your self of the fallacies and prevarications whereof I had in former Papers convicted you or to expede your self from the contradictions wherein I have demonstrated you to be inextricably involved or to supplie your beastlie omissions and tergiversations so often charged upon you So noble a Champion are you for this desperate cause which you have undertaken You repeat now againe the sixth time acording to your Cacoethes the old threed bare Paralogisme and you have the modestie to accuse me of ignorance because I cannot so far brutifie my reason as to acknowledge your three Negatives to be three Affirmatives albeit you have not been able either by all your Summulistick Art or Iesuitick sophistrie to show how you could expresse them more negatively in our language had you intended to make them formall Negations But who needs wonder that Romanists have the confidence to obtrude on Readers negations for affirmations seeing they would impose upon the World contrarie to faith sense and luculent reason the adoring of a vafer cake for the reall living and glorious Bodie of our Saviour In my last because I intended not to have exchanged any more Papers with you I thought good to give you a more Spe●isick character of your ludicrous Syllogisme which you have been hithertoo licking as the Beare doth her deformed whelp but have not as yet been able to reduce it to any forme I shew therefore that every proposition in it both Major Minor and Conclusion might justly be questioned But this you are pleased to wave accoring to your customarie tergiversing humor thinking it enough to jeer this animadversion as a New Light There is no such Mysterie I confesse in your Syllogisme that it required much studie to discover the trespasses of it Onely your importunity tempted me to lay open more of the nakednesse of this your Idol then

As for Satisfactions in your Romish sense they are greatly Injurious to the compleat satisfaction of JESUS CHRIST whose Blood cleanseth us from all our sinnes 1. John 1.7 Hence was that of Ambrose on Luke 22. speaking of Peters mourning for his denyall lachrymas ejus lego satisfactionem non lego I read of his teares but not of his satisfaction And besides your Satisfactions are ordinarly performed according to your present Romish discipline after absolution and so cannot belong to the essence of this pretended sacrament This made Petrus de Osma as your Cardinal de Lugo reports sect cit num 42. to assert that satisfaction should be ended before absolution But for that his assertion as Lugo restifies your Pope Sixtus the fourth issued forth a Bull against him Yet they who have any tolerable knowledge of the Ancient discipline cannot but know that the disciplinary satisfactions then used which were vastly different from your Romish satisfactions at this day were ordinarly closed before absolution except it were in the case of sickenesse when they despaired of the persons recovery as Bellarmine himself is constrained to acknowledge lib. 4. de paenit cap. 5. But for a larger Confirmation of this I shal remit you to Spal lib. 5. de Repub. Eccles cap. 7. num 49. c. And cap. 8. num 10.11 c. Have you not here a new specimen of your Romish Innovations As to your pretended Sacrament of Marriage you may first take another view of your intestine Debates how you are divyded among your selves concerning the matter forme and minister thereof Victorellus in his additions to Tolet lib. 7. de instruct sacerdot cap. 6. m●sters up your Authors into foure distinct parties and opinions Aegidius Conink tom 2. de sacram disp 24. dub 3. distribures them into six sundry classes Vasq tom 4. in 3. part tract de matrimonii sacram disp 3. ca●p 1.2.3.4.5 numbers no lesse then nine different Sects among you as to this one particular Is this your Papal unity whereof you use to glory Neither can you allege that this is only a School-nicety about which you are thus broken Are not your Sacraments points of faith with you And doe you not all acknowledge that there is nothing more essential to Sacraments then the matter and forme thereof When therefore your greatest Rabbi's are so divyded among themselves that what one affirmes another confutes is it not a strong presumption that there is no true assignable matter and forme of this pretended Sacrament consequently that there is no proper Sacrament of Marriage at all Neither are your privat Doctors only at a losse in this point but also your Infallible Oracles I meane your Popes and Councils For your Pope Eugenius the fourth in Decreto ad instructionem Armenorum which is reckoned by your Romanists as a Decree of the Council of Florence takes upon him to determine the matter and forme of all the rest of your pretended Sacraments But when he comes to this of matrimony there is nothing but deep silence as to the matter and forme thereof Hence your famous Bishop of the Canary's Melchior Canus lib. 8. loc com cap. 5. professes concerning your Romish Divines In materia sayeth he forma hujus sacramenti statuenda adeo sunt inconstantes varii adeo incerti ambigui ut ineptus futurus sit qui in tanta illorum varietate discrepantia rem aliquam certam constantem exploratam conctur efficere That is Romish Divines are so uncertaine unconstant and divided among themselves concerning the matter and forme of Matrimonie that in Melchior Canus his judgement they are fooles who would attempt to determine any thing certainly therein And among other reasons of this his assertion he brings that which I have been hinting at Concilium certè Florentinum sayeth