they did eat the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians otherwise his reasō prooues not the point which he hath in hand namely that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corinthians Reason VI. And it is said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath so it may be saide that the sacrament of the Lordes supper was made for man not mā for it therefore man is more excellent thē the sacrament But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the body and blood of Christ then is the sacrament infinitely better then man who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ and made a member of his mysticall bodie whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacrament or outward elements indeede are not better then man the ende beeing alwaies better then the thing ordained to the ende It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall Againe in the supper of the Lord euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ God and man though not the godhead now by this carnall eating we receiue not whole Christ but onely a part of his manhoode and therefore in the sacrament there is no carnall eating and consequently no bodily presence Reason VII The iudgement of the ancient Church Theodoret saith The same Christ who called his naturall bodie foode and bread vvho also called him selfe a vine he vouch safed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie NOT CHANGING NATVRE but putting grace to nature whereby he meanes consecration And The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature For they REMAINE IN THEIR FIRST NATVRE and keepe their first figure and forme and as before may be touched and seene and that which they are made is vnderstood beleeued adored Gelasius saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie and blood of Christ yet so as the SVBSTANCE OR NATVRE OF BREAD AND VVINE CEASETH NOT. And they are turned into the diuine substance yet the bread and wine REMAIN STIL IN THE PROPERTIE OF THEIR NATVRE Lumbard saith If it be asked what conuersion this is vvhether formall or substantiall or of an other kinde I am not able to define And that the Fathers held not transubstantiation I prooue it by sundrie reasons First they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against hereticks which argument they would not haue vsed if they had beleeued a popish reall presence Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them who neuertheles were barred the Lordes table And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies tooke the bread after the administration was ended for common bread Againe it was once an order in the Romane church that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread which had bin consecrated But this order cannot stand with the reall presence in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and bloode Nicholaus Cabasilas saith After he hath vsed some speach to the people he erects their mindes and lifts their thoughts from earth saith Sursum corda Let vs lift vp our heartes let vs THINKE ON THINGS ABOVE and not on things that are vpon the earth They consent say that they lift vp their hearts thither where is their treasure and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father Obiections of Papists I. Their first reason is Ioh. 6. 55. My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed therefore say they Christs body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunke accordingly Ans. The chapter must be vnderstood of a spirituall eating of Christ his bodie is meate indeede but spirituall meate and his bloode spirituall drinke to be receiued not by the mouth but by faith This is the very point that Christ here intendes to prooue namely that to beleeue in him is to eate his flesh and to drinke his bloode are all one Againe this chapter must not be vnderstoood of that speciall eating of Christ in the sacrament for it is saide generally v. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you and if these very words which are the substance of the chapter must be vnderstood of a sacramentall eating no man before the comming of Christ was saued for none did bodily eate or drink his bodie or bloode considering it was not then existing in nature but onely was present to the beleeuing heart by faith II. Obiect An other argument is taken from the wordes of the institution This is my body Ans. These wordes must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure his bodie beeing put for the signe and seale of his bodie It is obiected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speake as plainely as they cā now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament and therefore he spake plainely without any figure Ans. Christ here speaketh plainely and by a figure also for it hath bin alwaies the vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of sacraments to giue the name of the thing signified to the signe as Gen. 17. 10. circumcision is called the couenant of God in the next v. in way of exposition the signe of the couenāt Exod. 12. 11. the paschal lambe is called the Angels passing by or ouer the houses of the Israelites whereas indeed it was but a signe thereof 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock was Christ 1. Cor. 5. 7. The Passeouer was Christ. And the like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament cōcerning the cup which the Papists themselues confesse to be figuratiue when it is said Luk. 22. This cuppe is the new testament in my blood that is a signe seale and pleadge thereof Againe the time when these wordes were spoken must be considered and it was before the passion of Christ whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed and cōsequently neither of thē could be receiued in bodily manner but by faith alone Againe Christ was not onely the author but the minister of this sacrament at the time of institution thereof and if the bread had beene truly turned into his bodie and the wine into his blood Christ with his owne hands should haue taken his owne bodie and blood and haue giuen it to his disciples nay which is more he should with his owne hands haue taken his owne flesh and drunken his owne bloode and haue eaten himself For Christ himselfe did
Pope saith to the Emperour I which AM SVBIECT TO YOVR COMMANDEMENT haue euery way discharged that which was due in that I haue performed mine allegiance to the Emperour and haue not concealed vvhat I thought on Gods behalfe And Pope Leo the fourth after Gregorre 200. yeares acknowledged the Emperour Lotharius for his soueraigne prince and professed obedience without gainsaying to his Imperial commandemeÌ„ts To conclude whereas they say that there is a double head of the Church one imperiall which is Christ alone the other ministerial which is the Pope gouerning the whole Church vnder Christ I answer this distinction robbeth Christ of his honour because in setting vp their ministeriall head they are faine to borrow of Christ things proper vnto him as the priuiledge to forgiue sinnes properly and the power to gouerne the whole earth by making of lawes that shall as truly binde conscience as the lawes of God c. The nineteenth point Of the efficacie of the sacraments Our consent Conclus I. We teach and beleeue that the sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits vnto vs. Conclus II. We teach further that the sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the foresaid benefits vnto vs. Thus farre we consent with the Romane Church The difference The difference betweene vs standes in sundrie points First of all the best learned among them teach that sacraments are phisicall instruments that is true and proper instrumentall causes hauing force and efficacie in them to produce and giue grace They vse to expresse their meaning by these comparisons When the scriuener takes the pen into his hande and writes the action of writing comes from the penne mooued by the hand of the writer and in cutting of wood or stone the diuision comes from the sawe mooued by the hand of the workman euen so the grace say they that is giuen by God is conferred by the sacrament it selfe Nowe we for our parts holde that Sacraments are not physicall but meere voluntarie instruments Voluntarie because it is the will and appointment of God to vse them as certen outward meanes of grace Instruments because when we vse them aright according to the institution God then answerably conferres grace from himselfe In this respect only take we them for instruments and no otherwise The second difference is this They teach that the very action of the Minister dispensing the sacrament as it is a worke done giues grace immediatly if the partie be prepared as the very washing or spâ—inkling of water in baptisme and the giuing of bread in the Lords supper euen as the orderly moouing of the penne vpon the paper by the hand of the writer causeth writing We hold the contrarie namely that no action in the dispensation of a Sacrament conferreth grace as it is a worke done that is by the efficacie and force of the very sacramentall action it selfe though ordained of God but for two other waies First by the signification therof For God testifies vnto vs his will and good pleasure partly by the word of promise and partly by the sacrament the signes representing to the eyes that which the word doth to the eares beeing also types and certen images of the very same things that are promised in the worde and no other Yea the elements are not generall and confused but particular signes to the seuerall communicants and by the vertues of the Institution for when the faithfull receiue the signes from God by the handes of the Minister it is as much as if God himselfe with his owne mouth should speake vnto them seuerally and by name promise to them remission of sinnes And things said to men particularly doe more affect and more take away doubting then if they were generally spoken to an whole companie Therefore signes of graces are as it were an applying and binding of the promise of saluation to euery particular beleeuer and by this meanes the oftener they are receiued the more they help our infirmitie and confirme our assurance of mercie Againe the sacrament conferres grace in that the signe thereof confirmes faith as a pledge by reason it hath a promise annexed to it For when God commaundes vs to receiue the signes in faith and withall promiseth to the receiuers to giue the thing signified he bindes himselfe as it were in bonde vnto vs to stand to his owne word euen as men binde themselues in obligations putting to their handes and seales so as they cannot go backe And when the signes are thus vsed as pledges that often they greatly increase the grace of God as a token sent from one friend to another renews and confirmes the perswasion of loue These are the two principall waies wherby the sacraments are said to conferre grace namely in respect of their signification and as they are pledges of Gods fauour vnto vs. And the very point here to be considered is in what order and manner they confirme And the manner is this The signes and visible elements affect the senses outward and inward the senses conuay their obiect to the minde the minde directed by the holy Ghost reasoneth on this manner out of the promise annexed to the sacramenâ— He that vseth the elements aright shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright in faith and repentance saith the minde of the beleeuer therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kind of reasoning caused in the minde the argument or proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements beeing signes and pledges of Gods mercy The third difference The Papists teach that in the sacrament by the worke done the very grace of iustification is conferred We say no because a man of yeares must first beleeue and be iustified before he can be a meete partaker of any sacrament And the grace that is conferred is onely the increase of our faith hope sanctification c. Our reasons Reason I. The word preached and the sacrameÌ„ts differ in the maÌ„ner of giuing Christ and his benefits vnto vs because in the word the spirit of God teacheth vs by a voice convaied to the minde by the bodily cares but in the sacraments annexed to the word by certen sensible and bodily signed viewed by the eye Sacraments are nothing but visible words and promises Otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ himselfe saith that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh which he vvas to giue for the life of the vvorld and what can be saide more of the Lords supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are partakers of the bodie blood of Christ in baptisme and Hierome to Edibia that in baptisme vve eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ. If thus much may be saide of baptisme why may it not also be saide of the word preached Againe Hierome vpon Ecclesiastes saith It is profitable to be filled with the bodie
