chapter of Iohn cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it First Christ speaketh not onely of the sacramentall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth whether in the sacrament or without which is wrought in vs by the holy Ghost 1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament then it will follow that no man can be saued vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament for Christ saith vers 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood you cannot haue life in you This I am sure they will hardly grant that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie as they make Baptisme to saluation 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes for in euery place he ioyneth both these together the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Augustine also thus writeth vpon these wordes Hoc est manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentemin se habere This it is to eate that flesh and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abiding in vs but this may be done without the sacrament Ergo it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament Secondly though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament and not otherwise 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst To eate then and to drinke Christ is to beleeue in him 2 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh then the Capernaites did But they imagined that Christ would giue his very flesh and blood to bee eaten And therefore they went away offended and sayd This is an hard saying vers 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit sayth vnto them that his words were spirite and life that is spiritually to be vnderstoode verse 63. So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ as if he had sayd Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum You must vnderstand spiritually that which I haue sayd You shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which shall be shed for you Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos I haue commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you The Papists ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament sayd vnto his Apostles after hee had giuen thanks and blessed Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie that is that which is contayned in this bread or vnder the formes of this bread is my very body Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly not to bee a trope or figure 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements and directorie rules in obscure termes or figuratiue speeches but plainely and euidently therefore it is not like that Christ being now to prescribe vnto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament would speake obscurely 2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies yet there was no cause why he should so doe none being present but his Apostles Bellarmin ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well that you will now though I thinke vnawares grant vnto vs that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure as you would beare vs in hand they are for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed as you seeme to confesse what reason haue you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture 2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church for sayth not Saint Paul speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes Petra erat Christus the rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 that is signified Christ Likewise in the 17. vers We that are many are one bread that is our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented in that we are partakers of one bread 3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely being alone with his Apostles thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vnto his wordes as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies Mark 8.15 Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles This is my bodie was neither so darke nor obscure that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding Nay many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes are vttered with greater grace and carrie a fuller sense When Christ sayd I am the doore Iohn 10.9 I am the vine Iohn 15.1 he spake by figure as he doth here for neither was he a vine or a doore as the bread was not his bodie Yet which of the Apostles was there that vnderstoode him not when he called himselfe a vine and a doore Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here Contra. Now on the other side we will make it playne that these words of Christ are spoken tropically 1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood Luk. 22.23 we must needes admitte a double trope or figure for first the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe Secondly the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament but a signe of the new Testament If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure why not also in the other when he sayth This is my bodie that is a liuely signe and seale thereof 2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture to say this is that is signifieth as Genes 17.10 Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe where it was a signe onely of it And Exod. 12.11 the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer which it betokened onely In the same sense Christ sayth This is my bodie that is exhibiteth and representeth vnto you my bodie Augustine so expoundeth these wordes Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corpus sui Christ doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie The Protestants THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament wee doe willingly graunt neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but Christ is verily by them exhibited vnto vs and spiritually by fayth we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie blood not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend by faith and in spirit vnto him yea we confesse
person of Christ euen as his humanitie so that Christ was bread by consecration as he was man by his incarnation an horrible and monstrous opinion which is fathered vpon Rupertus the Abbot Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opinion who likewise affirmed that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ and vnited vnto him yet not immediatly as the other taught but by the mediation and meanes of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements First some would haue the forme onely of bread chaunged not the matter as Durandus Secondly some contrariwise would haue the matter altered and the forme to remaine Thirdly the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance both in matter and forme to be changed the outward formes and accidents onely remaining ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram Eucharist cap. 11. Thus men when they begin once to leaue the truth the Lord leaueth them to themselues and they runne mad in their owne inuentions not finding any end and so it is iustly come vpon them as S. Paul saith of the heathen Because when they knew God they did not glorifie him as God neither were thankfull they became vaine in their own imaginations and their foolish hart was full of darkenes when they professed themselues to be wise they became fooles Rom. 1.21.22 We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions which will holde no water will betake vs to the fountaine of truth This then to conclude is our definitiue sentence and full determination according to the Scriptures that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament neither by conuersion of the bread into his body either wholly or in parte nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together but he doth verily exhibite himselfe with all his benefits spiritually by faith to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer as we haue sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures THE THIRD QVESTION WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated be a Sacrament though it be neither eaten nor drunk The Papists THe elements in the Sacrament that is the bread and wine being once consecrate error 116 which say they is done by the prolation of those words hoc est corpus meum This is my body whether they be receiued or not at that instant but be reserued and kept in boxes and pixes and other vessels of the Church for daies weekes moneths to be caried solemnely to those that are sick and to be applyed to other vses are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil sess 13. can 4.7 Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Argum. 1. Christs words which were spoken ouer the bread This is my body were true as soone as he brought them forth before he said Take eat and so likewise of the cup therefore it was a Sacrament before they did receiue and eate it and had beene a Sacrament still if it had not bene receiued at all at that time Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Those wordes of Christ This is my body were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it but first as S. Math. setteth it downe he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples saying Take eate and then follow those words This is my body Math. 26.26 which seeme to haue bene vttered euen in that instant when they tooke the bread and began to eate it Secondly the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise partly of a precept the promise is this Hoc est corpus meum This is my body the precept Accipite manducate Take eate Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise then we performe the condition vnlesse therefore accordingly we doe take and eat it it is not the body of Christ. The Protestants THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the vse thereof so that though some form of words be pronounced ouer it if it be not receiued and eaten and drunk it is no sacrament neither is that which remaineth after the distribution the Eucharist being ended either of the bread or wine any part of the sacrament but so much onely as is taken and vsed Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament vnlesse it be vsed according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it but to the institution it belongeth on the behalfe of the Minister to blesse break and distribute it on the behalfe of the communicants to take eate and drinke it in them all thereby to shew the Lords death and to doe it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by vsing the words of benediction onely but by the whole action for how can they shew the Lords death or doe it in remembrance of Christ vnlesse they take and eate Ergo if it be not so vsed it is no Sacrament Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike and of one and the selfesame kinde there is one way of instituting and consecrating both but the water in baptisme is no part of the Sacrament but during the solemne action of baptizing afterward it returneth to the common vse so much as is not vsed Ergo it is so also in the Eucharist for as Christ saith to his Apostles Ite baptizate Goe and baptize so that it was no Sacrament vnlesse some body were baptized euen so he saith Accipite â—anducate Take eate No SacrameÌ„t then vnlesse it be receiued and eaten And here I pray you let it be noted how well the Iesuits agree amongst themselues our Rhemists doe commend the reseruing also of the water in baptisme and carrying of it home to giue it the diseased to drink annot Iam. 5. sect 5. Bellar. saith that Res permanens in baptismo That the thing permanent in Baptisme that is water which remaineth is not the sacrament but ipsa actio the action of baptizing it selfe and alloweth onely the Eucharist to be reserued and remaine a Sacrament Etiam extra vsum Without the vse thereof Bellar li. 4. de Eucharist cap. 3. But we haue shewed already that both the Sacraments are halowed and sanctified alike and that both in the one and the other the vse onely and present action according to Christs institution maketh the Sacrament In Augustines time some vsed to receiue the Communion dayly but vpon the Sabboth or Lords day it was commonly receiued of all Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec laudo nec reprehendo omnib tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor Euery day to receiue the Eucharist I neither commend nor dispraise it but euery Lords day I doe perswade men and exhort all to communicate It should seeme then that in those daies there was no such superstitious reseruation of the Sacrament seeing euery day or at the least euery Sabboth it was administred THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the elements or materiall part of the Sacrament namely bread and wine The Papists 1. The bread
