as Lombard and Carthusian forecited showeth for many children amongst the Israâ—lits dyed in the womb some in the birth and others after before the eight day aswell as the children of Christians do and it were a cruell doctrine to say that all such were damned as also during fourty years in the wildernes there was no circumcision used and yet wee must not yeeld that therefore all infants who died then without it were damned and cut off from their people As for Fathers he citeth only Augustin Pope Leo Ireneus CypriaÌ„ but setteth not down their words But he may remember as Maldonat witnesseth on Iohn 6. 53. that Augustin and Pope Innocent 1. were as much for the necessity of infants receiving the Eucharist which opinion sayth he generallie continued in the Church 600. years 38 THat the sacrament of confirmation is not necessarie nor to be used VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Act. 8. 14. wher it is said That Peter John having laid hands on them that were baptised they received the Holie Ghost To which I answere 1. Wee deny that confirmation is a sacrament at all seing that the Councell of Trent sess 7. can 1. affirmeth That all the Sacraments of the new Testament were instituted by Christ that the Romanists themselves as Alensis Bonaventure and Marsilius affirme that confirmation was not instituted by Christ as Bellarmin testifieth lib. de sacramentis in genere c. 23. 2. Suarez and Bellar. likewise granteth that the imposition of hands Act. 8. was not sacramentall Suarez disp 33. sect 3. and Bellarmin lib. 2. de confirm cap. 9. 3. Neither will Romanists themselves say that everie one that is confirmed by popish confirmation receiveth the Holie Ghost especiallie the miraculous gifts thereof which are here meaned nor that their confirmation produceth any such effect as the laying on of the Apostles hands did on them that were baptised Beside that there is neither the matter as anointing with Chrisme nor form as signing with the Crosse which in popish confirmation is used Neither doth that place Heb. 6. 1. prove any further than that of Act. 8. 14. which speaketh of Baptisme and the laying on of hands And as for Cyprians testimonie it speaks onlie of two sacraments but mentioneth not that popish confirmation was one of these two and giving that it were yet Bellarmin lib. 2. de effectu sacram cap. 24. and Cassander consult art 13. confesseth that both in scripture other Authours the name of sacrament is given to many things which by consent of all are not sacraments properlie and indeed 39 THat the bread in the Lords supper is but a figure or remembrance of the bodie of Christ received by faith and not his true bodie VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 22. 15. where hee sayeth with desire I haue desired to eat this passover with you To which I answere 1. in generall that we never did hold that the bread in the supper of the Lord is but a bare figure or remembrance of Christs bodie and therfore sayeth the confession of our faith anno 1581. art 21. Wee utterlie damne the vanitie of these that affirme sacraments to be nothing but bare naked signes and in our late Confession anno 1647. fitted for the whole three kingdoms positivelie we say Wherin as reallie but spirituallie the Bodie and blood of Christ are present to the faith of Believers as the Elements themselves are to the outward senses and so speaketh Calvin in 1. Cor. 11. 24. but that in this sacrament wherein the soule is spirituallis fed the bread is transubstantiated into Christs bodie and received by the bodilie mouth this we deny as most erronius and hereticall 2. As to that place of Luke which hee bringeth to prove the same 1. the mans ignorance and impertinencie is to be admired wherin Christ only expresseth his great desire to eat the typicall passover with his disciples wherof himself was the substance 1. Cor. 5. 7. And which lamb being called the passover it being but a signe and memoriall of the Lords passing over the houses of the Isralits as we see Exod. 12. 13. and 13. 9. maketh against papists who will not admitt in the Eucharist such a sacramentall speech The second place which he bringeth is Luke 22. 16. wher Christ sayeth That he wil not drink any more of the fruit of the vine till it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God Which words sayeth he cannot be understood figurativelie more nor the former of eating the passover To whom we answere 1. That never any of us said any such thing that the words of eating the Passover were to bee understood figurativelie nor yet that these words are to be understood figurativelie but properlie which Christ speakes heer of drinking the fruit of the vine which pope Innocent the 3. declareth to be spokeÌ„ of the sacramentall cup de mysteriis Missae lib. 4. cap. 27. As also their own Iensenius cap. 131. p. 162. and Alfonsus a Castro lib 6. Tit. de Euchar. § sexta haeresis beside fathers as Origen tract 301. in Math. Chrisost Hom. 6â— in Math. Cyprian epist 68. ad Cecil and Beda in Luc. 22. Next these words are so farre from proving Transsubstantiation as that they quyte overthrow the same seing that which out Saviour drank at his last supper he calles it the fruit of the vine that is Wine in substance and not blood as what is eaten after consecration is likewise called by the Apostle bread not flesh 1. Cor. 11. 26. Therefore sayeth Chrisostome hom 83. in Math. speaking against some who used water in this sacrament in place of wine When our Saviour celebrated this mystery sayeth he he gaue unto his disciples wine calling it the fruit of the vine which produceth not water For as Theodoret sayeth dial 2. The mysticall signes departeth not after consecration froÌ„ their owne nature but remaineth in their former substance forme and figure and may be seen and touched as they were before The third place is Iohn 6. 51. wher Christ sayeth I am the living bread which came down from heaven being granted to bee living what else is it but his bodie sayth he To whom I answere 1 as Bellarmin witnesseth lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 5. all these Romanists to wit Gabriel Biel Cardinall Cusanus Thomas Aquinas Cardinall Cajetan Ruardus Tapperus Joannes Hesselius affirmes and Cornelius Jansenius especiallie concord cap. 59. unanswerablie proveth p. 387. 389. That this chapter medleth nowise with any sacramentall eating of Christs bodie or drinking his blood 2. This Text maketh rather against Transubstantion for tho Christ sayeth I am the living bread yet it followeth not that therfore his flesh was transsubstantiated into bread consequentlie no more doth it follow that when Christ said of the bread This is my bodie that therefore bread was transsubstantiated into His bodie The fourth and maine place is Math. 26. 26. Take eate This is my bodie To which I answere
