sayes a little after But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water againe yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them should not meane a materiall and visible Rock for the materiall and visible Rock that is the water that flowed from it might follow the Israelites though but for while even so long as they encamped in Rephidim neither doth the Apostle say that it followed them either perpetually or for any long time but onely that it followed them But howsoever it be understood that the Rock followed them which I confesse is somewhat obscure how by the Rock there should be meant Christ as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke For to drinke of the Rock is there expressed in the same phrase as to drinke of the Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither I thinke can one in any congruity be said to drinke of a man that giveth him either water or any thing else to drinke but onely to drinke either of the liquour or metonymically of that wherein the liquour is contained Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge that the materiall Rock which afforded the Israelites water to drinke was a figure of Christ and that the water proceeding from that Rock was a figure of Christs Blood onely he denies that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But I demand then from what place of Scripture if not from those words of the Apostle can so much bee gathered Iansenius a learned Romanist is more candid and free then Bellarmine for expounding the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is as when it is said The seed is the word of God c. Luke 8. 11. is put for signifieth as also there where it is said And the Rock was Christ And so also say we when 't is said This is my Body the meaning is This doth signifie my Body or This is a Signe a Token a Seal a Pledge of my Body The Lord saith Austine doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the Signe of his Body And again speaking of those words Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Ioh. 6. 53. he saith That Christ seemeth to command some hainous act or some grosse wickednesse And that therefore it is a figurative speech requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us And yet again He that is at enmity with Christ saith he doth neither eat his Flesh nor drink his Bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he understood those words This is my Body and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Indeed these very words This is my Body which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them are most strong against them and enough to throw down Transubstantiation For Christ saying This is my Body what is meant by the word This They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it but some say one thing some another only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown But look into the Scripture and mind it well and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It 's said Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body What is here meant by the word This What is it that Christ calls his Body That which he bade the Disciples take and eate And what was that That which he gave unto them And what was that That which he brake And what was that That which he blessed And what was that That which he took And what was that Bread For so expresly the Evangelist tells us that Iesus took Bread So then it was Bread that Christ took and Bread that he blessed and Bread that he brake and Bread that he gave to the Disciples and Bread that he bade them take and eat and Bread of which he spake saying This is my Body As if he should say This Bread which I have taken and blessed and broken and given unto you to eat even this Bread is my Body Now the word This relating unto Bread the speech must needs be Figurative and cannot be Proper For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body Bread and Christs Body being things of diverse and different natures and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other As when Christ called Herod a Fox and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers the speeches are not Proper but Figurative so is it when he called Bread his Body it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech then that a man should properly be a Fox a Serpent a Viper Besides doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper continually call it Bread even after Consecration Indeed to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread he calls it This Bread but yet still Bread the same in substance though not the same in use as before And which is worthy to be observed thus the Apostle calls it viz. Bread when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end than for the Apostle if he had been of the Romish Faith to have told them that now it was not Bread though it seemed unto them to be so but that the substance of the Bread was gone and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body He saith indeed That whoso eat that Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord But that is because that Bread and that Cup i. e. the Wine in the Cup are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them But to return to the Marquesse he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Saviour speakes of eating his flesh and drinking his blood calling himselfe Bread living Bread and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drinke indeed But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Marquesse doth contend for For 1.
as Iansenius not to name other of the Marquesses own party hath unanswerably proved Christ in Iohn 6. did not treat of the Sacrament but onely of the spirituall eating of his Flesh and the spirituall drinking of his Blood by faith 2. The words of our Saviour Iohn 6. if they must prove any transubstantiation at all will sooner prove the transubstantiation of Christs body into Bread then the transubstantiation of Bread into Christs body I am the Bread of life saith he Iohn 6. 35. 48. I am the living Bread c. ver 51. My flesh is meat indeed c. ver 55. If these sayings bee taken properly and without a figure they will prove a conversion not of Bread into the body of Christ but of the Body of Christ into Bread And the argument that Bradwardine useth against the Idols of the Pagans is by full proportion of as much force against our adversaries transubstantiation Perhaps saith he it is answered that a materiall Idoll after consecration rightly performed is transubstantiated and turned into God This conversion viz. of the Idoll into God is refelled because it appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there is the same materiall Idoll that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that God is converted into the Idoll then that the Idoll is converted into God This argument I say doth as strongly militate against the opinion of the Romanists concerning the reall presence For it no lesse appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there 's the same materiall Bread that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that Christs Body is converted into the Bread then that the Bread is converted into Christs Body The Marquesse saith that we with the Iewes and Infidells say How can this man give us his flesh to eate Ioh. 6. 52. But we say no such thing How should wee if wee believe Christ saying except yee eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you vers 53. We know and acknowledge that we must eate the flesh of Christ but yet spiritually not as those unbelieving Iewes imagined being therein more like unto our Adversaries carnally For so our Adversaries hold that the wicked may eate the flesh of Christ and yet be never the better but receive it to their condemnation whereas the eating of Christs Flesh spoken of Ioh. 6. is a thing that doth accompany salvation Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternall life c. v. 54. But saith the Marquesse Had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality Joh. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder Joh. 6. 