138. Out of Christs side dying vpon the Crosse issued the sacraments of the Church namely Baptisme and the Eucharist He draweth not both water and wine to signifie one sacrament but applyeth them to both THE FIFTH QVESTION OF THE wordes of consecration The Papists THese words say they This is my body to be spoken ouer the bread and the error 119 like ouer the wine This is the new testament in my blood are the very forms of the Sacraments and words of consecration which being vttered immediatly the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people but they are onely consecratory wordes to be pronounced ouer the elements Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram cap. 13. Argu. If these were not the onely words of consecration This is my body and if presently vpon the vttering of these words the body of Christ was not present then should not the words of Christ be true Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants 1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all by vertue whereof the elements are conuerted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ as we haue before shewed A consecration we graunt which is a setting apart of the elements which before were common to holy vses and by the vetue of Christs institution to be made vnto vs signes of holy things Secondly those are not the onely words of consecration This is my body and This is the cup of my blood and yet Christs wordes shall be true for we must not dismember the sentence Christ saith Take eate ye this is my body it is then made his body to be taken and eaten by taking then and eating the elements also are consecrated not onely by saying of the words ye must not then diuide the words of the institution for then they shall no more consecrate then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words as This is or My body and leaue out the rest Thirdly that these are not the onely words of consecration it appeareth because both the bread was broken and distributed and the Cuppe also before Christ spake those words as Math. 26.26 for first Christ saith Take eate and Take and drink before he said either This is my body or This is my blood neither can ye well tell yourselues which are your consecratory wordes for the Cup whether those that Mathew setteth downe This is my blood of the newe testament or as Luke hath This Cup is the new testament in my blood Nay Bellarmine vseth an other forme beside these Hic est calixâ—sâ—â— guinis This is the Cup of my blood Bellarm. cap. 13. Fourthly we conclude then that not onely these words but al the rest belonging to the institution are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament both to instruct the people that they may know the right vse of the Sacrament and they help also with the rest of the whole action of taking eating drinking praying thankesgiuing to consecrate and make the SacrameÌ„t as we haue shewed more at large before controu 11. quest 1. part 2. to that place we referre the Reader THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE PROPER effect and vse of the Lords Supper The Papists THey doe generally holde that this Sacrament was not properly ordeined error 120 for remission of sinnes neither that the Sacrament hath any such vse but it serueth onely as a preseruatiue against sinne Trident. Concil sess 13. can 5. Bellarm lib. 4. de sacram cap. 17. Secondly they teach that faith is not sufficient to prepare vs for the Communion and although a man be neuer so contrite quantumcunque se contritos existiment yet they must be throughly purged and absolued from their mortall sinnes before they come to communicate Concil Trident. sess 13. canon 11. Bellarm ibid. Argum. 1. They that receiue the Communion are one body as they are partakers of one bread 1. Cor. 10.17 but they which are in any greeuous and deadly sinne are not liuely members of Christ and of his mysticall body therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Neither doe we affirme that men ought rashly presumptuously to come to the Lords table but to repent them throughly of their sinnes and to haue a stedfast and liuely faith in Christ who cannot be said thus preparing themselues to remaine in their sinnes neither yet are they so fully acquited of them that they need not to receiue the Sacrament to their comfort and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sinnes Secondly wherefore all this hindreth not but that they should be true members of Christs body euen hauing a troubled conscience and labouring vnder the burthen of their sinnes for the weake and sicke parts of the bodie are they therfore no partes at all because of their infirmities Augustine saith very wel Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecunque peccata peccaÌ„t enim et filij Dei In quibus non est fides filij sunt Diaboli Euery sin maketh not a man the childe of the deuil for the Children of God also sinne but they which haue no faith are the sonnes of the Deuill Ergo all sinnes cut not men off from the body of Christ but onely the want of faith they then that haue sinned and doe repent them and come with faith are still the sonnes of God and members of Christs body Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper vse and end of diuerse Sacraments but Baptisme is receiued for remission of sinnes Ergo the Eucharist is not for that end Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. The death of Christ and so remission of sinnes purchased by the same is properly represented vnto vs in both Sacraments yet in a diuerse respect for as to be borne is one thing to be fed and nouâ—â—shed is another yet both worke the same thing in the body though diuersly for the birth giueth life meate and drink preserueth it the same difference is betweene Baptisme and the Lords Supper they both are seales vnto vs of our iustification in the remission of sinnes by Christ but by Baptisme we are initiated regenerate and borne anew and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirme encrease and nourish our faith already begun and planted in vs for the remission of sinnes and all other benefits of Christs passion The Protestants FIrst we doe truly affirme and teach that an especiall and principall vse of the Eucharist or Communion is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sinnes and yet we deny not but that it hath other vses beside for as in Baptisme not onely the washing away of our sinnes is shewed forth but it also betokeneth our dying to sinne and rising to newnes of life Ro. 6.3.4 So in the Lords supper whole Christ with all his benefites is exhibited vnto vs as it is a pledge vnto vs
olde blinde latine translation then the authenticall Greeke text the words in the originall are Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ not euery spirite that dissolueth And this may appeare to bee the true reading by the opposition in the former verse Euery spirite that confesseth Iesus is of GOD therefore this is the best reading Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus as being set opposite and contrarie to the other verse Againe the Rhemists vnderstand this place after their owne reading of the dissoluing of the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ as Bellarm supposeth 3 This their deuice of concomitance ouerthwarteth the institution of Christ For he sayth the bread is his body the wine his blood but by their rule the bread is his blood and the wine his bodie And be it graunted that the blood of Christ is in the bread yet how can any man be sayd to drink it in bread We vse to eate bread not to drink bread his blood therefore cannot be there because it cannot be drunke there Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30 Christ brake bread to his disciples Act. 2.42 the Apostles brake bread Ergo to communicate in one kinde is grounded vpon the example of Christ and his Apostles Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist 24. Rhemist Iohn 6.11 And Christ sayth Whosoeuer shall eate this bread shall liue for euer Iohn 6.58 Ergo it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde Answer 1. To the two first places we say that it is not necessary to vnderstand the breaking of bread in the sacrament but the vsuall bread rather which was accustomed in their daylie repasts and feasts after thankesgiuing to be broken Or if we take it for the sacrament the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mysterie as it is an vsuall phrase of speech in scripture for otherwise wee will conclude as well that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kinde which they holde for a great absurditie as that the other receiued but in one kinde But their opinion is that although the people must communicate in one kinde onely yet the Priest must consecrate both Rhemist annotat Iohn 6. sect 11. 2 To the second place wee answere First it is not vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating of Christ but of the spirituall manducation of him which may be done without a sacrament For whosoeuer eateth this bread shall liue for euer but whosoeuer eateth the sacrament shall not liue for euer Secondly seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often ioyned in this chapter as vers 53.55.56 they might well know that drinking is here to be vnderstoode though it be not expressed Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to bee had as in the cold Northerly countreies and therefore they cannot communicate according to the institution whereupon that there might be an vniformitie in all Churches it is most meete that where wine may bee had they should notwithstanding be content to receiue it in one kinde Bellarmin cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconuenience in graunting the cuppe to the people as in spilling and sheading the wine which after consecration is the blood of Christ Rhemist annot Iohn 6. sect 11. Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to bee had so wee finde that in certaine places and regions of the world there is no bread such as Christ vsed made of wheate or the like grayne as in some places amongst the West Indians they haue a certaine kinde of bread made of rootes called Cazabi as Benzo witnesseth Wherefore by this reason of vniformitie wee should not communicate at all either in bread or wine seeing that as some countreyes are destitute of wine so other are of bread but all this not withstanding the sacrament may be duely administred in all places in both kindes and where they haue neither bread nor wine neither can possibly prouide them they may safely vse such other elements as doe stand them in the like stead as in the place of bread that which commeth nearest to the vse thereof and for wine some other precious liquor that is to be had as in Russia in stead of wine they vse a certaine drink like vnto that which we call Metheglen 2 As for the other reasons of the inconueniences in spilling the wine shaking the cuppe the hanging of it on mens beards other such friuolous allegations as they were no let or hinderance why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kindes and the Church accordingly obserued it as we reade the Corinthians did communicate in both kindes so ought they to bee no reason why Christians should not receiue in both kindes nowe The Protestants WE holde it to be an Antichristian practise of the Church of Rome to take away from the people the cuppe in the sacrament for although they sometime minister the cuppe to the people yet they vse no consecration ouer it neither giue it as any parte of the sacrament Fulk annotat 1. Corinth 4.10 sect 4. They doe therefore offer great wrong to the people of God in depriuing them of the one halfe of the communion Argum. 1. Iohn 6.53 Christ sayth Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood you haue no life in you Here wee see both eating and drinking are ioyned together Ergo Christians ought to doe both This place maketh strongly against our aduersaries who doe expound it of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ. Argum. 2. Christ instituted the sacrament in both kinds giuing charge and commaundement to all Christians in the same manner to celebrate it for he sayth Drinke ye all of this If our aduersaries answere as they doe that this was spoken to the Apostles by the like reason they may say also that when Christ sayd Take eate he spake vnto his Apostles and so the people shoulde neither receiue bread and wine but the Ministers onely Agayne Saynt Paul the best expounder of our Sauiour Christ declareth the right vse of the Lords Supper in both kindes for all Christians for hee writeth to the whole congregation and Church of the Corinthians not to the Pastors and teachers onely and to euery Christian he sayth Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe vers 28. Argum. 3. The Priest that saith Masse you allow to consecrate and receiue in both kindes because hee must expresse liuely the passion of Christ and the separation of his blood from his bodie in the same Rhemist annotat Iohn 6.58 By the same reason all the communicants ought to receiue in both kindes because they doe all shewe foorth the death of Christ and sheading of his blood in the sacrament 1. Corinthian 11.26 And seeing the cuppe is a signe of the blood of Christ shedde for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 for as much as the thing signified that is
