really present in the Sacrament Although this be a most important question and is much agitated by the curiosity of carnal reason yet I was soone satisfyed in it because I was resolved by Gods grace to found my faith vpon no other ground but vpon the divine Scriptures as they were vnderstood by the ancient Church holy Fathers And therefore after a little diligence and some conference with a Catholique on this matter I found that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was conforme to the clear words of the Scriptures which were so vnderstood by the holy Fathers and which in right reason cannot be otherwise vnderstood and that God hath approved this truth by famous miracles And vpon the other part I found that the Presbyerian doctrin is against Scriptures Fathers Councels and right reason that it is an ancient heresy and so false that many Protestants do eagerly oppose it and lastly that such great confusion was in this matter among the first Apostles of this new religion that it is no wonder to see it so much multiplied among their children All which points I will briefly touch 1. The Catholiques bring expresse Scripture for the reall presence to witt the words of Institution of this holy Sacrament related by three Evangelists and one Apostle where our Saviour alwayes saith This is my body This is my blood And to know that he mean'd of his true reall body he adioyneth my body which shall be given for you and my blood which shall be shed for you Now it was his reall body which was given for them and his reall blood which was shed for them S. Iohn ch 6. Therefore it was his reall body reall blood which they received in the Sacrament Moreover S. Iohn relateth along discourse which our Saviour had to the Iewes in which he affirmes that he was the bread of life that came down from heaven And the bread which he was to give was his flesh for the life of the world and vnlesse they eate his flesh and drink his blood they should have no life in them And notwitstanding that the Iewes murmured at all these things saying How can this man give vs his flesh to eate and this is a hard saying who can heare it Yet our Saviour did with many asseverations affirm it over and over again yea and the suffered them to depart from him because they would not believe this divine mystery Now Christ is not a mocker or deceiver of men to speak one thing yea and to averre it with asseverations which are equivalent to oaths and to intend the contrary Christ is not ignorant of the vsual manner of speech Therefore since he tells the Apostles plainly that the Eucharist is his body delivered for them it must be his body as the Catholiques beleeve and cannot be not his body as the Presbyterians imagine If the Scripture be Iudge of controversies then this controversie is decyded for that Iudge to which Protestants make ordinarly their appeales hath so determined the cause against them that they dare not stand to the clear words of their Iudge in so much that some learned Protestants do confesse that the Scripture taken in the native proper and literal sense is plainly for the Catholiques against themselves and namely Morton when he speaks thus to the Catholiques If the words he certainly true in a proper and literal sense Morton deinstit Sacrament lib. 2. c. 1. then we are to yeeld to you the whole cause And therefore they are enforced to runne to their tropes figures But I found the holy Fathers making no such glosses on our Saviours clear words taking them in their proper sense S. Augustin citing these words of our Saviour this is my body Aug. in ps 33. speaks thus A man may be carried by the hands of others no man is carried in his own hands but Christ was carried in his own hands when recomeÌ„ding his body he himself said this is my body For he carried himself in his own haÌ„ds And again We receive with a faithfull heart and month Idem contr adversar legis lib. 2. c. 9. Ambros lib. 4. de Sacram cap. 4. Chrys lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Cypr. de Coena Domini the Mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ who giveth vs his flesh to eate S. Ambrose saith clearly Before consecration it is bread but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ Heare him saying take eate This is my body c. S. Chrysostom saith He who sitteth above with the father in that same instant of time O miracle O the bounty of God! is touched by the hands of all and he gives himself to those who will receive and embrace him S. Cyprian The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh Many more testimonies of these and of the other holy Fathers in all the first ages even vntill the time of the Apostles Concil Nicen. apud Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. aristi c. 10. Concil Ephes apud eund lib. 2. cap. 25. may be seen collected by Coccius and Gualterus So that I found both the Scriptures Fathers giving sentence against the Presbyterians The first for the letter and the other for the sense This same truth is also confirmed by the testimonie and authority of the vniuersal Church in general Councels as the first Nicen Councel whose words Bellarmin cites The third generall Councel of Ephesus to which S. Cyrill of Alexandria did preside by which Synod the epistle of S. Cyrill to Nestorius where the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist is contain'd was approved as it was thereafter by the fourth and fift generall Councels to speak nothing of other more late Councels Besides all these authorities it was also made evident vnto me by the light of reason that our Saviours words concerning the institution of this Sacrament cannot be but literally vnderstood For 1. the principall articles or points of our faith are not delivered in the Scriptures but in proper and clear words But this by all mens Confession is a principall mystery of our faith Therefore it is delivered in clear and plaine tearmes 2. That cannot be ascrybed to Christ without blasphemy which no reasonable or prudent man would do But no reasonable or prudent man would make his testament in obscure and figurative words for that were the high way to deceive his children heires and put them at variance Therefore since Christ at the institution of this Sacrament a little before his death was making his Testament as is manifest by his words when he calleth the Chalice Luke 20.22 the new Testament in his blood by which he left vnto his children the most precious legacie of his body for their comfort nourishment he spake properly clearly and not figuratively 3. Chrâ—st promised the Iewes
by a true conversion to God when the baptism of water is not contemned but rather desired and yet through some necessity men die without it as S. Ambrose testifieth of Valentinian the yonger· I haue lost him Ambr. orat de obitâ—â— Val. ent iunioris Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 saith he whom I was to regenerate but he hath not lost the grace which he hoped for This true conversion penance is also called baptism in the Scriptures for it is said that S. Iohn preached baptism of penance vnto remission of sins And according to this doctrin the ancients did handsomly distinguish three kinds of baptism which they called Sanguinis flaminis fluminis that is the baptism of blood of the Spirit of water Lastly he said that although baptism were not a necessarie mean ordained by God for Salvation of Infants yet it hath the necessitie of a command to Pastors Mat. 28.19 as is evident by our Saviours words to the Apostles Goe and teach all nations baptizeing them c. Therefore although it were supposed that no hurt come to the children dying without baptism yet they who by their office are obliged to baptize commit a great sin when they wilfully neglect to obey Christs command which the Presbyterian Pastors manifestly do suffering so many children notwithstanding the many teares and cries of their parents to die without baptism And according to this observation King Iames answered well a Minister in Scotland who enquired of him if he thought baptism so necessarie that if it were omitted the child would be damned No said the King but I verily believe if yow being called to baptise a child in danger of death would refuse to do it that you would be damned This answer may be seen in the first dayes conference at Hampton-Court Where it is also shewed that such a neglect of baptisme is not only a damnable sin in the Minister but likwise that it is very daÌ„gerous for the child For who saith the Bishop of London hath any carâ— of religion and would not by all meanes be carefull that his child receive baptism Who would not rather assure his action vpon the promises of Iesus Christ then the omission of it vpon the secret iudgment of God Then whereas the Ministers do alleadge that Christs command extends only to publique and not to private baptism this is a meer fancy without any ground in Scripture where no such distinctioÌ„ is made yea it is against Scripture For do we not read that S. Paul was baptized privatly by Ananias and the Eunuch by S. Philip. Acts. 9.18 Acts. 8.38 But they who teach that Gods commandments are impossible to be kept and make dayly profession to break them may let this passe with the rest These and diverse other inconsequentiall errours of the Presbyterians concerning baptim he did manifest vnto me which for brevities sake I omitt Therefore to conclude this point I cannot believe the Presbyterian doctrin against the necessity ob baptism because iâ— is against our Saviours expresse words against the holy Fathers whole ancient Church because it is an ancient heresy condemned in the Pelagians because it is against the common instinct of Christians and is condemned by diverse famous Protestants so that King Iames the head of a famous Protestant Church iudged it damnable in the Ministers and his Prelats esteem'd it most dangerous to the infants For which dangerous doctrin and the cruel practise flowing from it I can find no other ground but Ministerial tradition from Geneva and that