62. You may as well deny his Incarnation his Ascension and aske How could the man come down from Heaven and goe up againe I answer 1. A figure viz. in speech is not properly opposed to reality but to propriety The spirituall eating of Christs Flesh is a reall yet not a proper but a figurative a metaphoricall eating of it when Christ saith I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. there is a reality implied as well as when he saith My flesh is meate indeed Joh. 6. 55. yet no Romanist I presume but will grant that Christ is a Vine not properly but figuratively so called True Vine that is excellent incorruptible and spirituall Vine as Iansenius out of Euthymius doth expound it So meate indeed that is excellent incomparable and spirituall meate 2. For those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before they make nothing for our Adversaries but rather against them For our Saviour in those words most probably intended to let the Jewes see that he did not speak of a Carnall eating of his Flesh as they supposed but of a Spirituall eating of it So Austine understood those words as Iansenius notes and judgeth that exposition most probable And so the Jesuite Maldonate who cites Beda and Rupertus as following the same exposition confesseth that exposition more probable than any other that he met with Yea that he had no Author of that Interpretation which he embraced viz. What will ye doe when ye shall see me ascend into Heaven How much more then will ye be offended How much lesse will ye then believe Yet he saith that he did approve this rather then that of Austine though of all the rest most probable because this did more oppose the sense of the Calvinists which to him he saith was a great argument of the probability of it Here see and observe the disposition of a Jesuit what little reckoning he made of Fathers so he might but oppose Calvinists Bellarmine also thinks this a very literall exposition that Christs meaning was to shew that they should have greater cause to doubt after his Ascension then they had before And this exposition he saith seems to be Chrysostomes yet Iansenius attributeth another exposition unto Chrysostome and Maldonate confesseth that he found none to expound it in that manner Neither is this exposition agreeable to the letter For it is equally inconceiveable that Christ being on Earth should give his Flesh to many thousands to eat if it be meant of Carnall eating as that he should doe it being in Heaven But Bellarmine first hath another exposition of those words of our Saviour which here the Marquesse seemeth to follow viz. that our Saviour would confirme one wonderfull thing by another no lesse wonderfull if not more he means the wonderfull eating of his Flesh in their sense by his wonderfull Ascension into Heaven And this exposition he saith doth confirm their opinion for that if Christ had not promised to give his true Flesh in the Sacrament he needed not to prove his power by his Ascension I answer it doth argue an extraordinary power in Christ to give his Flesh to eat though there be no turning of the substance of the Bread in the Sacrament into the substance of his Flesh Bellarmine indeed saith it is no miracle such as the Jewes required of Christ Ioh 6. 30 31. that common Bread should signifie Christs Body or that Christs Body should be eaten by Faith But is this so ordinary and easie a matter that common Bread common for substance though not for use should so signifie the Body of Christ that by the due receiving of it the very Body of Christ should be received and so Christ and the Receiver be united together Spiritually even as Bread and he that eateth it are united together Corporally Is all this nothing except the Bread be substantially changed and turned into Christs Body Why then doth Bellarmine elswhere tell us that the Fathers refer the wonderfull effects of Baptisme for of
Body that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body and his Blood for the salvation of our soule which is in the Blood And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule that he might redeeme both And therefore hee saith It is not without good cause that very many good men even of the Catholike profession being conversant in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church which was continued for many Ages For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth the first of them viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament which is not treated of in that Chapter as I have noted before and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome who as Bellarmine confesseth were of that opinion viz. Biel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper and Hesselius And even Bellarmine himselfe and others who hold that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words which the Marquesse citeth in those words which follow immediately after vers 51. And the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World in those words I say and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter they say that our Saviour speakes of the Sacrament but not in any of the former words of the Chapter And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde as the words a little after viz. v. 53. Verely verely I say unto you Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drinking it cannot be avoided but that by those very words as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament so is it to drinke of the cup also For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body they say that when one kinde onely viz. bread is received the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten yet as Iansenius well observes that outward act of taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking It is rightly called eating saith hee because something is taken by way of meate but how is it called drinking when as nothing is received by way of drinke Neither is it certaine that in the other two places viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Cajetan expounds the former place of ordinary bread and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kinde Jansenius doth not speake of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde though I know hee did approve of it but onely saith that by the effect that followed the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacrament worthily received to wit that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus And whereas Austine and Theophylact are said to understand that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament Iansenius tells us that so many thinke but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament because it was not here spoken of in Luke but mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde For the figure Synecdoche wherby the part is put for the whole is not unusuall in the Scripture Thus Soule which is but a part of man is put for man All the Soules that came with Jacob c. that is all the persons Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man is used for man I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me Psal 56. 4. that is what man can doe unto me as it is expressed vers 11. So whereas David saith In thy sight shall no man be justified Psal 143. 2. Paul hath it There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread because that is one and that an eminent part of it The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice We hold saith hee that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sinnes of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice This you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion Answ That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called Protestants have good cause to deny For the Eucharist is a Sacrament to be received by us not a sacrifice to be offered unto God Christ instituting the Sacrament gave it to his Disciples hee did not offer up himselfe as then unto his Father The Scripture tells us that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacrifices Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate down on the right hand of God And Heb. 9. 25 26 27 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often because his offering was his suffering so that if hee should have been offered often then he should also have suffered