to come Ans. Mark expoundeth Mathew He saith It shall neuer be forgiuen Mark 3.29 So that not to be forgiuen either in this world or the world to come is nothing els but neuer to be forgiuen for if it be not forgiuen in this life it shall neuer be forgiuen Bellarm. Yea but Mathew must expound Marke because he setteth it downe more fully and Marke doth but abridge the Gospell written by S. Matthew De Purgat lib. 1. cap. 4. Ans. But why should not Mark rather expound Mathew seeing he writ after him and we vse to expound the former writers by the later not contrariwise AN APPENDIX OR AN APPERTINENCE TO this part concerning the burials and funerals of the dead THere are certaine poynts wherein there is no great variance or dissension betweene vs. First we confesse that it is meete and conuenient that the bodies of Christians being departed should after a seemely and comely manner be brought to the graue as Dauid commendeth the men of Iabesh Gilead for burying the bodie of Saul 2. Sam. 2.5 The brethren also tooke the bodie of Stephen buried it Act. 8.2 Secondly it is not to be denied but that lamentatioÌ„ and sorow may be made for the dead obseruing S. Pauls rule that We mourne not as those that haue no hope that is excessiuely 1. Thess. 4.13 where S. Paul doth not simply forbid Christians to sorow but not as the Gentiles The brethreÌ„ also made great lamentation for Stephen Act. 8.2 Thirdly we doe also graunt that according to the diuers customes of couÌ„treys it is not vnlawfull to vse some comely rites and ceremonies in the buriall of the dead not for religion but for orders sake as among the Israelites the mourners were wont to goe about in the streetes Ecclesiast 12.5 And Christ commended the woman in the Gospell for anoynting of him against his buriall Mark 14. But beside these poynts by vs confessed and acknowledged there are other more waightie matters as touching the order of funerals wherein we worthily and iustly dissent from our aduersaries error 16 1 They doe attribute much to the places where men are buried as in Churches and Churchyards but especially vnder the Altar Rhemist as the soules of the righteous doe rest in Christ who is that altar vnder the which the Apostle sawe the soules of Martyrs so for the correspondence to the place in heauen their bodies are commonly layd vnder the altar where the sacrifice of the body of Christ is daylie offered Annot. Apocalyps 6. vers 9. Ans. The altar of the Crosse was the onely place where the bodie of Christ was sacrificed neither need it to be often offered in sacrifice but it sufficed once onely to haue been done Heb. 9.25.27 And in the Communion we acknowledge no sacrifice but of praise and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 It is kept onely in remembrance of the death of Christ 1. Cor. 11.25 And how should it be auaileable for the dead seeing it profiteth not all the liuing but onely those that are present which doe eate and drinke the holy elements of bread and wine in remembrance of the bodie and blood of Christ giuen and shed for them So saith the scripture Doe this as oft as you doe it in remembrance of me 1. Cor. 11.25 The doers therefore agents and receiuers haue the present benefite not they which are absent how then can the dead receiue any solace by it It profiteth then not a whit to be layd in Churches or Churchyards or other hallowed places as they call them for all places are alike neither helpeth it the dead to be buried in one place more then another for God shall command the sea and all other places to giue vp their dead Apocalyps 20. The very heathen did confesse as much one sayth It skilleth not humÃne an sublimè putrescam whether I rot vnder or aboue the ground And another thus writeth Coelo tegitur qui non habet vrnam Heauen is a couering to him that hath no other coffin It were a foule shame then for Christians to exceede the very Gentiles in their superstitious conceits Augustine sayth Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura preciosa oberit pio vilis aut nulla If sumptuous funerals profite the wicked then homely or no burials doe hurt the godly Therefore as it helpeth not a wicked man to be buried in one place more then another so it doth not hinder or hurt the godly and righteous man 2 We condemne also their superstitious ceremonies which they vse at their error 17 funerals as the burning of Tapers which signifieth say they that the soules of the dead are aliue Bellarm. de purgator lib. 2. cap. 19. Ans. First this superstitious vse of setting vp candles was directly forbidden in the Elibertine Councel Canon 34. Of the like sort also were other superstitious vsages as the going about of the belman to will the people to pray for their soules the ringing or iangling of bels to bring their soules to heauen with queere songs and other melodie to commit the bodies to the ground and commending their soules to the protection of Saints We denie not but comely and decent orders voyde of superstition may be vsed according to the fashion of the countrey as Iacobs bodie was embaulmed after the manner of the Egyptians Genes 50.2 At the buriall of their Kings the Israelites vsed to burne odors Iere. 34.5 The Iewes manner was to wash the bodies of the dead to winde it vp in a linnen cloth and burie it with spices and odors So our Sauiours bodie was buried after the manner of the Iewes Iohn 19.40 We reade also that Ioseph was put into a coffin or chest Genes 50.26 Of these and the like customes Augustine giueth a rule writing vpon those words in the Gospell Iohn 19.40 As it was the manner of the Iewes to burie Non mihi videtur Euangelista sic frustra dicere voluisse ita quippe admonuit in huiusmodi officijs quae mortuis exhibentur morem cuiusque gentis esse seruandum in Iohann tract 120. Me thinketh the Euangelist sayd not thus without cause hereby letting vs to vnderstand that in performing such dueties of buriall to the dead the manner and custome of euery countrey is to be kept The Iewes also had a custome with some companie or frequencie of people to bring their dead to the ground Eccle. 12.5 And in the while to vse some admonition to the people concerning death and mortalitie which came in by sinne and of the wrath and mercie of God Syrus interp in Mark 14.3 Neither doe we see why it is not lawfull now among Christians at funerals and burials to haue some godly sermon and exhortation to put the people in mind of their end and to comfort them with the hope of the resurrection as also to giue God thankes for those his faithfull seruants that did glorifie him by their life and by their godly departure This seemeth also to haue been the
QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance
in heauen and not vpon the earth 3. What a strange saying is this that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine lest men should abhorre to eate it for is it to be thought that Christ would command any vnseemely thing or contrary to humanitie How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled blood Act. 15. whē as by your doctrine they did eate dayly in their assemblies the raw flesh and blood of Christ And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule He that doth the truth sayth he commeth to the light that his deedes may be made manifest Iohn 3.21 But Christ now flieth the light shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine and wil not shew his flesh These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely changed and not the accidents The Protestants AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge and newly deuised so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable that in the Sacrament the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ the formes onely remaining An opinion contrary to scripture reason and common sense Argum. 1. As Christ said Math. 26. pointing to the bread This is my body so he sayth Iohn 6.35 I am the bread but in this place he was not changed into bread why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body for the speech is all one Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration is subiect to diuers changes and alterations and so likewise the wine for they may be boyled and made hot they may be infected with poyson for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope and Henry the 7. Emperour were poysoned with the Sacrament the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger the bread may putrifie and breed wormes Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaine still for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled it were great impietie Argum. Pet. Martyris Bellarmine answereth Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti in quo desinunt esse illae species God supplieth some other matter in the very instant when the formes begin to be changed Cap. 24. argum 6. Ans. Is not here good geare thinke you that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament that is the bread and wine which are alreadie consecrate and made the bodie of Christ God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wicked act Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted and so God shall make miracles for mice And why I pray you may not the substance of bread still remaine as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words Hoc est corpus meum the bread was transubstantiate before or after or while the words were spoken Before they will not say for the elements were not then consecrate nor after for thē Christs words This is my bodie had not been true in that instant when they were spoken Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking for then should it not haue been done all at once but successiuely and one part after another as the words were spoken one after another But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists that would haue it done all together Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect or substance wherein they should rest such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread the rednes and sweetnes of wine if bread be gone what is become of the roundnes and whitenes and so of the wine If a man aske what round or white thing is this or what red and sweete thing is this shewing the cup what shall be answered we cannot say it is bread or wine for there is none left And I am sure they will not say that the bodie of Christ is either round or white or such like and yet somewhat there must needes be that must take denomination of these accidents Argum. 5. You say the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse is in the Sacrament but that cannot be for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary this sacramentall flesh is made of bread Ergo it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse. Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue first either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing and so the wine was created of nothing which I am sure you will not graunt secondly or els there was a mixture of wine and water the one being mingled with the other which is likewise false for it was very good and perfect wine neither I thinke will you easily admit that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament Thirdly there remaineth but the third kind of change that is the conuersion of one substance into another as the water was changed into wine and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie if you will haue any chaunge at all and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie another from that which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine Lastly the diuersitie of opinions which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine Some doe hold that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present Others doe teach that there remaineth no more bread and wine but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ of each opinion there are three sorts First of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged 1. Some are of opinion that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together either for that instant onely or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie of which opinion are the Lutherans 2. Some there were that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ as was receiued of the faithfull and that part which the wicked receiued to be bread still 3. Others taught that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
