cannot be without faith Romanes 14. 23. and faith is not without the word of God Romaines 10. 17. Seeing then we haue no word whereby we are bidden to worship the Eucharist faith falleth which is the primarie ground and stay of adoration If the Eucharist bee to be adored then by the like reason Baptisine should bee adored too because of the presence and effectuall operation of the holy Ghost But our Aduersaries denie this latter and therefore wee the former When Christ reached the Eucharist to his Disciples wee doe not reade any where that the Apostles rose vp and worshipped the Sacrament which out of doubt they would haue done if the Sacrament should haue beene adored Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason 1. Transsubstantiation takes away all occasion of Idolatrie therefore say they wee are vniustly accused of Idolatrie Ans 1. Transsubstantiation is a principle simply false therefore it is a begging of the question 2. If Transsubstantiation were granted yet it could not bee prooved that it should haue place out of the vse of the Sacraments these are therefore rotten and ruinous foundations 2. If it bee rightly adored in the vse why not rightly also out of the vse Ans Because the Sacrament out of the vse is no Sacrament As was declared a while agoe 3 Wheresoeuer Christ is there hee is to bee adored but Christ is in the consecrated host therefore he is to be worshipped in the hoste Answer 1 Wee worshipp Christ in the Eucharist for wee say at the Communion wee praise thee wee worship thee c. but wee worshipp not the Eucharist nor CHRIST as there carnally present 2 The maior proposition as it is proposed by the Papists is not simply and in all respects true For Christ was in Peter the Apostle yet Peter would not suffer himselfe to be worshipped Act 10 25 26. 4 If the manhoode of Christ which yet is a creature bee â—ightly adored because of the hypostaticall vnion why may not the bread be adored too because of the Sacramentall vnion Answere 1 There is great difference betweene the Sacramentall vnion and the personall vnion the one maketh one person and subsistence the other dooth not 2 The flesh of Christ never subsisted by any proper subsistence of his own before the incarnation but as soone as it beganne to haue a beeing it subsisted in the person of the Sonne of God and that not by any proper subsistence of his owne Hereof it commeth to passe that whosoeuer doth adore the Sonne of God that is the second person in Trinitie the same dooth also rightly adore the flesh of Christ which things seeing they be nothing so in the breade and wine of the Euchariste the case is nothing alike 3 The Sacramentall vnion is onely by relation and may bee dissolued the personall vnion is a most neare ioyning of two natures in one person which neuer can be dissolued 4 Concerning the worshipping of the flesh of Christ wee haue the word and examples in the Scripture but we want both for the worshipping of the Eucharist as was saide a while a goe QVESTION 3. Concerning carying about and inclosing the Eucharist in a boxe we deeme all those things impious Because they haue no commandement of God Because they are contrarie to the commandement of eating and drinking the Sacrament Because in so doing the sacramentall action is pulled a sunder to wit the consecratioÌ„ from the vse and pertaking of it The vse of the Supper is turned into an action altogether different from the institution of Christ The feast of Corpus Christi and the carrying about of the Sacrament were now late brought in and set on foote by the Bishops of Rome about an hundred and an halfe of yeares agoe If the commandement of Christ concerning the true vse of the Sacrament were performed there would remaine none occasion of shutting vp and carying about of the Sacrament There bee no examples of the Apostles for it For Paul who writeth to the Corinthians of the Eucharist most exactly yet doth not so much as in one worde mention anie shutting of it vp carying it about or adoring it Neither can there bee shewed in the purer primitiue Church anie so much as a step and token thereof CHAP. 17. Of the Masse THe Papists haue turned the sacrameÌ„t of the Note here the â—nrse is to bee obserued a-against soÌ„e of the Papists who peruert the state of the question in this disputation and say that they striue onely for the sacrifice of Eucharist or thanksgiuing these same are stracken with a curse by the councel of trent Lords Supper into a sacrifice wherein they offer daily the consecrated breade and winâ— to God the Father for the sinnes of the liuing and the dead And more ouer they contend that in the Eucharist there is not onely a sacrifice of remembrance and thanksgiuing but that there is also a propitiatorie sacrifice For so saith the Councell of Trent Sess 6. cap. 2 can 3. If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the Masse is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed vpon the Crosse and not a propitiatorie Sacrifice or that it doth profit him alone that receiueth it and that it ought not to bee offered for the huing and the dead for their sinnes punishments satisfactions and other necessities let him bee accursed But wee acknowledge no such visible Sacrifice in the Church neither do we finde in scripture anie other propitiatorie Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of Christ and this sacrifice of the Masse wee doe reâ—ect for the reasons following Because to make of the Lords Suppera propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the deade is contrarie to the institution of our Lord Iesus Christ and it is to disanull pernert his Testament 1 Christ did not command to offer his body and bloud but to eate and drinke them 2. And there is not so much as one word in al the action and institution of the supper which might inferre any mention of a Sacrifice 3 Neither do we reade that Christ offered himselfe in his supper as if by his owne example hee would institute masse for if hee offered himselfe to his heauenly Father in his supper then should hee not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation once made Heb 7 27 9 26. 