thinke it not meete to Confirme children untill they come to the use of reason and be able to confesse their faith The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent thinkes it requisite that children be either twelve years old or at least seven years old before they be confirmed And Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did decree and that hee sayes piously and religiously That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old Thus have they by their own confession departed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves and why then should they presse us with it After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicating in one kinde which they hold sufficient And he saith that they have Scripture for it viz. Ioh. 6. 51. not 15. If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever Whence hee inferrs If everlasting life be sufficient then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer Where is no mention of the Cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine So also Luke 24. 30 35. Where Christ communicated hee saith his two Disciples under one kinde He addes that Austine Theophylact and Chrysostome expound that place of the Sacrament Answ The Scripture plainly shewes that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper took and blessed and gave the Cup as well as the bread and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us that As oft as we eate this bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord we shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people as they in the Church of Rome do Our Adversaries thinke to put off those words of our Saviour Drinke yee all of this by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles and therefore wee must not infer from them that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people and so deprive them of the whole sacrament For when Christ gave the Bread and bad take eate he spake onely to the Apostles as well as when hee gave the cup and bad that all should drinke of it 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread but drinke of the cup also All antiquity is here on our side How doe we teach or provoke them saith Cyprian to shed their blood in the confession of Christ if we deny them the blood of Christ when they are going to war-fare Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion Thus spake Cyprian and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Affrick as Pamelius observes concerning such as though they had grossely offended yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution which was ready to come upon them that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it This clearly shewes that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all did communicate in both kindes and not in one onely So also in another place Considering saith Cyprian that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood that they also for Christ may shed their blood There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian wherein hee condemneth the practice of some who used to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion This he saith is not consonant to the Gospell where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe Much more we may suppose hee would have disliked that the bread alone without any manner of participation of the cup should have been administred Sure I am the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other So another Pope viz. Gelasius as the same Gratian relates hearing of some that would onely receive the bread but not the Cup bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament or no part of it because the division of one and the same mystery hee saith cannot be without great Sacriledge And whereas they speake of a concomitancy of the blood with the body and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them saying that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body and the Wine onely to his Blood and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body Wherefore it saith if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde in Bread onely it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one viz. of the Body and not for the good of the other viz. of the Soule Not to multiply testimonies Cassander in the very beginning of the Article wherein he treates of this point ingenuously confesseth that the Universall Church of Christ to this day doth and the Westerne or Roman Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did especially in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament exhibit both kindes both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ which he saith is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine And hee addes that they were induced hereunto first by the institution and example of Christ who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes viz. Bread and Wine unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified So also for mysticall reasons of this institution which are diversly assigned by the ancient Writers As to represent the memory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body and the shedding of his Blood according to that of Paul As oft as yee eate this Bread and Drinke the cup of the Lord yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke as Christ saith My flesh is meate indeed and my Blood is Drinke indeed Likewise to shew the redemption and preservation of Soule and
c. It is answered that there were two conversions the first of the Brittains the second of the Saxons we onely require this justice from you as you are English not Welch-men for the Church of England involves all the Brittains within her Communion for the Brittains have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England Now if Your Majestie please I expect your further Objections King My Lord I have not done with you yet though particular Churches may fall away in their severall respects of obedience to one supreme Authority yet it follows not that the Church should be thereby divided for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit and the bond of peace the Church is still at unitie as so many sheaves of corne are not unbound because they are severed Many sheaves may belong to one field to one man and may be carryed to one barne and be servient to the same table Unity may consist in this as well as in being hudled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest I have an hundred pieces in my pocket I find them something heavie I divide the summe halfe in one pocket and halfe in another and subdivide them afterwards in two severall lesser pockets The moneys is divided but the summe is not broke the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together because it belongs to the same man and is in the same possession so though we divide our selves from Rome if neither of us divide our selves from Christ we agree in him who is the Center of all unitie though we differ in matter of depending upon one another But my Lord of Worcester we are got into such a large field of discourse that the greatest Schollers of them all can sooner shew us the way in then out of it therefore before we goe too far let us retire lest we lose our selves and therefore I pray my Lord satisfie me in these particulars Why doe you leave out the second Commandement and cut another in two why doe you with-hold the Cup from the Laytie why have you seven Sacraments when Christ instituted but two why doe you abuse the World with such a fable as Purgatory and make ignorant fooles believe you can fish soules from thence with silver hookes why doe you pray to Saints and worship Images Those are the offences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ of these things I would be satisfied Marq. Sir although the Church be undefiled yet she may not be spotlesse to severall apprehensions For the Church is compared to the Moon that is full of spots but they are but spots of our fancying though the Church be never so comly yet she is described unto us to have black eye-browes which may to some be as great an occasion of dislike as they are to others foyles which set her off more lovely We must not make our fancies judgements of condemnation to her with whom Christ so much was ravished For Your Majesties Objections and first as to that of leaving out the second Commandment and cutting another in two I beseech Your Majestie who called them Commandments who told you they were ten who told you