amongst many which I haue read and noted out of diuers authors of good credit and well approued in the Church of Rome The first is taken out of Pope Gregorie the Great S. Greg. Mag. hom 37. in Euang lib. 4. dialog cap. 57. who writeth That a certaine man being taken prisoner by his enemies was carried into a farre Countrey where hee was kept prisoner a long time whose wife not hearing any thing of him thought him to bee dead and therefore caused a Masse to be said for him euery weeke Whereupon it happened that so often as the Masse was offered for the deliuerance of his soule so often were his irons and shackles loosened in the prison where he was which afterward when being released he returned againe to his wife he told her as much with great admiration whereupon the wife enquiring the time and the houre when hee found him so freed from his fetters she found it happened at he same houre that Masse was said for him Whereupon Pope Gregorie saith Hence my best beloued brethren and good friends learne ye how much the sacred hoast being offred by our selues is of force to vntie the bands of our hearts since being offered by one it had such power as to breake the bands of anothers bodie Certainly if this sacrifice be of such force I maruaile why the Priests in prison offering it with the deuotion of worthie Confessors heere in England should not be able often to loosen their chaines yea and to open the verie prison gates for their deliuerance but this cannot be because such fictions neuer prooue true and these are but fables inuented to delude poore simple soules that Priests by saying of Masses for them may emptie their purses and bee partakers of their coine Againe as it is written that heere in England A certaine Prince which had beene sicke of the Palsie a long time and carried into Saint Stephens Church Edinerus Angelus in vit S. Anselm to heare Masse sung by Anselme Bishop of Canterburie and to receiue his blessing whereupon he recouered present health Either this storie is inuented to honour Anselme with or else to approue the Masse by it or if the Masse be of such power how hapneth it in all this time of persecution as the Papists terme their small suffrings here in England that they haue no sicke persons cured by so many Masses as are offered by Priests and Iesuites But all is but mans inuention and as babes are deceiued with shewes so are simple Papists with false lies and such like fabulous wonders inuented either by ambitious and foolish Priests or hypocriticall and pharisaicall Monkes and Friers It is an vsuall thing in the Church of Rome by such inuentions to confirme one false doctrine by another so confirmed so I haue noted the doctrine of Purgatorie by the doctrine of the Masse for diuers Romish Authours haue left it recorded that Benedictus Octauus Pope was deliuered out of Purgatorie by the sacrifice of the Masse Petr. Dam. Card. Al. lâ—y in fest S. Odâ—li 〈◊〉 Ian. Laur. Sur. to 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. An. Ebor. cap. de orat Cath hist cap 5. tit 19. part 2. Tho. Cant. lib. 2. Aâ—un cap. 53. part 14. Cath. hist cap. 5. tit 19. part 5. and the prayers of Saint Odilus Abbot and his Monkes Heere is a miracle framed not onely for the Masse but also for Purgatorie and praying for the dead So likewise I haue read of a Priest in France who being verie poore yet verie deuoutly affected to the soules in Purgatorie in so much that euerie day without failing he â—ffered the sacrifice of the Masse for them for the which he was cited and accused before his Prelate and being brought before his Bishoppe hee simplie confessed the truth wherefore hee was taxed to payment of a certaine summe and forced to giue suretie for the same which hauing sworne to performe the poore man was in great trouble finding out none to answer for him but instantly the eyes of the Bishoppe were opened and hee beheld more than a thousand hands stretched foorth readie to giue suretie for the Priest Whereupon the Bishopped said vnto the Priest thou hast sureties enough goe and according to thine owne pleasure and mine say Masse as thou hast done heretofore Many other straunge wonders could I alleage in this kind not to bee beleeued but rather to bee wondered at that any man dares haue so much presumption as by such wicked deuises to wrong Gods truth and to maintaine false-hood for if it bee a true marke of false teachers which Christ prescribed when he spake of those that should do such wonders that the elect might be seduced by them then it followeth that the Romish teachers are those euen in this verie doctrine of the Masse who onely pretend to haue miracles and wonders to approue it 10 For in truth they haue no one place of Scripture for this sacrifice which they so highly esteeme of The storie of Mâ—lchâ—sedech wrested to prooue the Masse they pretend many figures and types of the old Law many predictions out of the Prophets and also other testimonies out of the Gospell but they are all insufficient weake and impertinent nothing seruing their purpose So most impertinently doth Cardinall Bellarmine alleage the example of Melchisedech Desacrif mis lib 5. cap. 5. 