1. with the forenamed Theodoret dial 1. That our Saviour heerby honoured the visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature sayeth he but adding grace to nature And so likewise speaketh Pope Gelasius against Eutyches de duabus Christi naturis 2. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 12. Tertullian cont Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. and Eusebius de demonstratione evangelii lib. 8. in fine and many more fathers expoundeth these words This is my bodie that is a signe and symbole therof 3. The Popes own canon law Gratians glosse theron dist 2. de consecra c. hoc est expoundeth these words thus The heavenly sacrament which truly representeth Christs flesh is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherfore it is called so after the owne manner not that it is so trulie but in a signifying Mysterie so that the meaning is sayeth the glosse on the former words it is called the body of Christ that is a signe of Christs bodie As for the testimonies of Fathers he citeth Ambrose wher he sayth It is bread before the words of consecration but after of bread it is made the flesh of Christ To which I answere 1. That hee perverteth Ambrose words which are these It was not Christs bodie before consecration but I say to thee that after consecration it is Christs bodie 2. In the same place be explaines himself showing that the substance of bread remaineth not withstanding the change is only sacrameÌ„tal so that it is the flesh of Christ only in a sacramental way Therfore sayeth hee Christs blessing is of that force ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur that is that the Elements they remaine in substance what they were before and yet they are changed into another thing And illastrateth this change by this simile Thou thy selswas saith he but thou was an old creature but after that thou art consecrat thou began to be a new creature Now I hope no man will say that by regeneration or our consecrating to Gods service we are changed in substaÌ„ce but in quality from a sinfull diâ—position to a more holie And in his fourth book of the sacrameÌ„ts cap. 5. he therfore calleth the consecrated bread The figure of Christs bodie wherby the same is represented to us So that this conversion abolisheth not the things that were as we see in Theodoret but maketh them to be in a sacred use what before they were not His second testimonie is out of an obscure and late Monck whom he calleth S. Remigius saying That Christs flesh the consecrated bread are one bodie but telleth not where he speaketh so neither doeth it prove any conversion of the substance of the bread into Christs flesh but that these two are one by a sacramentall union As for other fathers whom he onlie citeth but setteth not down their words none of them proveth any popish transsubstanciation yea Justin Martyr whom he citeth apol 2. his words overthrowes the same saying only That the sacramentall bread is not coÌ„mon bread wherby our flesh and blood is nourished which is not done by Christs bodie it being onelie the food of the soule 40 THat we ought to receive under both kiâ—ds and that one alone is not â—ufficient VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iohn 6. 51. where Christ sayeth If any man shall eat of this bread he shall live for ever heer sayeth he life ever lasting is promised to him that eateth of the bread onlie To whom I answere 1. as I shew before in my answere to the same place a number of famoê° RomaÌ„ists declareth that ther is no speech of sacramentall eating in that chapter and in particular Cardinall Cusanus epist ad Bohemos p. 858. when he hath affirmed the same and that the spirituall feeding only on Christ by faith is ther set down he concludeth thus Et â—aec est necessaria omnium Doctorum sententia sayeth he 2. If this were spoken of sacramentall eating then al who receive not the sacrament as childreÌ„ before ripe age who die should be damned because our Saviour sayeth verse 53. Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood yee haue no life in you 3. We see heere drinking of his blood as necessâ—rie requiâ—ed as the eating of his flesh which is against their depriving of people of the sacramentall cup. The second place is Luke 24. 30. Christ at Emaus sayeth he communicated his disciples under one kind To which I answere That the Evangelist speaketh there onlie of ordinarie refection as he did Mat. 14. 19. which is heere called The breaking of bread Therefore sayeth their own Carthusian He took bread and blessed it but did not convert it into his bodie sayeth he but onlie as his custome was to blesse meat whence also sayeth their owne Iansenius coÌ„cord c. 146. p. 249 Ther ar sâ—me who from this place would take an argument sayeth he to prove that it is lawfull under one kind to give or receive the sacrament of the Eucharist which opinion is neuher certaâ—ne nor hath it liklie-hood of irueth sayeth he And as for the nâ—vâ—lâ—ie of this half communion which Pope Gelasius calleth sacriledge part 3. decret de consecra d. 2. there Alfonsus a Castro showeth the same sit Euch. § ultima haeres p. 120. Cassander also telleth us Consult art 22. That it was not in the Roman Church till Aquinas time anno 1265. and is not in the greek church sayeth he untill this day Wherefore wee conclude in Bellarmin's words lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 7. § quia vero That it cannot be doubted but that it is best to bee done which Christ did and we know that Christ said to his disciples representing sayeth Cassander the persons of all faithfull Communicants drink yee all of this as the Apostle also speaketh accordinglie 1. Cor. 11. 28. And therfore as for their fiction of concomitance wherby they would elude these words I will oveâ— throw the same onlie by their bishop Iansenius words concord cap. 59 p. 389. saying It doth not easilie appeare how the outward taking of the bread alone can be called drinking for it is rightlie called eating because ther is somthing taken there by way of meate but how can that be called drinking sayth he where there is nothing taken by way of drink 41 THat ther is not in the church a true and propitiatorie Sacrifice of the Masse VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Malach. 1. 11. where the Lord sayeth That in every place incense shall be offered to his Name a pure offering To which I answer 1. That Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 20. and Tertullian lib. 4. adv Marcion As also Theodoret on this place expoaes this pure offering to be the spirituall sacrifices of prayer thanksgiving 2. Hugo Cardinalis as also their own lyra showes that the Lord would heerby give the jewish priests to know that spirituall sacrifices were to succeed thereto which were carnall and in
their faith to God ward was spread abroad And that this is the onlie thing which these words import their late Estiê° on Rom. 1. showeth As for testimonies of Fathers and 1. to that of Cyprian who writting to Cornelius sayeth Whilst with you there is one mind and one â—oyce the whole Church is confessed to be RomaÌ„ I answere 1. That Cyprians words are perverted which are these dum apâ—â— vos unus animus una vox est Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est that is Whilst with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole RomaÌ„ Church hath confessed Cyprian thus commending the Church of Rome for an unanimous confession of faith before heathen persecutors as others had done which indeed proveth the soundnes of the Roman Church in Cyprians time as a meÌ„ber of the catholik church but not that shee only then was the Catholick Church 2. Giving that these were the words of Cyprian as they are alleadged they would import onlie that whil the RomaÌ„ Church keeped the unitie of the true faith that all other orthodox and sister Churches of these times would acknowledge themselves to bee of her communion and this we may see confessed by Stapleton relect con 1. q. 5. who giveth this to be the reason why by the ancients the Roman and Catholick Church wer held for one thing because her communion sayeth he with the whole Catholick Church was then most evident and certaine whence it followeth that shee her self then was not the whole Catholick Church 3. where it is said to Pope Cornelius Whilst with you there is one minde one voice that is as long as you kepe the trueth and profession thereof this speech being conditionall and limited it importeth that shee might lose the same as shee hath done Therefore not only was shee forewarned Rom. 11. 