which were first and second c. The Scripture onely called them words those words but these and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Commandments but two Tables the Church did all this and might as well have named them twenty as ten Commandments that which Your Majestie calls the second Commandment is but the explanation of the first and is not razed out of the Bible but for brevitie sake in the manualls it is left out as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath and others wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name their Number and their Distinction may in their breviats leave out what she deems to be but exposition and deliver what she thinks for substance without any such heavie charge as being blottable out of the booke of life for diminishing the word of God For withholding the Cup from the Laytie where did Christ either give or command to be given either the Bread or the Wine to any such Drink ye all of this but they were all Apostles to whom he said so there were neither Lay-men or women there If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it either in one or both kinds they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly but not question the Churches Actions She that could alter the Sabbath into the Lords day and change the dipping of the Baptised over head and eares in water to a little sprinkling upon the face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the difference of Seasons and Countries may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments Neither was this done without great reason the world had not wine in all her Countries but it had bread Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake that they might not be unlike to one another but all receive alike that they should onely receive the Bread which was to be had in every place and not the Cup in regard that Wine was not every where to be had I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing for Bread and Wine doe signifie Christ crucified I appeal to common reason if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the bloud lie by it If you grant the Churches Power in other matters and rest satisfied therein why do you boggle at this especially when any Priest where Wine is to be had if you desire it he will give it you But if upon every mans call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault which may be but supposed to be found the people would never stop untill they had made such a through Reformation in all parts as they have done in the greatest part of Germany where there is not a man to Preach or hear the Gospell to eat the Bread or drink the Wine you never pickt so many holes in our Coates as this licentiousnesse hath done in yours For our seven Sacraments she that called the Articles of our Faith 12 the Beatitudes 8 the Graces 3 the Virtues 4 called these 7 and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind and why Sacrament either in Name or Number should be confin'd to Christs onely Institution I see no cause for it If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise as he did Marriage shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was instituted by Christ when he was upon the Earth If Christ institutes the Order of giving and receiving the holy Ghost shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders If Christ injoynes us all repentance
of witnesses to the divine truth and be no more prejudicicall to their generall determinations then so many exceptions are prejudiciall to a generall rule Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies who onely prey upon corruption leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded Secondly Your Majesty taxes generall Councels for committing errors If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Councels were called Your Majesty shall find that the Church was then under persecution and how that Arrian Emperours rather made Assemblies of Divines then called any Generall Councels and if we should suppose them to be generall and free Councels yet they could not be erroneous in any particular mans judgement untill a like generall Councell should have concluded the former to be erroneous except you will allow particulars to condemne generalls and private men the whole Church all generall Councels from the first unto the last that ever were or shall be makes but one Church and though in their intervals there be no session of persons yet there is perpetuall virtue in their decretals to which every man ought to appeale for judgement in point of controversie Now as it is a maxim in our law Nullum tempus occurrit regi so it is a maxim in divinity Nullum tempus occurrit deo Ubi deus est as he promised I will be with you alwaies unto the end of the world that is with his Church in directing her chief Officers in all their consultations relating either to the truth of her doctrine or the manner of her discipline wherefore if it should be granted that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholick Church because the Church is as well Catholick for time as territory except that you will make rectification an error For as in civil affairs if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts and thereupon conclude that we will be no more regulated by its lawes we should breed confusion in the Common-wealth for as they alter their laws upon experience of present inconveniences so the Councels change their decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy writ assures us shall encrease in the latter daies provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of and not by every enthusiastick that shall oppose himselfe against the whole Church If I recall my own words it is no error but an avoidance of error so where the same power rectifies it selfe though some things formerly have been decreed amisse yet that cannot render the decrees of generall Councels not binding or incident to error quoad ad nos though in themselves and pro tempore they may be so As to Your Majesties objecting the errors of the holy Apostles and pen-men of the holy Ghost and Your inference thereupon viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under Your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the holy Ghost inabled with the power of working miracles so sanctified in their callings and enlightened in their understandings could erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from not erring by the assistance of a private spirit Lastly as to Your Majesties quotations of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understood If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood so that the unlearned and unstable wrest them to their owne destruction 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us that Christs owne Disciples could not understand them untill Christ himselfe expounds them unto them as Luke 24 25. and if the Scriptures tell us how the Angel wept much because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals nor to look upon it as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the errata's that are behind their books or else we must look out some other meaning of their words then what Your Majesty hath inferr'd from thence as thus they were easie id est in aliquibus but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained requisite for the Churches understanding and by her alone and her consultations and discusments guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance onely to be found out of which as to every ordinary man this knowledge is not necessary so hereof he is not capable First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his body is there you say there is nothing but bare bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. 26. Take eat this is my body so Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacrament is but dead bread Christ saith that that bread is living bread you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat we say that that was the objection of Jews and Infidels 1 John 6. 25. not of Christians and believers you say it was spoken figuratively we say it was spoken really re vera or as we translate it indeed John 6. 55. But as the Jews did so doe ye First murmur that Christ should be bread John 6. 41. Secondly that that bread should be flesh Iohn 6. 52. And thirdly that that flesh should be meat indeed John 6. 55. untill at last you cry out with the unbelievers this is a hard saying who can heare it Iohn 6. 60. had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality John 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation his ascention and ask how could the man come down from heaven and goe up againe if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts and that which is worse then naught you have made our Saviours conclusion an argument against the premises for where our Saviour tels them thus to argue according unto flesh and bloud in these words the flesh profiteth nothing and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding they must have faith to believe it in these words it is the Spirit that quickneth