6. Genes 14. Psal 109. vers 5. who brought foorth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the Highest but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech and not according to Aaron as Paul teacheth Hebrewes the seuenth therefore hee was to institute an vnbloodie sacrifice vnder the forme of bread and wine This reason of Bellarmines is of no force for were it true that Melchisedech offered bread and wine which is not yet nothing else would follow but that Christ offered bread and wine which our Aduersaries will neuer graunt for they teach that bread and wine doth not continue after consecration but that they are annihilated and so transubstantiated that nothing remaineth of the substance besides the bodie and blood of Christ Besides Melchisedech did not offer but onely brought foorth as the Hebrew word signifieth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abrahams souldiers as the Text it selfe clearely teacheth Neither is Melchisedâ—ch a Type of Christ either in offering or bringing foorth bread and wine but first in respect of the name Melchisedech the King of righteousnesse secondly because hee was King of Salem Jsai 9.6 and Christ is King or Prince of peace Thirdly because Melchisedech was together both a King and a Priest and so is Châ—â—st Fourthly because the Progenie of Melchisedech is not related so is Christ a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech Psal 110.4 Therefore this figure of Melchisedech hath no refâ—reâ—â—ce to the saâ—rifice of the Mâ—sse at all Controuers 5. Confess Petricomensi cap. 41. And howsoeuer Pighius and Hosius say that this is the
and wine passe into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ yet so as the nature of bread and wine ceaseth not and they are turned into the diuine substance yet the bread and wine still remaine in the propertie of their nature If this be true that the nature of bread and wine ceaseth not and that the bread and wine still remaine in the propertie of their nature then can not transubstantiation stand For hereby Gelasius confuted Eutiches the Heretike holding that Christ had but one nature and that in regard of the vnion the humanitie was turned into the Deitie against which error he opposed the doctrine of the Eucharist shewing that as therein bread and wine after consecration were honoured with the name of his body and bloud and receiued grace to their nature to bee a holy Sacrament though still they remained in their former nature and propertie So the humanitie of Christ receiued grace by the hypostaticall vniting it to the God-head and yet still retained the former propertie to be humane flesh Therefore had Gelasius beliefe beene answerable to the present Church of Rome concerning Transubstantiation he not only could not thereby haue confuted Eutiches but Eutiches might by that very doctrine most probably haue confuted him Who might right well haue argued thus Thou Gelasius thinkest the Sacrament a resemblance of the incarnation of Christ and the vnion of his two natures but in the Sacrament the bread and wine after consecration remaine no more but are turned into the flesh and bloud of Christ and so there is but one substance After this manner may I likewise say in the Incarnation after the vnion the humanitie remaineth no more but is changed into the Diuinitie and the Nature is but one What could Gelasius haue answered to this Argument if hee had held the doctrine of Transubstantiation Hence it is euident both by his wordes and the scope of his disputation that he held it not Not vnlike to Gelasius is the doctrine of Theodoret Dial. immuta fol. 8. writing thus Our Sauiour in deliuering the Sacrament called his body bread and that which is in the cup he called his bloud he changed the names and gaue his body that name which belonged to the signe and to the signe that name which belonged to his body The reason why he thus changed the names was because he would haue such as partake the diuine Sacraments not to heede the nature of those thinges which are seene but for the change sake of the names to beleeue the change that is made by grace For he called it wheat and bread which by nature is his body and againe on the other side he called himselfe a Vine Thus honoring the simbols and signes which are seen with the name of his body bâ—oud not by changing their nature but by adding grace to nature And further the same Author