with the like blasphemie challenge to be worshipped because the women in the Gospel caught Christ by the feete and worshipped him Mat. 28.9 We may see by this of what spirit hee is and whether he be not that Antichrist that shal make him selfe as God 2. Thess. 2.4 The Protestants THe kissing of the feete was an humble and lowly gesture which was worthily vsed toward our Sauiour Christ who was God in the flesh and in his body and humanity annexed to his Godhead as God to be worshipped but it is too diuine and too lowly an homage to be offered to any mortall man and holy men in times past refused it when any carried away with immoderat zeal and admiration of their person were ready to giue it vnto them Argum. 1. When Cornelius fell downe at Peters feete the holy Apostle would not suffer him to do it The pope is of a cleane contrary spirite to S. Peter for he refused it beeing offered the Pope holdeth out his toe and offereth it to be kissed and vrgeth men thereunto Argum. 2 If such kissing of feete be commendable how commeth it to passe that the pope only hath holy feete to kisse and not other Bishoppes and Clergy men as well as he Augustine thus wryteth vpon those wordes of the Psalme Worship his foote-stoole reading according to the Septuagint saith he the earth is his foote stoole but wee must not worship the earth Conuerâ—o me ad ChristuÌ„ inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro terra est in Psal. 98. I turne me saith hee vnto Christ and I finde howe the earth may without any impiety be worshipped for hee tooke earth of earth flesh of the flesh of the Virgin the flesh is earth Out of these wordes I conclude that the flesh the body the humanity ought not in any to be worshipped but onely in Christ for the neare coniunction of the Godhead and humane nature together and therefore consequently no kissing of feete which is an externall act of diuine worship is seemely for any mortall man THE THIRD QVESTION CONcerning the inuocation of Saints THis question hath three partes 1. Whether prayers are to bee made vnto Saintes 2. Whether they do pray for vs. 3. Whether they vnderstand our prayers THE FIRST PART WHETHER prayers are to be made to Saints The Papists error 28 THeir assertion is this Sanctos defunctos piè vtiliter à viuentib inuocari that Saintes departed are with great profite and piety called vpon and prayed vnto and that it is not onely lawfull but godly so to do Rhemist 1. Tim. 2. sect 4. Bellarmine cap. 19. lib. 1. De sanctor beatitud Argum. 1. They say they do not pray vnto saints as authors of any benefite or grace but as intercessors onely Neither do they make them immediat intercessors but onely through Christ concluding al their prayers per ChristuÌ„ Dominum nostrum Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is false that you pray vnto theÌ„ as intercessors onely for you desire them not onely to pray for you but to haue mercy on you for thus they pray O blessed Lady haue mercy vpon vs preserue thy seruants let the merits of S. Marie bring vs to the kingdome of heauen Fulk 1. Timoth. 2. sect 4. 2. It is also false that they make them not immediat intercessors but conclude their prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum For in that blasphemous prayer Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro nobis impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas asceÌ„dit Here they aske life eternal of Christ by the blood of Thomas of Canterbury How then is it true which the Rhemists affirme in word that Christ alone by his merites procureth all grace and mercy towarde mankind ibid when they hope to obtaine their requestes by the merites of Saintes See Fulk annot Iohn 16. sect 3. where diuerse praiers to saints as to S. Marie S. Osmond S. Anne S. Katherine are rekoned vp and none of them concludeth per Christum Dominum nostrum Argum. 2. Exod. 32.13 Moyses thus prayeth Remember Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants Moyses here hopeth to haue his prayers heard by the merits of these holy men Bellarm. Ans. Moyses rehearseth only the couenant which the Lord made with these holy men and their seede as the wordes following do shew To whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe and swarest vnto them I will multiplye your seede Moyses therefore pleadeth not the merits of Abraham Isaac Iacob but vrgeth and presseth the promise of God and couenant made with them Argum. 3. The saints do pray one for another here vpon earth and do one desire an anothers prayers as S. Paul Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. Coloss. 4. and in other places desireth to be assisted by their prayers Ergo much more may we desire the prayers of Saints departed Bellarm. Rhemist Ans. 1. To pray one for another while we liue is a duety of Charitie and commaunded in scripture but to request the prayers of saints departed hath no warrant in the worde 2. Wee do not desire the godly liuing to pray for vs as our Mediators or as though by their worthines we are brought into the fauour of God as you say the saints do and therefore your argument followeth not from the prayer of the liuing to the prayer of the dead 3. We may one pray for another and one request the prayers of another while wee liue because we know our mutuall necessities But the saintes departed knowe not what things are done vpon earth neither are euerie where present to heare our prayers The Protestants THat prayer is onely to be made vnto God and to no other creature beside as being an especiall part of the worshippe of God which we ought not to giue to any other thus it is proued out of the word of God Argum. 1. Rom. 10.14 Howe shall they call vpon him in whome they haue not beleeued But wee must beleeue onely in God and therefore onely pray to God Rhemist answer It is true no more can we pray vnto our lady nor any saint in heauen vnlesse we beleeue they can help vs. Ans. The scripture euery where teacheth that we must beleeue in God and that they are cursed that put any confidence in man Ierem. 17.5 Againe they can haue no assurance to settle their conscience but out of the scriptures They haue a vaine perswasion of the ability of Saintes to helpe them but they haue no ground of any such beliefe out of scripture Argum. 2. Heb. 4.16 Let vs come with boldnes to the throne of grace Ergo we haue no neede of the inuocation of saintes seeing wee haue free and bolde accesse through Christ. Rhemist By this reason we should not pray one for an other while we are aliue Ans. we do not put our confidence in the merite and worthines of other mens prayers as you do in the intercession of saints Againe this mutuall duetie of prayer
Minister SOme things are yeelded vnto of both sides First that no man ought to take vpon him to administer the Sacraments vnlesse he be thereunto lawfully called and ordeined by the Church sauing that they make exception of Baptisme which in case of necessity as they teach may be giuen by the hands of lay men or women but of this matter we shall haue fitter occasion afterward to consider Secondly it is agreed that the efficacy or vertue of the Sacrament dependeth not of the faith or honesty of the Minister but a faithfull man may receiue the sacrament worthily euen at the hands of an vnworthy Minister The Papists THe point of difference betweene vs is this They do teach that the efficacie error 90 perfection and being of the Sacrament doth necessarily depend of the intention of the Minister so that they holde it to be no sacrament if the Minister haue not Intentionem faciendi quod facit ecclesia A full purpose and intent in ministring the Sacrament to doe that which the Church doth that is to consecrate the elements and to make a Sacrament Trident. concil sess 7. canon 11. Bellarm. cap. 27. So that by this rule if the Ministers intention be not wholy vpō the busines he hath in hand it shall be no Sacrament Argum. If the Ministers intention were not necessary to make a sacrament when it chaunceth that the gospell is read at the table by a Minister there being both bread and wine set before them and he in reading saith This is my body and This is my blood straightwaies all that bread wine should be consecrate and become a sacrament but because his intention is wanting it is none Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. But what if the Minister should haue a fantastical conceite and intent as he readeth to consecrate all the bread wine vpon the table then it should seeme by your rule that it must needs be a sacrament which were euen as absurd a thing as the other 2. There are other lets impediments from hauing a sacrament at the table thē the intention of the minister being wanting or kept back for the elements are not consecrated nor the Sacrament made by the bare pronouncing of the words but the whole institutiō ought to be obserued there must be eating drinking taking and doing al in the remēbrāce of the death of Christ there must be distributing receiuing inuocatiō thākesgiuing the whole action in the sacramēt is the cōsecration therof these things thē being wāting there can be no Sacrament The Protestants IF the Sacrament be administred aright according to the institution of Christ whatsoeuer the Minister be howsoeuer affected be he neuer so prophane in his hart without any godly purpose or intention yet to the worthie receiuer it ceaseth not to be a Sacrament Caluin in antidot concil Tridentin sess 7. canon 11. Argum. 1. The word of God with what intention soeuer it be preached yet may haue his effect and worke faith in the hearer So Christ be preached saith S. Paul whether vnder pretence or sincerely I therein ioy Philip. 1.18 Ergo the Sacraments also may haue their efficacie without the intent of the Minister argum Lutheri Argu. 2. If the effect of the Sacrament consisteth vpon the intention of the Minister then should euery man be vncertaine whether any thing be wrought in him or he haue receiued any benefit by the Sacrament because he knoweth not the intent of another mans hart and so should he be depriued of the spirituall comfort which he might reape by the Sacrament Caluin Augustine saith Sacramentum Baptismi tam sacrum est vt nec homicida vel ebrioso ministrante polluatur The Sacrament of Baptisme is so holy that it cannot either by a murtherer or drunken person ministring it be defiled And I pray you is it not like to be a good intention that should enter into the harts of such lewd and wicked men Therfore without any good intention euen by the hands of such may the Sacraments be giuen THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER THE Sacraments be seales of the promises of God The Papistes error 91 THey vtterly deny that the Sacraments be pledges and seales vnto vs of the promises of God or that therby our faith is nourished and confirmed and we assured of free remission of sinnes by the death of Christ neither that the sacraments were ordeyned for any such end Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram cap. 14. Argum. 1. If the sacraments confirme vnto vs the promises of God in his word then must they of necessitie be more euident and better known vnto vs then is the word of God for that which is lesse knowen and not so notorious cannot perswade vs of that which we haue better knowledge of But such are the Sacraments which are not so euident being called mysteries of religion as are the words of God Ergo Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It is strange to see that you should now contend for the euidence and plainenes of Scripture which you haue locked vp from the people with no other pretence then because they are hard and obscure and dangerous ro be read of the simple Secondly you doe not well in comparing the word and the sacraments together for they cannot be diuorsed or separated for the word giueth life to the sacraments the sacraments againe giue liuely testimony and witnes to the truth of the word But let this be the question not whether the writing by it selfe and the seale by it selfe are of greatest force but whether an instrument with a seale be not of greater euidence and strength then without it So the word of God which doth but beate vpon the sence of hearing must of necessitie not in it self but in respect of vs worke more effectually being sealed by the sacraments where we receiue instruction by two other sences of ours the sight and the taste The Protestants THat the Sacraments are ordeined of God to be pledges and seales of his promises made vnto vs in Christ that as verily as the externall elements are applied to the outward man so our soules spiritually are refreshed with an assured hope of the remission of our sinnes in Christ and so the sacraments to be seales onely of the righteousnes of faith and not giuers or workers of grace in vs it is euident out of the Scripture Argum. 1. Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Rom. 4.1 Circumcision then was to Abraham a seale of the righteousnes of faith that is that he was iustified by faith Ergo so are all other sacraments Rhemist Indeede circumcision was a seale to Abraham for he was iust before and receiued this sacrament as a seale thereof afterward But it foloweth not that it was so in all for in Isaac his sonne and so consequently in the rest the Sacrament went before and iustice followed annot Rom. 4. sect 8. Ans. 1. The Apostle setteth forth the example of Abraham to shew