28 and 10 10. 14. but with a double oblation twise made namely once in his supper once vpon the Crosse which is false absurd But if he offered not himselfe in his supper as it is most true he did not then neither can his example which wee should follow lay vpon vs the office of sacrificing 4. Paul receiued of the Lord the institution of the Eucharist but made mention of no sacrifice at all which the Apostle especially seeing hee boasteth that hee had shewed all the councell of God Acts 20 27 ought not to haue omitted if there should haue been anie respect of a
Anna c. He is not a Iewe which is one outward neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh But he is a Iewe which is one within and the circumcision is of the hart whose praise is not of meÌ„ but of God Rom. 2 28 29. Now how God in the time of Poperie the publick Ministerie of the word being corrupted had his inuisible Church is thus declared There were a coÌ„pany of baptized Infants which were a great part of the Church but Note By this declaration it appeares tâ—at we doe not condemne our godly ancestours who liued in the time of Poperie the Church was neuer at any time without baptized children seeing that Baptisme euen vnder the raigne of Antichrist remained in the Church There were alwaies godly intelligeÌ„t meÌ„ which gaine-said the Pope sometimes openâ—y sometimes secretly See the booke intiâ—uled Catalâ—gus testium veritatis and those who gaine-said him had them which approâ—ed their iudgement although by reason of the tyrannie of the Bishops of Rome they durst not openly make profession thereof There were also many simple men whose harts were more pure thaÌ„ were the mouthes of their teachers The simpler sort had the chiefe fundamentall points of Christian Religion in the Lords praier the Creede and the ten Commaundements whereby they might bee instructed to a true faith a right inuocating of God and an holy life They heard the Passion of Christ read out of the stories of the Euangelists as also the rehearsing of the Gospels They might therfore out of the text neglecting the glosses of their Preachers learn those things which are necessarie to saluation They confirmed their faith by receauing the holy Supper of the Lord which though it was maimed of the one kinde the cup being quite taken froÌ„ them yet were not they in fault who were coÌ„strained to endure that tyrannie The Masse and other idolatrous seruice by the speciall prouidence of God were celebrated in the Latine tongue for which cause the Lay people were the lesse partakers of their idolatrie which vnderstoode not what was done They had Christ the foundation It is credible therefore that in their agonie the stubble that was built vpon the foundation was consumed but theÌ„selues saued as it were by the fire of tentation tribulation 1 Cor. 3. Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason 1 Yee are the light of the World a City that Note 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 our Aduersaries should proue that the church is onely visible but they proue nothing els but that the church is visible which is not questioned is set on an hill cannot be hid also no man lighteth a candle and putteth it vnder a bushell c. Mat. 5 14 15. therefore the Church is visible Ans 1. I graunt the whole reason if by the Church be meant the externall publick Ministerie 2 It is a fallacie from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely for in that the Church is said to be visible that is true in some respect onely that is not in respect of the inward man but of the outward publick Ministerie 2 That the Church is visible and that the Church is inuisible be contradictories therefore if it be granted that the Church is visible the inuisible is ouerthrowne Ans Contradictions are not vnlesse they be spoken of the same things and in the same respect but that Church is called visible in one respect and inuisible in another for it is visible in respect of the externall companie of them that heare the Word and vse the Sacraments but it is inuisible in respect of the inward man and true faith which is knowne to God alone as before I said 3 Vnlesse the Church bee visible there will not bee an apparent and free accesse to the Church for any man which ought notwithstanding continually to be so Answer 1. There is an equiuocation in the worde Church First it is taken for the publick Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments and so I grant the whole reason Secondly it is taken for those which doe truly beleeue the Word and rightly vse the