that Sacrament particularly doe almost all the Fathers speak which are cited by him to Gods Almighty power I am sure Bellarmine would not have us believe for all this that the substance of the water in Baptisme is changed into any other substance Where our Saviour tels them saith the Marquesse thus to argue according to flesh and bloud in these words The flesh profiteth nothing and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding they must have Faith to believe it in these words It is the Spirit that quickneth John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their own imagination viz. The flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs Body is not in the Sacrament but it is the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his Body is there As if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the 12. stones which were erected as a signe of the children of Israels passing over Iordan c. Josh 4. Those words of our Saviour The Flesh profiteth nothing It is the Spirit that quickneth make also rather against our Adversaries opinion than for it For as Iansenius comments upon them our Saviour in those words signifies That his flesh is to be eaten in spirituall manner and not carnally which is that which we hold and maintain against them of the Church of Rome This exposition as the same Iansenius observes doth both answer the murmuring of the Jewes and also agree with the sentence following The words which I have spoken unto you they are spirit and they are life that is they are spirituall and to be understood spiritually and so they give life to those that hear them Thus he saith Austine doth interpret this sentence and a little before he cites Chrysostome Theophylact and others as understanding Christs words in this sense 2. To remove those offences and mis-beleevings which the Jewes had about the eating of Christs Flesh which he spake of they understanding his words in a carnall sense there was need enough of so many inculcations and pressures for we see that after all those inculcations and pressures yet our Adversaries will not be taken off from the like Carnall conceit as the offended and mis-beleeving Jewes had Our Adversaries would seeme indeed to be far from compliance with those Jewes because they doe not hold that Christs Flesh is to be eaten by bits so as to be divided one piece from another as those Jewes seeme to have imagined but that it is to be eaten though corporally yet in an invisible and indivisible manner But Pope Nicolas caused Berengarius to recant his opinion and to confesse That not only the Sacrament of Christs Body but the very body it selfe is sensually held in the Priests hands and torne by the Teeth of the Faithfull Which expressions are as harsh as our Adversaries can use when they would set forth the grosnesse of that conceit which the Jewes had about eating Christs Flesh And indeed so harsh are those expressions in Berengarius his recantation prescribed by the Pope that the Glosse upon it is forced to say Except you rightly understand the words of Berengarius hee might have said of Pope Nicolas who did prescribe them you will fall into a greater Heresie then he was in And therefore you must referre all to the species or shewes themselves for we doe not make any parts of Christs Body So then to free themselves from a Capernaiticall manner of eating Christs Flesh our adversaries hold that neither Christs body nor bread but onely the species or shewes of bread as quantity colour savour and the like meere accidents without a substance are torne with the teeth divided and broken And is this properly to eate Christs Body or is not this eating of Christs Flesh as immaginable as that of the Iewes whereas the Marquesse speaketh of a bare memoriall 1. Christ himselfe hath plainly taught us that the Sacrament is a memoriall of him saying Doe this in remembrance of me 2. We doe not say that Christ is barely remembred in the Sacrament but so remembred as also to be received viz. by such as have faith whereby to receive him For to receive Christ is to believe in him as is cleare Ioh. 1. 12. So that this receiving of Christ though it be a reall yet it is not a corporall but a spirituall receiving of him After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites some Fathers as Ignatius Epist ad Smyr Iustine Apol. 2. Cyprian Ser. 4. de Laps Ambros l. 4. de Sacram. and Remigius the place where not noted who he saith affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the Word of God tooke in the Virgins Wombe Answ The question is not whether Christs Flesh be in the Sacrament but how it is in it concerning which these Fathers so farre as the Marquesse doth shew speake nothing To say that they speake of the same flesh which the Word of God tooke in the Wombe of the Virgin is onely to shew that they speake of Christs flesh properly so called but it doth not shew that they speake of that flesh being properly in the Sacrament I know no flesh of Christ properly so called but that which the Word made Flesh Ioh. 1. 14 tooke of the Virgin Mary but though it be granted as it is that this flesh of Christ is in the Sacrament yet still the question remaines whether this flesh of Christ be properly substantially and corporally in the Sacrament viz. under the species or shewes of bread as our Adversaries hold and to this question the Marquesse doth not say that the Fathers alledged by him doe speake any thing and therefore I might well let them passe without any further answer But to consider them and their testimonies more particularly First Ignatius his words as they are cited by Bellarmine are to this effect They meaning certaine Hereticks doe not admit Eucharists and oblations because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which did suffer for our sins and which the Father of his goodnesse did raise up This testimony is nothing against us who doe not deny the Eucharist that is the bread in the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ onely wee say that it is not his flesh in a proper but in a figurative sense viz. as Austine in the words before cited observes the thing signifying being called by the name of the thing signified And this must be the meaning of Ignatius for hee speakes not of Christs flesh being in the Eucharist but of the Eucharist being Christs Flesh Whereby the Eucharist can be meant nothing but the Sacramentall bread and that as I have before demonstrated