the Baptisme instituted by Christ were another Baptisme then Iohns was and yet hee himselfe was baptized of Iohn then it would followe that wee are baptized now with another Baptisme then Christ himselfe was for hee receiued Iohns Baptisme but this were very absurd to say that there is not the same Baptisme of the head and the members of Christ and his Church Ergo Iohns Baptisme all one with Christs Bellarmine denieth that the proper end and scope of Iohns Baptisme was for remission of sinnes yet Augustine granteth it who notwithstanding being carried away with the error of that time doth else where put some difference betweene the Baptisme of Iohn and Christ Si quis contendat in baptismo Iohannis dimissa esse peccata non ago pugnanter If any man will contend that remission of sinnes also was giuen in Iohns Baptisme I will not bee against it There being then the same proper end and scope of both these Baptismes how can they choose but be all one THE EIGHT QVESTION OF the ceremonies and rites of Baptisme The Papists error 112 THey haue brought into the Sacrament of Baptisme a multitude of superstitious ceremonies whereby they haue greatly polluted the holy Sacrament of Baptisme mixing therewith their owne inuentions First before Baptisme they haue deuised these toyes to bee vsed First they doe exorcise coniure and exufflate the euill spirite from the partie to bee baptized Secondly they touch the eares and nostrels with spittle that his eares may bee opened to heare the worde and his nostrels to discerne betweene the smell of good and euil Thirdly the Priest signeth his eyes eares mouth breast forehead nostrels with the signe of the crosse that all his sences thereby may be defended 4. Then halowed salt is put into his mouth that he may be seasoned with wisdome and be kept from putrifiyng in sinne 5. The partie is anoynted then with oyle in his breast that he may be safe from euill suggestions between the shoulders which signifieth the receiuing of spiritual strength Secondly these ceremonies doe accompany Baptisme it selfe 1. The Font and water therein is consecrated and halowed in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost 2. Hee is thrise dipped in the water to signifie the being of Christ 3. dayes in the graue Thirdly after Baptisme they haue this vse 1. He is anoynted with holie Chrisme in the top of the head thereby is become a Christian. 2. A white garment is put vpon him to betoken his regeneration 3. A vaile is put vpon his head in token that he is now crowned with a royal Diademe 4. A burning taper is put into his hand to fulfil that saying in the Gospel Let your light so shine before men c. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism 25.26.27 Catechism Rom. p. 310. Gabr. Biel. lib. 4. distinct 6. qu. 3. The Protestants AGainst these Popish ceremonies which they vse in baptisme we doe reason thus 1 It is contrary to the rule of the Gospell that there should bee such types shadowes significations brought into the seruice of God as they make in Baptisme for seeing we haue the body which is Christ all such shadowes ought to be abolished Coloss. 2.17 2 In one sacrament they haue forged and found out many as their chrisme oyle salte spittle which they make not onely seales of holy things but giuers and conferrers of grace which is more then any sacrament can haue and it is contrary to the scripture for the spirit of GOD is as the winde that bloweth where it listeth Iohn 3. It is not tyed to creatures elements externall signes as they include the spirite as it were in these outward things which haue power as they affirme to giue wisedome strength power against the diuell and such like But Saynt Paul sayth that the weapons of our warfare are not carnall 2. Corinthian 10.4 The meanes whereby Christans both obtayne spirituall graces and shend them from euill are spirituall For if in Christ Circumcision auayle not any thing which was notwithstanding instituted of God but fayth is all in all Galath 5.6 Much more vaine and vnauaileable are the deuises and inuentions of men 3 This beggerly company of ceremonies doth also deface and impugne the sincere and pure institution of Christ None of all those ceremonies were vsed when Christ himselfe was baptized Math. 3. which notwithstanding had beene most fitte considering the worthynes of his person that was baptized Neither did Christ giue any such thing in charge to his Apostles but biddeth them onely preach and baptize in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Math. 28.19 nor yet were any such ceremonies in vse in the Apostles time Saynt Peter sayth Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized He calleth not for oyle salt spittle or any such thing but onely for water Augustine vtterly misliketh this combersome rabble of needlesse ceremonies Ipsam religionem quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit onerib premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur They doe cumber religion with their burdensome inuentions which Christ made free with a very few sacraments so that the Iewes case was more tolerable who though they knew not the libertie of the Gospell yet were subiect to the legall ceremonies not to the inuentions of men And is it not euen thus I pray you in the Popish Church for neuer was Iewish circumcisiō stuffed with the third part of ceremonies which their Baptisme is defiled withall THE THIRTEENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SVPPER OR EVCHARIST THis Controuersie hath two parts First of the sacrament it self Secondly of the sacrifice which they say is offered vp in the sacrament which they call the sacrifice of the Masse THE FIRST PART OF THE SAcrament of the Eucharist THis part of the controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions First whether the body of Christ be really and substantially in the sacrament Secondly whether the elements of bread and wine be changed conuerted and transubstantiate into the very body and flesh of Christ. Thirdly whether the Eucharist remayne a sacrament after the vse and celebration Fourthly of the outward elements in this sacrament Fiftly of the words of consecration Sixtly of the proper effect of the Lords supper Seuenthly of the maner of celebrating it Eightly whether it ought to be ministred in one kinde Ninthly whether it is to be adored THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament The Papists IN the sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine by error 113 the efficacie of the word of Christ spoken by the Priest is really verily and substantially present the naturall body and blood of Christ which was conceiued of the virgin Marie the same bodie that is now in heauen Rhemist Mat. 26. sect 4.
yet after another maner For he is in heauen according to the naturall existence of his body in the sacrament he is really present in his flesh yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel therfore they ought to be inferior But vnles the bread wine should be the very blood flesh of Christ in the sacrament their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior but far superior to ours As for example the Paschal Lambe is in nature to be preferred before bread and the slaying of the Lamb did more liuely represent the death of Christ then the breaking of bread the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spirituall nourishing then the eating of bread Wherefore vnlesse we beleeue a reall presence in the sacrament their sacrifices in dignitie and excellencie should farre exceed and excel ours Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram Eucharist ca. 3. Ans. 1. It is not true that their sacraments were figures of ours But S. Paul sheweth that both their sacraments and ours doe figure out and represent the same thing as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ 1. Corint 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs and theirs also had a certaine reference and relation to ours but they were not types of ours for then our sacraments should bee the body of theirs whereas Christ is the bodie both of their sacraments and ours Saint Peter sayth that Baptisme is an antitypon a figure answerable to the sauing of the eight persons in the flood 1. Pet. 3.21 They are correspondent one to the other and had mutuall relation and respect one to the other But that was not properly a type of Baptisme but both Baptisme and that are figures and signes and liuely representations of our saluation in Christ. 2. If the reall presence of Christ onely commendeth the sacrament and aduanceth it before the rytes of the law which in all other respects are better by this argument Baptisme still remayneth inferior to the sacramēts of the law for you affirme no reall presence in Baptisme as you do in the Eucharist and in all other respects it must needes giue place to Circumcision for the cutting of the flesh is a more liuely representatiō of regeneratiō thē is the washing by water and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water So by this reason though you haue wonne credite for the Eucharist yet you haue lost it for Baptisme 3 We answere therefore that although the reall presence bee set aparte yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs First the price and woorth of thinges in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament but they must bee considered in respect of the vse to the which they are ordayned by the institution Flesh you say is better then bread so is wine and milke better then water in their nature but in Baptisme water is better then they because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy vse Secondly the slaying of the Lambe doth more liuely represent say you the death of Christ then the breaking of bread Answ. We graunt that if breaking of bread had beene vsed in the law it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospell in this abundance of knowledge and instruction being a signe of a thing already done and finished must needes be more pregnant and liuely in representation then the killing of sacrifices in the law which were types of things to come the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs in respect of the more cleare light and fuller signification which they haue by the word of God the preaching of the Gospel ioyned vnto thē We neede not deuise any other way of excellencie for our sacraments then this which we haue sayd agreeable to the scriptures 2. Cor. 4.3 Galat. 3.1 The Papists ARgum. 2. Iohn 6.55 Christ sayth My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke in deede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him First this place must be vnderstoode not of any spirituall eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament First Vers. 51. The bread sayth Christ that I will giue he speaketh of a thing to come for the sacrament was afterward instituted but if this bread were to be taken for his word and the eating thereof for beleeuing in him in this sense the bread was giuen already Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense vers 32. My father giueth you the true bread from heauen I am the liuing bread that came down from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 51. Hee sayth not he that shall eate but he that euen now eateth And afterward he speaketh of the time to come The bread that I shall giue because his death and passion was not yet finished therefore he sayth The bread that I shal giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde But he speaketh euery where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense vers 35.50.51.53 which cannot bee vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating the sacrament being not yet instituted but of a spirituall manducation The Papists SEcondly those words being applyed to the sacrament must needes also bee vnderstood properly and literally for the very eating of the flesh of Christ drinking his blood not tropically or figuratiuely 1. The flesh of Christ which Christ promiseth to giue them to be eaten he preferreth before the Manna which their fathers did eate in the wildernes the true bread which he giueth them is more excellent then the bread of Manna But if the bread in the sacrament doe but signifie the flesh of Christ and be not it in very deede it should be no better then Manna which also did signifie and shew foorth Christ Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. Christ compareth not the spirituall substance of Manna with his flesh and blood but the corporall foode which being receiued into the belly and not receiued into the heart by fayth hath no power to giue eternall life For vers 32. Christ sayth that Moses gaue them not Manna from heauen Ergo he meaneth the corporall foode not the spirituall substance of Manna for as it was a sacrament of Christ it was heauenly bread Againe vers 49. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and dyed He speaketh of the materiall foode for they that did Manna spiritually by fayth died not in soule Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prooue that this place contayned in the sixt