20. Not to be high minded but feare but also Cyprian ad Pompeium accuseth Pope Steven who succeeded Cornelius that he maintayned the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God the Pope then and Roman Church under him in Cyprians estimation maintayning Hereticks against the Church could not theÌ„ be accounted by him to be the Catholick Church nor yet to be infallible The second testimonie of Augustins where he sayeth That they who dissent from the bodie of Christ which is the Church they are not in the Catholick Church proveth nowise that the RomaÌ„ Church is this onlie Catholick Church But rather as the words of that testimonie beareth The whole body of Christendom And as for Jeroms words That it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick faith I haue alreadie answered that this was because of her communion with the Catholick Church when Rome was orthodox and as Isai 1. 21 The faithfull City was not become an Har lot 10. THat the Churches unitie is not necessarie in al points of faith I answere that this is an impudent Calumnie as the Harmonie of Confession of reformed Churches showeth and ours in particular of 1581. art 16. For wee maintaine that a two-fold unitie is necessarie to be in Christs church to wit An unitie in Trueth and an unitie in affection both which wee should pray for and promove that as the psalmist speaketh 122. 7. peace may bee within her walls and prosperitie within her palaces And because they brag so much of unitie in doctrine and all points of faith for stopping the mouths of all Romanists ever heereafter ut ex ungue Leonem I will onelie amongst many instance but in one or two maine points of poperie that their unitie is like the division of tongues which was amongst the builders of Babell The first is papall Indulgences and Pardons which are so lucrative dependeth on their Purgatorie wherin thus they varie 1. Some of the old schoolmen as Bellar. witnesseth lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. they doubt of this spirituall treasure and Francis Mayro on 4. sent D. 19. maketh question in particular sayth hee of the treasure of Christs overflowing satisfactions laid up in the Church Againe Durand likewise on 4. sent D. 2. doubteth if the satisfaction of saints belong to the treasure but S. Thomas and Bonaventure sayeth hee thinketh that both belongeth thereunto Againe this is denyed by sundrie ancient Divines sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7. That pardons delivereth men from punishment not onelie before the Church but also before God and verie graue Authours sayeth hee as Alfonsus Durand Paludanus Pope Adrian the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinall Cajetan hold That pardons were never given but for enjoyned penance but Aquinas Ioannes Major Sylvester Dominicus a Soto Michael medina Ledesinius Antonius Cordubensis Navarrus Panormitan and Ioannes Andreas sayeth hee these maintaine the contrarie 2. For the Persons that haue power to give pardons it is questioned sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 11. by what law Bishops may give pardons for some hold that they may do it by Gods law sayeth hee but others deny it yea Angelus in summâ— and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Priests who may heare confession may also grant pardons sayeth hee and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan but the coÌ„mon opinion sayth Bellarmin is contrarie to these 3. For the persons whom they availe thus they varie for amongst the Catholick Doctours sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. Ostiensis in summa and Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 57. haue taught that pardons nowise profite the dead and so this maâ—teth soule Masses but other Catholicks sayeh hee do hold the contrarie Again if they help the dead Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. showeth that it is controverted whether by way of suffrage or otherwise and that they are divyded in three opinions Last of all sayeth Bellarmin in the same place the hardest question of all is Whether pardons do help the dead upon any justice or condignitie or onely of the meer and free favour of God and congruitie some hold the first sayeth he as Dominicê° Soto on 4. sent d. 21. Navarrus others hold it to be meerlie of the mercy bounty of God And so holdeth Cajetan Petrus a Soto Cordubensis and others Now in such a division of tongues and Pen's in this point what is popish unitie let any man judge The second grand point which I will instance is TranssubstantiatioÌ„ wheron is grounded the Idoll of their Masse and that idolatrous adoration of their Hostie wherein sayth the Iesuite Aâ—lapide on Isai 7. 14. by the words of consecration as the bread is trulie and reallie transsubstantiat so Christ is brought forth and as it were begotten upon the Altar so powerfully efficaciouslie as if Christ were not yet incarnat yet by these words this is my Bodie He should be incarnat and assume an humane bodie therfore sayth he the Priest is as the Virgin that bare him the Altar is the manger the little Emmanuell which hee beareth is Christ brought
The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread but with a secret benediction unknowne to us whereby he Transsubstantiâ—â— the bread into his Bodie of which the Evangelists maketh mentieÌ„ when they say that he tooke bread and blessed it so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing before he said this is my bodie that so that speech of his might be true The 3. is That our Saviour by these words this is my bodie made that coÌ„version of bread into his bodie but ttha be spoke these words twise though it be written but once and that first he spoke them softlie and unheard whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion And the 4. opinion is That by these words this is my Bodie which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie 5. Herin again they greatly controvert to wit whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion 1. Some say as Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect 47. with others That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of this is my Bodie 2. Others say That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmin sayeth The whole Church holdeth lib. 3. de justifi cap. 8. whose words are these The Sacrament without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament 3. Lombard their great Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 13. sayeth That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie Whose words are these It is called the Masse because of the comming of the heavenlie Angell sayeth hee to consecrate the bodie of Christ according to the Priests prayer saying Omnipotent God command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar therefore except the Angel come it cannot be called a Masse sayth he seing therefore as Bellarmin hath told us that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentioÌ„ and that no man can know the intention of another sayth Bellar. farr lesse be sure of an Angels coÌ„ming downe to comsecrate the bread turne it into Christs body I would theÌ„ on these grounds of their own ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body or onely a piece of bread which were most grosse Idolatrie as all must confess 6. To come to the words of consecration themselves 