by the confession of all cannot properly but onely figuratively be Christs Flesh Bellarmine objects that the Hereticks spoken of by Ignatius denyed Christ to have true flesh holding that he was but seemingly borne crucified and raised againe And therefore hee saith they did not deny the Eucharist to signifie the flesh of Christ but onely to be the Flesh of Christ lest they should be forced to admit that Christ had true flesh But say I how could those Hereticks yeeld that Eucharist doth signifie the flesh of Christ and yet deny that Christ hath flesh For a thing must needs first be before there can be truly any signification of it Men saith Bellarmine may paint bodies which indeed are not But who will say that these Pictures are representations of bodies and not meere Pictures And this is all that Bellarmine could make out of Ignatius The next Father is Iustine Martyr who saith that the Bread in the Sacrament is not common Bread nor the Cup a common Cup. We say the same they are not common being sanctified and set apart for a holy use But doth this prove any transubstantiation our adversaries hold no substantiall change of the water in Baptisme and yet they will not say that it is common water I am sure it is farre more justly to be accounted Holy than that which they use to call Holy Water Iustine also saith That we are taught that the food in the Eucharist by which being changed our flesh and bloud is nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate But this was so far from proving Transubstantiation that indeed it overthrowes it For in saying that we are nourished by the food the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament he saith in effect that the substance of that food that Bread and Wine doth still remaine for otherwise how should we be nourished by it Christs Body and Bloud are not for our corporall nourishment of which Iustine speaketh neither can the bare Species or shewes of Bread and Wine afford any such nourishment But saith Bellarmine Iustine writing an Apology for Christians and their Religion was a prevaricatour and made the Christian Faith most odious by expressing himself so as he did whereas he might have avoided all superstition if he had believed that Christ is not so in the Sacrament as that the Bread is substantially changed and turned into his Body I answer that Iustines expressions are agreeable to our Saviours 1. This is my Body and therefore no more apt to render the Faith of Christians odious than the other Neither was it much to be feared that the Heathens to whom he wrote his Apology should not be able to understand the Figure whereby the signe is called that which it signifieth there was no need as Bellarmine scoffingly speakes that for the understanding of this Figure they should be conversant in the School of the Calvinists The next Father cited by the Marquesse is Cyprian who speaking of some that in time of Persecution denyed the Faith and yet presumed to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to let them see the hainousnesse of their presumption he first alledged some places of Scripture as Levit. 7. 19 20. and 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 11. 27. And then he addes All these things being despised and contemned violence is offered to Christs Body and Bloud and they now sinne against the Lord more by their hands and mouth then they did before when that they denyed him But what is there in all this to shew Cyprian held any such presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they of the Romish Church maintaine Yes saith Bellarmine for the Marquesse onely points at places but cites no words much lesse drawes any argument from them Cyprian did certainly beleeve Christ to be so in the Sacrament or else he would never have so aggravated the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament as to make it a greater sinne than to deny Christ before a persecutor But this reason is over-weak For first Cyprian being very Rhetoricall might a little hyperbolize in his expression And 2. without any Hyperbole at all the words may be made good and yet no Transubstantiation nor any corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament be supposed For the sin of denying Christ under Persecution might be and most probably was of infirmity and the sinne of receiving the Sacrament unworthily might be of presumption and so more hainous in that respect than the other In the same place Cyprian also relates some miraculous punishments which were inflicted on some that unworthily received the Sacrament and hence also Bellarmine infers that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament for that we doe not read he sayes of any such miracles shewed upon those who have unworthily medled with other Signes I answer yes we doe we read of Nadab and Abihu slain with fire from Heaven for offering Incense with strange Fire Levit. 10. and yet that Incense and the Altar on which it was offered were but Types and Figures So the Arke was but a Signe of Gods Presence and yet many thousands of the Bethshemites were destroyed for looking into it 1 Sam. 6. 4. so also was Uzza for presuming to touch it 2 Sam. 6. Next to Cyprian the Marquesse cites Ambrose Lib. 4. de Sacram. but no Chapter is cited by him Bellarmine cites Chap. 3 4 and 5. Now all that Ambrose saith chap. 3. as looking that way is but this That the Sacraments of Christians are more Divine then those of the Iewes Which we grant not in respect of the thing signified For Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13. the same Christ was signified by the Jewish Sacraments as by ours but in respect of the manner of signifying Christ being more clearly signified by our Sacraments than he was by those which the Jewes had See 2 Cor. 3. 12. c. But chap. 4. Ambrose hath something that may seem to make more against us viz. That before Consecration it is Bread but when Consecration commeth then of Bread it is made the Flesh of Christ To this I answer that these words doe not inferre any Transubstantiation By Consecration of Bread is made Christs Flesh but Sacramentally not Substantially Figuratively not Properly And that Ambrose in those words did intend no substantiall change of the Bread appears by his owne words in the same Chapter If saith he there was such force in the speech of the Lord Iesus that things should begin to be that were not how much more operative is it that those things should be which were and should withall be changed into another thing Therefore in the judgement of Ambrose the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are what they were viz. in respect of substance yet by vertue of Christs institution are changed viz. in respect of signification Bellarmine to evade this testimony first sayes that Lanfrancus in
Heaven for me give me health of body give me patience courage c. So that we understand it thus Save me and have mercy on me by praying for me give me this or that by thy prayers and merits But what is this but to displace Christ and to set up Saints in his roome Their Pope Leo cited by their Cassander concerning this same point hath taught a better lesson saying The Saints have received not given crownes and by the fortitude of Believers we have examples of patience not gifts of righteousnesse This Cassander cites shewing how ill it suites with the Romish practice which hee although a Romanist complaines of as too exorbitant Bellarmine takes it very ill that Calvine sayes they pray unto the Virgin Mary to command her Sonne with great indignation hee cries out Who of us doth say this Why doth hee not prove it by some example But the forementioned Cassander plainly shewes that Calvin did not charge them in that manner without cause For saith hee it is come to that passe that Christ now reigning in Heaven is made subject to his Mother as they sing in some Churches Pray the Father and command the Son O happy child bearing woman who doest expiate wickednesse by the authority of a Mother command the Redeemer Hee tells us also that as Ahasuerus told Esther he would give her half of his Kingdome if she would aske it so some famous men among them say that Gods Kingdome consisting of Judgement and Mercy God hath indeed given halfe of his Kingdome to the Virgin Mary viz. that part which consisteth in mercy reserving the other part unto himselfe viz. that which consisteth of judgement Whereby they intimate that who so desires mercy must seeke to the Virgin Mary for it otherwise hee can expect nothing but judgement And as Cassander also complaines all Davids Psalmes they as they call it instead of Lord putting in Lady and attributing that unto the Virgin Mary which David attributeth unto God As for example Lady in thee have I put my trust In the Lady do I trust Save me O Lady for I have trusted in thee To thee O Lady have I lift up my soule In thee O Lady have I trusted let me never be confounded Iudge me O Lady and discerne my cause O Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity Have mercy on me O Lady which art called the Mother of mercy and according to the bowels of thy mercies cleanse me from all mine iniquities Powre out thy grace upon me and withold not thy wonted clemency from me And so all along throughout all the Psalmes it runs after this manner May we not now most justly apply that to the Romanists which Ambrose spake of the Heathens They thinke themselves not guilty who give the honour of Gods Name to the creature and leaving the Lord adore their fellow-servants as if there were any thing more that might be reserved for God Now for the Marquesses proofes I marvell hee should stand so much upon that in Luke 16. 