lier Augustine sayth of Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam simul in sole luna cruce esse non potest Christ according to his corporall presence cannot be in the Sunne the Moone and vpon the Crosse all at one time And concerning the other poynt he writeth thus Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be in no place then are they not at all Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a thing superfluous needles and vnprofitable First the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ is as well sealed vnto vs in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other Secondly that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament is not perceiued by any sense for they neither tast him see him nor feele him it must be then a worke of faith but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent as being supposed in this manner to be present Ergo this kind of presence is needles Argum. 3. It is an inglorious vnworthie and vnseemely thing that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine deuoured and chawed eaten and gnawed of mice subiect to mould and rottennes to be spilt vpon the ground burnt in the fire for all these inconueniences must needes follow vpon the carnall presence Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb to be swathed in swadling bands and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vpon earth Ans. First as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ while he liued in the world which was buffeted whipped pearced with nayles crucified and of his glorious and impassible bodie now that it may in like manner be rent and diuided Secondly neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities as to rottennes corruption consumption in the fire as his bodie is now in the Sacrament If it were then verified in Christ Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ that it cannot suffer any such things How then are you not ashamed to affirme that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament the very bodie and blood of Christ seeing those elements if they be kept long will waxe sower and mouldie and fall to corruption which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ were great impietie Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation The Papists IF any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Concil Tridentin sess 13. can 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra euchar cap. 19. Rhemist Matth. 17. sect 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount as wee reade Math. 17. sect 1. Ergo he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine Rhemist Ans. First your argument followeth not Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie Ergo he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified Ergo he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen Secondly the question is not so much of Christs power as of his will therefore you conclude not aright Christ is able to doe it Ergo he will Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie Rhemist Ioh. 2. sect 2. Ans. First when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion as we haue for this miracle we will giue eare vnto you Secondly and when it shall appeare to the senses that the bread is changed into flesh as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine by the colour and tast we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread then they did of the other of water Thirdly if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest with a fewe words to doe as much as Christ himselfe could when he was present Fourthly all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ not a will or purpose to worke any such change or conuersion Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged yet the formes remaine still for these causes First because if the formes also should be changed there should be no sensible signe left and so no Sacrament Secondly the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present though he see it not Thirdly Christ would not haue the formes altered because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First your first reason is insufficient for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament but the substance of thē for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement namely as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs but the substance Ergo not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe Likewise in Baptisme it is not the forme or outward accident of water that is the signe but the substance of water that washeth 2. It is a more liuely operation of faith to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen then present in earth although he appeare not to the senses And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith as he is now in heauen Hope saith the Apostle entreth into that which is within the vaile whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs Heb. 6.19 Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things within the vaile that is things
which is vsed in the Sacrament ought to be vnleauened because it is most agreeable to Christs institution who made the sacrament of vnleauened error 117 bread for he instituted his last Supper after he had eaten the Passeouer which was to be eaten with sweet and vnleauened bread according to the Lawa neither was there any leauen to be found in Israel for seuen daies together and not onely Christ but all the Iewes at that time did keepe the Passeouer and the next day after in the which Christ suffered was the first solemne festiuall day of the seuen being the fifteenth day of the moneth as it was commanded Leuiticus 23.5 Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 7. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that Christ vsed vnleauened bread at the institution of his last Supper hauing immediately before eaten the Paschall Lambe which we doubt not but he kept according to the Lawe with sweete bread yet in the time they are greatly deceiued affirming that all the Iewes eate the Passeouer like wise ouer eeuen and crucified Christ on the morrow which should haue beene and was vnto them as they say a chiefe festiuall day The truth is that Christ eate the Passeouer the 14 day at eeuen as it is appointed in the Law but the Iewes had a contrary tradition they would in no wise keepe two festiuall daies together and therefore because the sixteenth daie was their Sabboth they would not haue the feast of vnleauened bread vpon the fifteenth day though it were so appointed by the law to auoide the concurrence of two holy daies together but deferred it till the next day which was their Sabboth and eate the Passeouer the eeue before which was the 15. day at night whereas Christ reforming that abuse kept the Passeouer the eeue before according to the Law that is the 14. at night It appeareth then that the next day following which we call Friday wherein Christ was put to death was not kept of the Iewes as a holy day First the text saith they would not put Christ to death vpon the feast day fearing the tumult of the people Mark 14.2 Secondly if they had kept it holy as the Law commaunded they should haue done no seruile labour therein that is no work of the body Leuitic 23.7 But what could be a more seruile worke then to crucifie Christ to carry the Crosse and pitch it in the ground and such like which the Iewes would not haue done vpon that day which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabboth It is also called the preparation of the Sabboth Mark 15.43 Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabboth what was needfull but such workes of preparation could not haue bene done in that great festiual day Augustine also saith that the day of Christs suffering was not Pascha sed praeparatio Paschae It was not the Pasch but the preparation to it it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the Iewes the day of Christs passion neither that they did eate the paschall Lambe the same eeue that Christ did but the night following If they shall obiect that place Mark 14.12 where the Euangelist saith It was the first day of vnleauened bread when Christ eat his passeouer and therefore all the Iewes began then to eate sweet bread We answere that the Euangelist hath relation vnto the right time of keeping the Passeouer as it was prescribed by the Law and obserued by Christ not to the corrupt custome of the Iewes Wherfore we graunt that Christ might eate vnleauened bread but not in such manner and order as they say Secondly it was not of the substance of the institution to eate vnleauened bread no more then to eat it at night and to receiue it sitting we are not more bound to the one then to the other Againe Christ vsed vnleauened bread because it was the vsuall bread at that time so we do vse that which is the vsuall bread in our time And S. Paul speaketh of such bread as was vsuall among the Gentiles when he saith The bread which we break 1. Cor. 10.17 Ergo ordinary bread and leauened to be vsed not vnleauened The Papists 2. COncerning the other element of wine which is vsed in the sacrament error 118 they say it is to be mixed with water and they impudently condemne all those Churches that doe not mixe water with wine in the Sacrament Argum. Water gushed out together with blood out of the side of Christ. Ergo wine and water is to be vsed together in the Eucharist Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 10. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that of ancient time in hot Countries especially where their wine was strong they vsed to mixe water with wine in their common drink and thereupon they so vsed it in the sacrament but it was neuer generally the practise of the East Countries so to do for the Armenians and Iberians vsed not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration Fulk nnot 1. Corinth 1â— sect 10. Secondly Be it that this mixture of wine were conuenient to be vsed you cannot make such a matter of necessitie of it as to charge them with heresie and denounce damnation against them that keepe not that custome especially seeing your Canonists and schoolemen do graunt that it is de honestate tantâ—m of decency onely not of necessitie And yet we are faine to drinke mingled wine many times against our willes for the Minister need put in no water it is mixed to his hands many times The Vintners craft standeth very well with popish profession Thirdly we holde it rather to be a superstitious custome and contrarie to Christs institution for he in his last supper gaue wine not water to be drunk for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine which is wine and not water Fourthly the water and bloud which issued out of Christs side signifie no such thing but rather as S. Iohn expoundeth them by water is betokened our washing from our sinnes whereof Baptisme is a pledge by blood the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sinnes whereof the other sacrament is a â—eale 1. Iohn 5.6 This is that Iesus Christ that came by water and blood not by water onely but by water and blood By the which words the Apostles meaning is not that by the water and blood which were shed vpon the crosse we should vnderstand the Sacraments of the Church but those spirituall graces whereof the Sacraments are liuely signes namely the satisfaction and ransome of our sinnes by Christs blood and our ablution and washing from the same Augustine picketh out no such fancie out of this mysterie as you doe for the mixture of wine and water but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church E Christi latere dormientis in cruce promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae in Psal.