him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these wordes to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and apply him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not onely as a Redeemer generally but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his body and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the body and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth stomack whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and apply Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely that through faith we receiue the promise of the spirit Nowe as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence of any other gift or grace of God But first by faith we must apprehend Christ and apply him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seems not to be don by any affectiō of the wil but by a supernatural act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue said agreeth Augustine Tract 25. on Ioh. why preparest thou teeth belly BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN and Tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laiest hold on him And Bernard saith homil in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to followe him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for TO BELEEVE IS TO FINDE Chrysost. on Mark Homil. 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luke lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis he must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certenly by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore we may and must particularly and certenly by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denyed of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnes with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnes of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour beeing such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimony of the Spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of questistion Bernara saith that the testimony of the spirit is a most sure testimony Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therefore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And Saint Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs. whatsoeuer vve aske according to his vvill And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commandement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospel commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the lawe and of the Gospel The commādements of the lawe shewe vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine commandements of the Gospel doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life god with the commandement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be don Now this is a commandement of the gospel to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministerie repent and beleeue the Gospel And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the deuills beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commandement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are inioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also inioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which standeth in the remission of our sinnes and our acceptation to life euerlasting Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach
in praier we must beleeue it shall be giuen vs as we aske it but in praier we are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes and the merit of Christs righteousnes for our selues therefore we must beleeue the same particularly The proposition is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euery petition we bring a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing lawfully asked shall be giuen accordingly Mark 11. 24. The minor is also euident neither can it be denyed for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner Forgiue vs our debts and to it we say Amen that is that our petitions shall without all doubt be graunted vnto vs. Aug. serm de Temp. 182. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principall part and propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Nowe the first they acknowledge but the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie III. Reason The iudgement of the auncient Church August I demand now doest thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleevest thou that all THY SINNES may freely be pardoned by him THOV HAST THAT VVHICH THOV HAST BEELEEVED Bern. The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be remitted but by him alone against whome they were committed but goe further and beleeue this too that by him THY SINNES ARE FORGIVEN THEâ— This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiueÌ„ thee Cyprian God promiseth thee immortalitie vvhen thou goest out of this vvorld and DOEST THOV DOVBT This is indeede not to knowe God and this is for a member of the church in the house of faith not to haue faith If we beleeue in Christ let vs beleeue his wordes promises and we shall neuer die and shall come to Christ with IOYFVL SECVRITIE with him to raigne for euer The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification is this The Papist saith we are iustified by faith because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this maner By faith saith he the minde of man is inlightened in the knowledge of the law and gospell knowledge stirres vp a feare of hel with a consideration of the promise of happines as also the loue and feare of God and hope of life eternall Now when the heart is thus prepared God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues whereby a sinner is iustified before God We say otherwise that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall Instrument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion whereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification In this their doctrine is a twofold error I. that they make faith which iustifieth to goe before iustification it selfe both for order of nature as also for time whereas by the word of God at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then iustified and sanctified For he that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life Iohn 6. 54. The second is that faith beeing nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which beeing mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeed is as much as if we should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely be inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before we can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend apply Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnes and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that we for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this conditioÌ„ is by grace as well as the substance Now theÌ„ that we may attaine to saluation by Christ he must be giuen vnto vs really as he is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluatioÌ„ to euery one that beleeues and the end of the sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefites to them that come to be partakers thereof as is most plainely to be seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicantes is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot be effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therefore faith must needes be an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that we may finde comfort by this giuing The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment I. Reason Luk. 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiueÌ„her BECASE shee loued much WheÌ„ce they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had already pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. We are translated from death to life BECAVSE we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof II. Reason Gal. 5. 6. Neither circumcision nor vncircumcision auaileth any thing but FAITH THAT VVOEKâ—TH BY LOVE Hence they gather that faith doth instifie together with loue Ans. The propertie of true faith is to apprehend and receiue something vnto it selfe and loue that goes alwaies with faith as a fruite and an vnseperable companion thereof is of another nature For it doth not receiue in but as it were giue out it selfe in all the duties of the first and second table towards God and man and this thing faith by it selfe cannot doe therefore Paul saith that faith worketh by loue The hand hath a propertie to reach out it selfe to