he de materia forma ministro matrimonti praestitit nihil Id quod sine dubio faceret cum hoc in caeteris omnibus Ecclesiae Sacramentis fecisset si de its rebus videret quippiam esse à Theologis in schola definitum The sense hereof is The Council of Florence hath determined nothing concerning the matter and forme or minister of the Sacrament of Matrimonie which the Council would not have neglected having passed sentence concerning the matter and forme of other Sacraments but that they saw nothing concluded among Divines concerning this matter Secondly I might here give an account how weakly yea how ludibriously your chief Champion Bellarmine behaves himself in this matter For lib. 1. de matrimonii sacramento cap. 6. he distinguisheth two states of the Sacrament of Marriage one when it is in fieri in doeing another when it is in facto done taking for granted that the Sacrament of Marriage continues after it is solem●ized as long as the married couple doe live This being premised he affirmes that while this pretended Sacrament is in fieri or in doing the matter and forme thereof consists in the Words whereby the Parties doe expresse their mutual consent and that the parties themselves are the ministers who clebrat this Sacrament And if you ask how the Words of the married couple can be both the matter and forme it is answered the expression as first uttered by one of the Parties is the matter and as afterwards uttered by the other Party is the forme So Victorellus a famous Romish Doctor in his Additions to Tolet de instruct sacerdot lib. 7. cap. 6. expounds your Cardinals opinion for I confesse his words as to this have need of a commentary But if you speake of the Sacrament in facto or after it is done then sayeth Bellarmine the Bodyes or Persons of the Married couple are the matter not only circa quam about which the Sacrament is conversant but also ex qua or the visible signe which intrinsecally constitutes the ●●crament and in this case he makes the forme to consist in the words of the Parties and so still he concludes the Parties to be the Ministers of this Sacrament Thus your Cardinal But ought he not to have brought some Arguments to confirme his assertions especially the point being so much controverted Is his teste me ipso confirmatiō enough● Must not the doctrin be very absurd for which so skilled a sophister could not devise one paralogism Indeed in his next cap. he is very fervēt in impugning Melchior Canus opiniō but in cap. 6. wher he lays down his own opinion be brings not one Argumēt to confirm it It is easier I confess for Sophisters to impugne their Neighbours fancie then solidly to confirme their own Are not all Bellarmins notions as to this particular confuted by his own fellow Jesuits though for reverence to his Eminency suppresso nomine Is not the first rejected by Vasquez disp cit cap. 2. num 9. 10. with a Nunqam mihi placuit I never loved sayeth Vasquez that opinion which made the matter of this Sacrament the expression of consent as given first

by one of the Parties and the forme the like expression as afterwards given by the other Partie for then sayeth Vasquez if both should signify their consent at once there should be a Sacrament without either matter or forme The other notion of making the Bodies of the Parties the materia ex qua is zealously confuted by Coninck dub cit num 31. as repugnant to the nature of all contracts and he showes that the Bodies of the Parties may well be the materia circa quam but cannot be the materia ex qua or that which constitutes the contract Yea as he goes on to confute this Whimsy he distroyes the foundation of all Bellarmines discourse concerning the two states of Matrimonie as being repugnant to the commone opinione of your own Divines qui communiter docent omnia sacramenta excepta Eucharistia consistere in actione transeunte That all sacraments except the eucharist doe consist in a transient action and that they doe not endure but in the time of the celebration Beside these impugnations from his own fellow Jesuits let me but desire sober Persons to consider if it be probable that in a Sacrament the visible signe the Persons receiving and the Minister of the Sacrament shall be one and the same thing Yet this must be it the Persons married be both the matter of the Sacrament and also the minister as Bellarmine affirmes Or can their be a parallel found where that which was both the matter and forme of a Sacrament in one instant becomes only the forme in the next The words of the Parties according to Bellarmine are both matter and forme when it is in fieri and only the forme in facto Doth not Bellarmins dreames make of Marriage two Sacraments the one in fieri and the other in facto differing specifically in their essentials For the Bodies of the Parties which are made the matter in facto are specifically distinct from the words which were the matter in fieri Is there not here a Mysterie feigned in Marriage beyond what you Romanists fancie in the Eucharist For though you imagine the Sacrament of the Eucharist to continue extra usum yet you doe not diversifie the matter and the forme of the Sacrament But here Bellarmine would make a new transmutation I had almost said Transubstantiation of that which was both Matter and Forme into the Forme alone and of that which was only materia circa quam into the materia ex qua I am irked to insist further in the refutation of this reasonlesse Romantick fancie Yet I cannot let passe Aegidius Coninck's notion whereby he thinks to escape the rocks upon which