against the Scriptures and all the former authorities Florimond above cited sheweth Flor. Reym de orta haeres lib. 8. c. 11. c. how this tradition descended from Calvin and that Musculus Superintendent of Berne deposed a Minister named Samuel Hueber for having baptized a child in the night when it was in danger of death and Beza did assist to that censure Moreover he sheweth how in a Protestant Synod at Figear it was ordain'd that the Ministers should comfort the parents of children dying without baptism But all in vaine so that the Ministers of Poictou in an aslembly at Chastelrauld in the yeare 1599. were enforced to give way to Ministers to baptize in private houses that they might avoid the cryes of tender hearted mothers I have heard of some pittiful accidents that have fallen forth in our Countrey vpon this same occasion so that some mothers have almost gone out of their witts when the Ministers suffered their children to die without baptism And I knew a Protestant father who for this same reason took great indignation at all Presbyterian Ministers Such a strong impression hath God made of this truth in the hearts of the simple people who in many other things have suffered themselves to be too simply misled to abandon the truth By all which it may be fâ—en how the Presbyterians make void and destroy the Sacrament of baptism CHAP. XXI Of the reall presence of Christs body in the holy Sacrament which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS the Presbyterians by denying both the effect and necâ—ssity of bapism do in effect quite take away that so holy and necessary a Sacrament so I conceived if it be true that Christs body be really present in the Eucharist as the Catholiques beleeve that the Presbyterians who deny the reall presence and do give vs nothing but signes and tokens of Christs body do also destroy this other most excellent Sacrament The Catholiques belief in this point Concil Triden sessio 13 c. 1. is clearly set down by the Councel of Trent where it is said The holy Synod doth openly and simply professe that in the holâ— Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration of bread wine our Lord Iesus Christ true od true man is truly really suhstantially contain'd c. Our first Scott sh Confession speaks not so clearly For after some ambiguity of words by which it would seem to graunt the reall presence it acknowledged that hrists body is only in the heavens For it saith that the holy Ghost by true faith 1. Scottish confes art 21. carrieth vs above all things that are visible c and maketh vs to feed vpon the body blood of Christ Iesus which is in the heavens And yet notwithstanding the far distance of place which is betwixt his body now grorifyed in the heavens and vs now mortall in this earth yet we assuredly beleeve c. The late Gonfession of Westminster albeit it vseth also some ambiguous expressions yet it affirmeth that Christs body is not corporally or carnally in with or vnder the bread wine Confess Vvest chap. 29. n. 7. And it s knowen also that the Presbyterians do zealously maintaine that Christs body is only in the heavens and that it is impossible even to the omnipotency of God to make a body to be present in two places at once And therefore according to them Christs body cannot be
at last betwixt these two Ministers to make them abstaine from their publique and scandalous contradictions yet that concord did not laste long their inward fire did shortly burst forth For one day after Sermon the Independent inviting the people to his Communion which he was to give the next Sunday he was publickly interrupted by the Presbyterian who accused him of Apostasy from the Covenant and Presbytery and straitly charged the people to receive no Communion from him And with this confusion the meeting ended but the Ministers bauling continued a space thereafter The event did shew that the Presbyterian got the better of this conflict for the other did not appeare at the day appoynted to give the Communion as he had promised Yet the fulnesse of the Presbyterians victory was much diminished by reason the others place was supplyed by his Colleague who besids others had both the Presbyterians daughter and son-in-law for two of his Communicants I conceived that all these dissensions and divisions did fall forth by Divin providence to give people sufficient notice that a Church of so great confusion cannot be the true Church of Christ which ought to be a house of great order and Vnity and to shew that these Ministers who are the Rulers or rather M s-rulers of such a confus'd Church and who bragge so much of the Spirit are not led by the Spirit of God which is not contrary to himsef but by the Spirit of errour and giddinesse And although sometymes the Ministers to cover the vgly deformity and great scandals of all their dissensions would pretend that their differences were not in fundamentall points yet at other times their words did varie and their actions contradicted ever their words For they changed their tongue as the diversity of questions did trouble them or the interest of their cause did presse them When they were not vrged with their dissensions then they cry'd vp Presbytery as the only scepter of Christ the only governement of the Church iure divino the only means to vphold Christs Kingdome and to hold out the wild boare of Anti-Christianity It 's well knowen also how necessary and fundamentall a point the Covenant was esteem'd and how the Ministers put it very neare in ballance with the booke of life But their actions did shew more sensibly then their words that they esteem'd their dissensions to be in substantiall and fundamentall matters Or else they have been voyde not only of Christian charity but also of humane discretion For how could they haue embroyl'd all these kingdomes into so great confusion and bloodshed for such matters as themselves esteem'd only circumstantiall and not substantiall How could they with any discretion force these points of their now Reformation which they thought only ceremoniall and not substantiall so furiously and substantially vpon others But whither their differences were in fundamentals or not for the Matter It 's euident that they were substantiall and fundamentall for the manner to the substantiall destruction of one and other and almost to the fundamentall subversion of three kinhdomes Yea I found that the Presbyterians in Queen Elizabeth and King Iames time were more ingenuous and confessed freely that their differences from the English Church were in weighty and substantiall matters For thus they speake in M. Rogers M. Roger praefat Doct. Aug. num â—1 13. The controuersy betwixt them and vs is not as the Bishops and their favourers would deceive the world concerning Corner Capes Surplices c. but of more weighty matters as of the true Ministery the Governement of the Church And againe wee contend with the Formalists whither Iesus Christ ought to raigne In this cause we ought so to oppose Ever the Conformists that if we had as many lives as we have haires we ought rather to loose them all then to leave off our enterprise Vpon the other part the English Church or the old Protestants do acknowledge that they differ Substantially from the Presbyterians Covell iust d f. art 11. p. 67. This Doctour Covel plainly protesteth in all their names Least any man Saith he should thinke our contentions with Puritans were in smaller points and difference not great each side hath charged one the other with heresies if not infidelities yea euen with such as quite owerthrow the Principall foundation of our Christian faith And albeit they would not confesse their differences to be in fundamentalls yet it is evident they are so For what is more fundamentall to a Church then the Gouernement established by Christ what is more fundamentall then the foundation of faith to wit the Apostles Creed what more fundamentall then the Sacraments of the Church and the Lords prayer And in all these they have Tragicall differences besids in many other points no lesse substantiall although not so sensible as in Predestination and Reprobation Vniversall grace whether God absolutly decerns or only permits sin whether the Sacraments confers grace whither Christs body be really present in the Eucharist Whither Christ redeem'd the world by shedding his blood and corporall death or by suffering in his soule the paines of Hell Whither man after the fall hath free will and many more which may be seen collected in the Protestants Apology Apol. Protest tract 2. c. 3. sect 5 sub 2. 3. ad 10 in all which the old Protestants and the Presbyterians do teach ooposite doctrines and accuse others of grosse errours and sometymes of blasphemies Having then diligently considered these things I made this reflection with my self How can this Scottish Church which is like a Babel of confusion be the true Church of Christ which for order and Vnity ought to be like to the heauenly Ierusalem How can that Church which is the vnhappy roote of so much Dissension and Division be the Church of Christ which is no lesse the roote of Vnity then it is the pillar and ground of verity I see that ever one sect begets an other which not only divids but strives also like vipers brood to destroy the former Such confusion and Dissension becomes not the Church of Christ but are more proper for the Synagogue of Anti-Christ If the true Church may be knowen by her Vnity then the false Church is no lesse but more easily discerned by its Dissension Math. 7.16 Our Saviour saith of all false Prophets who appeares at first in sheeps raiment you shall know them by their fruits Aug. in psal 149. and S. Augustin sheweth that their fruits are dissensions We sought saith he among them the fruits of charity and we find the thornes of Dissension If therefore we observe our Saviours rule and iudge the Ministers by their fruites we will soone find them not to be true Prophets and their Church wherein their is such Dissension not to be the true Church of Christ but rather a Babel of confusion Therefore I will endeavour by Gods assistance to seek out a Church which hath not only constancy but