an Idol And Isidore saith that the heathen vsed the names of image and idol indifferently in one and the same signification And S. Steuen in his apologie Act. 7. 41. calls the golden calfe an Idol Hierome saith that idols are images of dead men Ancient Diuines accorde with all this which I haue said Lactantius saith Inst. lib. 2. cap. 19. Where images are for religions sake there is no religion The Councel of Elibera can 36. decreed that nothing should be painted on the walls of Churches which is adored of the people Origen We suffer not any to worship Iesus at altars images and temples BECAVSE IT IS VVRITTEN Thou shalt haue none other Gods And Epiphanius saith It is against the authoritie of the Scriptures to see the image of Christ or of any Saints hanging in the Church In the seauenth Councel of Constantinople these wordes of Epiphanius are cited against the Encratitae Be mindfull beloued children not to bring images into the Church nor set them in the places where the Saintes are buried BVT ALVVAIES CARRIE GOD IN YOVR HE ARTS neither let them be suffered in any common house for it is not meete that a Christian should be occupied by the eyes but by the meditation of the minde Arguments of the Papists The reasons which they vse to defend their opinions are these I. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubins which were Images of angels on the Mercieseat where God was worshipped and thereby was resembled the maiestie of God therefore it is lawefull to make images to resemble God Ansvv. They were erected by speciall commandement from God who prescribed the very forme of them and the place where they must be set and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them otherwise he had sinned let them shewe the like warrant for their images if they can Secondly the Cherubins were placed in the holy of holies in the most inward place of the Temple and consequently were remoued from the sight of the people who onely heard of them none but the high priest saw them and that but once a yeare And the Cherubins without the vayle though they were to be seene yet were they not to be worship ped Exo. 20. 4. Therfore they serue nothing at all to iustifie the images of the Church of Rome Obiect II. God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham Gen. 18. 1 â—3 and to Daniel who sawe the auncient of daies sitting on a throne Dan. 9. Nowe as God appeared so may he be resembled therefore say they it is lawful to resemble God in the forme of a man or any like image in which he shewed himselfe to men Ans. In this reason the proposition is false for God may appeare in whatsoeuer forme it pleaseth his maiestie yet doth it not followe that man should therefore resemble God in those formes man hauing no libcrtie to resemble him in any forme at all vnles he be commanded so to doe Againe when God appeared in the forme of a man that forme was a signe of Gods presence onely for the time when God appeared and no longer as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of Christs body and blood not for euer but for the time of administration for afterward they become againe as common bread and wine And when the Holy Ghost appeared in the likenes of a dove that likenesse was a signe of his presence no longer then the holy Ghost so appeared And therefore he that would in these formes represent the Trinitie doth geeatly dishonour God and do that for which he hath no warrant Obiect III. Man is the image of God but it is lawfull to paint a man and therefore to make the image of God Ans. A very cavill for first a man cannot be painted as he is the image of God which standes in the spirituall gifts of righteousnes and true holines Againe the image of a man may be painted for ciuil or historicall vse but to paint any man for this ende to represent God or in the way of religion that we may the better remember and worship God it is vnlawfull Other reasons which they vse are of small moment and therefore I omit them II. Differ They teach and maintaine that images of God and of Saintes may be worshipped with religious worship specially the crucifixe For Thomas of Watering saith Seeing the crosse doth represent Christ who died vpon acrosse and is to be worshipped with diuine honour it followeth that the crosse is to be worshipped so too We on the contrarie hold they may not Our principall ground is the second commandement which containeth two parts the first forbiddeth the making of images to resemble the true God the second forbids the worshipping of them or God in them in these wordes Thou shalt not bowe downe to them Now there can be no worship done to any thing lesse then the bending of the knee Againe the brasen serpent was a type or Image of Christ crucified Ioh. 3. 14. appointed by God himselfe yet when the people burned incense to it 2. King 18. 4. Hezekias brake it in pieces and is therefore commended And when the deuill bad our Sauiour Christ but to bow downe the knee vnto him and he would giue him the whole world Christ reiects his offer saying Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Math. 4. 10. Againe it is lawfull for one man to worship another with ciuill worship but to worship man with religious honour is vnlawfull For all religious worship is prescribed in the first table and the honour due to man is onely prescribed in the second table and the first commandement thereof Honour thy father which honour is therefore ciuill and not religious Now the meanest man that can be is a more excellent image of God then all the images of God or of Saints that are deuised by men Augustine and long after him Gregorie in plaine tearmes denieth images to be adored The Papists defend their opinions by these reasons I. Psal. 99. 5. Cast downe your selues before his foot stoole Ans. The words are thus to be read Bow at his foot stoole that is at the Arke and Mercyseat for there he hath made a promise of his presence the wordes therefore say not bovv to the Arke but to God at the Arke Obiect II. Exod. 3. 5. God saide to Moses Stand a farre off and put off thy shooes for the place is holy Now if holy places must be reuerenced then much more holy images as the crosse of Christ and such like Ansvv. God commanded the cermony of putting off the shooes that he might thereby strike Moses with a religious reuerence not of the place but of his owne maiestie whose presence made the place holy Let them shewe the like warrant for images III. Obiect It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king or Queene therefore much more to the images of
God and of Saints in heauen glorified being absent from vs. Ans. To kneele to the chaire of estate is no more but a ciuill testimony or signe of ciuill reuerēce by which all good subiects when occasion is offered shewe their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull princes And this kneeling being on this manner and to no other end hath sufficient warrant in the word of God But kneeling to the image of any Saint departed is religious and consequently more then ciuill worship as the Papists themselues confesse The argument then prooueth nothing vnlesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship III. Differ The Papists also teach that God may be lawfully worshipped in images in which he hath appeared vnto mem as the Father in the image of an old man the Sonne in the image of a man crucified and the Holy Ghost in the likenes of a doue c. But we hold it vnlawfull to worship God in by or at any image for this is the thing which as I haue prooued before the second commandement forbiddeth And the fact of the Israelites Exod. 32. in worshipping the golden calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie albeit they worshipped not the calfe but God in the calfe for v. 5. Aaron saith To morrovve shall be the solemnitie of Iehovah whereby he doth giue vs to vnderstand that the calfe was but a signe of Iehouah whome they worshipped Obiect It seemes the Israelites worshipped the calfe For Aaron faith vers 4. These be thy Gods O Israel that brought thee out of Egypt Ansvv. Aarons meaning is nothing els but that the golden calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God And the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe as vpon a stage he is called a King that representes the King And Augustine saith that images are wont to be called by the names of things whereofthey are images as the counterfeit of Samuel is called Samuel And we must not esteeme them all as madde men to thinke that a calfe made of their earings beeing but one or two daies olde should be the God that brought them out of Egypt with a mightie hand many daies before And these are the points of difference touching Images wherein we must stand at varience for euer with the Church of Rome For they erre in the foundation of religion making indeede an idol of the true God and worshipping an other Christ then we doe vnder new tearmes maintaining the Idolatry of the heathen And therefore haue we departed from them and so must we still doe because they are Idolaters as I haue prooued The X. point Of reall presence Our consent I. We holde and beleeue a presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the Sacrament of the Lords supper and that no fained but a true and reall presence which must be considered two waies first in respect of the signes secondly in respect of the communicants For the first we hold and teach that Christs bodie and bloode are truly present with the bread and wine being signes in the sacrament but how not in respect of place of coexistence but by sacramentall relation on this manner When a word is vttered the sound comes to the eare and at the same instant the thing signified comes to the minde and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of are both present together Euen so at the Lords table bread and wine must not be considered barely as substances and creatures but as outward signes in relation to the bodie and blood of Christ and this relation arising from the very institution of the Sacrament standes in this that when the elements of bread wine are present to the hand and to the mouth of the receiuer at the very same time the bodie and bloode of Christ are presented to the minde thus and no otherwise is Christ truly present with the signes The second presence is in respect of the communicants to whose beleeuing hearts he is also really present It will be said what kinde of presence is this Ans. Such as the communion in the sacrament is such is the presence and by the communion must we iudge of the presence Nowe the communion is on this manner God the father according to the tenour of the Euangelicall couenant giues Christ in this sacrament as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man not by part and peecemeale as we say but whole Christ God and man on this sort In Christ there be two natures the godhead and manhood The godhead is not giuen in regard of substance or essence but onely in regard of efficacie merits and operation conueied thence to the manhood And further in this sacrament Christs whole manhood is giuen both bodie and soule in this order First of all is giuen the verie manhoode in respect of substance and that really secondly the merits benefites thereof as namely the satisfaction performed by and in the manhoode to the iustice of God And thus the intire manhood with the benefits thereof are giuen wholly and ioyntly together For the two distinct signes of bread and wine signifie not two distinct giuings of the bodie apart and the blood apart but the full and perfect nourishment of our soules Againe the benefites of Christs manhoode are diuersly giuen some by imputation which is an action of God accepting that which is done by Christ as done by vs and thus it hath pleased God to giue the passion of Christ his obedience Some againe are giuen by a kind of propagation which I cannot fitly expresse in tearms but I resemble it thus As one candle is lighted by an other one torch or candle-light is conuaied to twentie candles euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer is deriued from the storehouse of righteousnes which is in the manhood of Christ for the righteousnes of all the members is but the fruit thereof euen as the naturall corruption in all mankinde is but a fruit of that originall sinne which was in Adam Thus we see how God for his part giues Christ and that really To proceede when God giues Christ he giues withall at the same time the spirit of Christ which spirit creates in the heart of the receiuer the instrument of true faith by which the heart doth really receiue Christ giuen of God by resting vpon the promise which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse to euery true beleeuer Now then when God giues Christ with his benefits and man for his part by faith receiues the same as they are giuen there riseth that vnion which is betweene euery good receiuer and Christ himselfe Which vnion is not forged but a reall true and neare coniunction nearer then which none is or can be because it is made by a solemne giuing and receiuing that passeth betweene God and man as also by the bond of one and the same spirit To come then to the point considering