1 in generall next in particular let us see how they agree heerein 1. The most common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie and not figuratiuely but on the contrarie Bertram and the others with him forecited as also Cardinall Cajetan in 3. q. 78. art 1. holdeth that they are and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of speech as wee see in Circumcision and the Passover yea more in the Popes owne canon Law de consecra dist 2. c. hoc est it is said ther That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie representeth Christs flesh is called Christs Bodie but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing sayeth that place but by a mysticall signification so that the meaning is sayth the glosse it is called Christs Bodie that is it is a sign of his bodie 7. Next to come to the words in particular 1. The Catholicks do not agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucâ— cap. 11 in the manner of explicating what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne hoc or this in the words of consecration this is my Bodie in this there are two famous opinions sayth he the one that this pronowne hoc signifieth the Body of Christ the other is of S. Thomas sayeth he that it signifieth not the body of Christ precisâ—ie nor yet the bread as some hold but in coÌ„mon that substance be what it will which is under these formes so that the meaning is hoc this that is under this and thâ—se formes or accidents is my bodie Neither determinating it to the bread says Biel in can Missae lect 48. because so this speech should be false this bread is my Bodie nor to the bodie of Christ for this were absurd to say this bodie is my bodie sayeth he as also seing the vertue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word meum as Biel showeth in the same place therefore by hoc Christs bodie cannot bee understood Againe the same Biel in the place forecited sayeth that concerning this there are diverse opinions which he reduceth to two 1. That by hoc nothing at all is demonstrat and this Durand also declareth lib. 4. rat divin f. 64. 2. Some say that by hoc the bread is demonstrat so that the meaning should bee this bread is my bodie that is in a Sacramentall way the signe of my bodie But because this would seeme sayeth he to be hereticall therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore that it is a mixt demonstration partlie to the sense partlie to the understanding so that the meaning is this in which the bread which is seene is to be transsubstantiat is my bodie which must be believed and so the word is must be expounded in the future shall be this is likewise the opinioÌ„ of Richardê° de media villa and others but Alexander Ales expreâ—slie will haue by hoc the bread to bee demonstrat and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration 8. They controvert no lesse likewise in the next words corpus meum or my bodie as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and impassible to these who say the first it is objected that then sayeth heâ— it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible and that the Masse is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice Againe in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and impassible bodie it is likewise objected that this coâ—ld not be because his Bodie did afterward suffer and die being yet unglorified and therefore was mortall and passible Therefore sayeth Biel Hugo Cardinalis being straitned on both hands by the former contradictions concludeth for his part siding with neither of them saying That in this questioÌ„ as in such like others I professe sayeth hee that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets and in simplicitie of faith I think this sufficient if we say that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give because Hee was Omnipotent And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was and useth a short easie way to solve all questions 9 In the words also that followeth which is broken
counterfite For example In the matter of purgatorie hee citeth Ambrose upon 1. Cor. 3. whereas Bellarmin De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis testifieth That these are thought not be his works and not without cause sayeth hee Againe for Sacramentall Coufession he citeth Clements Epistles which Bellarmine in his Book of Ecclesiasticall Writters declareth and proveth to be counterfit 2. Hee citeth some works of Fathers which are not in rerum natura for example For invocation of Saynts he citeth ATHANASIUS Serm. de Annunciatione where-as there is no such piece either in his works or in Bellarmins index which he hath set downe of his works in his Book of ecclesiasticall writters Againe For works of Supererogation he citeth Gregorie Nicen. 1. Morals cap. 5. Whereas he never write any such book or is it to be found 3. Hee citeth some places of Fathers for him who in these places are clear against him For example for Mans abiiitie to keepe the Law hee citeth Jerome his third book against the Pelagians whereas in that whole booke throughout hee stronglie proveth the contrar 4. Hee citeth some places in Fathers so generallie and looslie that it were impossible to find out such wherat he he aimeth For example For worshipping of Images he citeth Jerom in his Epistle to Marcella whereas Jerom write many Epistles to Marcella in none of which is any such thing to be found 2. concerning predestination hee citeth Augustin lib. 1. de Civit Dei but no Chapter or words wheras ther are 36. Chapters in that book In likemanner he citeth for the same purpose Ambrose lib. 2. de Cain Abell but no Chapter wheras there are ten in that book 3. Against Assurance of Salvation he citeth Jerom lib. 2. adv Pelag. but no Chapter whereas there are eleven long Chapters in it 4. For extreame Vnction he citeth Augustin in speculo but no Chapter wheras there ar 33. Chapters in that book I could instance a number more were not to avoid prolixitie wherby any indifferent mā may see how fraudulentlie these men deale by a false Muster of Scriptures and Fathers to delude the simple make them beleeve that both these ar on their side whereas I shall showe Godwilling that there is no such thing and whatsoever is set down in this TOUCH-STONE to be either grossly mistaken willfully perverted slanderously imputed or so weaklie performed that he hath relyed not so much on the strength of his Cause as on the weaknes tractablenes of his simple and ungrounded Proselyts whom they perswade fide implicit◠to take all upon Trust and Beleeve as the Church beleeveth and that they are the Church contrar to that Berean practise Act. 17. 11. And that Apostolicall precept 1. Ioh. 4. 1. Beloved Beleeue not every Spirit but try the spirits whether they bee of God because many false Prophets are gone out in the World at whose credulity I could not but wonder how they can be catched in such Cobweb snares and be seduced by such weake arguments in the time of Gospell-light and means of resolution were not that as the Apostle speaketh 2. Thess 2. 10. That they are given over by the deceivablenes of unrighteousnes to beleeve lies because they received not the loue of the Truth and therefore as BHRNARD sayeth of such Serm. 66. in CANTICA They are not convinced with reason because they understand not nor by Authorities to wit of Scripture becaus they receiue them not sayeth he nor are they moved by perswasion because they are perverse and yeeldeth not For all which notwithstanding my heartie wish shall be that as the LORD did to PAULL Act. 9. 