all men would be cleansed from sin and so all would be saved which is false If they say It is not death simply but death ioyn'd with faith that hath this power Why shall not also faith and life have the same power How can the Presbyterians without any ground in Scripture assigne that power to faith and death which they deny against Scripture to faith and the holy Sacraments and to the blood of Christ Death indeed may put an end to sin that one sin no more but it cannot take away sins already done or else death would be more powerfull according to that tenet then the blood of Christ the holy Sacraments which is not only a groundlesse fancy but also a great absurdity Out of which it followeth that either the Presbyterians must grant that they do not go to heaven which is very much against the assurance of their election or that they are purged from their sins after this life since they are not purged in it which is against their negative confession And so these who deny a a Purgatory for venial sins must grant a new and most dangerous Purgatory for mortal sins For my part I could never find a solid answer to this reason and therefore I leave it to the Presbyteries consideration But because this Catholique did trouble vs with this difficulty I thought to have entangled him as much with the words of Bellarmin whereof I had heard some Ministera often boast Did not Bellarmin said I after he had much laboured to prove Iustification by works in end conclude That it was most safe to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God What will become then of all your works and merits which such a great Champion of your Church doth renounce To which he answered that Bellarmins words fully related do clear the whole matter Bellar. lib. 5. de Iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. and shew the vanity of the Ministers pretences For thus he speaks By reason of the vncertainty of our proper Iustice and of the danger of our vaine glory it is most safe to put all our confidence in the only mercy favour of God Where he doth not deny neither good works nor merits but only affirmeth that for two reasons which he there toucheth that it is most safe not to rely vpon them but vpon the alone mercy of God Out of which the Ministers would make this false collection therefore we are not iustifyed by works Which is as ridiculous as if you would say The Protestants teach that it is most safe to rely vpon the mercy of God Therefore they are not iustifyed by faith If then the Protestants relying vpon the mercy of God taketh not away Iustification by faith why should not also the Catholiques relying on the same mercy not take away Iustification by works Bellarmin speaks so clearly in this matter that his meaning cannot be wrested without malice For he sheweth in the same place that David and other Saints had some confidence in their iustice and good works according to that in the 17. Psalme The Lord will render to me according to my iustice because I have kept his wayes The like he sheweth of Nehemias Ezechias and Ester And this they did with great humility But because such cōfidēce is dangerous to many by reason of pride vaine glory that may arise beside there are few who haue such merits or are sure to have them Therefore Bellarmin saith it is most safe to rely on the mercy of God whereof he gives this reason Either a man hath good works or he hath none but evil works If he hath no good but evil works then he is perniciously deceived who trusts in evil works for these are deceitfull riches as S. Bernard calls them If he hath good works he looseth nothing by not looking on them by putting his trust in the mercy of God alone for God lookes on them knowes them well and will not suffer them to passe without their due reward Thus Bellarmin Yea Concil Trid. sess 6. cap. 16. the Councel of Trent makes the like profession when it saith Although much be given to good works in the holy Scriptures c. Yet God forbid that a Christian should trust or glory in himself not in our Lord whose goodnesse is so great that he willeth these things to be our merits which are his own gifts The Ministers may collect out of these words by their Logique that the Councel of Trent yea and that all Papists are Protestants But they will not distinguish between the necessity of good works and confiding in them which are very different At least all moderat Protestants may know by this open profession the falshood of that calumny which is often beaten into their eares to witt that all Papists presume in their merits S. Augustin sheweth that there are two gulfs in this matter one vpon either hand and that the truth is a direct way in the middle Presumption of iustice or good works is the gulf vpon the one hand and negligence of good works is the precipice on the other But the earnest care of good works and piety accompanyed with humility is the safe way in the middle Thus ended the Catholique to the good satisfaction of some Protestants who were present To conclude this matter wherein I have stayed longer by reason of the Ministers specious pretences of great advantage in it I can not believe any more Iustification by faith only as the principal article of my religion because it is not in Sctipture because it is expresly against Scripture against the holy Fathers because it is an ancient heresy condemned in Simon Magus Eunomius because the Presbyteriās iustifying faith is not a true Catholique faith having the divin reveal'd truth for its obiect as these he retiques required but is a private fancy a false faith Shelf aboue as it is acknowledged by some Protestāts having for its obiect humane presumption Because it makes Christ a most imperfect Physician and either debarreth man from the kingdome of heaven into which he cannot enter with the filthinesse of his sins or exposeth him after this life to a most dangerous purgation Because it breeds neglect of all piety and good works and opens a wide gate to all sort of vice In a word albeit the Ministers bragged much of this article yet I found they had never lesse reason if we will stand to the iudgment of the Scriptures Fathers which God willing I ever intend to prefer to their fancies and to their Philosophical distinctions or rather confusions to which they are forced to run that they may lurk in their obscurities when they are beaten out of the Scriptures in which at first they pretended to be impregnably setled It is sufficient for me that the Scripture expresly saith that a man is iustifyed by works and not by faith only Which is the contradiction of the Presbyterians faith and
that themselves do acknowledge in end the necessity of good works But to know how they are necessary either as causes or conditions is not a necessary curiosity wherof few are capable and without which many have gone to heaven And so now I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin concerning the Sacraments CHAP. XVIII Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacraments and particularly how they conferre Grace which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS I knew the Christian religion to be the most excellent of all true religions that ever have been whether we consider that which was vnder the law of nature or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses so I iustly conceived that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome to adorne and enrich it with most excellent Sacraments For since no religion whether true or false can be without some sensible signes Aug. lib. 19. cont Faust cap. 22. as S. Augustin hath observed the Christian religion which is not only the true but also the most perfect religion to which the former two served as preparations must also have the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments And so I found the same S. Augustin extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments above these of the ancient law Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 19. Aug. cont Faust lib. 19. c. 13. Our Lord saith he and the Apostolical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacraments for many and these most easy to be done most magnificent for signification and most pure to be observed And elswhere he saith the Sacramenss are changed they are made easier fewer holsommer happier Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments was generally believed to consist in this that God by them did conferre grace vnto our soules Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians that I knew diverse Protestants could not be at first perswaded that Luther or Calvin or that their Church taught the contrary and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them they were much scandalized at it In so much that some of them did say If the Sacraments do not confer grace and baptisme doth not take away original sin for what vse serve the Sacraments for what end were they ordain'd Wherefore being thus stirred vp to try this question I found in end that the Catholique doctrine which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace is conformable to the divine Scriptures that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin which denyeth the Sacraments to confer grace is not only false against the Scriptures but was also condemned as an ancient heresy by the holy Fathers that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments and is so absurd that diverse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion albeit it was taught both by Luther Calvin and in this point do agree with the Catholiques All which things for brevities sake I will only touch Of Baptisme S. Iohn said to the Iewes 3.11 Math. I indeed baptize yow in water but he who comes after me shall baptize you in the holy Ghost fire Ananias said to S. Paul be baptized wash away thy sins Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 Eph s 5.26 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme the Lauer of regeneration by which we are saved The same Apostle saith that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church by the lauer of water in the word of life By which testimonies albeit we speak nothing of many others it appear'd sufficiently clear to me since we are said to have our sins washed away by baptisme to be sanctifyed to be born of new again that by it we receive also grace without which these things could not be verified and performed The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist of which our Saviour saith If any man eate of this bread Iohn 6.51.54 he shall live for ever And again He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Now this everlasting life is no otherwise had here but by receiving Grace which is the seed of Glory and of eternal life happinesse Therefore these two Sacraments which are all that the Presbyterians admit do confer grace by the vertue institution of Christ What was the belief of the holy Fathers and of the whole Church in this point it is so clear that Calvin himself and other chief Protestants do acknowledge it to be the same which is now believed by the Catholiques against their doctrin Cal. lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. sect 14. 