there is a reall vnion and consequently a reall communion betweene vs and Christ as I haue prooued there must needes be such a kinde of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him that receiues the sacrament in faith And thus farre doe we consent with the Romish Church touching reall presence The dissent We differ not touching the presence it selfe but onely in the maner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the sacrament yet doe we not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall to the signes by sacramentall relation and to the communicants by faith alone On the contrarie the Church of Rome maintaines transubstantiation that is a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christs bodie and bloode by a chaunge and conuersion of the bread and wine into the saide bodie and blood Our reasons I. This corporall presence ouerturnes sundrie articles of faith For we beleeue that the bodie of Christ was made of the pure substance of the virgin Marie and that but once namely when he was conceiued by the holy Ghost and borne But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread and his blood of wine as they must needes be if there be no succession or annihilation but a reall conuersion of substances in the sacrament vnlesse we must beleeue contrarieties that his bodie was made of the substance of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often Againe if his bodie blood be vnder the formes of bread and wine then is he not as yet ascended into heauen but remaines still among vs. Neither can he be saide to come from heauen at the day of iudgement for he that must come thence to iudge the quicke and dead must be absent from the earth And this was the auncient faith Augustine saith that Christ according to his maiestie and prouidence and grace is present with vs to the end of the world but according to his ASSVMED FLESH HE IS NOT alwaies with vs. Cyril saith He is ABSENT IN BODIE and present in vertue vvhereby all things are gouerned Vigilius saith That he is gone from vs according to his humanitie he hath left vs in his humanitie in the forme of a seruant absent from vs when his flesh was on earth it was not in heauen being on earth he was not in heauen and beeing now in heauen he is not on earth Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ according to his humane substance was absent from heauen vvhen he was on earth and LEFT THE EARTH when he ascended into heauen Reason II. This bodily presence ouerturnes the nature of a true bodie whose common nature or essentiall propertie it is to haue length breadth and thicknes which beeing taken away a bodie is no more a bodie And by reason of these three dimensions a bodie can occupie but one place at once as Aristotle said the propertie of a bodie is to be seated in some place so as a man may say where it is They therefore that holde the bodie of Christ to be in many places at once doe make it no bodie at all but rather a spirit and that infinite They alleadge that God is almightie that is true indeede but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do but what he wil do And I say further because God is omnipotent therefore there be some things which he cannot doe as for him to denie himselfe to lie and to make the parts of a contradiction to be both true at the same time To come to the point if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once he should make it to be no bodie while it remaines a bodie and to be circumscribed in some one place and not circumscribed because it is in many places at the same time to be visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament and thus should he make contradictions to be true which to doe is against his nature and argues rather impotencie then power Augustine saith to this purpose If he could lie deceiue be deceiued deale vniustly he should not be omnipotent And Therefore he is omnipotent because he can not doe these things Againe He is called domnipotent by doing that which he will and not by doing that which he will not which if it should be fal him he should not be omnipotent Reason III. Transubstantiation ouerturnes the very Supper of the Lord. For in euery sacramēt there must be a signe a thing signified and a proportion or relation betweene them both But popish reall presence takes all away for when the bread is really turned into Christs body and the wine into his bloode then the signe is abolished and there remaines nothing but the outwarde formes or appearance of breade and wine Againe it abolisheth the endes of the sacrament whereof one is to remember Christ till his comming againe who beeing present in the sacrament bodily needes not to be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of things absent Another ende is to nourish the soule vnto eternall life but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is onely fed with spiritual food for though the body may be bettered by the food of the soule yet cā not the soule be fed with bodily food Reason IV. In the sacrament the bodie of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his blood as it was shedde vpon the crosse but nowe at this time Christs body crucified remaines still as a bodie but not as a bodie crucified because the act of crucifying is ceased Therefore it is faith alone that makes Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the sacrament Again that blood which ran out of the feet and hands and side of Christ vpon the crosse was not gathered vp againe and put into the veines nay the collection was needelesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life and none knowes what is become of this blood The Papist therefore cannot say it is present vnder the forme of wine locally and we may better say it is receiued spiritually by faith whose property is to giue a beeing to things which are not Reason V. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The fathers of the olde testament did eate the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ. Now they could not eate his body which was crucified or drinke his bloode shedde bodily but by faith because then his bodie and blood were not in nature The Papists make answer that the fathers did eat the same meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke with themselues not with vs. But their answer is against the text For the Apostles intent is to prooue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians because
eate the bread and drinke the wine that he might with his own person consecrate his last supper as he had consecrated baptisme before And if these wordes should be properly vnderstood euery man must be a manslaier in his eating of Christ. Lastly by meanes of popish reall presence it comes to passe that our bodies should be nourished by naked qualities without any substance which in all philosophie is false and erronious To helpe this the like absurdities some Papists make nine wonders in the sacrament The first that Christs bodie is in the Eucharist in as large a quantitie as he was upon the crosse and is now in heauen and yet exceedes not the quantitie of the bread The second that there be accidents without a subiect The third that bread is turned into the bodie of Christ and yet is not the matter of the bodie nor resolued to nothing The fourth that the body increaseth not by consecration of many hosts and is not diminished by often receiuing The fifth that the bodie of Christ is vnder many consecrated hosts The sixt that when the host is diuided the bodie of Christ is not diuided but vnder euery part thereof is vvhole Christ. The seauenth that when the priest holds the host in his hand the bodie of Christ is not felt by it selfe nor seene but the formes of bread and vvine The eight that vvhen the formes of bread and wine cease the bodie and bloode of Christ ceaseth also to be there The ninth that the accidents of bread and wine haue the same effects vvith the bread and vvine it selfe vvhich are to nourish and fill On this manner it shall be easie for any man to defend the most absurd opinion that is or can be if he may haue libertie to answer the arguments alledged to the contrary by wonders To conclude seeing there is a reall communion in the sacrament betweene Christ and euery beleeuing heart our dutie therefore is to bestow our hearts on Christ endeauouring to loue him and to reioyce in him and to long after him aboue all things all our affiance must be in him with him wee beeing nowe on earth must haue our conuersation in heauen And this is the true reall presence which the auncient Church of God hath commended vnto vs for in all these liturgies these wordes were vsed and are yet extant in the popish masse Lift vp your hearts we lift them vp vnto the Lord. By which wordes the communicants were admonished to direct their mindes and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God Thus saide Augustine If vve celebrate the ascension of the Lord vvith deuotion let vs ascend vvith him and lift vp our hearts Againe they vvhich are alreadie risen with Christ in faith and hope are inuited to the great table of heauen to the table of Angels VVHERE IS THE BREAD The eleuenth point Of the sacrifice in the Lords Supper which the Papists call the sacrifice of the Masse Touching this point first I will set downe what must be vnderstoode by the name Sacrifice A sacrifice is taken properly or improperly Properly it is a sacred or solemne action in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vnto God for this end to please and honour him thereby Thus al the sacrifices of the old testament and the oblation of Christ vpon the crosse in the new Testament are sacrifices Improperly that is onely by the way of resemblance the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices And in handling this question I vnderstande a sacrifice both properly and improperly by way of resemblance Our consent Our consent I propound in two conclusions Conclus I. That the supper of the Lord is a sacrifice and may truly be so called as it hath bin in former ages that in three respects I. Because it is a memoriall of the reall sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and containes withall a thanksgiuing to God for the same which thanksgiuing is the sacrifice and calves of our lips Hebr. 13. 15. II. Because euery communicant doth there present himselfe bodie and soule a liuing holy and acceptable sacrifice vnto God For as in this sacrament God giues vnto vs Christ with his benefits so we answerable giue vp our selues vnto God as seruants to walk in the practise of all dutifull obedience III. It is called a sacrifice in respect of that which was ioyned with the sacrament namely the Almes giuen to the poore as a testimonie of our thankefulnes vnto God And in this regard also the ancient Fathers haue called the sacrament an vnbloodie sacrifice and the table an altar the ministers priests and the whole action an oblation not to God but to the congregation not by the priest alone but by the people A Canon of a certaine Council saith We decree that euery Lords day the oblation of the altar be offered of euery man and woman both for bread and wine And Augustine saith that vvomen offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord that it might be offered by the priest to God And vsually in ancient writers the communion of the whole bodie of the congregation is called the sacrifice or oblation Conclus II. That the very bodie of Christ is offered in the Lordes Supper For as we take the bread to be the bodie of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ vpon the crosse And thus the fathers haue tearmed the Eucharist an immolation of Christ because it is a cōmemoration of his sacrifice vpon the crosse Aug. Epist. 23. Neither doth he lie which saith Christ was offered For if sacraments had not the resemblāce of things whereof they are sacraments they should in no vvise be sacraments but from a resemblance they often take their names Againe Christ is sacrificed in the last supper in regard of the faith of the cōmmunicants which makes a thing past and done as present Augustine saith When we beleeue in Christ he is offered for vs daily And Christ is then slaine for euery one vvhen he beleeues that he is slaine for him Ambrose saith Christ is sacrificed daily in the mindes of beleeuers as vpon an altar Hierome saith He is alwaies offered to the beleeuers II. The difference They make the Eucharist to be a reall externall or bodily sacrifice offered vnto God holding and teaching that the minister is a priest properly and that in this sacrament he offers Christs bodie and blood to God the father really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine We acknowledge no reall outward or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sinnes but onely Christs oblation on the crosse once offered Here is the maine difference betweene vs touching this point and it is of that waight and moment that they stiffely maintaining their opinion as they doe can be no Church of God For this point raseth the