Sacraments and so the conclusion is to be denied 2 By that which hath beene saiâ— it appeareth that the Antecedent speaketh of the former the consequent of the later acceptioÌ„ of the Church and so there bee foure termes in the Syllogisme 4 Christ bids vs heare the Church Matthew 18. Which if it bee inuisible cannot bee found out Answer 1. I answere to this reason as to the former 2 Our Aduersaries haue more in the conclusion than in the premisses For thus much followeth that there is a certaine visible church or that in some meaning the church is visible but that there is onely a visible Church there is neuer a word in the place cited 5 The Fathers did oppose the authoritie of the visible Church against Heretikes therefore there must needes be a visible Church Ans 1. It is a fallacie supposing that for a cause which is not For they did not oppose the authority of the Church against the Heritikes for that it was either visible or inuisible but because at that time it preserued the sacred bookes and the sincere profession of the Doctrine 2 Neither did the Fathers seeke to represse the Heritikes by the onely authoritie of the Church but stroue against them with the authoritie of the Scripture Question 3. Whether the Church may erre Our Aduersaries denie it hoping that if it appeare as in truth it doth that the Church in ancient times was at Rome and if that the Church cannot erre that they shall easily without any adoe free themselues from all crime of falshoode by the bare name of the Church being free from all errour But we denie it for these reasons Because the promises of preseruing the purity of the Church are conditionall and not absolute as if yee continue in my word yee are verily my Disciples Ioh 8. 31. Because where the thing doth testifie the contrarie there no plea hath place But we haue examples ready at hand both in the olde and new Testament that the Church hath erred 1. The Church of the olde Testament aâ— concerning the publick Ministerie hath often erred as in the Wildernes when iâ— worshipped the Calfe in the time of the Iudges it oftentimes fell away from the true seruice of God The like happeneâ— vnder the gouernment of King Ahab iâ— the time of Ieremie and of Christs comming in the flesh 2. In the new Testament the Church erred 1 In the Church of Corinth many doubted of the Resurrection of the dead 2 The Galathians swarued from the Apostolick doctrine of Paul in the article of Iustification 3 The Church of Pergamus fauoured the Nicholaitans Reuelation 2 15. 3. At this day the Church of Rome doth erre in many things which hereafter shall be made to appeare as cleare as the noon day The particular members of the Church are not free from error as it is plaine that Peter
The Apostles did annoint many sicke men with oile and healed them Mark 6. 13 therefore Extreame vnction is a Sacrament enâ—oined by Christ to the Apostles Ans 1. That annointing was a temporarie thing neither hath it any commaundemeÌ„t that we should do the like 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul Act 19. 12. and the shadowe of Peter whereby manie sicke men were healed Acts. 15. 15. should be Sacraments 3. The text speaketh of miraculous gifts which because they endured but for a time doe not come within the coÌ„passe of Sacraments 3 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray for him and annoint him with oile c. Iames 5. 14. Answer 1. It followeth not Iames speaketh of oile therefore of oile of Extreame vnction magicallie exorcized 2. That annointing was not extreame vnction but was for the recoverie of health whereas on the contrarie side extreame vnction is administred in Poperie to them which are readie foorth-with to die when there is no hope of any recoverie 3 The meaning of Saint Iames is that praier should be made for the sick that their sinnes may bee forgiven them whereby they haue drawne sicknes vpon them but thence ariseth no Sacrament 4. Caietan no meane Cardinall among the Papists saith this place cannot bee vnderstoode of extreame vnction but of the miraculous annointing spoken of Mark 6. Whereof hee giveth three reasons 1 Because Iames doth not say Is anie man sicke vnto death but simply is any man sicke 2 The end and effect heereof is the easing of the sicke but of remission of sins he speaketh not but only conditionally wheras Extreame vnction is not administred but at the point of death is directly intended for remission of sinnes 3 Iames bids call for many Ministers to one sicke man both to pray for him and to annoint him which is much different from the rite of Extreame vnction So one of their owne pillars hath wyped them of two places at once This of Iames and the sixth of Marke which are the onely shewes of authoritie the Papists haue for this forged Sacrament CHAP. 15. Of Transsubstantiation OVr Aduersaries doe expound the sacramentall vnion in the Eucharist to bee by manner of Transsubstantiation whereby they imagine that after the words of consecration the elements doe altogether vanish away and are changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ so that besides the bare accidents which are seene tasted and felt there remaineth no whit of the elements in the Sacrament but we denie that there needes any such fiction of Transsubstantiation for the making of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that