26. For. Calvin confesseth that with great consent it was taught and believed for many ages That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace if they were not hindered by mortal sin which albeit he calleth a pernicious and pestilentious opinion and alleadgeth that it drawes men from God to rest in the sight of corporall things and not in God himself yet he confesseth also that it was taught by S. Augustin the holy Fathers whom he striveth to excuse by saying that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments Cent. 2. c. 4. cent 3. c 4. Muscul in loc com p. 299. they vsed hyperbolical speeches The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin as an errour to the most ancient Fathers as to S. Clement Iustin Cyprian and others Musculus saith plainly that Augustin did rashly affirm that the Sacraments of the new law conferred grace These open confessions shall save our paines of citing the Fathers testimonies And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments it is so clear of it self that it needeth no illustration Vpon this consideratiō S. Augustin Aug. tract 80. in Ioan. admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacraments cry'd out Vnde tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat Whence comes saith he so great vertue to the water that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the soule Where he ascribes this wonderful effect to the goodnesse omnipotency of God which sheweth also that his speeches are not hyperbolicall as Calvin falsly pretends Thus much briefly to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be conforme to the Scriptures holy Fathers and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments And therfore Calvins opinion which is iust contrary must needs be against all these He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers and consequently it cannot be conforme to the Scriptures whereon they founded their faith and not vpon humane imaginations That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments denying them to conferre grace is so evident that it needs no proofe Calvin saw this so clearly that he pretended the Farhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacraments and that this vertue which the Catholiques do ascribe to the Sacraments makes people to trust more in creatures them in God himself But as I found
When S. Gregorie was giving the Sacrament to the people he came to a woman who smiled when he said to her the body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule wherevpon the Pope did withdraw his hand lay'd the SacrameÌ„t on the altar After the holy solemnities were ended he enquired at the woman why she had laughed in so dreadfull an action She in end confessed that she could not acknowledge that bread which she had made with her own hands to be the body of Christ Then S. Gregorie prayed God earnestly for her and obtain'd that the bread even in external forme should be turned into flesh by which miracle he both reduced the woman vnto the faith and confirmed the people in it The faith of S. Lowis King of France Bosius li 14 de signis Eccles p. 145. ex Villanaeo an 1258. concerning this Sacrament is much celebrated For when he being advertised that a most beavtifull child had appeard in the holy Sacrament was desired to come and see this miracle he refused to goe saying that these miracles were done for these who doubted but for himself he was most certaine that Christ Iesus was truly present in the Eucharist An other such apparition was seen at Doway in the yeare 1254. continueda good time Spond suppl anno 1254. n. 16. so that great numbers of people came from diverse parts to see it and the memory of it is every yeare celebrated in that town with great solemnity By all which considerations I was sufficiently satisfyed of the Catholique belief concerning the reall presence which I found to be containd in the holy Scriptures beleeved by the holy Fathers and by general Councels and to be confirmed by miracles And therefore I could not any longer believe the Presbyterian doctrin which against all these authorities makes the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Sacrament as the heavens are from the earth 1. I perceived that they scarcely pretend to have Scripture for them but are enforced to runne from the clear words of it to their tropes figures Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 10. which S. Augustin observed long ago to be the custom of erroneous persons So soone saith he as the opinion of any errour hath once prepossessed their minds they esteeme all to be figures which the Scripture saith to the contrarie And therefore albeit the Scripture saith not once but foure times that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Iesus Christ without ever saying in any one place that it is not his body but only a figure of it they beleeve the one which it saith not and not the other which it affirmes Against them S. Iohn Damascen saith efficaciously Damas lib. 4. Orthodo fidei The bread wine is not a figure of the body blood of Christ God forbid it were that but it is the divine body of our Lord he himself saying this is my body 2. They passe from the Scriptures Fathers and found their negative faith vpon their senses and some carnal reasons Chrys homil 60. ad popul Antioch Against which vaine pretences S. Chrysostom saith well Let vs beleeve God every where let vs not oppose him although that which he saith seem absurd to our sense vnderstanding Let his speech overcome our sense and reason which in all things we ought to do cheefly in the mysteries not only looking to that which lieth before vs but also holding fast his words For we cannot be deceived by his words our sense may be easily deceived these cannot be false this is often deceived Because therefore he hath said this is my body let vs not be holden by any doubt but let vs beleeve and comprehend it wiâ—h the ey 's of of our vnderstanding Cyrill Alex. lib. 4. in Ioan c. 13. S. Cyrill speaks no lesse efficaciously against those who pretend this mystery to be against reason and impossible compareing them to incredulous Iewes A malignant minde saith he doth presently reiect as frivolous false what it doth not vnderstand yeelding to none nor thinking any thing to be aboue it self as we shall find the Iewes to have been For when it became them who had seen the divine vertue the miracles of our Saviour to receive his speech willingly and if any thing seemed difficult to have asked the resolution of him they did the quit contrarie and cryed out together against God not without great impietie How can this man give vs his flesh neither did it come into their minde that there is nothing impossible with God for since they were sensual as S. Paul speaks they could not vnderstand spiritual things and so great a mystery seemed to them to be follie But let vs make great profit by other mens sins Let us have a firme faith in these mysteries Let vs neuer speak nor think that word How That 's meerly Iudaical and the cause of great punishment Thus S. Cyrill 3. The Presbyterians do wrest our Saviours words by a figurative interpretation against all reason as hath been shewed Then I found this Presbyterian doctrin Apud Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. Gualt Chronolog saecul 1. cap. 1. Elien resp ad Apolog. Bellar. c. 1. Casaub ans to Card. Peron 1. instance fol. 32. English to have been an ancient heresie of Simon Magus and Menander and thereafter of Berengarius who at his death did recant of the Albigenses and of diverse others Yea Gualterus brings some testimonies of the holy Fathers to shew that Iudas the traitor denyed the reall presence and did not believe our Saviours words in the 6. chapter of S. Iohn Lastly diverse famous Protestants have abandoned that doctrin of Calvin As Bishop Andrews who writes thus against Bellarmin We agree faith he with yow of the matter all the contention is about the manner a presence I say we believe not lesse reall then yow Casaubon made the like profession in name of King Iames of the whole Church of England And whereas I heard so much cryed out against Transubstantiation as a thing impossible and a noveltie lately introduced into the Church I found both these allegations to be false For the holy Fathers do shew both the possibility and the verity of it out of the Scriptures Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. Mystag Ambros l. 4. de Sacram c. 4. lib. de mysterijs initiand cap. 9. S. Cyrill saith Christ changed once water into wine which is near vnto blood and is he not worthy to be believed of vs that he hath changed wine into blood S. Ambrose having shewed the power of Christs speech how by it he gave a being to the world which had no being before saith How much more then operative is it that these things which were might have a being and be converted into another Again the same holy Father calls this change a conversion of nature substance bringing examples out of the old