foundation to the very bottom And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the truth first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture and secondly confute the reasōs which they bring for themselues III. Our reasons Reason I. Heb. 9. v. 15. and 26 and cap. 10. v. 10. The holy ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once Therefore not often and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper the text is plaine The Papists answer thus The sacrifice of Christ say they is one for substāce yet in regard of the manner of offering it is either bloodie or vnbloodie and the holy ghost speakes onely of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ which was indeede offered but once Ans. But the author of this epistle takes it for graunted that the sacrifice of Christ is onely one and that bloodie sacrifice For he saith Heb. 9. v. 25. Christ did not offer himselfe often as the high priests did v. 26. For thē he must haue oftē suffered since the foundatiō of the world but now in the end he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and v. 22. VVITHOVT SHEDDING OF BLOOD is NO remission of sinne By these wordes it is plaine that the scripture neuer knewe the two fold maner of sacrificing of Christ. And euery distinction in Diuinitie not founded in the written worde is but a forgerie of mans braine And if this distinction be good how shall the reason of the Apostle stand He did not offer himselfe but once because he suffered but once Reason II. The Romish Church holdes that the sacrifice in the Lordes Supper is all one for substance with the sacrifice which he offered on the crosse if that be so then the sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a cōtinuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse or els an iteration or repetition of it Now let them choose of these twaine which they wil if they say it is a continuance of the sacrifice on the crosse Christ being but the beginner and the Priest the finisher thereof they make it imperfect for to continue a thing till it be accomplished is to bring perfection vnto it but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected as by his owne testimony appeares when he said consummatum est it is finished Againe if they say it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice thus also they make it imperfect for that is the reason which the holy ghost vseth to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testamēt were imperfect because they were repeated Reason III. A reall and outward sacrifice in a sacrament is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord for one end thereof is to keepe in memory the sacrifice of Christ. Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daily and really sacrificed the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice Againe the principall ende for which the sacrament was ordained is that God might giue we receiue Christ with his benefits and therfore to giue and take to eate drink are here the principal actiōs Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ the priest receiue him of God but contrariwise he giues offers Christ vnto God and God receiues some thing of vs. To helpe the matter they say that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ beeing already made But this answere still maketh against the nature of a sacrament in which God giues Christ vnto vs whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man and man giues something to god a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to apply any thing vnto vs that is giuen of God Reason IV. Heb. 7. 24. 25. The Holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the newe testament and all Leuiticall priests in this that they were many one succeeding another but he is onely one hauing an eternall priesthood which cannot passe from him to any other Nowe if this difference be good then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest of the new testament and no other with or vnder him otherwise in the new testament their should be more priests in number then in the old If they say that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ and that the priest is but an instrument vnder him as they say I say againe it is false because the whole oblatiō is acted or done by the priest himselfe and he which doth all is more then a bare instrument Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and blood for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediatour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith that the priest in his masse is a priest properly and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice differing onely in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and in the very Canon of the masse they insinuate thus much when they request God to accept their giftes and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature vnto God Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church A certaine Counsell held at Toledo in Spaine reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion The wordes of the Canon are these Relation is made vnto vs that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer sacrifices in one daie but in one day if they offer many sacrifices to God in ALL THE OBLATIONS THEY SVSPEND THEMSELVES FROM THE COMMVNION Here marke that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine seruice because none did communicate no not the priest himselfe And in an other Counsell the name of the Masse is put onely for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that praiers supplications Masses which shall be alowed in the Councel be vsed And in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed of the making or compounding of Masses for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie blood of Christ admits no composition Abbat Paschasius saith because we sinn daily Christ is sacrificed for vs MYSTICALLY and his Passion is giuen in mysterie These his words are against the reall sacrifice but yet he expounds himselfe more plainly cap. 10. The blood is drunke IN MYSTERIE SPIRITVALLY and it is all SPIRITVAL which we eate and c. 12. The priest distributes to euery one not as much as the outward sight giueth but as much as FAITH RECEIVETH c. 13. The FVL similitude is outwardly and the immaculate flesh
of the lambe is FAITH INVVARDLY that the truth be not wāting to the sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that we drinke the blood of a killed man c. 6. One eates the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinkes his bloode another seemes to receiue not so much as a mor sell of bread from the hand of the priest his reason is because they come vnprepared Now then considering in all these places he makes no receiuing but spirituall neither doth he make any sacrifice but spirituall IV. Obiections of Papists I. Gen. 14. v. 18. When Abraham was comming from the slaughter of the Kings Melchizedek mette him and brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the most high God Now this bread and wine say they he brought forth to offer for a sacrifice because it is said he was a priest of the most high God and they reason thus Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek therefore as Melchizedek offered breade and wine so Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine offers himselfe in sacrifice vnto God Ans. Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the acte of sacrificing but in regard of his person and things pertaining thereto which are all fully expounded Hebr. 7. the summe whereof is this I. Melchizedek was both king and priest so was Christ. II. He was a prince of peace and righteousnes so was Christ. III. He had neither father nor mother because the Scripture in setting down his historie makes no mention either of beginning or ending of his daies and so Christ had neither father nor mother no father as he was man no mother as he was God IV. Melchizedek beeing greater then Abraham blessed him and Christ by vertue of his priesthood blesseth that is iustifieth and sanctifieth all those that be of the faith of Abraham In these things onely stands the resemblance and not in the offering of bread and wine Again the ende of bringing forth the breade and wine was not to make a sacrisice but to refresh Abraham and his seruants that came from the slaughter of the Kings And he is called here a priest of the most high God not in regard of any sacrifice but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham as the order of the wordes teacheth And he was the priest of the most high God and therefore he blessed him Thirdly though it were graunted that he brought forth breade and wine to offer in sacrifice yet will it not follow that in the sacrament Christ himselfe is to be offered vnto God vnder the naked formes of bread and wine Melchizedeks bread wine were absurd types of no-bread and no-wine or of formes of bread and wine in the Sacramēt II. Obiect The paschall lambe was both a sacrifice and a sacrament now the Eucharist comes in roome thereof Ansvv. The paschal lambe was a sacrament but no sacrifice Indeede Christ saith to his disciples Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passeover in Mark 14. 12. but the words to offer or to sacrifice doe often signifie no more but to kill As when Iacob and Laban made a covenant it is saide Iacob sacrificed beasts and called his brethren to eate bread Gen. 31. 54. which wordes must not be vnderstoode of killing for sacrifice but of killing for a feast because he could not in a good conscience inuite them to his sacrifice that were out of the couenant beeing as they were of another religion secondly it may be called a sacrifice because it was killed after the manner of a sacrifice Thirdly when Saul sought his fathers asses and asked for the Seer a maide bids him goe vp in hast for saith shee there is an offering of the people this day in the high place 1. Sam. 9. 