in an other place reprehending the Eutichian heretike saith Dialog 2. Inconfusus You are caught in your owne net for the mysticall signes after consecration do not depart from their nature but they abide in their former substance form and figure and may be seen touched as before If they depart not from their nature if they abide in their former substance figure and forme if Christ changed not the natures but the names adding grace to nature how can the doctrine of transubstantiation in the iudgement of this writer stand free from the impeachment of an erroneous innouation 7. How moderne Authors of the Church of Rome shew the doctrine of transubstantiation to be nouell De verit corp sang p. 46. And so I find euen by the confession of the learnedst moderne Writers this doctrine is but nouell and of small antiquitie and hath not been beleeued as a matter of faith in the purest ages of the Primitiue Church for it is well knowne that before the Councell of Laterane no man was bound to beleeue Transubstantiation as themselues confesse Tonstal sayth It was free for all men till that time to follow their owne coniecture as concerning the manner of the Presence Scotus and Biel are reported by the later Schoolemen to haue been of minde That the opinion is very new and lately brought into the Church Soto 4. d 9. q. 2. art 2. 4. Suar. tom 3. d. 5.4 d. 10. q. 2. ad arg pro prima sect 1. and beleeued only vpon the authoritie of the Laterance Councell And Scotus himselfe saith We must say the Church in the Creede of the Laterane Councell vnder Innocent the third which begins with the words Firmiter credimus declared this sense concerning transubstantiation to belong to the verity of our faith Besides Scotus Bellarmine confesse Scot. d. 11. q. 3. Bellar. Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. Turrec tract 13. q. 49. There is no Scripture to conuince it vnlesse yee bring the Church of Romes exposition that is to say the Popes authoritie in whom they thinke the power of the vniuersall Church in determining matters of faith principally resides Now therefore if this doctrine bee no more ancient than the Councell of Laterane as it is cleare I oppose against the accurse of the Councell of Trent the malediction of blessed Saint Paul a better man than any in the Councell of Trent who pronounceth a direfull Anathema against any that shall teach other doctrine than what he taught how fearefull a state then doe all Popish Priests stand in that teach this noueltie of Transubstantiation diametrally contrarie to the places of S. Paul before cited 1. Cor. 10.16 1. Cor. 11.26 Vers 27. Vers 28. Euagrius 4. lib. Hist c. 35. Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 25. Hiesich l 2. super Leuit. cap. 8. Euseb lib. 7. c. 8. August cont lit Petil. lib. 9. c. 30. It is well knowne that it was an vsuall thing in former ages in diuers places to giue the residues of the Sacrament to little children as Euagrius and Nicephorus haue left recorded to posteritie Yea and in other places of the Christian world as Hesichius teacheth neither hath it beene thought much in former times to giue the bread of the Sacrament into the peoples handes and sometimes permitted them to carry it home which is a signe that they conceipted not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation which hath caused it since to be adored and haue made it a sinnefull act for Lay people to touch the Sacrament yea and haue brought it to such a fond esteeme that if a Flie or a Spider fall into the wine or any like thing which can not without vomit or danger of death be taken downe the Flie or Spider or what else must be taken out and washed as warily as may be in a Chalice and the Priest must take the ablution but the Flie or Spider must be burnt Ibidem eodem cap. Or if a sick man vomit vp the body of the Lord it must bee taken vp againe as diligently as may be and taken by a
Priest or by some cleane and discreet youth if the sicke man can not resume it himselfe 8. The inconueniences of approuing Transubstantiation Besides the inconueniences that follow of this doctrine of Transubstantiation are so many that no man almost out of common sense can admit it vnlesse bee will fondly suffer himselfe to bee carried away with such a generall implicite faith of the Church of Romes inerrabilitie whereby he may fall into as many heresies and dangers of seduction as a blinde man is in danger of falls if he will only walke by the guidance of an other as blinde as himselfe Hence it followeth that it must be beleeued that accidents are without a subiect whereas the nature of a Sacrament requireth no such matter like as when the wood is burned the colour of the wood should remaine alone without a subiect that Mice that knaw the consecrated Hoast doe knaw bare