for these reasons The nature of a Sacrament requireth that there be together an earthly and an heavenlie lie matter as Irenaeus saith or not that the substance be changed but that grace be adioined as Theodoret speaketh Because there be other meanes of Sacramentall vnion than by Transsubstantiation alone as is apparent in Baptisme Christ saith not This shall bee made my body or this is changed into my body but This is my body to wit by sacramentall relation and vnion as in other Sacraments Paul the heavenly Interpreter of Christs words doth not admit Transsubstantiation but doth so interprete the sacramentall vnion that stil the visible elements remaine or the bread of the Sacrament after the consecration hee calleth bread still to giue vs to vnderstand that the substance of the bread remaineth still 1 The bread saith he which we breake that is distribute after the consecration is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. All we are partakers of one bread 1. Corinth 10. 16. 3. As often as yee shall eate this bread 1 Cor 11. 26. 4. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vers 27. 5. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread verse 28. So haue the Fathers explaned this mysterie that they declare that the elements remaine as Receaue that in the bread spiritually by faith which hanged vppon the Crosse Augustine These manner of speaches in the Scripture are almost alike God is man This is my beloved sonne In which phrases is noted the most neare and straite vnion of the two natures in Christ farre straiter and more neare than this of the Sacrament and yet is not concluded the transsubstantiation of one nature into another or the abolishing of either nature Vpon the opinion of Transsubstantiation many absurdities doe follow 1 So Christ should be said to haue a twofold body or two bodies whereof the one should bee taken from the virgine Marie and the other should be made of bread 2. We should not receaue the body crucified for vs but a certaine other thing which an houre before was not that bodie but bread nay which a little before had no being in nature which is absurd and impious contrarie to the wordes of Christ whereby he promiseth vs that bodie that was given for vs and that bloud which was shed for vs. 3. Accidents are heereby made to bee without a subiect as if when the snow is melted the whitenes of the snow should remaine alone with out a subiect 4. Mise that gnawe the consecrated bread cannot gnaw bare accidents alone Therefore either accidents are substances that they may be subiect to the grinding of teeth or the glorified body of Christ is subiect to elementarie passions and naturall sufferings both of which are most absurd The like question may bee made concerning the burning of the Eucharist what it is that burneth whether bare accidents or the body of Christ 5 Infinite such other grosse absurdities may bee seene in the Writings of that famous man Wilhel Holderus de mure exenterato wherein are recited many other such like things according to the opinion of the Schoole men Our Aduersaries themselues doe not beleeve that there is Transsubstantiation 1. And therefore they seeke out other and more goodly words as annihilation of the elements or a ceasing of them to be desinition they call it 2. Gerson amongst his reasons for the communion vnder one kinde bringeth this as a reason why the cup should bee denied to the people because the wine might bee corrupt and turned into Flies and vineger If the wine be truly transsubstantiated then can it not bee corrupted vnlesse wee will say that Flies and vineger may be generated of the glorified body oâ— Christ or that they are generated of accidents there being no corporeall matter or substance required thereunto 3 Transsubstantiation was not belieued in the whole Church before * I take is this is a fault in the print that the Autor meaÌ„t to say 1300 yeares as â— câ—tur â— writers also do CeÌ„â— 13 cap col 622 for in the 13th centurie after Christ was the Councell of Lateran vnder InnoceÌ„tius the 3d. whereof the Autor heere speaketh which was the 〈◊〉 generall CouÌ„cell wherein TranssubstaÌ„tiation was
c. Now if our Aduersaries think he spoke these words of the choise and difference of meates why doe they not leaue the vse of meates in mens libertie and why do they not take away the difference betweene him that eateth and him that eateth not 3 Seeing Paul speaketh of a thing which hee leaueth in free choise and our Aduersaries of a thing not lefte at liberty this allegation of Paul is impertinent And there be 4. termes 3 It is good not to eate flesh Rom 14 21. Ans 1 Paul speaketh of the moderating of Christian liberty wherof there is no controuersie which seeing our Aduersaries doe wrest to the abrogating of Christian liberty there is more in the conclusion than in the premisses and there is committed the fallacy of taking that absolutely which is spoken but in part onely 2 If these words of Paul do binde vs to a choise of meates then it will follow that we must not drinke wine neither For Paul ioyneth these together It is not good to eate flesh nor to drinke wine Whence one of the two dooth follow that either these words are alleaged impertinently or that the Church of Rome doth erre in not forbidding the vse of wine The latter our Aduersaries do not grant Therefore needs