18. the scales of errour and ignorance may likewise fall from their eyes that GOD may haue Glory His Church joy in their conversion their owne soules salvation in the Day of their account Amen AN ANSWER To A Popish PAMPHLET Called The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospell AND. 1. To the Preface IN the Preface the Pamphletter First glorying that hee confoundeth Us by our own Bible most impudentlie First beginneth with a Generall accusing of the Translation thereof in a number of grosse corruptions and falsifications wherof notwithstanding he instances not one nor is able to do Wherunto therefore I shall answer not onely by retortion in the generall but in particulare shall instance in their vulgare Latine Translation whereof Hee speaketh and so much extolleth as free of the like First Grosse corrupting of the Text contrary to the Originall 2 Adding to the Text of Scripture 3. Taking from the same both contrar to that sad commination Revel 22. 19. and 4. which is worst of all cleare contradicting of Scripture and in place of a Multitud of each sort I shall onelie for brevities sake bring a few examples 1. Then of corrupting Scripture Gen. 3. 15. where it is spoken of Christ as the seed of the woman It shal bruise thy head It is said in their vulgare Translation Shee shal bruise thy head blasphemouslie as their use is ascribing to the virgin Marie the victorie over Satan in the work of our Redemption VVhich is only proper to CHRIST Likewise Heb. 13. 16. where it is said of Doing good and communicating that with such sacrifices God is well pleased In their Translatiō for establishing of the merit of works it is said For with such sacrifices God is promerited also Rom. 1. 4. wher it is said That CHRIST was declared to bee the Sonne of GOD It is said in their Translation that Hee was predestinat to be the Sonne of GOD. which is a lurd errour 2. Of adding to Scripture Act. 5. 15. is adduced in this Touch-ston to prove miraculous vertue of Reliques to which these words are added which are not in the Original That they might be delivered frō their infirmities Next unto these words of our Saviour Math. 26. 26. This is my Bodie In their conjuring of consecrating of the bread they add a fift word enim or for VVhich they make operative in producing their Transsuhstantiation And the fyve words to be answereable to such mysteries as Gabriel Biel hath set downe in the like number of fyve in his 38. lecture of the Canon of the Masse Fol. 65. 3. Of taking from the Scripture ps 99. 5. It is said according to the originall Worship at His Footstoole as it is in likemanner said verse 9. Worship at His holie Hill and yet in their Translation for the maintayning of their adoration of images they take out the word at and say Worship yee His footstoole Next Rom. 11. 6. the words But if it bee of works then no more of grace otherwise work is no more work ar in their Translation quyte purged out because they make so clearlie against their Iustification by works Againe Heb 1. 3. it is said having by himself purged our sinnes in their Translation these words by Himself are taken out to make place thereby to mens satisfactions Likewise Math. 9. 13. where it is said I came not to
furth under the little Hostie Than which what can be grosser blasphemie let any man judge 1. In this point theÌ„ let us see what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their transsubstantiation Which is commonlie alleadged to bee expresse scripture and in particular these words Math. 26. 26. this is my Bodie but concerning this Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 40. sayeth Whether Christs Bodie in the Sacrament be by conversion or without any conversion the substance and accidents of bread still remaining is not found expreslie in the canon of the Bible nor can it be proven by any scripture sayeth bishope Fisher cont Captiv Babyl num 8. Cardinall Cajetan likewise affirmeth as witnesseth Suarez tom 3. disp 46. That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transsubstantiation but that they may be taken in a figurative sense as these 1. Cor. 10. 4. Cajet 3. q. 78. art 1. yea Cardinall Bellarmin speaketh thus lib. 3. de Euch. c 23. It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of scripture which without the Churches determination can evidentlie inforce a maÌ„ to admitt of Transsubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie to believe the same yet it may be justly doubted whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the same sayeth he seing the most sharp witted learned men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrarie 2. Wee haue sundrie Roman Catholicks who haue denyed Transsubstantiation upon any ground whatsoever as 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Bodie and Blood of Christ written to Charles the bald King of France about the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus aâ— Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist which is also extant 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canterburie in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housell as he calleth it anno 996. and yet to ascend higher Gelasius a Pope in his treatise against Eutyches of the two natures of Christ where he sayeth Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a divine thing to wit the Bodie blood of Christ yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine sayeth he and Biel on the canon of the Masse telleth us that in his time concerning the sacrament or any conversion therein amongst Catholicks there were four opinions wherof the first was That the substance of bread remained still sayeth hee 3. In the manner or sort of conversioÌ„ which they pretend to be in the sacrament Papists they varie and disagree mightilie For 1. Bellarmin telleth us lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11. that Durand holdeth That one essentiall part of the bread namlie the forme is turned but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach sayeth Durand Rational Divin lib. 4. f. 63. but others haue taught the contrarie sayth Bellarmin That the matter of the bread is turned into Christs Bodie but that the essentiall forme remaineth but as for Lombard their great Master of senteÌ„ces his words are these lib. 4. sent d. 11 If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is whether formal or substantiall or what other sort it is definire non sufficio saieth hee that is I am not able to define it and so he quyteth the matter Biel againe on the canon of the Masse lect 40. he sayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this conversion The First That the substance of the bread remaineth still together with Christs Bodie The 2. is That the substance of the bread remaineth not still but after consecration becometh the body of Christ The 3. is That tho the bread remains not yet the accidents of bread as weight colour taste remaineth and that Christs Bodie begineth to be under these accidents And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former That neither doeth the substance of bread remaine nor yet is it converted into Christs bodie for the absurdities that follow theron but is annihilat or redacted to nothing or else resolved into that which they call materia prima Bellarmin also in the forecited place sayeth that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverse from all the former to wit That the bread is personallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by him and of this also Cardinall Aliaco in 4. sent q 6 sayeth That this is possible and more agreable