12. where the feast that was kept in Rama is called a sacrifice in all likelihood because at the beginning thereof the priest offered a sacrifice to God and so the Passeouer may be called a sacrifice because sacrifices were offered within the cōpasse of the appointed feast or solemnitie of the passeouer yet the thing it selfe was no more a sacrifice then the feast in Rama was Againe if it were graunted that the Passouer was both it will not make much against vs for the supper of the Lord succeedes the Passeouer onely in regard of the maine ende thereof which is the increase of our communion with Christ. III. Obiect Malac. I. II. The prophet foretelleth of a cleane sacrifice that shall be in the new testament and that say they is the sacrifice of the Masse Ans. This place must be vnderstoode of a spirituall sacrifice as we shall plainely perceiue if we compare it with 1. Tim. 2. 8. where the meaning of the prophet is fitly expounded I will saith Paul that men pray in all places LIFTING VP PVRE HANDS without wrath or doubting And this is the cleane sacrifice of the Gentiles Thus Iustin Martyr saith That supplications and thanksgiuings are the ONELY perfect sacrifices pleasing God and that Christians haue learned to OFFER THEM ALONE And Tertullian saith We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour as God hath commaunded with pure praier And Ireneus saith that this cleane offering to be offered in euery place is the praiers of the Saints Obiect IV. Hebr. 13. 10. We haue an altar whereof they may not eate vvhich serue in the tabernacle Now say they if we haue an altar then wee must needes haue a priest and also a reall sacrifice Ans. Here is meant not a bodily but a spirituall altar because the altar is opposed to the materiall Tabernacle and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse in which he prooues that we haue an altar The bodies of the beasts whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sinne were burnt without the campe so Christ Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his ovvne blood suffered vvithout the gate Now lay the reason or proofe to the thing that is prooued and we must needes vnderstande Christ himselfe who was both the altar the priest and the sacrifice Obiect V. Lastly they say where alteration is both of law couenant there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice But in the new testament there is alteration both of law and couenant and therfore there is both new priest and new sacrifice Ans. Al may be granted in the new testament there is both new priest and sacrifice yet not any popish priest but onely Christ himselfe both God and man The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man and the altar Christ as he is God who in the new testament offered himselfe a sacrifice to his Father for the sinnes of the world For though he were the lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world in regard of the purpose of God in regard of the value of his merit and in regard of faith which maketh things to come as
as God Therfore neither Saint nor Angel is to be honoured so much as with the bowing of the knee if it carrie but the least signification of diuine or religious honour Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church August We honour the Saints with charitie and not BY SERVITVDE neither doe vve erect Churches to them And Let it NOT BE RELIGION for vs to vvorship deade men And They are to be honoured for immitation and not to be adored for religion Epiphan Neither Tecla nor any Saint is to be ADORED for that auncient ERROVR may not ouerrule vs that vve should leaue the liuing God and adore things made by him Againe Let Marie be in honour let the Father Sonne and holy Ghost be adored let NONE ADORE MARIE I meane neither vvoman nor man Againe Marie is beautifull and holy and honoured yet NOT TO ADORATION Whē Iulian obiected to the Christians that they worshipped their Martyrs as God Cyril graunts the memorie and honour of them but denies their adoration and of inuocation he makes no mention at all Ambrose on Rom. 1. Is any SO MADDE that he vvill giue to the Earle the honour of the King yet these men doe not thinke them selues guiltie who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and leauing the Lord ADORE THEIR FELLOVV SERVANTS as though there vvere any thing more reserued for God Obiections of Papists I. Gen. 48. 16. Let the angel that kept me blesse thy children Here say they it is a praier made to angels Ans. By the angel is meant Christ who is called the angel of the couenant Malac. 3. 1. and the angel that guided Israel in the wildernes 1. Cor. 10. 9. compared with Exod. 23. 20. Obiect II. Exod. 23. 13. Moses praieth that God would respect his people for Abrahams sake and for Isaac and Israel his seruants which were not then liuing Ans. Moses praieth God to be mercifull to the people not for the intercession of Abraham Isaac and Iacob but for his couenants sake which he had made with them Psal. 123. 10 11. Againe by popish doctrine the fathers departed knewe not the estate of men vpon earth neither did they pray for thē because then they were not in heauen but in Limbo patrum III. Obiect One liuing man makes intercession to God for another therefore much more doe the Saints in glorie that are filled with loue pray to God for vs and we pray to them no otherwise then we desire liuing men to pray for vs. Ans. The reason is naught for we haue a commandement one liuing man to pray for another and to desire others to pray for vs but there is no warrant in the word of God for vs to desire the praiers of men departed Secondly there is great difference betweene these two To request our friend either by word of mouth or by letter to pray for vs and by Inuocation to request them that are absent from vs and departed this life to pray for vs for this is indeede a worshippe in which is giuen vnto them a power to heare and helpe all that call vpon them at what place or time soeuer yea though they be not present in the place in which they are worshipped and consequently the seeing of the heart presence in all places an infinite power to helpe all that pray vnto them which things agree to no creature but God alone Thirdly when one liuing man requests an other to pray for him he onely makes him his companion and fellowe member in his prayer made in the name of one mediatour Christ but when men inuocate Saints in heauen they beeing then absent they make them more then fellowe members euen mediatours between Christ and them The XU. point Of intercession of saints Our consent Our consent with them I will set downe in two conclusions Conclus I. The saints departed pray vnto God by giuing thankes vnto him for their owne redemption and for the redemption of the whole Church of God vpon earth Rev. 5. 8. The foure beasts and the foure and twentie Elders fell dovvne before the lambe 9. and they song a new song Thou art worthie to take the booke and to open the seales thereof because thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God 13. And all the creatures which are in heauen heard I saying Praise and honour and glorie and povver be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne and vnto the Lambe for euermore II. Conclus The Saints departed pray generally for the state of the whole Church Rev. 6. 9. And I savv vnder the Altar the soules of them that were killed for the vvord of God THEY CRIED 10. How lōg Lord holy and true dost thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dvvell on the earth whereby we see they desire a finall deliuerance of the Church and a destruction of the enemies thereof that they themselues with all the people of God might be aduanced to fulnesse of glorie in bodie and soule Yea the dumbe creatures Rom. 8. 23. are said to grone and sigh waiting for the adoption euen the redemption of our bodies much more then do the Saints in heauen desire the same And thus farre we consent The dissent or difference They holde and teach that the Saints in heauen as the virgin Marie Peter Paul c. doe make intercession to God for particalar men according to their seuerall wants and that hauing receiued particular mens praiers they present them vnto God But this doctrine we flatly renounce vpō these grounds and reasons I. Isai 63. 16. The church saith to God doubtles thou art our father though ABRAHAM BE IGNORANT of vs and Israel KNOVVE VS NOT. Now if Abraham knewe not his posteritie neither Marie nor Peter nor any other of the Saints departed knowe vs and our estate and consequently they cannot make any particular intercession for vs. If they say that Abraham Iacob were thē in Limho which they will haue to be a part of hell what ioye could Lazarus haue in Abrahams bosome Luc. 16. 25. and with what comfort could Iacob say on his death bed O Lord I haue waited for thy saluation Gen. 46. 18. II. Reason 2. King 22. 20. Huldah the prophetesse telleth Iosias he must be gathered to his fathers and put in his graue in peace that his eyes may not see all the euill which God would bring on this place Therefore the Saints departed see not the state of the Church on earth much lesse doe they knowe the thoughts and prayers of men This conclusion Augustine confirmeth at large III. Reason No creature Saint or angell can be a mediatour for vs to God sauing Christ alone who is indeede the onely Aduocate of his church For in a true and sufficient Mediatour there must be three properties First of all the worde of God must reueale and propound him vnto the Church that we may in conscience be assured that praying to him and to god in his name
of Christ and drinke his bloode not onely in mysterie but in knovvledge of holy Scripture Now vpon this it followes that seeing the worke done in the word preached conferres not grace neither doth the work don in the sacramēt confer any grace Reason II. Math. 3. II. I baptize you with water to repentance but he that commeth after me is stronger then I he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence it is manifest that grace in the sacrament proceedes not from any action in the sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disioyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of his spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect To this purpose Paul who had saide of the Galatians that he traueled of them beget them by the Gospel saith of himselfe that he is not any thing not onely as he was a man but as he was a faithfull Apostle thereby excluding the whole Euangelicall ministerie whereof the sacrament is a part from the least part of diuine operation or efficacie in conferring of grace Reason III. The blessed Angels nay the very flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe but all this efficacie or vertue is in and from the godhead of the sonne who by meanes of the flesh apprehended by faith deriueth heauenly and spirituall life from himselfe to the members Nowe if there be no efficacie in the flesh of Christ but by reason of the hypotasticall vnion howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediatly Reason IV. Paul Rom. 4. standes much vpon this to proue that iustification by saith is not conferred by the sacraments And from the circumstance of time he gathereth that Abraham was first iustified and then afterward receiue circumcision the signe and seale of this righteousnes Now we knowe that the generall condition of all sacraments is one and the same and that baptisme succeeded circumcision And what can be more plaine then the example of Cornelius Act. 10. who before Peter came vnto him had the commendation of the feare of God and was indued with the spirite of prayer and afterward when Peter by preaching opened more fully the way of the Lord he the rest receiued the holy Ghost And after all this they were baptized Now if they receiued the holy Ghost before baptisme then they receiued remission of sinnes and were iustified before baptisme V. Reason The iudgement of the church Basil. If there be any grace in the water it is not from the nature of the vvater but from THE PRESENCE OF THE SRIRITE Hierome saith Man giues vvater but God giues the holy Ghost Augustine saide Water toucheth the bodie and washeth the heart but he shews his meaning elsewhere There is one vvater saith he of the Sacrament an other of the Spirit the water of the sacrament is visible the water of the Spirit invisible That vvasheth the body AND SIGNIFIETH what is done in the soule By this the soule is purged and sealed Obiect Remission of sinnes regeneration and saluation is ascribed to the sacrament of baptisme Act. 22. 