other of his fellowes have split He therefore asserts that the words or signes whereby the Parties doe expresse their mutuall consent to be both Matter and Forme yet not as Victorellus expounded Bellarmins meaning But sayeth he the words of the Parties may be conceived either as a mutual tradition of the Parties to one another thus they are the matter of the Sacrament or as they are a mutual acceptation of the tradition made one by another and thus they are the forme This notion I finde likewise improven by divers others Becan Bonae Spei c. And perhaps some favorite of Bellarmins would in this sense expound his affirming the words of the Parties whereby they expresse their mutual consent to be the matter of the Sacrament in fieri But grant he had meant so yet it would advantage him nothing for this likewise is another cobweb of a Jesuits braine For a proper Sacrament as I held out before must be a substantial signe instituted by GOD since the Incarnation and recorded in the Gospel c. Now can words of the Parties in what ever notion they be taken be visible signes Or are they substantial signes Or such signes as may be fitly termed Elements Were the words of the Parties instituted by GOD in the Gospel and recorded there to be both Matter and Forme of this Sacrament Let all your Jesuits try there Acumen in produceing such an Institution from the Gospell If they cannot then sure Matrimony is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the LORDS-Supper whose matter and forme can be shewed from the Gospell which is all that PTOTESTANTS doe affirme Had there been any solid stuffe among you would we not have found it in these your chief Champions But the man I find among you dealing most ingenuously is your great School-man Durand in 4. sent dist 26. quaest 3. num 15. where he positively sayes Matrimonium non esse Sacramentum stricte proprie dictum sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis or That Marriage is not a Sacrament strictly and properly so called as other Sacraments of the Gospel are This was plaine truth but because it savoured so much of that which you call PROTESTANCY or Calvinisme therefore your Cardinal Tolet lib. 7. de Instruct. Sacerdot cap. 5. num 1. stigmatizeth this ductrine of Durand as hereticall Is this the best entertainment of plaine truth among you Iesuits when it doth not sute with your Romish interest But Thirdly Sacraments are peculiar to the Church and these of which we debate are peculiar to the Gospel-Church But Marri●ge is among Heathens and was of old in the Iewish Church If you say that Marriage in the Gospel-Church is only a Sacrament and not without it It will concerne you to prove that assertion and particularly to shew how Marriage in the Gospel-Church is a Sacrament and yet was not one in the Iewish Church Are you not here againe piteously broken among your selves Some as Alphonsus à Castro adversus haeres lib. 11. lit nuptiae hares 3. and others mantaining that Marriage was instituted as a Sacrament from the beginning of the World and if so then it is no proper Gospel-Sacrament others againe affirming that Marriage was only instituted as a Sacrament under the Gospell But they could never produce to this day a solid ground for that Sacramental institution under the Gospel But of this and many other considera●●e breaches among your selves concerning your pretended Sacrament of Marriage I leave you to receive information from our learned Country man Doctor IOHN FORBES in his Instruct. historico-theol lib. 9. cap. 8. § 30. c. But 〈◊〉 o● but take some notice of the absurd and impious differences which your Authors make betwixt Marriage as in the Gospel-Church and Marriage not only as among Heathens and Infidels but also as it was of old in the Iewish Church thereby to advance Marriage now under the Gospel to the dignity of a Sacrament Cardinal Tolet lib. 7. de instruct Sacerdot cap. 5. num 2. mentions three differences betwixt them viz First That Marriage in the Christian Church is a Sacrament not so among either Iewes or Heathens But all see that to be a begging of the question therefore I let it goe Secondly That Marriage in the Gospel Church conferrs grace ex opere operato And Thirdly That in

the Gospel Church actus conjugalis est meritorius the conjugal act They who are acquaint with your Iesuit Dialect will understand his meaning I am ashamed to make it plainer Is meritorious not so among Heathens or ancient Iewes These things the Iesuit boldly asserts but doth not once offer a probation for them They might be solidly confuted but that I doubt I be alreadie guilty of too too much prolixity by all the Arguments which our Divines bring against your opus operatum in the general and against your doctrine of Merite all which hold a Fortiori in this particular Hither if in any case I may apply that saying O Spes fallaces Meritis confidere vanis I shall only desire you if you dare owne these impious positions of your fellow Iesuit to try how you can bring any shadow of reason why Marriage doth conferre grace ex opere operato Or why conjugal acts are meritorious now among Christians and not of old among believing Iewes Are Christians now in a state of Grace so were believing Iewes Have Christians now a respect to the ends why Marriage was instituted so had believing Iewes Where then is the difference as to the specifick nature of the ordinance then now But Fourthly If Marriage be a proper Gospel Sacrament how are your Priests interdyted from it Doth one Sarcrament render persons incapable of another