not onely of remission of sinnes but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification 1. Cor. 1.30 that he will assist vs with his spirite and replenish our harts with grace Ioh. 4.14 yea the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a pledge vnto vs of the resurrection and of life eternall Ioh. 6.54 But that amongst the rest it also assureth vs of remission of sinnes thus it is proued Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith This is the blood of the new testament that is shed for many for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes Iere. 31.34 Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes if this sacrament did not serue for that vse Secondly we doe holde that to haue a liuely faith in the promises of God with repentance for our sinnes and a full purpose to amend our liues is a sufficient preparation for the Communion and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion till they haue fully satisfied for their sinnes as the Papists teach and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes for so few or none at all should be admitted to the Lords table but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort and assurance of remission of sinnes Argum. Iohn 6.35 He that beleeueth in me saith Christ shall neuer thirst S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues 1. Corin. 11.28 which is nothing els as himselfe expondethu it then to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Ergo the examination or triall of faith is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table Augustine saith Ad Deum acceditur fide sectando corde inhiando charitate currando We come or haue accesse vnto God in folowing him by faith seeking him in our heart and running to him with loue In Psalm 33. concion 2. Ergo by fayth we haue accesse vnto God Rom. 5.2 but a liuely fayth which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion The Papists 1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie Concil Constantiens sess 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 22. ratione 4. The Protestants 1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie it may be doubted seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist as they say there is of Baptisme All sacraments we graunt are necessary that is profitable expedient requisite so often as they may bee had But none so necessary that the want thereof vnto a faythfull man that in heart doth wish and desire them can be any hindrance to his saluation 2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion if his stomack be weake and not able to fast so long for otherwise if a man can abstaine we wish him so to do rather Saint Paul sheweth writing to the Corinthians 1. cap. 11.34 If any man be hungry let him eate at home Some of them he sayth came hungry some drunken vers 21. the Apostle commendeth neither but telleth them if they bee hungry they haue houses to eate in Againe in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament it doth euidently declare vnto vs that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament Augustine sayth Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while or after dinner neither dare wee forbid any so to doe so hee maketh it a thing indifferent to communicate fasting or otherwise The Papists 2 THey binde the people onely once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe Concil Trident. sess 13. can 9. The Protestants 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles whom the Rhemists confesse to haue ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie Annotat. Act. 2. sect 6. So expounding the wordes of the text They continued dayly in breaking of bread 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule who speaketh of often communicating Doe this sayth he as oft as you drink it 1. Corinth 11.25 For seeing the eating of that bread and drinking of that cuppe is nothing els but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come who seeth not that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred and shewed foorth 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare Si panis quotidianus est cur post annum illum sumas accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit If it be thy daylie bread why doest thou take it but yearely take that daylie and continually which may profit thee daylie In Luk. serm 28. THE EIGHT QVESTION OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde The Papists error 123 CHristians say they are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds Concil Trident. sess 21. can 1. And whosoeuer saith that the Church hath erred or done amisse in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse should receiue in the one kinde that is bread onely Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both contrary to the determination of the Church let him bee accursed Concil Trident sess 21. can 2. Rhemist Iohn 6. sect 11. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup for otherwise Christ should be deuided But euery spirit sayth the Apostle that dissolueth Iesus is of God 1. Iohn 4.3 Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde is as well partaker of whole Christ and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament as if hee receiued in both Bellarmin cap. 21. Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included as we haue shewed before the bread and wine are signes onely of his body and blood and therefore Christ is not diuided they being the signes onely and not the thing signified 2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them while they choose rather to follow their
and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouthes we trust in God wee shall neuer haue occasion to knowe it againe But howsoeuer it is this name Missa Masse cannot signifie any such thing as they pretend 1 For it seemeth that Missa was deriued à dimissione populi of the dimission or sending away of the people and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray or sing Psalmes or for any other religious duetie As yet to this day in the Dutch language Messe signifieth any solemne frequencie or congregation of the people In this sense Cassianus vnderstandeth Masse that is for the dimission of the people speaking of him that commeth not timelie to the howers of praier hee would not haue him to enter in but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere hee ought standing without the doores to waite for the misse of the congregation 2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the leiturgie or seruice of the Church as serm de tempore 251. if that SermoÌ„ be Augustines Sunt aliqui maximè potentes huius mundi cum veniunt ad ecclesiam non sunt deuoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas sed cogunt presbyteruÌ„ vt abbreuiet Missam there are some and commonly the great men of the world which come not to Church with any deuotion to sing praises to God but they constraine the presbyter or Minister to make short Masse Here this word Masse signifieth the whole leiturgie as singing of Psalmes and praising God not any sacrifice or oblation for then he would haue said Cogunt sacerdotem not presbyterum They constraine the priest not the Minister Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Masse is of no great antiquitie so neither is the name in that sence THE SECOND PART OF THE sacrifice of the Masse The Papists CHrist they say at his last Supper did offer vp his owne bodie and blood in error 128 sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his father and at the same instant made his Apostles and their successors Priests to offer vp his bodie â—n the Sacrament Concil Tridentin sess 22. cap. 1. And the same bodie which Christ offered vp vpon the crosse is dayly offered vp by the ministerie of the Priests the difference onely is in the manner of offering Concil Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternitie proper act of Christs Priesthood consisteth in the offering sacrificing of the body blood of Christ in the formes of bread wine in the Church Rhem. Heb. 7. sect 8. And we meane alwaies of Priest sacrifice taken in their owne proper signification ibid. sect 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very bodie and blood of Christ offered vp to God by the hands of the Priest in the formes of bread and wine Bellarm. cap. 5. Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech but the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode did consist in sacrificing in the formes of bread and wine Ergo the eternitie of Christs priesthoode standeth in the sacrificing of his bodie and blood in those formes there doth therefore still remaine a proper external sacrifice in the Church Rhemist annot Hebr. 7. sect 8. Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. 1. We confesse that Melchisedech was a type of our Sauiour Christ and that he was a Priest after Melchisedechs order but not in any such respect for offering in bread and wine for the text saith hee brought forth bread and wine he offered it not he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham and those which were with him Genes 14.18 2. He brought forth bread and wine and not the formes onely of bread and wine therefore your sacrifice in the formes onely is not after his order 3. If Melchisedechs bringing forth of bread wine were a sacrifice or oblation and a type of the like sacrifice to continue for euer in the Church it must also haue been a propitiatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes as they say the sacrifice of the Masse is which was thereby signified but there is no propitiatorie sacrifice for remission of sinnes without shedding of blood Hebr. 9.22 Therefore Milchisedechs act being without blood was no such sacrifice and consequently none at all 4. The Apostle to the Hebrues sheweth wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchisedechs order Heb. 7. First in that Melchisedech was both king Priest verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly in respect of the eternitie of his Priesthoode we doe not reade either of the beginning of his dayes or end of his life nor of any change of his priesthoode vers 3. Al which is most truely verified in Christ. Thirdly Melchisedech was a type of Christ and his Priesthoode of Christs because of the excellencie thereof aboue the Leuiticall Priesthoode for Leui paide tithes in Abraham to Melchisedech and therefore was inferior and was blessed of Melchisedech in Abraham the lesse of the greater so is the Priesthoode of Christ aduaunced farre aboue Aarons order If in any other materiall point Melchisedechs Priesthoode had resembled Christs as in this oblation of bread and wine the Apostle would not haue omitted it 5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode for the which he receiued tithes of Abraham but as the Apostle saith he receiued tithes and blessed Abraham Heb. 7.6 Ergo the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered but for his blessing The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthoode Argum. 2. They alleage that place Heb. 8.3 Euery high Priest is appointed to offer giftes and hostes wherefore it is necessarie that he also haue somewhat to offer Christ then hath a certaine host in externall and proper manner as other Priests haue but this visible and externall act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heauen therefore it must needes bee meant of the perpetuall oblation of his body and blood in the Church for somewhat he must alwaies haue to offer Rhemist Hebr. 8. sect 3. Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not that it is necessarie that Christ should still haue somewhat to offer in sacrifice but that it was needefull for him to haue somewhat which he had alreadie offered for the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the present tence but the time past whereby is vnderstoode the oblation which hee had already offered once and which neede not bee repeated Hebr. 7.27 For as herein hee is like to other Priests that hee must haue somewhat to haue offered so is he vnlike also in this that they by reason of their infirmitie had need to offer often but Christ our high Priest did it but once as in that place the Apostle sheweth 2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ was his bodie which hee calleth the true Tabernacle which the Lord pight and not man But that bodie of Christ which they say is offered vp in the sacrifice of the