21. Eph. 5. Gal. 3. 27. Tit. 2. Ans. Saluation and remission of sinnes is ascribed to baptisme and the Lords supper as to the word which is the power of God to saluation to all that beleeue and that as they are instruments of the holy Ghost to signifie seale and exhibit to the beleeuing minde the foresaid benefits but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehēded is faith and sacraments are but proppes of faith furthering saluation two waies first because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs yea God giues grace and saluation when we vse them wel so be it we beleeue the word of promise made to the sacrament whereof also they are seales And thus we keepe the middle way neither giuing too much nor too little to the sacraments The XX. point Of sauing faith or the way to life Our consent Conclus I. They teach it to be the propertie of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankind by Christ. Conclus II. They auouch that they beleeue and looke to be saued by Christ and by CHRIST ALONE and by the MEERE MERCY of God in Christ. Conclus III. Thirdly the most learned among thē hold and confesse that the obedience of Christ is imputed vnto them for the satisfaction of the lawe and for their reconciliation with God Conclus IV. They auouch that they put their whole trust and confidence in Christ and in the meere mercy of God for their saluation Conclus V. Lastly they hold that euery man must apply the promise of life euerlasting by Christ vnto himselfe and this they graunte we are bound to doe And in these fiue points doe they and we agree at least in shewe of wordes By the auouching of these 5. Conclusions Papists may easily escape the hands of many magistrats And vnles the mysterie of popish doctrine be well known any common man may easily be deceiued and take such for good protestants that are but popish priests To this ende therefore that we may the better discerne their guile I will shewe wherein they faile in each of their conclusions and wherein they differ from vs. The difference Touching the first conclusion they beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they also beleeue the bookes Apocriphal which antiquitie for many hundred yeares hath excluded from the canō yea they beleeue vnwrittē traditiōs receiued as they say from Councils the writings of the Fathers and the determinations of the Church making them also of equall credit with the written worde of God giuen by inspiration of the spirit Nowe we for our partes dispise not the Apocripha as namely the bookes of the Macchabees Ecclesiasticus and the rest but we reuerence them in all conuenient manner preferring them before any other bookes of men in that they haue bin approued by an vniuersall consent of the Church yet we thinke them not meete to be receiued into the Canon of holy scripture and therefore not to be beleeued but as they are consenting with the written word And for this our doing we haue direction from Athanasius Origen Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea As for vnwritten Traditions they come not within the compasse of our faith neither can they because they come vnto vs by the hāds of men that may deceiue and be deceiued And we hold and beleeue that the right Canon of the books of the old and new Testament containes in it sufficient direction for the Church of God to life euerlasting both for faith an manners Here then is the point of difference that they make the obiect of faith larger then it should be or can be and we keepe our selues to the written word beleeuing nothing to saluation out of
least he partakes in the sinnes and punishments thereof Indeede to goe vpon ambassage to any place or to trauell for this ende that we may performe the necessarie duties for our speciall or generall callings is not vnlawfull but to trauell out of the precincts of the church onely for pleasures sake and to see strange fashions hath no warrant And hence it is that many men which goe forth in good order well minded come home with crased consciences The best traueler of all is he that liuing at home or abroad can goe out of himselfe and depart from his own sinnes corruptions by true repentance FINIS An advertisment to all fauourers of the Roman religion shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the Catechisme GReat is the number of them that embrace the religion of the present church of Rome being deceiued by the glorious titles of Vniuersalitie Antiquity Successiō And no doubt though sōe be wilfully blinded yet many deuoted this way neuer saw any other truth Nowe of them and the rest I desire this fauour that they will but way and ponder with themselues this one thing which I will nowe offer to their considerations and that is That the Romane religion nowe stablished by the councell of Trent is in the principall points thereof against the very grounds of the Catechisme that haue beene agreed vpon euer since the daies of the Apostles by all Churches These groundes are fowre the first is the Apostles Creede the second is the decalogue or ten cōmandements the third is the forme of praier called the Lords praier the fourth is the Institutiō of the two Sacramēts baptisme and the Lords supper 1. Cor. 11. 23. That I may in some order manifest this which I say I will beginne with the Symbole or Creed And first of all it must be considered that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ the head of the Catholike church that there is a fire of purgatorie after this life that images of God and Saints are to be placed in Churches and worshipped that praier is to be made to Saints departed and their intercession to be required that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead These points are of that moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand in the councel of Trent the curse Anathema is pronounced vpō all such as deny these or any of them And yet marke the Apostles creede which hath bin thought to containe all necessarie points in religion to be beleeued and hath therefore beene called the Kay and rule of faith this creed I say hath not any of these points nor the Expositions made thereof by the ancient fathers nor any other creed or confession of faith made by any councell or Church for the space of many hundred yeares This a plaine proofe to any indifferent man that these be new articles of faith neuer known in the Apostolike Church and that the fathers and Councells could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the olde and new Testement Answere is made that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the articles I beleeue the Catholike Church the meaning whereof they will haue to be this I beleeue all things which the catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued If this be as they say we must needes beleeue in the Church that is put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and the certentie of all doctrines necessarie to saluation and thus the eternall truth of God the Creator shall depend on the determination of the creature and the written word of God in this respect is made vnsufficient as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation And the ancient Churches haue bin farre ouerseene that did not propounde the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith but left them to these latter times 2. In this Creede to beleeue in God and to beleeue the church are distinguished To be leeue in is pertaining to the Creatour to beleeue to the creature as Ruffinus hath noted when he saith that by this proposition in the Creatour is distinguished from the creature and things pertaining to God from things pertaining to men And Augustine saith It must be knowne that we must beleeue the Church NOT BELEEVE IN THE CHVRCH because the church is not God but the house of God Hence it followes that we must not beleeue in the Saints nor put our confidence in our workes as the learned Papists teach Therefore Eusebius saith We ought of right to beleeue Peter and Paul but to beleeue in Peter Paul that is to giue to the seruants the houour of the Lord we ought not And Cyprian saith He doth not beleeue in God which doth not place in him alone the trust of his whole felicitie 3. The article conceiued by the holy ghost is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the masse into the body and blood of Christ. For here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward and we acknowledge the truth of his manhoode and that his bodie hath the essentiall properties of a true bodie standing of flesh and bone hauing quantitie figure dimensions namely length breadth thicknes hauing part out of part as head out of feet and feet out of head beeing also circumscribed visible touchable in a word it hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a bodie It will be said that the body of Christ may remaine a true bodie and yet be altered in respect of some qualities as namely circumscription But I say againe that locall circumscription can no way be seuered from a bodie it remaining a bodie For to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall propertie of euery quantitie and quantitie is the common essence of euerie bodie And therefore a bodie in respect of his quantitie must needes be circumscribed in one place This was the iudgement of Leo when he saide The bodie of Christ is by no meanes out of the truth of our bodie And Augustine when he saide ONELY God in Christ so comes that he doth not depart so returnes that he doth not leaue vs but man according to bodie is in place and goes out of the same place and when he shall come vnto an other place HE IS NOT IN THAT PLACE VVHENCE HE COMES To helpe the matter they vse to distinguish thus Christs bodie in respect of the whole essence thereof may be in many places but not in respect of the whole quantitie whereby it is onely in one place But as I haue saide they speake contraries for quantitie by all learning is the essence of a