How did Siricius and Innocent the first Bishops of Rome passe such an impious glosse if the Deeretals ascribed to them be genuin upon that text Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot please GOD As if persons in a married estate could not please GOD because they are in the flesh If this glosse were true marriage were so farre from confering grace Ex opere operato and conjugall acts so farre from being meritorious that they should rather put a person in a state of enmity against GOD which to affirme sayes the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.1.3 Were a doctrine of Devils Fifthly how can it be made out that Marriage is appointed of GOD as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace or promises of Salvation Doth not your own Cassander assirme that your Master of sentences Lombard denyeth Marriage to conferre Grace which you Romanists require as necessary to the nature of a proper Gospell Sacrament Sixthly and Lastly doth not your great Cajetan teach that from Eph. 5.32 Which yet is the only Scripture that can be pretended to favour your Sacrament of Marriage It cannot be solidly concluded that Marriage is a propper Sacrament Non habes sayeth Ca●etan on the place ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo conjugium esse Sacramentum But of this point I suppose enough Shall I here give you a touch of your extreme Unction And First though your Councill of Trent have defined Sess 7. can 1. That every Sacrament of the New Testament was instituted by Christ himself yet many of your chief Doctors have denyed that extreme Unction was instituted by Christ such as Hugo de sancto victore Lombard Bonaventure Alensis Alt●siodorensis as is restified by your Jesuit Suarez tom 4. in 3 part disp 39. sect 2. num 1. Consequently if that opinion of these your great Doctors hold Extreme unction can be no proper Sacr●ment of the New Testament But Secondly where have you warrant from the Scripture that the matter of this Sacrament must be Oyle O●ive con●ecrated by a Bishop Or that seven parts of the body should be anointed therewith viz. Eyes Ears Nose Mouth Hands Feet and Reins Or that the Forme of this Sacrament should be these words which you use viz. Per istam unctionem suum piissim●m misericord●●m indulgeat tibi Dominus quicquid deliquishi●per visium c. All which are determined by your Pope Eugeni●●s the fourth in that alleged Decret of the Councill of Florence for the instruction of the Armenians Or that this Unction as so administrated is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and perpetually to endure in the Christian Church If you essay to prove all these you may find it a difficult work Thirdly might I not here give an account of your altercations among your selves concerning this pretended Sacrament as whether it be necessary to this Sacrament that the Oyle be consecrated by a Bishop or that the body be anoynted in all the forementioned parts which your Pope Eugenius the fourth hath specifyed Whether the words must be pronounced Deprecatively or whether they might be used Indicatively according to that which your Authours call the Ambrosian Forme Ungo te oleo in nomine Patris c. Yea is it not debated among you whether there be any command at all for receiving this pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction Are not the greatest part of your Doctors for the Negative Hear your own Suarez tem 4. in 3. part disp 44. sect 1. num 2. Communis sayeth he opinio est nullum esse affirmativum praeceptum de suscipiendo hoc sacramento etiam in extremo vitae discrimine That is It is the commone opinion of the Romish Divines that there is no positive precept obliging persons to receive this sacrament of extreme unction even when they are in the most extreme hazard of death A noble Sacrament indeed which by the confession of your own Romanists ye are tyed by no command of GOD to receive The same is granted by your Romish Doctors concerning all your five controverted Sacraments except Pennance That there is no positive command of GOD to receive any of them Whence I argue thus There are positive precepts in the holy Scripture for receiving Baptism and the LORDS-Supper but there is no positive precept of GOD either in or our of Scripture for receiving foure at least of your Sacraments viz. Confirmation Marriage extreme Unction and Ordination as is confessed by your own Romanists Therefore these foure at least are no such Sacraments as Baptism and the Lords-Supper And though your interest and Commodum Curiae induces you to assert a necessity of Pennance for thereby you make your selves Masters both of Purses and Consciences and privie to all Secrets yet try when you will you will be as little able solidly to prove a positive command of GOD for Pennance in your Romish sense and as it is practised among you as for any of the other foure And consequently none of these your five Sacraments is sub pracepto and therefore none of them are such Sacraments as are BAPTISME and the LORDS SUPPER which is that which PROTESTANTS meane when they affirme that there be only two properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament Fourthly not only have our Divines proven that the two places of Scripture which Romanists deprave for this pretended Sacrament viz Marke 6.13 and Iames 5.14.15 make nothing for you But also eminent Authours among your selves have done the same The first place your great Champion Bellarmine lib. de Extrem Vnct. cap 2. denyes to hold out any Sacrament and urges no few Arguments