testament of Moyses rod turned into a serpent of water turned into blood You see then saith he that by prophetical grace nature was twise changed what shall we then say of the divine consecration it self where the words of our Saviour do operate if the speech of Elias was so prevalent that it brought down fire from heaven shall not the speech of Christ prevaile to change the species or nature of the elements Cypr. serm de de coena Domini Greg. Nys Orat. Catech. cap. 37. Damasc l. 4. Ortho fidei S. Cyprian above cited saith that the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the omnipotency of the wotd is made flesh S. Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that the bread wine are transelemented And S. Iohn Damascen averreth that the elements are transchanged ascribing also that change to the omnipotency of God albeit we cannot know the manner how it is done Neither is that much to be admired for the same Father saith we can hardly tell how bread and wine or water by eating drinking are turned into the substance of our body blood If we can hardly know the manner of that change which is made every day by nature how can we think to comprehend the manner of this supernatural change which is made in the divine mysteries by the omnipotent power of the God of nature These testimonies besides others shew me sufficiently both the possibility antiquity of the thing signified by transubstantiation to witt a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christs body blood the outward formes or accidents of bread wine remaining Therefore the Presbyterians do affirm very rashly in their new Confession that this change is not only repugnant to Scripture but also to common sense and reason seing the holy Fathers who cannot with any modestie be denyed to have common sense and reason did believe and prove it both by the Scriptures reason At least I resolved to preferre alwayes the common sense of the Fathers to the private sense of the Presbyterians Then when the thing it self is clear it is great follie in some to make out cryes against the word transubstantiation which they may do as well vpon the same ground against the words Trinity Consubstantial If they receive these vpon the authority of the Church and a General Councel why not the other also vpon the same authority If the change of our Saviours figure or Countenance vpon mount Thabour be fitly called Transfiguration Math. 17. v. 2. why may not also this substantial change of the elements into his body blood be iustly called Transubstantiation yea Beza plainly confesseth that if the letter of the Scripture be followed Papistical transubstantiation is established Beza vt infra And we have seen that the letter must be followed As I saw great vnity among the Catholiques in their belief concerning the holy Sacrament so I admired to find such dissension and confusion among Protestants in so substantial a point of the Christian religion and that this confusion should have risen eVen among their chief Apostles and the first builders of their high tower of Reformation Luth. in lib. de Capt. Babyl cap de Eucha Zuing. in lib. de vera falsa relig ca. de Euc. Cal lib. 4. Instit cap. 18. For Luther teacheth that Christs body is truely and really in the Sacrament but that the substance of the bread is not changed into it and that they remayne both together Zuinglius opposed his Master and taught that the Sacrament is only a bare signe of Christs body which is not in or with the elements but only really in t he heavens Then Calvin the third Apostle came in with pretence of a third light wherewith he would illuminate the world and reform these Reformers First he taught with Zuinglius against Luther that Christs body is only really in the heavens and not in the elements Then against Zuinglius he saith that the elements are not bare signes but they exhibite vnto vs the true body blood of Christ which we eate by the mouth of faith And because it seems impossible to eate any thing remaining at so great a distaÌ„ce he telleth yow that this mysterie is vnperceptible as indeed it is in his opinion which is more hard to conceive then the belief of the Catholiques because it is impossible and hath no ground neither in Scriptures nor Fathers But as some grave Authours have ' observed Calvins opinion of the Sacrament ' differs nothing in reality from the opinion of Zuinglius except only in obscurity of words which are trimmed vp to deceive men putting them in hopes of realities but indeed giving them nothing but bare figures For which cause Luther and his Disciples do brand both Zuinglius Calvin and their successors with the infamous name of Sacramentarian heretiques We do seriously censure saith he Luth. cont artic Louan Thesi 27. Idem tom 7. Vvit f. 381. ibid fol. 382. Luther in lib de Missa priuata vnct sacerd com 7. wit om Zuingl in lib da subsidiâ— Encharsstia Tigurini tract 3. cont confes Luth. p. 61. Zuinglians all Sacramentaries as heretiques strangers from the Church of God Again I take God to witnesse the whole world that I do not agree with them nor shall ever agree with them so long as the world endureth but I shall keep my hands free from the blood of those whom these heretiques draw from Christ whom they deceive and murder He leaveth also a perpetual curse to all those who will make peace with them which curse his disciples have diligently shun'd Yea he professeth that amongst other things the Devil counselled himself to deny the real presence to which he did not give consent by reason of Christs clear words to the contrarie But what the Devil could not do in this point with the Master he performed by his Scholler Zuinglius who by his own confession learned this opinion of a Spirit in the night for which cause Luther saith that the Devil doth now ever dwell in the Zuinglians that their blasphemous breasts are insatanized supersatanized and persatanized with many other horrible expressions of which the Zuinglians say did ever a man heare such words proceed from a furious and infernal Devil Luthers Schollers do continue their Masters zeale for one of them very famous Schlussel de Theologia Cavin lib. 1. c. 20. writes that as of old Averroes the Arabian the Pagans Iewes railed at the Christians for their beleef of Christs reall presence so do now hostes abiurati testamenti filij Dei Calvinistae blaspbemi the blasphemous Calvinists the foresworne enemies of Christs tâ—stament and with the auncient Pagans they take great pleasure with poisoned and Devilish blasphemies to deface and inveigh against the receiving of Christs true body which we by Christs words defend And having shewed by all circumstances that the
the third but could not obtayn it Lastly they maintaind diverse grosse errours which are condemned both by Catholiques Protestants Ibidem subdivis 4. As 1. that Churchmen by mortal sin lost all spiritual authority 2. That the Civil Magistrats by mortal sin fell also from their dignity 3. That Churchmen should possesse nothing in propertie 4. That it was lawfull to dissemble in religion and their practice was conform to their doctrin for they went to Masse confessed and communicated For which dissimulation the Protestants at the beginnining would not acknowlege them for their brethren These and other grosse errors they maintain'd as may be seen in the Protestants Apology where the Authors are at large cited But as these differences do shew the Waldenses not to be good Protestants so I will bring some few to prove that they were ill Presbyterians Gualte Chron. saeculo 12. c. de Vvalden er 2â— 32. 3. error 38. ibid. 1. They admitted no other forme of prayer except our Lords prayer the Presbyterians admitt many others but not that 2. They allowed only three orders in the Church to witt of Deacons Priests Bishops The Presbyterians have abiured Episcopacy the whole hierarchie of the Church 3. The Waldenses affirmed that all oaths were vnlawfull The Presbyterians have tak n and enforced others to take many vnlawfull oaths in the Covenant 4. The Waldenses maintain'd 4. error 40. ibi that it was not lawfull to put any man to death hy the sentence of a Iudge and therefore they abolished all Iudicatories in the cause of blood The Covenanters have shed much blood vnder pretence of Iustice spareing none of their opposers who came in their reverence 5. error 31. ibid. 5. They consecrated ordinarly their Sacrament vpon that day only whereon our Saviour was betrayed and they kept it thus consecrated all the yeare long to be given to the sick The Presbyterians do not professe to consecrate at all they give their Sacrament very seldom to the whole and they have made an act never to give it to the sick I can find hardly any thing wherein the Waldenses agreed more with the Presbyterians then with other Protestants Error 37. except in this alone that they contemned the Apostles Creed which the Presbyterians have more then probably done by denying it to be Apostolical By all which it is evident that the Waldenses did not continue since the time of the Apostles and from the time they arose they were not Protestants much lesse Presbyterians and so are deficient in both the principles Fox Acts. pag. 41. Illyric in Catalog test p. 730. Therefore M Fox Illyricus and other Protestants have their recourse very groundlesly to the Waldenses to prove the continuall visibility of their Church by them And for this cause we must leave them passe to the Albigenses ALBIGENSES These men had their name from the towne of Albingia in France where the greatest part of them remained They began in the same age with the Waldenses and was a branch of their sect Osiand Cent. 13 l. 1. c. 4. Fulk de success Eccles pa. 332. as Osiander Fulk do confesse Their late riseing sheweth that they had not continued since the time of the Apostles and therefore could not be the true Church as is evident by the first principle and consequently albeit they had been Protestants the Protestant Church could not be shewed continually visible in them They are also deficient in the second principle because they did not beleeve any Protestant Confession For they held the same doctrin with the Waldenses Baron anno 1176. 