they must grant the former 4 If meate offend my brother I will eate no flesh while the World standeth that I may not offend my brother 1 Cor 8 13. Ans 1 Paul doth not speake of the popish difference of meates wherein the vse of all flesh generally is forbidden but of things sacrificed to idolls Therefore it is nothing to the purpose 2 Euen this moderating of our liberty is it selfe a temporall precept as appeareth Acts. 15 29 the Popes prohibition then seeing it is perpetuall hath no affinity with this precept of Pauls And seeing there be two termes in this argument which have equiuocation in them there arise fiue terms 5 In the Olde Testament there was alwaies a difference made of some meates before and after the floode and in the time of the law Answ 1 These for the most part were shadows of things to come Therfore they be long not to vs in the new Testament 2 Then there was an expresse commandement of God which wee doe not onely want in the new Testament but wee haue also the contrary commandement of Paul Coloss 2 20. c. 6 Daniel fasted with choise of meates Dan 1 8 and 10 3. Answ 1 This was partly Dan 1 8. by the commandement Leu 11. partly of his owne free accord Dan 10. 3 and not of superstition but it was rather a fast of sobriety and temperance all which haue no affinity with the popish faste especially seeing Daniel abstained also from wine which the popish Prelates Priests and Monkes would be loth I warrant you to obserue 7 The choise and difference of meates hath ground in scripture Leuit 11 Deut 14. Answer 1 They were Leuiticall precepts abrogated by God Acts 10 15. By the Apostles Act 15 10 19 20 c. By Paul Coloss 2 16 17 20. c and Heb 13. 9. 2 And that Leuiticall difference of meates was not in this whether it were lawefull to eate flesh or fiâ—h but there was difference put betweene the cleane and vncleane liuing creatures Wherefore that Leviticall difference of meates is fondly wrested to the Popish difference and choise of meates and there be fiue termes in this argument 8 The Apostles did forbid to eate bloud or that which was strangled Act. 15. 29. Answ 1 It was a temporall commaundement for the moderating of Christian libertie vnto the edification of the weake but the Popish difference and choise of meates doth not moderate but abrogate Christian libertie neither is it for any weake ones sake but for obtaining of tyrannie in the Church 2 The Apostles did not forbid them flesh at all but bloud that which was strangled which many men at this day also by nature thinke abhominable to be eaten It is nothing therfore to the purpose 9 The Nazarites abstained from certaine meats and drinks Numb 6 3. Ans 1. The vowe of the Nazarites did belong to a certain abstinence for one set time but heerein it agreeâ—h not with the Popish choise and difference of meates 2. It was a Leviticall ceremonie which ought to cease among Christians 3 The law of Nazarites did forbid the vse of wine also which notwithstanding our Aduersaries doe retaine in their fast 10. The Rechabites abstained from wine Ier. 35. 6. 10. Answ 1. They did it not to merite the favour of God but they had receaued a commandement froÌ„ their Father that they might the more easily abstaine from drunkennes the vices which follow drunkennes Neither would their Father prescribe a law to others but to his sonnes It is then a fallacie taking that absolutely which is spoken but in part 2. We dispute of flesh and they answer of wine 11. It is not read that Christ did eate flesh but that he did eate bread and fish c. Answ 1 As if the Pascall Lambe had not beene flesh 2. We should not therefore haue an example to imitate if it were never so plaine that Christ did abstaine from flesh 3. But neither doe we reade that Christ did eate hearbs nuts spices nor that he dranke beere All these therefore shall be inhibited Christians if this argument follow 12. The earth was cursed by God Genes 3 17. but beasts live of the earth therefore there should be an inhibitioâ— that they be not eaten Ans 1 By this reason all flesh at all times should be forbidden 2 That curse is but in part namely that it should be barren and bring forth thornes and thistles 3 So should we not eate hearbs neither which spring immediatly out of the earth 13. Because flesh is most nourishing and bringeth forth the pricks of Concupiscence wee ought to abstaine from flesh at that time which is appointed for the taming of our flesh Answer 1. These are the precepts which haue a shewe of wisedome in will-worship Coloss 2 23 and wine should be forbidden rather than flesh as that which inflameth men to Inst and other vices as it is said Prou 23 31 32 c. 14. The Apostles fasted Acts. 13 2. 3 and 14. 23. And fasting is commended Matthew 6 16 Marke 9. 29. Ioâ—l 1. 14. Zachar. 7 5. and 8. 19. Ionah 3 5 7. Answer 1. That Christians should fast in their kinde in due sort and manner no man denieth but without the losse of Christian libertie those things then are brought for arguments which are out of coÌ„trouersie 2 But whiles the argument is from a true manner of fasting to the Popish hypocriticall manner of fasting there arise foure termes For the fasting of the Aposâ—les did not consist in the difference of meates but they that fasted in the old Testament abstained froÌ„ all meate and drinke a whole day vntill evening Such a fast the Popish Priests and