24. For 1. Chemnitius sayes well Wee will not learne how to pray of the damned whom God hath cast off and who are in eternall despaire And againe Let them pray as that rich man did who would be heard and helped as he was 2. Whereas the Marquesse bringeth in a jury of ten Fathers to prove that this Scripture is no Parable but a History why should wee be any more moved in this case with their verdict then Iansenius a Romanist was who as I have shewed before thought it more probable that it is no History but a Parable or at least a History related after a parabolicall manner Theophlylact also saith expressely that it is a Parable and censures them as voide of understanding who take it for a History His reason I grant is not good viz. that as yet neither the just nor the unjust doe receive their reward And yet that assertion of his also is advantagious unto us in this point For our Adversaries hold as hath beene noted before that therefore in the time of the old Testament there was no praying to the Saints departed because the Saints then as they say were not in blisse and so could not heare the prayers that should be made unto them Now Theophylact held that the Saints in the time of the new Testament are not in blisse untill the last judgement and the same was the opinion of many other Fathers I know Bellarmine doth indeavour to free both Theophylact and the rest interpreting them as if they meant onely in respect of full and perfect blisse both in soule and body But others of the Roman Church doe confesse that it was their opinion that the soules of the righteous doe not enjoy the beatificall vision untill the day of judgement Sixtus Senensis doth cite Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Tertullian Origen Chrysostome Lactantius Ambrose Austine Theodoret Theophylact Bernard and others as being of this opinion and therefore by our adversaries owne principles they could not rightly hold the Invocation of Saints deceased But to returne to that Scripture Luke 16. Iustine Martyr as hee is cited by Bellarmine denies that it is a true History Chrysostome also saith plainly that it is a Parable Hom. 1. de Lazaro And yet hee is one of the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth to the contrary I know not what that meaneth which the Marquesse saith every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others For we do not finde persons named in any parable besides this which is the maine if not onely argument which is used to prove it a History rather then a Parable though Iansenius did not thinke this to be a convincing argument and he shews two reasons why the poore man was named and not the rich viz. 1. To teach us that God regardes the poore that are righteous more then the rich that are wicked 2. Because when one is commended it is meete to name him but not so when one is condemned And both these reasons hee saith stand good whether this narration be onely a Parable or a History It is certaine the holy Ghost tells no lies nor fables c. Parables are not false nor fabulous yet Theophylact saith well We must not take all things that are spokken in Parables as Lawes and Canons So Maldonate thought meete often to admonish this as a thing most safe that Parables are not to be handled too strictly that they are often broken by handling and that here that doth happen which is said in the proverbe the too much wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood The other place viz. Iob 5. 1. is very inconveniently alledged by the Marquesse for invocation of Saints deceased Bellarmine was more wary in citing it onely to prove that Angels whom hee there understands by Saints may be invocated These words saith he shew that it
often But saith he as it is appointed unto men to die once c. So Christ was once offered c. Bellarmine also averres that unto a true sacrifice it is required that the thing which is offered unto God for a sacrifice be plainly destroyed that is that it cease to be what it was before So that if Christ bee offered up in the Eucharist a true and proper Sacrifice then hee must be destroyed hee must cease to be what he was before Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirme this of Christ let all judge Bellarmine indeed afterward indeavours to answer this argument Let us see what he saith The argument hee propounds thus The sacrifice that is offered must be slaine Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Masse he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slaine To this hee answers thus The sacrifice of the Masse is a most true sacrifice and yet doth not require the killing of that which is offered For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life and which is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life as when Lambes Calves Birds and the like are offered whose destruction consists in death But when the forme of the sacrifice is of a thing without life as of Bread Wine Frankincense and the like killing cannot be required but only such a consuming of the thing as is agreeable to it In the Masse therefore Christ is indeed offered who is a thing having life and he is offered in the forme of a thing having life in respect of representation where onely a death representative is required but not death indeed But as he is a reall and properly so called sacrifice he is offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the order of Melchisedech and therefore in the forme of a thing without life Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing but Eating I have rehearsed his words at large that so his answer may be seene at full But though there be many wordes which hee useth yet it is somewhat hard to know what hee meaneth Certainly this is a very strange kinde of sacrifice that he speaketh of Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the forme of a thing that hath life and also in the forme of a thing that is without life And as hee is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life hee is onely offered in respect of representation but as he is offered in the forme of a thing that is without life hee is really and indeed offered So that Christ being offered in the forme of a thing that hath life his death is represented but he being offered in the forme of a thing that is without life his death is not represented and much lesse is it really executed and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed These things do but very unhandsomely hang together But whereas hee saith that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it I demand is Christs Body so eaten as that it ceaseth to be what it was before If it be not as certainly it is not Christs Body being now glorified and so free from all mutation then is it not truly and properly sacrificed Bellarmine himselfe telling us as I have shewed before that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed is so destroyed as that it ceaseth to be what it was before To talke here of consuming the species or forme of bread so that it ceaseth to be what it was before is nothing to the purpose for they maintaine that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Masse And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christs being offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered For either by himselfe or by the Priest that saith Masse Not by himselfe for here we speak of Christs being offered in the Eucharist which is not administred by Christ hee being now in Heaven Nor by the Priest on Earth there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech but Christ only Psal 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15 c. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth that is properly so called and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be offered For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it and such as the sacrifice is such also must the Priest be hee must be a Priest properly so called if it be a sacrifice properly so called But there is no such Priest upon Earth there being none as I have shewed after the order of Melchisedech nor yet any after the order of Aaron for that order is abolished as all the Leviticall sacrifices are And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture Againe in a sacrifice properly so called it must be some sensible thing as our Adversaries themselves acknowledge that is offered But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist for by what sense is hee there discerned And therefore neither is hee there truly and properly sacrificed Neither was this Doctrine viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist received in the Church of Rome for more then 1100 years after Christ as appeares by the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard who propounds the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly a sacrifice and whether Christ be sacrificed daily or were only once sacrificed And to this hee answers that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and an offering because it it a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation that was made in the Altar of the Crosse And Christ died once on the crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once Here we plainly see that he determines that Christ is not properly sacrificed in the Sacrament but improperly in that his sacrificing of himselfe upon the crosse is remembred and represented in the Sacrament which is no more then the Apostle saith viz. that Christs death is shewed forth in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose as Lombard doth cite him Although we offer daily it is for the remembrance of his death We also offer now but that which we doe is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered To this purpose also he cites Austine Now for the places alledged by the Marquesse the first viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concerne the Eucharist but generally the spirituall worship and service which the Prophet foreshewed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament and which should not be confined and limited to one certaine place and as the solemne worship and service of God in the time of the old
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
Christ according to Bellarmines computation The Church saith the Marquesse held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of divine and Apostolical tradition Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged viz. Epist 63. doth speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist as a thing necessary to be obsered But 1. Austine hath taught us That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings and the Scriptures 2. Cyprian himselfe though speaking of another occasion doth shew us what we are here to answer Whence saith he is this tradition Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel or from the Apostles in their writings For God doth require us to do those things that are written saying to Joshua The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Jos 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles he bade them baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded Mat. 28. 19. 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel or contained either in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition Now in the Epistle which the Marquesse alleadgeth Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians such as did use only water in the Eucharist that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine c. but that Christ also did use water he doth not prove neither can it be proved by the Scripture Yet our Divines do grant that probably Christ might mixe wine and water in the Sacramental cup not for any mystical signification nor as a matter of necessary observation but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water to abate the strength of it Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture but for using it so as to make it a sinne not to use it Bellarmine indeed saith that it is no lesse certain that Christ did mixe water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose For he saith neither the Evangelists nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist As for the words I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. he saith S. Luke doth plainly shew they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle which is alleadged against us For their citing these words he infers from them as a thing clear and evident that it was wine which Christ called his blood and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated if wine be wanting Yea Maldonate cites many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian who understand those words of the cup in the Eucharist And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17 18. to prove that those words I will not henceforth drink c. have reference to another cup and not that in the Eucharist Austine as himself confesseth taketh those words in Luke to be related by anticipation and not in their due order which Matthew and Mark observed And though he say that Austine did not diligently consider the place yet Jansenius writing professedly upon it approves Austins opinion rather then Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Lukes Gospel neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument which he doth alleadge for it But however he shews that the words as they are related by S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot be referred to any other cup then that in the Eucharist of which they make mention immediately before and of none other 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants For he makes this mixture of such necessity as to hold it no Sacrament if there be not in the cup both wine and water Otherwise if there bee either onely water or onely wine he holds it to be none of Christs Cup none of his Sacrament But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion and saith that very few of them do hold it Why then do they presse us with the testimony of Cyprian they themselves dissenting from him as well as we For it is over vain and frivolous that Bellarmine saith that though Cyprian spake in that manner yet perhaps he meant otherwise But to proceed The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church held exorcismes exsufflations and renuntiations which are made in Baptisme for sacred ceremonies and of Apostolical tradition And a little after The Church in the ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyle salt wax-light exorcismes the sign of the Crosse the word Ephata and other things that accompany it c. But 1. What authority is there from Gods word for all or any of these Ceremonies Let them be proved by the Scriptures and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions but otherwise we have no reason to do it And for this we have Cyprian to whom other ancient Writers might be added if need were to speak for us as I have shewed a little before though here among others he also be alleadged against us 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith That they must not so be multiplied as with their multitude to overwhelm Religion to which they ought to be subservient And for this he cites Austine But surely the ceremonies of Baptisme which the Marquesse here partly expresseth and partly intimateth Bellarmine doth reckon up particularly no fewer then two and twenty are so many as that they must needs overwhelme Baptisme 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptisme are now abolished in the Church of Rome Anciently they used to dip the person baptized thrice in the water which now Bellarmine saith is not so but in some places they dip once and in some place thrice neither being of the offence of the Sacrament But elsewhere he tels us that the Church hath determined in the fourth Councel of Toledo that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptisme So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptisme anciently used mentioneth the tasting of milk and hony or wine which ceremony yet he saith now is not in use Thus their Apostolical traditions as they call them they themselves can reject when they please The Church held then saith the Marquesse Baptisme for Infants of absolute necessity and for this cause thou permitted Lay-men to baptise in danger of death The absolute necessity of Baptisme is not here simply urged but