they worshippe not images but God and Saints in images for neither God nor the Saints doe acknowledge this kinde of honour but they abhorre it Whence it followes necessarily that they worshippe nothing beside the image or the deuise of their owne braine in which they faine to them selues such a God as will be worshipped and receiue our praiers at images It will be saide that the Papists doe no otherwise tie the worship and inuocation of God to images then God tied himselfe to the sanctuarie and the temple of Salomon And I say againe it was the will of God that he would shewe his presence and be worshipped at the Sanctuarie and the Iewes had the warrant of Gods word for it but we haue no like warrant either by promise or commandement to tie Gods presence to an image or crucifix Againe reason yet further may discouer their idolatrie They which worship they know not what worship an idol but the Papists worship they know not what I proue it thus To the coÌ„secratioÌ„ of the host there is required the intention of the priest at the lest vertually as they say if this be true it follows that none of theÌ„ can come to the Masse or praie in faith but he must alwaies doubt of that which is lifted vp by the haÌ„ds of the priest in the masse whether it be bread or the body and blood of Christ. For none can haue any certeÌ„ty of the intention of the priest in consecrating this bread and this wine but rather may haue a iust occasion of doubting by reason of the common ignorance and loosenes of life in such persons Thirdly the commaundement touching the Sabbath giues a libertie to worke sixe daies in the ordinarie affaires of our callings and this libertie cannot be repealed by any creature The Church of Rome therfore erreth in that it prescribeth set and ordinarie â—â—stiuall daies not onely to God but also to Saints inioyning them as straitly and with as much solemnitie to be obserued as the Sabbath of the Lord. Fourthly the third commandement or as they say the fourth inioynes children to obey father and mother in all things specially in matters of moment as in their marriage and choise of their callings and that euen to death and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this commandement allowes that clandestine marriages and the vowe of religion shall be in force though they be without and against the consent of wise and careful parents Fiftly the last commandement of lust forbids the first motions to sinne that are before consent I prooue it thus Lusting is forbidden in the former commandements as well as in the last yea lusting that is ioyned with consent as in the commandement thou shalt not commit adulterie is forbidden lusting after our neighbours wife and in the next lusting after our neighbours goods c. Now if the last commandement also forbid no more but lust with consent it is confouÌ„ded with the rest and by this meanes there shal not be ten distinct words or commandements which to say is absurd it remaines therfore that the lust here forbidden goes before consent Againe the Philosophers knewe that lust with consent was euil euen by the light of nature but Paul a learned Pharise and therefore more then a philosopher knewe not Lust to be sinne that is forbidden in this commandement Rom. 7. Lust therefore that is forbidden here is without consent Wicked then is the doctrine of the Romane Church teaching that in euery mortall sinne is required an act commanded of the will and hence they say many thoughts against faith and vncleane imaginations are no sinnes 6 Lastly the words of the second commandement And shew mercy to thousands on them that loue me and keepe my commandements ouerthrowes all humane merits For if the reward be giuen of mercy to them that keepe the lawe it is not giuen for the merit of the worke done To come to the third part of the Catechisme the Lords praier is a most absolute and perfect forme of praier For which cause it was called of Tertullian the Breuiarie of the Gospell and Caelestinus saith the lawe of praying is the law of beleeuing and the lavv of vvorking Nowe in this praier we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone Our father c and that onely in the name and mediation of Christ. For God is our father onely by Christ. It is needles therefore to vse any inuocation of Saints or to make them our Mediatours of intercession vnto God and it is sufficient if we pray onely vnto God in the name of Christ alone 2. In the fourth petition we say thus Giue vs our daily bread In which words we acknowledge that euery morsell of bread is the meere gift of God VVhat madnes then is it for vs to thinke that we should merit the kingdome of heauen by works that can not merit so much as bread 3 In the next petition Forgiue vs our debts foure opinions of the Romane religion are directly ouerthrowne The first is concerning humane Satisfactions For the childe of God is here after his conuersion taught to humble himselfe day by day and to praie for the pardon of his daily sinnes now to make satisfaction and to sue for pardon be contrary The second opinion here ouerthrowne is touching merits For we doe acknowledge our selues to be debters vnto God yea bankrupts and that beside the maine summe of many thousand talents we daily increase the debt therefore we can not possiby merit any of the blessings of God It is meere madnes to thinke that they which cannot pay their debts but rather increase them day by day should deserue or purchase any of the goods of the creditors or the pardon of their debts if any fauour be shewed them it comes of merre good-will without the least desert In a word this must be thought vpon that if al we can doe will not keepe vs from increasing the maine summe of our debt much lesse shall we be able by any merit to diminnish the same By good right therefore doe all the seruants of God cast downe themselues and praie Forgiue vs our debts The 3. opinion is that punishment may be retained the fault being wholly remitted but this cannot stand for here sinne is called our debt because by nature we owe vnto God obedience for the defect of this paiment we further owe vnto him the forfiture of punishment Sinne then is called our debt in respect of the punnishment And therefore when we pray for the pardon of sinne we require the pardon not onely of fault but of the whole punishment And when a debt is pardoned it is absurd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine The fourth opinion is that a man in this life may fulfill the lawe whereas in this place euery seruant of God is taught to aske a daily pardoÌ„ for the breach of the law Answer is made that our daily sinnes are
veniall and not against the lawe but beside the lawe But this which they say is against the petition for a debt that comes by forfiture is against the bond or obligation Nowe euery sinne is a debt causing the forfiture of punishment and therefore is not beside but directly against the lawe 4. In this clause as we forgiue our debters it is taken for granted that we may certenly knowe that we are in loue and charitie with meâ— when wâ— make reconciliation why then may not we knowe certenly that we repent and beleeue and are reconciled to God which all Romane Catholikes denie 5. In the last wordes and lead vs not into temptation we pray not that God should free vs from temptation for it is other whiles good to be tempted Psal. 26. 1. But that we be not left to the malice of Sathan and held captiue of the temptation for here to be bed into temptation and to be deliuered are opposed Now heÌ„ce I gather that he which is the child of God truely iustified and sanctied shall neuer fal wholly and finally from the grace of God and I conclude on this manner That which we aske according to the will of God shall be graunted 1. Ioh. 5. but this the child of God asketh that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father and left captiue in temptation This therefore shal be graunted 6 This clause Amen signifies a speciall faith touching all the former petitions that they shall be graunted and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sinnes which the Romane Church denieth To come to the last place to the Institution of the sacrament of the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. v 23. In which first of all the Reall presence is by many circumstances ouerthrowne Out of the wordes he tooke and brake it is plain that that which Christ took was not his body because he cannot be said with his owne handes to haue taken held and broken himselfe but the very bread Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but This that is bread is my body 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the body Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not theÌ„ really giuen to death 4. The cup is the newe testament by a figure why may not the bread be the body of Christ by a figure also 5. Christ did eate the supper but not himselfe 6. We are bidden to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present 7. Christ bids the bread to be eaten in a remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent 8. If the Popish reall presence be granted then the body blood of Christ are either seuered or ioyned together If seuered then Christ is still crucified If ioyned together then the bread is both the body blood of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood 2 Againe here is condemned the administration of the sacrament vnder one onely kind For the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Math 26. 27. And this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes do this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me v. 25. And no power can rehearse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church These fewe lines as also the former treatise I offer to the vewe and reeding of them that fauour the Romane religion willing them with patience to consider this one thing that their religion if it were Catholike and Apostolike as they pretend it could not be contrarie so much as in one point to the groundes of all Catechismes that haue beene vsed in all Churches confessing the name of Christ euer since the Apostles daies And whereas it crosseth the said grounds in sundrie points of doctrine as I haue prooued it is a plaine argument that the present Romane religion is degenerate I write not this dispising or hating their persoÌ„s for their religion but wishing vnfainedly their conuersion in this world and their saluation in the world to come FINIS To the Reader Pag. 235. l. 20. I say that Christ obaied the law for him selfe not because he did by his obedience merit his own glorie but because he was to be a perfect and pure high priest not onely in nature but also in life and as he was a creature he was to be conformable to the law Faults to be amended thus Pag. 1. l. 1. for 3. read 4. p. 9. l. 2. read Apostolicke p. 19. l. 17. read formeth and l. 23. read indeauour p. 39. l. last read too p. 48. l. 18. read or p. 55. l. 2. read holy p. 126. l. 2. read be p. 138. l. 13. read pertaining p. 142. l. 23. read matters p. 161. l. 5. read containe and l. last read chastitie p. 168. l. 5. read persecution p. 187. l. 7. read men p. 192. l. last read cannot p. 222. l. 5. read right p. 260. l. 9. read particular p. 265. l. 14. read I thinke p. 284. l. 2. read deputies Faults escaped in the places of Scripture Pag. 1. v. 3. pro 4. p. 4. c. 18. pro 17. p. 6. c. 18. pro 17. p. 7. v. 18. pro 8. p. 19. v. 5. pro 7. p. 22. v 2. pro 1. p. 43. v. 20. pro 28 29. p. 50. v. 21. pro 22. p. 52. v. 36. pro 63. p 75. v. 13. pro 12. p. 127. v. 12. pro 21. p. 135. v. 20. pro 8. p. 139. c. 8. v. 1. pro c. 1. v. 8. p. 164. v. 38. pro 37. p. 227. v. 18. pro 29. o Epist. 17. Eâ—stâ— Paula ad Marcellam Serm. in CaÌ„t. 33. Epist. 125. C. in nomine dist 23. referente Iuello 2 Thess. 2. d ExameÌ„ pacâ—â—qâ—â— imprimè de nou vâ—â—u a Caen 1590. d Hypogn 3. Ser. 15. de verb. Apost de grat â— arbitr 1. c Posse velle actu velle recipere c August de correp grat c. 12. d Epist. 105. e Fulgent lib. Prad f Bernard l. de libâ—ro arbitrio e Aug. contra Iul. l. 5. cap. 3. c ad Valer. lib. 1. c. 24. d Lib. 2. contra Iul. e Tract 42. in Ioh. c quoadimputationem d quoad exâ—â—tiam b contra Iuâ— l. 6. c. 6. e Bellar. l. 3. pag. 1129. cl Gal. 3. 14. Mark 11. 24. 1. Ioh. 5. 14. Ioh. 6. â—6 c de verbis Dei serm 28. d Tract 5. epist. Ioh. Bellar. dâ— Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 7. d Iren. lib. 5. cap. 17. Chrysostom homil ad Neoph. e namely for himself f as any one starre partakes in the whole light of the Sunne with the rest of the starres so farforth as the said light makes it to shine e we haue posse velle he had no more but posse si vellet he wanted velle quod posset August de corrept grat cap. 11. b de verbis Dei serm 7. c