to reason and easier to bee understood But thereafter in the same place hee positivlie sayeth That the conversion of the bread according to his judgement into the bodie of Christ is successive as the night is turned into the day because as after the night the day commeth so sayeth he after the breads departing there is Christs Bodie But Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. § ex his will not haue this coÌ„version productive nor successiue but adductive as hee calleth it that is whereby Christs Bodie preexistent before this conversion in heaven beginneth to be sayeth hee under the accidents of bread wher it was not before which indeed is no conversion at all but onlie a meere translocation Moreover sayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. There hath been two opinions devysed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this mysterie one of DuraÌ„ds on 4. sent d. 10. who holdeth it probable that the substaÌ„ce of the bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatnes or quantitie another is of some ancient Divines whom Ockam followeth who say that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Christs bodie which notwithstanding they think cannot bee distinguished from the substance therof but that all parts do so runne one in another that ther is no shape in Christs bodie nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof But the common opinion of the Schooles and of the Church sayeth hee is contrarie to this and that in the Eucharist or little hostie there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bigness all other accidents hath both order shape agreable to a humane bodie Which is the eight miracle of the eleaveÌ„ that Durand maketh the priest daylie to work in the Masse lib. 4. ration divin f. 63. which miracles notwithstanding are not seene whereas Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. sent q. 5. saâ—eth I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle sayeth hee except I see the same And indeed these are such as are foreprophecied 2. Thess 2. 9. and are called lieing signes and wonders 4. They agree no better in this point to wit Wherby did Christ produce in his last supper Transsubstantiation Concerning which their Biel on the canon of the masse lect 36. sayeth There are four opinions The 1. That Christ did make this conversion not by any words which hee uttered but by his divine power without any words and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this minde
for you as they are set downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits Judg. 7. 22. Every mans sword against his fellow For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome as wee may see decret 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42 affirmeth That it is Christs Bodie sensuallie that is broken torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers which yet sayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. § quartum cannot be spoken of Christs bodie or flesh without great blaspheÌ„ie And which a little after that time made that great physitian learned Philosopher Averroes to say as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador cap. 3. mundum peragravi c. that is I have travelled through the world sayeth hee and I never saw a worse more foolish â—ect than that of the Christians is because with their teeth they devoure that God whoÌ„ they worship which I may say is at this day the greatest scandell to Turks Iewes and Pagans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christianitie as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next their master of senteÌ„ces Lombard l. 4. dist 12. telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Councell is false erronious seing Christs bodie is now incorruptible immortall and impassible that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Disciples sayeth he who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts or torne in morsels as other flesh is therfore sayeth he dist 11. because it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mysterie 3. Others againe sayth he affirmeth that there is no reall breaking there as men seemeth to see with their eyes but that it is said to be broken sicut fit in magorum prestigiis c. that is as useth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers who by delusion deceiveth mens eyes sayeth he that they seeme to see that which is not a right comparison indeed of masse priests 4. Others againe sayeth the same Lombard affirme that by the wonderfull power of God there is a breaking ther where notwithstanding nothing is broken a grosse contradiction and this Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven that is dayly wrought by the masse Priest to wit That in the Masse that which is indivisible yet is divyded and tho it be divyded sayeth hee it remaineth whole 5. Biel also on the canon of the Masse lect 36. fayth that That which Christ brake and the Priest now breaketh is the sacramentall species as whytnes roundnes but neither Christs bodie nor yet any thing that is whyte and round a strange Chimera indeed The like sayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke nor bread though the Apostle sayeth 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break but this fraction is of the forme onelie and shape of the bread sacramentallie done sayth he which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying That this is the common opinion that the accidents of the breade which remaine without any subject ar only that which is broken Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurditie 10. No lesse digladiation is amongst Romanists concerning what is eaten in the sacrament according to Christs words Take Eate For 1. as hath beene said according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning It is Christs bodie flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth which Bellarmin calleth blasphemous and Lombard hereticall But on the contrarie Alexander Ales p. 4. 11. memb art 2. as also Bonaventure in 4. sent d. 12. art 3. Affirme that the eating of Christs bodie is mysticall and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reasone thereof that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating to wit 1. a masticatioÌ„ or chewing with the teeth 2. a trajection into the stomack and bellie And 3. a Conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this last which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree to the bodie of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in a mysticall manner turneth us into it self say they to which they might also added that which our Saviour â—peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth that it likewise goeth out in the draught Math. 15. 