1. Prateol Sander ap Gualter error 2. 2. error 28. ibid. 3. error 10. apud Gualt except some few things which they added of their own As 1. they maintain'd with the Manichees that there were two beginnings to witt God and the Devil 2. With the Saducees they denyed the resurrection of the body 3. With the Manichees Seleucians and other ancient heretiques they reiected baptism And maintain'd many other errors which are condemned both by Catholiques Protestants and they committed some abominable and prophane villainies in the Church of Tolouse Hence it is that albeit some Protestants do seek to perpetual their Church by them yet others do clearly reiect them Iewell saith plainly Iewel in defenfione Apol. p. 48. non sunt nostri they are not ours And Osiander reiects them more clearly Their doctrin saith he was absurd impious heretical they remained obstinatly in their errors and impiety whence men think that they have been possessed with Anabaptistical furie And yet notwithstanding these grosse errors which they maintain'd and their great differences from Protestants M. Fox reckons the Albigenses in the number of Protestant Martyrs and some other Protestants Spark in respons ad Ioan. de Albins pag. 58. Fulk p. 332. vt supra as M. Spark Fulk do very gtoundlesly pretend to shew the visibility of their Church by them But seing the Protestant Church cannot be continued neither in the Waldenses nor Albigenses in France we must passe next to the Wiclefists in England WICLEFISTS Fox Acts Monum p. 85. Iohn Wicleff an English man was a Roman Priest and a Curate in England He lived in the yeare 1371. as M. Fox testifieth and from him began the Church of the Wiclefists for there was none or that religion before himself All the world saith M. Fox was covered with thick darknesse when Wicleff like the morning flarre did shine out in the midst of a cloude Therefore the Church of the Wiclefists which began so long after the Apostles cannot be the perpetual Church which we are seeking 2. The Wiclefists were not Protestants because they did not beleeve any Protestant Confession of faith yea they did not beleeve the principal point of the Protestant faith to witt Iustification by faith only For Melanchton saith of Wiclef Melanc epist ad Miconium Truly he neither vnderstood nor held the iustice of faith 3. He agreed with the Catholiques in many other points against Protestants as in the intercession of Saints Veneration of Images the rites ceremonies of Masse Extreme Vnction all the 7. Sacraments Protest Apol. Tract 2. c. sect 4. Concil Consta. cap. 8. as Breirly sheweth out of his own works Lastly he maintain'd diverse grosse errors condemned both by Catholiques Protestants as that all things fall out by an absolute and fatal necessity that God ought to obey the Devil as the Councel of Constance doth testifie Vpon which words his disciples made many violent intricate glosses which may be seen examined in D. Stratfords disputation of the Church D. S. Disp of the Church l. 1. c. 1. sect 3. He held also that Church men in mortal sin did not baptize nor conferre orders That Princes Magistrats fell from their dignity power by mortal sin That Churchmen ought not to enioy any temporal things but should
the principal article of their religion that man is iustifyed by faith only which is clearly against the word of God which saith in expresse tearmes Man is not iustifyed by faith only Iames 2.24 They beleeve that the Commandments are impossible to be kept Which is against the word of God which affirmeth that Gods Commandments are not grievous 1. Iohn 5.3 and that Zachary Elizabeth did keep them They beleeve that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Iesus Christ Luke 1 6. which is directly against the Scripture which affirmeth It is his body and blood and that with such words as design the true body true blood Therefore it is evident that they cannot be perswaded of the truth of their religion by the Word of God seing the principal articles of their religion are so clearly against the word of God Yea before their religion can be true the most clear truth in all the Scriptures must be false to witt the perpetuity of the Church of Christ For their whole religion is founded vpon that supposition that the whole Church of Christ had become Anti-Christian and had perished for a long time before Luther Then which nothing can be more against the word of God as we have seen above Neither have the Covenanters any other refuge to shun these contradictions between their beleef and the Scriptures but to fly vnto tropes figures and pretend that these places of Scripture must be vnderstood figuratively which is the very fraude that was vsed by the auncient heretiques So soone Aug. lib 3. de doct Christian 6.10 saith S. Augustin as any Error doth prepossesse their mynds they esteem all to be figures which the Scripture saith to the contrary Yea they must bring senses iust contrary vnto the words of the Scriptures as for example the Scripture saith Man is not iustifyed by faith only which according to their beleef must be vnderstood as if the Scripture said Man is iustifyed by faith only which it nowhere saith Therefore if men can be perswaded by the Scripture to beleeve such things as are contrary to the expresse words of Scripture the Covenanters are perswaded by the Scripture of the truth of their religion otherwise they are not but rather perswaded to the contrary Secondly they come as small speed of their pretext of the Spirit of God For first they can bring no more ground for it then all sects do that is their own bare words and therefore they ought not to be beleeved more then others Secondly They cannot be perswaded by the Spirit of God who oppose the Catholique Church which according to Christs promise is ever directed by the Spirit of Truth S. Iohn who adviseth vs wisely not to beleeve every Spirit but to prove the Spirits if they be of God gives this Touch-stone by which they may be tryed He that knoweth God 1. Iohn c. 4. v. 6. saith he knoweth vs and he that is not of God knoweth vs not In this we know the Spirit of Truth and of Error This same Touch-stone has held in all succeding generations For these who would not beleeve the Catholique Church and the Pastors thereof succeeding vnto the Apostles although they bragged never so much of the Spirit of God were instantly seen to be misled by the Spirit of Error and were condemned as heretiques who with insolent folly would appropriat the Spirit of God vnto every one of their own giddie heads and yet deny it to the whole Catholique Church against the clear Scriptures The same holds against Calvin his descendents the Presbyterian Covenanters Thirdly They cannot have the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Vnity who have mingled among them the Spirit of giddinesse and Contrariety by which their Erroneous Spirit is discovered now even to the most simple among the people Lastly the Covenanters falsly pretend that they are fully perswaded of the truth of their religion For if they had full assurance of it they would not make so many changes in it and besides their Director is very vnconstant for what is more changeable then the privat Spirit Having seen now said the Catholique the Covenanters vain false pretence of the word and Spirit of God we will briefly run through the description of their religion and to spare paines of often repeating their names we will turn our speech to them First you say that your faith religion is the only true faith religion pleasing God and bringing Salvation to man If this were true the world for many ages had been in a pittifull condition For about the space of a thowsand or 12. hundred yeares your faith religion were not known and so all that time there had been no means of salvation By which device you not only controule the clear Scriptures but also show your selvs enemies to the Glory of Christ to the riches of his Grace and to the perpetuity of his Kingdome yea and to the very good of Man And lastly you oppose most famous Protestants who acknowledge Salvation was had in the Roman Church before Luther and may be had now after him in so much that King Iames in his speech to the Parlament 1605. sharply censures you for this cruel opinion We confes saith he that many Papists especially our Ancestors c. may be saved and often are saved detesting in this parte and iudging worthy of fire the cruelty of Puritans who yeeld Salvation to no Papist Secondly you describe your religion further saying that it is now reveald to the world by the preaching of the Evangel But that is rather a mark of the false then of the true religion For the true Christian faith was reveald of old by Christ his holy Apostles and from that time could never be hid But your Presbyterian faith has iust two contrary qualities to witt it is now reveal'd and has lyen long hid S. Vincentius Lyrinensis sheweth the nature of your faith by describing the doctrine of the auncient Heretiques What do they propose saith he Vincent Lyr. cont haeres c. 12. but new and vnheard doctrines For you shall heare some of them say Come ô you vnwise miserable men who are commonly called Catholiques learn the true faith which besides vs none knoweth which has lyen hidd many ages but now is lately revealed and manifested Neither doth it a white availe you that you call your faith the Gospel and the revealing of your faith the preaching of the Gospel For so all heretiques call their greatest Errors the Gospel of Christ S. Hierom saith wisely that the Gospel of God Hieron 1. ad Galat. by a false interpretation becames the Evangel of man or which is woâ—se the Evangel of the Devil So there still remaines a great question about the truth of your preaching which is nothing but your privat interpretation Thirdly to make your faith more commendable you pretend that it is both auncient Vniversal You