Scripture as we haue said OF THE EFFICACIE WHICH THEY ascribe to this sacrament The Papists THis sacrament of Orders as they cal it giueth a double grace First it giueth error 49 those that are ordayned abilitie and power to execute their office which is to consecrate and offer vp the body and blood of Christ wherein chiefly the priesthood consisteth and not in preaching the worde for they may be priests though they preach not Concil Trident. sess 23. can 1. By holy orders then the holy Ghost is actually bestowed when those wordes are pronounced Accipâ— spiritum sanctum receiue yee the holy Ghost Canon 4. The Protestants FIrst the Gospell alloweth no externall sacrificing priesthood but a spirituall onely whereby euery Christian is made a king and priest to offer spirituall sacrifices of prayse and thankesgiuing vnto God Apocal. 1.6 And the onely essentiall parte of the office of Ministers vnder the Gospell is to be able dispensers of the mysteries of the word and sacraments 1. Corint 4.1 2. Corinth 3.6 So Augustine also sayth Quicunque aut Episcopus aut presbyter frequenter de Deo loquitur quomodo ad vitam aeternam perueniatur annuntiat meritò Angelus Dei dicitur Whosoeuer Bishop or presbyter doth speake freely of God and preacheth the way to eternall life is an Angel of God This then is the onely principall office of true Pastors to teaâ—h the way to the kingdome of God Secondly it is also a great vntrueth that the holy Ghost is straightway giuen to all those vpon whomsoeuer hands are layd and they admitted to Orders For what neede then that triall and examination which ought to bee had of those which are to be ordayned whereof Saint Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. 5.22 if the only laying on of hands can make able Ministers Nostri sacerdotes sayth one super multos quotidie nomen Domini verba benedictionis imponunt sed in paucis effectus est Our priests doe lay the word of blessing vpon many calling vpoÌ„ the name of God but in few followeth any effect of that blessing And he giueth the reason in another place Dei est effectum tribuere benedictionis It belongeth vnto God to giue effect to Priestly blessing Ergo it is not by onely act and vsing of the ceremony bestowed The Papists AN other effect of their sacrament of orders they say is to imprint a certaine error 50 indeleble marke character in him that is ordayned which can neither by sinne Apostasie or heresie bee blotted out Rhemist 2. Corinth 1. sect 7. And therefore a priest once ordayned can neuer lose his orders or become a lay man agayne Concil Trident. sess 24. can 4. Bellarmin cap. 10. The Protestants FIrst the practise of the popish Church is contrary to their owne rules for I would haue them tell me whether they tooke not the priesthood and anoynting from Iohn Husse when with a payre of sheares they clipped off the skin of his head most cruelly as they were busie in disgrading of him in the Councel of Constance Or when they had grosly abused that reuerend father Bishop Cranmer and vnmanerly behaued themselues in his degradation and clapt him in a poore beggerly thread-bare Lay mans gowne did they not thinke that they had dispoyled him of his priesthood What is now become masters of your indeleble character Or is it your meaning that it may bee clipped or scraped off onely but not washt off or lightly rubbed away Your owne cruell deedes doe ouerthrow your popish principles Augustine is agaynst you Constitutum est in ecclesia ne quisquam post criminis alicuius poenitentiam clericatum accipiat ad clericatum redeat aut in clericatu maneat It is a constitution of the Church that no man after publike penance done for some notorious crime should be either made a clerke or returne to his clerkship or priesthood or bee suffered to continue therein If his priesthood were neither restored to him nor hee suffered to remaine therein then surely he had lost his priesthood THE THIRD PART OF THE ceremonies The Papists error 51 THey doe anoynt the handes of such as are ordayned with oyle and doe enioyne them to shaue their crownes And the higher degree of priesthoode they haue so much broader must their shauen crowne bee Tileman Heshus loc 14. Err. 5. Bellarm. cap. 12. The Protestants WE haue the same opinion of these ceremonies as we haue of the popish orders themselues counting them worthy of no place in the Church of God As for the superstitious custome of anoynting it is a Iewish rite better beseeming Aarons order then the Ministers of Iesus Christ Looke howe hee was anoynted so are wee of him it is sayde The spirite of the Lord is vpon mee because hee hath anoynted mee Luk. 4.18 So the inward working of the spirite is our anoynting 1. Iohn 2.27 Agayne in diuers places of the scripture wee reade of ordayning by imposition of handes Act. 13.3 1. Timoth. 4.14 5.22 2. Timoth. 1.6 But there is no mention at all made of anoynting with oyle And as for the shauing of the crowne it it is worse then a Iewish ceremonie for it seemeth to haue taken beginning from the heathen and the Iewes were forbidden to cutte or make balde their heads Deuteronom 14.1 Leuit. 19.28 In so much as it was a signe of more holines amongst them not to suffer the rasor to come vpon their heads as it is to bee seene in the lawe of the Nazarites Numbers 6. The rest of the questions that concerne the calling of ministers wee haue entreated of more at large Controuers 5. of Ecclesiasticall persons THE THIRD QVESTION OF EXTREME VNCtion First whether it bee a sacrament Secondly of the efficacie Thirdly of the ceremonies THE FIRST PART WHETHER EXtreme Vnction be a sacrament The Papists THat extreme Vnction is rightly and properly a sacrament which is error 52 say they the anoynting of those that are extreme sicke to assure them of remission of their sinnes it was concluded in the Chapter of Trent sess 14. can 1. and is generally maintained by the Church of Rome Bellarmin cap. 2. Argum. Iam. 5.14 The sacrament of extreme Vnction in this place is playnely promulgated by the Apostle being instituted before by our Sauiour Christ Mark 6.13 For here is remission of sinnes promised to the outward element that is the anoynting of the sicke with oyle Ergo a sacrament Rhemist Ans. 1. This anoynting of oyle was a signe onely of the miraculous gift of healing that was then in the Church and therefore was no longer to continue then the gift it self But it is not like will they say that euery one of the Elders had this miraculous gift of healing Answer Though euery particular Elder perhaps had it not yet the whole company of the Eldership might haue it as Saint Paul speaketh of the gift of prophesie giuen to the Eldership 1. Timoth. 4.14 And it is not like that the Apostle
the holy and blessed babe in the constitution both of bodie and soule excelled the common condition of all other infants for as he was voyd of originall sinne so he was without the effects and fruites thereof which doe shewe themselues in children for neither suffered he the like pangs and infirmities in bodie being in his infancie as other children doe that are vexed and tormented in bodie neither was he subiect to the vnreasonable and brutish motions of the minde which are in children Therefore Augustine sayth Hanc ignorantiam animi infirmitatem quam videmus in paruulis nullo modo fuerim in Christo paruulo suspicatus This kind of ignorance and infirmitie of minde which is in children I cannot thinke to haue been in the babe Christ. And what ignorance and infirmitie he meaneth afterward he expresseth Cum motibus irrationabilibus perturbantur nulla ratione nullo imperio cohibentur When their brutish and vnreasonable motions come vpon them they are ruled neither by reason nor any other gouernment These infirmities both in bodie and soule wee denye to haue been in Christ and yet we doubt not to conclude that as Christ grewe in stature of bodie as Augustine sayth Mutationes aetatum perpeti voluit ab ipsa exorsus infantia He passed through the ages of mans life beginning with his infancie so likewise as the scripture sayth he increased in wisedome Luk. 2.52 AN APPENDIX OF THE MANNER of Christs birth The Papists THey say Christ came out of his mothers wombe the clausure not stirred as error 99 he passed thorow the doores when he came in to his disciples the doores being shut Iohn 20.19 and as he passed thorow the stone arising out of the Sepulchre Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 2. Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9. The Protestants 1. IT can neuer be proued that Christs bodie came either thorowe the wood of the doores or thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre or clausure of his mothers wombe And concerning the last the scripture is euident to the contrarie where it is sayd that our Sauiour Christ was presented to the Lord according as it is written Euery male that first openeth the matrix c. Luk. 2.29 2. We graunt that both the birth of Christ his rising out of the graue his comming in the doores being shut was strange and miraculous because one substance gaue place to another for a time and after the passing of his bodie the place remained whole and shut as before but not in the very instant of passing The red sea gaue place to the Israelites while they passed and closed together againe so did the prison doores open miraculously to the Apostles Act. 5.19 An incredulous Iewe seeing the eare of Malchus so soone healed would not haue thought that Peters sword went betweene it and his head as we are sure it did So we say concerning the birth of Christ that the place gaue way while he passed and closed vp afterward againe as before Augustine bringeth in Christ thus speaking Ego viam meo itineri praeparaui and a little after transitu meo illius non est corrupta virginitas I made a way for my selfe out of the wombe neither by my passage was her virginitie lost Christ had a way out of his mothers wombe but if the clausure had not giuen place there had been no way made Againe he sayth Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be no where then are they not at all But the Papists in saying that Christ went thorow the very substance and corpulence of things doe take away from his bodie his proper place for two substances cannot be in one place and therefore they destroy the nature of his bodie THE THIRD PART WHETHER CHRIST suffered in soule The Papists THey vtterly denie that Christ felt any paine or anguish in soule vpon the error 100 Crosse otherwise then for griefe of his bodily torments but doe charge them with horrible blasphemie that doe so affirme Rhemist Math. 27. sect 3. 1. The scripture doth ascribe the worke of our redemption and reconciliation only to the blood of Christ vpon the Crosse Coloss. 1.20 Ephes. 1.7 Ergo the death of the bodie of Christ without any further anguish in soule was sufficient Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4. cap. 8. Ans. 1. By the blood of Christ vpon the Crosse must needes bee vnderstood all the parts and circumstances of his passion both his sufferings in bodie and soule for if it should be vnderstood properly the blood of Christ onely were sufficient and so his bodie and flesh should be excluded and if the shedding of his blood be taken simply we shal finde that it was no part of his death for his side was pearced whereout issued water and blood after he had yeelded vp the ghost and all the torments of death were past yea after he had vttered these words vpon the Crosse It is finished that is he had payd the full raunsome for mankind Iohn 19. vers 30.34 Wherefore by his blood must be vnderstood by a Synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole all the other paines and torments which he suffered in his flesh Secondly yea and the paines of the soule to are by that speech fitly expressed for the blood of euery creature is the life thereof Genes 9.4 Leuit. 17.14 But the soule is the life of man Ergo not vnproperly by the shedding of Christs blood euen the vexation and at the last the expiration of his soule and so his whole passion both in body and soule is signified Wherefore as in those places alleadged we read the blood of Christ or the blood of the Crosse so otherwhere in more generall termes the Apostles call it The dying of Christ 2. Cor. 4.10 And the suffrings of Christ 1. Pet. 4.13 Argum. 2. If Christ when he cried out vpon the Crosse O God my God why hast thou forsaken me had felt the wrath of God and despaired of his help he should most greeuously haue sinned Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It cannot be that Christ thus cried out for the paine of bodily death for then he had beene of greater infirmitie then many of his seruants that in the midst of extreme torments neuer complained And therefore it must needs be the burthen of the wrath and curse of God that he endured for our sinne that made him so to cry out vpon the crosse 2. Neither doth it follow that Christ vttered those words in despaire but only to shew the great anguish trouble and perturbation of his spirite being vpon the crosse considered now as a meere man his diuine nature and power repressing and hiding it selfe for a time and although in the vexation of his soule he thus cryed out yet he was not altogether left comfortlesse in spirite in that he said My God
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of