17. Againe if a Mouse or Ratt or any such beast happen to eate the consecrated Hostie it is controverted what is eaten by such 1. then in the Roman missall and cautel's of the Masse it is affirmed that they eate Christs bodie for these ar the very words Item â—â— corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit c. that is If the bodie of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders if these vermine can be found let them be burned and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconsumed if it may be done without horror let it be eaten But Lombard in the contrarieê° lib. 4. d. 13. sayeth That Christs bodie is not eaten by such beasts though it would seeme that it were and if any will ask sayeth he What is it then which is eaten by such he answereth verie blâ—ntlie saying Deus novit that is God knoweth not hee But Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter otherwise and sayeth That as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the bodie of Christ when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament so doth bread miraculously returne wheÌ„ Christs bodie ceasseth to be there and therfore that the mouse or any such beast eateth onlie the bread that miraculouslie is so furnished unto them by God Even as the same Durand tells a tale there how a Matron that furnished bread sabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did laugh when shee heard the Pope affirme that to be Christs bodie which shee knew to be bread that her self had baken whereupon the Pope to coÌ„vince her of her errour by his prayer he converted the hostie visiblie into a finger of flesh when heere on shee was converted he prayed againe and turned the finger of flesh into bread againe And so heere were three pretie coÌ„versions si credere fas ect The first of the Hostie into Christs bodie invisiblie the next of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly the third of the finger of flesh back againe into bread visiblie Quis talia fando temperet c 11. Heere againe in the other Element of the Sacrament they contend one against another concerning the mixture of water with the wine the TranssubstantiatioÌ„ of both 1. Then Cardinall Aliacâ— in 4. sent q. 5. telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not simplie necessarie at all to be used in the
sacrament seing there is no mention thereof in the institution but only that it is the precept of the Church sayeth he and that the Grecian and Easterne Church useth it not to this day But others againe pleadeth the necessitie of the mixture of water and therein placeth a mysterie Next Whether the water mixed with the wine be both converted in Christs blood it is controverted sayeth Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 35. and of this sayeth hee there are three opinions 1. That the water remaineth still in it owne kind and substance taking onlie the colour and Taste of the wine 2. That the wine is turned into Christs blood and the water into that which came out of Christs side on the Crosse but to that it is answered sayeth he that the words of consecration extendeth not themselves to the conversion of water at all specially into that which came out of Christs side The third opinion sayeth he is that the water is turned into wine in the mixture thereof and then that both together are turned into Christs blood and so that ther are two Transsubstantiations of the water whereof no mention is in scripture I could instance more concerning the adoration of the Hostie whether it should be absolute or conditionall as also their disagrement in everie other point of poperie beside the dissentions and divisions betweene the Scotists and Thomists the Dominicans and Franciscans the Sorbone and the Iesuits and all in weightie matters but studying to brevitie these shall suffice wherein I daâ—e challenge all the Priests and Papists in the world to instance the like amongst us especiallie in one point of doctrine Whose differences wherewith they upbraid us ar like molehills in regard of these mountains and rather in matter of government or ceremonie nor in any point of fundamentall doctrine and substance so that these Pharisee-like papists should first take the beame out of their owne eye before they spy the mote in their neighbours and hence-forth ceasse to brag of their Catholick unitie froÌ„ all which disagrements and digladiations amongst themselves I shall onlie conclude in Bellarmins owne words lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 10. § adde That it is a most sure Note of false doctrine that hereticall authours agree not therein amongst themselves 11. THat S. Peter was not ordayned by Christ the first head or chief amongst the Apostles VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 10. 2. where Peter is first named and therfore concludeth that he was first not onelie in order but in power and jurisdiction aboue the rest Which is an absurd inference that of twelve persons of one equall function because such an one is first named therefore hee hath authoritie and jurisdiction over all the rest for so Gal. 2. 9. where Iames is first named before Peter it would follow that Iames had jurisdiction over Peter Whereas all were alike in power and jurisdiction as Cyprian de unit Ecclesiae sayeth The rest of the Apostles were the self same that Peter was endued with alike fellowship both of honour power And we know sayeth Cardinall Cusanus lib. 2. de concord Cath. cap. 13. That Peter received no more power froÌ„ Christ than the other Apostles The second place which he bringeth is Math. 16. 18. Vpon this rock I will build my Church Which he adduced before for the Popes infallibilitie and to which I haue alreadie answered in the sixth Assertion And now he bringeth it to prove the Popes supremacie wheras beside Cardinall Cusanus forecited words on this place their learned Ferus sayeth thus It is proper onlie to Christ to be called this rock as Peter himself calleth him 1. Pet. 2. 4. and whereby it is evident sayeth he that Christ built not his Church on Peter or any other man for there is no man so firme and constant who cannot be moved which in Peter himself we manifestlie see therfore Christ himself is that rock wheron his Church is built sayeh he according to 1. Cor. 3. 11. other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid even Jesus Christ. The third place is Math. 16. 19. I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Wherunto I answer that not only all the fathers except Origen declareth that all the disciples received the power of the keyes aswel as peter as Maldonat on this place confesseth but also Cardinall Cusanê° lib. 2. concord cath cap. 13. and with him Ferus and others say that Peter received no more power heereby from Christ than did the others Iohn 20. 23. The fourth place is 1. Cor. 3. 4. where one sayeth I am of Paull another I am of Apollos another I am of Cephas another I am of Christ where Peter is named next to Christ ascending from the lesser sayeth he to those whom he would haue esteemed greater To whom I answere 1. from nomination in order as hath beene said to conclude jurisdictioÌ„ over others in power is an absurd consequence 2. If the ascending be here from the lesser to the greater then it will follow that Paull who is named heere first is lesseâ— though an Apostle than Apollos which is absurd The fifth place is Luke 22. 31. where it is said to Peter When thou art converted confirme thy Bretheren that is sayth he practise exercise greatnes doÌ„inion over theÌ„ I answer that this is a strange glosse indeed for to confirme is a duty of Ministration but not a dignitie of Donation as is said Act. 15. 32. That Judas and Silas exhorted the bretheren with many words and confirmed them which is not that they excercised greatnes dominion therby over theÌ„ but far otherwise as Theophylact on this place teaches and with him Beda Lyra Stella and Maldonat Our Saviour showing that Peter having after his denyall gotten such mercie from God and restoring to his dignitie of Apostle-ship he should from this experience confirme theÌ„ that were 〈…〉 of mercie and not to dispaire if thorow frailtie they should fall and did there-after repent sayeth he which dutie also we see David in the like case promiseth to performe Psal 51. 13. The sixth place is Luke 22. 26. wher Christ saith He that is greater amongst you let him be as the younger which showeth sayeth hee that amongst the twelve one was greater thaÌ„ another even in Christs account To which I answere 1. The Evangelist Mathew cap. 20. 16. showes that it was not that amongst the Apostles one was greatest or chief in Christs account but that some would haue been so as we see in the mother of Zebedes sonnes petition Math. 20. 21. Next their own Lyra Carthusian Stella showeth that here the Apostles wer taxed of ambition by Christ because of the coÌ„tention of some for preheminence aboue the rest Which was equally forbidden to all and not adjudged to be in the person of one Therefore also sayeth Ambrose on this place Vnto all the Apostles is given one plat forme of interdiction