practice of the whole Church against whose custome to dispute as S. Augustin affirmes is most insolent madnesse Therefore without or rather against all reason do you detest the Ceremonies of the Catholique Church No religion can be without Ceremonies and we see in the Scripture that all great mysteries are accompanyed with sublime significative Ceremonies as our Saviours Nativity Baptism Transfiguration Resurrection Ascension the Descent of the holy Ghost c. Our saviour also at all great solemn actions vsed many Ceremonies as at the raising of Lazarus the cureing of the man who was both deaf dumb Mark 7.33 and vpon many other occasions all which Ceremonies serve as Ornaments of religion presenting an external Maiesty to the senses and making the spiritual mysteries to be more clearly vnderstood to be received with greater reverence and to be more deeply imprinted in the hearts of the beholders The same might be easily verifyed of the Catholique Ceremonies Therefore you who vnder pretext of spirituality are profest Enemies to all Ceremonies do not take heed that you take all order decency from the Church service of God that you oppose the practice of Christ his Apostles and of the whole Primitive Church and do render the sublime mysteries of the Christian religion contemptible You renounce also to vse your words the Popes 5. bastard Sacraments But that is only proper to adulteresse Churches to have bastard Sacraments The Catholique Church has none but lawfull Sacraments instituted by her heavenly Spouse Iesus-Christ of admirable vertue grace as we have seen all these 5. to be But indeed you have made even those two which you keep bastard Sacraments by robbing them of all vertue and grace We shall only speak a word of your other Detestations which follow in this Section because some of them have been touched above First vnder the name of the Pope you detest the iudgment of the Catholique Church as cruel against infants dying without Baptism and for the absolute necessity of Baptism But this was also the iudgment of the Primitive Church yea of Christ himself who has said Iohn 3.5 vnlesse one be borne again of water the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven And therefore is not cruel as has been shewed above at more length Whereas your iudgment is both false and cruel against many children dying with Baptism excluding them from heaven Yea not only your Iudgment is cruel but also your practice suffering many children to dye without Baptisme Confer Hampton-Court for which cruelty King Iames affirmed that your Ministers who were guilty of it would be damned You accuse next the Catholique Church of blasphemy for beleeving the Reall Presence or Transubstantiation which you wisely make all one question and for teaching that the wicked receive the body of Christ But they are not blasphemous who do beleeve Christs words expressed by 3. Evangelists and one Apostle and who follow the constant doctrin of the holy Fathers of the auncient Church as the Catholiques do in this matter as has been shewed above And if the wicked did not receive the body of Christ how could they be guilty of it as the Apostles affirmes the vnworthy receivers of it to be But you are rather guilty of blasphemy even in the iudgment of Protestants who will not beleeve Christs clear words and deny thereby his Omnipotency Luther your first Apostles gives this Iudgment of you We censure as heretiques aliens from the Church of God the Zuinglians all Sacramentaries Luth. cont Lovanien Thes 27. who deny the body blood of Christ to be received with the Carnal Mouth in the Eucharist And a famous Doctor of his Church continues the same opinion of you for speaking of this same matter he saith the sect of the Calvinists is grown to such blasphemy and madnesse Conrad Shlussel Theol. Calvin l. 1. c. 3. that they dare call in question Gods omnipotency Then you accuse the Pope Catholique Church for Dispensations in solemn Oaths and Periuries But these are either vain or false allegations For it is certain that the Church may dispense sometimes with the bond of oaths as she may loose from punishments and free men from the bonds of sins according to that power which Christ gave to her saying whatsoever thou shall loose on earth Math. 16 shall be loosed in heaven c. But it must be for a iust cause and without the iust preiudice of others as Becan shewes Becan de ur iustitia quest 88. q. 11 or else the dispensation is not valid Periuries or false oaths need no Dispensations as you mistake or calumniate but must be only taken away by true Repentance as other sins are purged It is strange that you should deny the lawfull power of dispensing to the whole Catholique Church such as S. Paul vsed with the incestuous Corinthian and yet appropriate it to every one of your selves and should obiect that falsly as a crime to others whereof yourselves are so deeply guilty For it is known how many oaths vowes your first Reformers did either break or dispense with at their own hands and if we will beleeve King Iames Basilicon Doron p. 41. you are not behind with any in these enormities You accuse also falsly the Pope Catholique Church for dispensing in degrees of Mariage forbidden by the word of God that is by the Law of Christ vnlesse you will have the Ceremonial Law of the Iewes to be the Law of Christ and to oblige all Christians whence it would follow that if a man died without issue Deuter. 25.5 his brother should marie the Widow which yourselves do not observe but deny that it ought to be done The Church is so far from dispensing in degrees forbidden by the eternal Law of God that she has made Lawes forbidding dissolving Mariages in degrees not prohibited by the Eternal Law of God which serve as out-works to guard the divin Law She dispenseth indeed sometimes vpon good reason in her own lawes but never in the eternal Law of God which she professeth to be altogether indispensable Neither is the Pope and Catholique Church guilty of cruelty against the innocent divorced by forbidding them to marie vnlesse Christ himself and S. Paul be cruel and the Primitive Church which taught the same doctrine Luke 16.8 Our Saviour saith every one that putteth away his wife and marieth another committeth adulterie and he that marieth her committeth adulterie 1. Cor. 7.10 S Paul saith not I give commandment but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband if she depart to remaine vnmaried or to be reconciled to her husband Whence it is clear that neither of the parties can marie so long as the other lives This was the doctrine of the holy Fathers and of the ancient Church S. Augustin proveth this in his bookes de adulterinis coniugijs
Aug. lib. 50. hom liar hom 49. and elswhere he saith It 's lawfull for the cause of fornication to put away an adulteresse wife but dure ng her life it is not lawfull to marie another c. These are Adulteries not Mariages Is Augustin contemned let Christ be feared Two Ancient Councels do also confirme the same doctrine Therefore Concil Elibert c. 9. Milerit c. 17. the Catholique Church in denying Mariage to the innocent partie divorced is not cruel as you calumniate but observes the iust Law of Christ the commandment of the Apostle and the practice of the holy ancient Church And if any think it hard they have a remedie prescribed by the Apostle to reconcile themselves to the guilty partie But indeed you are cruel who vnder pretext of mercy do allow men to Violate the iust Law of God and vnder the name of Mariages authorize people to commit Adulteries to the destruction of their soules So that it is truly verifyed of you that your mercies are cruel But let vs proceed now to your other abiurations SECTION VIII Of the Christian Sacrifice and of Priesthood AFTER you had robbed Christians of almost all the Sacraments and of our Saviours legacie to witt his precious body now you would rob the Church of the Christian Sacrifice and would spoyle God of the greatest external honour that can be rendred to him is due to him alone And with the Sacrifice you would also destroy the sacred Order of Priesthood by which it is offered For you renounce them in these most virulent tearmes of your Covenant We detest his Devilish Masse His blasphemous Priesthood His profane Sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick As never any Religion neither vnder the Law of Nature nor vnder the Law of Moyses wanted Sacrifice which is a Supâ—â—m worship due to God alone so the Chrisâ—â—â—n Religion which excells all Religions tha◠〈◊〉 have been is not destitute of that perfecâ—â—â—n but hath a most excellent Sacrifice far exceeding all the ancient Sacrifices The Prophets did foretell of it Christ did institute it the holy Apostles their Successors did offer it and the whole Christian world hath in all ages frequented it which points we shall briefly touch The Prophet David speaking of Christ saith The Lord has sworne Psal 109.4 Thou art a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech Which words have relation to these of Moyses Genes 14.18 Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for he was Priest of the most high God The holy Fathers vnderstand that Prophesie of the Christian Sacrifice of Christs body blood vnder the formes of bread wine So S. Cyprian who is more Priest Cypr. epist 63. ad Cecil saith he of the most high God then our Lord Iesus-Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God his father and offered the same which Melchisedech had offered that is bread wine to witt his own body blood S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. c. 17. No where now is the Priesthood Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron and every where vnder Christ the Priest is offered vp that which Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham And again speaking of Melchisedechs Sacrifice he saith There did first appeare the Sacrifice which is now offered vp to God by Christians in the whole world The second Prophesie is in Malachie where God saith to the Iewes Malachie ch 1. v. 10. I have no pleasure in you neither will I accept any offering at your hands For from the riseing of the Sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentils and there is offered Sacrificed to my name in every place a pure oblation The holy Fathers vnderstood this as a most clear Prophesie of the Christian Sacrifice So S. Ireneus Among the 12. Prophets saith he Malachie did so fâ—retell of it Ireneus lib. 4 c. 33. I have no pleasure in â—u c. most clearly signifying by these words that the first people should leave off to offer vnto God and in every place a Sacrifice and that pure shouâ—d be offered vnto him So also S. Augustin did vnderstand it Aug de 〈◊〉 it l. 18. c. 26. Malachie saith he prophesying of the Chvrch which we see now propagated saith most â—learly vnto the Iewes in the person of God I have no pleasure in you c. since then we see the sacrifice by the Priesthood of Christ according to the Order of Melchisedech offered vp in every place c and they cannot deny but the sacrifice of the Iewes is ceased why do they yet look for another Christ seing that which they read Prophesied and see fulfilled could not be accomplished but by him If this Prophesie be so strong against the Iewes it is no lesse forcible against the Covenanters As the Prophets foretould so Christ fulfilled by instituting this Sacrifice by offering it vp himself and by ordaining it to be offered vp vnto the end of the world This he performed when taking bread he blessed it saying This is my body which is given for you and after the same manner of the Chalice He ordaind the same oblation to be continued when he said to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me So the holy Fathers expresly teach S. Ireneus who lived in the second age speaking of Christs words of Institution saith Christ taught the new oblation of the new Testament Iren. lib 4 c. 33. which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth vp to God throughout the whole world S. Cyprian affirmeth clearly the same truth saying Our Lord God Iesus-Christ Cypr lib 2. epist 3. is the high Priest of God the Father He offered vp himself a Sacrifice to his Father and the same he commanded to be done in his remembrance To which two we shall only adioyn S. Augustin who saith Aug. in psal 33. serm 2. Christ did Institute the Sacrifice of his body blood according to the Order of Melchisedech And last of all may be added the practice of the whole Christian world which in all ages from the death of Christ did render vnto God supreme honour worship testifying his Soveraignity power of life death by this most excellent Sacrifice of Christs body blood which the holy Fathers called the Sacrifice of the Masse The Vertue also of which God has manifested by many Miracles one of which I will recount out of S. Augustin to our purpose Aug. lib. 22 de Civit. c. 8. Which is briefly thus The house of a certain Tribune in the Countrey near to Hippo the City of S. Augustins residence being vexed with evil Spirits to the great losse of his cattel and affliction of his Servants he came and desired that one of our Priests saith the holy Father I being then absent would goe and pray that the Devil
might be chased away Wherevpon one went and offered vp saith he there the Sacrifice of the body blood of Christ to the end that the vexation might cease and by Gods mercy it did cease immediatly As therefore it is evident by what has been briefly said from the Scriptures holy Fathers that there is nothing more holy divine in the whole Christian religion then the Christian Sacrifice of Christs pretious body blood vnder the formes of bread wine which was foretould by the Prophets instituted and offered vp by Christ himself and was thereafter offered vp by the holy Apostles and their Successors so you very wickedly call it Devilish For that cannot be Devilish which was ordain'd by God himself and whereby he is most honoured that cannot be Devilish which chaseth away Devils But your railing against it and abolishing it must be Devilish because the Devil by his principal instrument the great Anti-Christ is to abolish it in the later dayes Daniel 11.31 and Luther your first Reformer Luth. de Missa pri tom 7. by a strange divine Providence did confesse to the world that the Devil did stirre him vp by many arguments to abrogat it And as the Sacrifice is most holy divine so is the office of Priesthood by which it is offered most sacred and venerable If the Aaronical Priesthood whereby only bullocks and beasts were Sacrificed to God was so sacred how much more sacred excellent must be the Christian Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech by which the body blood of Christ are offered vp vnto God a pure Oblation And therefore you very wickedly call the office of Priesthood blasphemous and by dishonouring it you dishonour God himself who did institute it as S. Ignatius the Disciple of the Apostles affirmes when he saith that Priesthood is the Top of all Honours Ignat. epist ad myrn that are amongst men which if any man dishonoureth he dishonours God our Lord Iesus-Christ the alone chief Priest of God by nature Your Ministerial office is rather blasphemous against God which robs him of his supreme worship by Sacrifice which has been given vnto him since the Creation That the Christian Sacrifice is offered vp for sins our Saviour shewes when he saith This is my blood which is shed for many to the remission of sins And that it is profitable also for remission of sins to the faithfull departed the holy Fathers do teach by the Scriptures and practice of the whole Church Aug. l. de cura pro mortuis c. 1. S. Augustin saith We read in the Books of the Machabees of Sacrifice offered for the dead but though it were no where read in the old Testament yet not smal is the authority of the Vniuersal Church which shines in this custome where the commendation of the dead hath its place in the prayers of the Priest which are powred out to our Lord God at his altar lib. 9. Con. c. 3 And in his ninth book of Confessions he tells vs His Mother Monica desired on her death-bed that memory should be made of her at the Altar from whence she knew the holy Sacrifice to be dispensed wherewith the indictment against vs was blotted out Where you may see also the Saints call that a Holy Sacrifice which you call profane SECTION IX Of the Canonization of Saints Invocation of Angels and Saints Worshiping of Images Reliques and Crosses Dedicating of Churches Altars c. NOW follow these words of the Covenant We detest his Canonization of men calling vpon Angels or Saints departed worshiping of Images Reliques Crosses Dedicating of Kirks Altars Dayes and Vowes to Creatures We shall now for brevities sake run speedily through all the rest of the Covenant First you blame here the Catholique Church for a most laudable custome which she has ever observed of Canonizing that is declareing some persons who had been eminent for holynesse to be glorifyed Saints in heaven There have been indeed different wayes by which this Canonization has been performed For sometimes it was done by the voice of the people with consent of their Prelats or by the Prelats the people not controuling But since the year 800. none have been Canonized but by the Sea Apostolique according to the decree of Pope Leo the third Whence it is that this action is performed with greater diligence and more exact trial both of life miracles then when it was done in a popular manner What then can you iustly blame here But indeed you are to be blamed who Canonize in your own manner not Saints but sinners that break mortaly every day Gods commandments and such was your Covenanting Army which you ordinarly called the Army of the Saints You passe next from detesting the Catholiques Canonizing of Saints to detest the Invocation both of Angels Saints But indeed you cannot detest that vnlesse you detest also the Scriptures the practice of the Saints of the whole Primitive Church For did not Iacob invocat an Angel when blessing Iosephs children he said The Angel Genes 18 16. Osee 12.4 which delivered me from all evil blisse these children Doth not the Prophet Osee testify the same saying Iacob prevailed agrinst the Angel he wept prayed to him Did not also Abraham Lot Gedeon pray to Angels as may be seen recorded in the Scriptures Genes 18.4.19.1 Iudges 6.3 Therefore in detesting the invocation of Angels you detest the Scriptures practice of the Saints The same may be also said of the Invocation of Saints departed For if it be lawfull to invocat the Angels why not also the Saints of Heaven whom our Saviour affirmes to be equal vnto the Angels Luke 20.36 Yea if it be lawfull to invocat Saints and sinners living vpon earth and to desire the assistance of their prayers why is it not lawfull to invocat the Saints raigning in Heaven and desire them to pray for vs To say that they do not hear our prayers and know not what is done here below which may concern them Luke 15.10 is most false For our Saviour sheweth that there is ioy among the Angels of Heaven at the Conversion of a sinner Therefore they must know it And shall the Angels know such things and reioyce at them and the glorifyed Saints who are of our own nature be altogether ignorant of them and have no fellow-feeling with vs Shall some Saints living here on earth know the secrets of others hearts know what is done at a distance as is recorded in Scripture of Samuel in relation to King Saul 1. Kings 1.19 and of Elizeus in regard of his man Giezi 4. Kings 5.25 to passe by other instances of Daniel S. Peter shall I say these Saints have such knowledge in their exile here on earth and shall the glorifyed Saints in their Countrey in the presence fruition of God be ignorant of such things and so be in a worse condition No that cannot be for