particular devote prayer is this pure offering sayeth Lyra. The second place is Psal 110. 4. wher Christ is called A Priest after the order of Melchisedek whose sacrifice was made in bread and wine saith he as the Masse is now To whom I answer 1. That Melchisedecks sacrifice was not in bread and wine for that was the refreshment onlie which he brought furth to Abraham and his followers as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth therefore their owne vulgar hath the word protulit he brought furth and not the word obtulit he offered up 2. Cardinall Cajetan and with him Andradius sayeth there is nothing in that storie Gen. 14. 18. of any sacrifice or oblation that Melchisedek-offered up to God sayeth he but that be caused bring furth bread and wine as Iosepâ—us reporteth for the refreshment of the victors And therafter when hee cometh to these words And he blessed him behold heer sayth he is his Priestlie action according to Numb 6. 23. which therefore the Apostle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him therby to bee greater nor Abraham and consequentlie his Priesthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loines because at that time Levi was both tythed and blessed by him The third place is Luke 22. 19. This is my bodie which was given for you To which I answere That of these words I haue already spoken by which heere they would make Christ to haue bene a Masse-priest and to haue sacrificed himself the night before he was sacrificed on the Crosse And so contrarie to Heb. 10. 14. That by one onlie offering hee hath not perfected for ever them who are sanctified but contrar to Heb. 7. 27. That Hee offered himself up twise whereas it was necessarie sayth Paull Heb. 9. 25. That he should not offer himself up ofter than once for then as he sayth hee must haue suffered ofter than once which the Apostle counteth a most grosse absurditie As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth who calleth that which Christ instituted at his last supper An unbloodie mysticall venerable sacrifice I answere in the words of Lombard their Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 12. q. si sit who showeth in what sense the fathers so calleth it saying That which is offered and consecrated is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of that true sacrifice and holy reall oblation which was made on the Altar of the Cross which only was bloodie In likmanner sayeth Aquinas part 3. q. 83. art 1. It is called a sacrifice both because the celebration of this sacrament is an image and representatioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ as also because by this sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords passion sacrifice on the Cross So also speakes Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 85. calling the Eucharist a sacrifice because it is a representation and memoriall sayeth he of that true and holy sacrifice offered on the Cross And subjoyneth this reason for as Augustin sayeth hee writteth to Simplician the Images of things useth to be called by their names whereof they are images as we say this is Cicero when it is but Cicero's picture sayeth he So in likmanner speaketh Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romanists So that it is false that Bellarmin sayth lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. That neither the scripture nor the fathers calleth that a sacrifice which is only a representation remembrance of a sacrifice And because this is their Idoll of the Masse which they adore therfore I will labour to overthrow this Dagon by some few arguments furnished by themselves as 1. A sacrifice and Priesthood are relatives sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. so that to a sacrifice properly so called a Priesthood also properlie called must be correspondent sayeth he whence it will follow that if the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called the Priest must be a Priest also properlie so called and if this bee he must be either after the order of Aaron which hath ceased or after the order of Melchisedeck this he cannot be because Christ living and being a Priest for ever after that order he hath no successour therein as we are taught Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next sayeth Bellar. in the same chapter § neque Melchisedecks sacrifice was bread and wine so sayth this Pamphleter wheÌ„ce it will follow that in the Masse in likmanner that which is offered up by the Priest giving that he were after the order of Melchisedeck must be bread and wine only and consequently not the flesh blood of Christ by transsubstantiation 3. If they will say that it is notwithstanding Christs owne bodie and blood that is offered up then out of Bellar. in the same place § 6. I reason thus in a sacrifice properlie so called there must be some sensible thing that is offered sayeth he but this cannot bee Christs bodie because by none of the senses as sight tast or touch can it be discerned to be there and as for the accidents of the bread as shape colour and taste I hope they will not say that this is the sensible thing which they offer up as a sacrifice 4. Saieth Bellar. in the same place § 8. To a true sacrifice is required that the thing which is offered be in the substance thereof destroyed that is that it be so changed sayth he that it cease to be what it was before Which to affirme of Christs bodie offered up in the Masse wer most horrid blasphemie 42 THat sacramentall unction is not to be used to the sick VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iam. 5. 14. where the anointing of the sick with oyle is coÌ„manded To which I answere in Cardinall Cajetans words on this place saying Neither by these words themselves nor by the effects doth these words speake of sacramentall extreame unction but rather of that unction saieth he which the Lord Iesus did institute in the gospell to be exercised on the sick for the Text sayeth not if any be sick unto death bâ—t absolutlie if any bee sick sayeth he and further the effect is the raising up of the sick wheras extreame unction is not given but at the point of death sayeth hee besids this Iames biddeth call many elders and many anointers to one sick person which is altogether disagreable to the manner of extreame unction sayeth hee The second place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oyle who were sick and healed them wherunto the same Cardinall answereth thus This unction sayeth he was not sacramentall for it is evident that they used oyle heer for healing not for ministring any sacrament sayeth he as also it is cleare that thereupon followed health otherwise the vertue of healing oyle which was miraculous had not been known this effect is not found by extreame unction sayth he And of this same judgement with Cajetan were Ruardus Iansenius Dominicê° a Soto with