accidents alone and thta the glorified body of Christ are subiect to the grinding of teeth That no worke of God neither of Creation nor of Redemption is so great as the worke of consecration by the Priest by which transubstantiation is performed Whence it is come that the Romish Diuines hold that many miracles together are done in the Sacrament of the Eucharist whereof Ioannes de Combis reckoneth vp nine so fond and ridiculous that it is a wonder any man can beleeue them as first In Comp. Theol. verit lib. 6. c. 14. That the body of Christ is in as much quantitie there as it was vpon the Crosse and as it is now in heauen yet doth it not exceede the bounds of that forme with all the rest of like nature Hence to breede a beliefe of this doctrine the Romish writers tell vs that the Sacrament being lost in a Village of Komele in Germanie in a Pixe Caesar lib. 9. c. 7. it was discouered in a field by the Oxen that did worship it kneeling downe vpon the ground which neither by whips nor cries would not stir out of the place from worshipping their Creatour till it was taken away by the Parish Priest who fetcht it away with crosse candle and incense in great reuerence They tell also how a certaine woman going to the Communion reserued the Sacrament and put it into her hiue amongst her Bees as one had counsailed her wherevpon the pretie Bees were so religiously affected to their creatour that for the fit entertainment of so great a guest S. Anto. 3 p. sum tit 12. c. 8. ff 3. they built him a goodly Chappell in waxe with walls windowes dores caues and Altar to rest him vpon with a bell also and when the time was come that the honie was to be taken out the woman raised vp her hiue and beheld this fine miracle which caused her with great feare to go and confesse her fault to the Priest who with his Parishioners carried the Hoast with great reuerence to the Church They tell also for a great miracle concerning this doctrine S. Bonauent in vit 8. Francis Cath. Hist cap. 5 tit 13. part 4. how that S. Francis had a sheepe which ordinarily went to Church which at the time of Eleuation of the Lords body that the people might worship it bended downe his head fell vpon his knees shewing all other tokens of worship and adoration which much moued the assistance to greater deuotion They tell further Ioan. Mefreth in hort Reign ser de coena Domini that when a woman cast the Sacrament amongst Swine they kneeled downe to it and worshipped it how shee rosted it and it fell a bleeding how shee buried it in the earth and yet still the bloud flowed forth whereupon moued to compunction shee beleeued the true body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and did penance for her incredulitie all the rest of her life Many other the like incredible fables they haue left recorded to moue men to worship the bread and wine in the Sacrament with diuine honour due only to God and so to confirme this noueltie of Transubstantiation the which since there are no Scriptures to support it I can not beleeue it as also for that the obseruations of the reasons noted in this Chapter induce me to the contrarie beliefe Therefore deare Reader beware how you beleeue the Romish doctrine established with such lying signes and wonders reiecting both Scriptures and Fathers to the contrarie make not a corruptible creature your God and Maker giue honour and glorie vnto God only who by his infinite mercies requires it at thy handes and as I haue done renounce all societie in rites ceremonies and acts of religion with the Church of Rome that that of Dauid may be verified both of me thee Psal 1. v. 1. saving Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the councell of the vngodly nor stood in the way of sinners and hath not sit in the chaire of Pestilence which happinesse thou maiest enioy if thou followest not the vngodlie Councells of Laterane and Trent in this point of doctrine if thou continuest not in that Church and restest not thy selfe vpon that Pestilent chaire of Romes infectious Idolatries CHAP. XIIII Containeth an obseruation about the Sacrament ministred but vnder one kinde to Lay people in the Church of Rome I Haue read in a certaine Preacher that the Writers of naturall thinges haue left recorded The Sacramēt vnder one kind giueth not life vnto the soule Petrus Besseus Concep Theol. fer 2. maior Heb that there is a certaine hearbe to bee found vpon the Alpes hauing only two branches which is of such a strange naturall power and officacie that the beasts liuing vpon those mountaines if they chance to tast but of one of those branches forthwith they die but if they eate of both branches they take no hurt or dammage but are nourished thereby Euen so doe I obserue vpon the mountaines of holy Scripture the plant of the holy Eucharist hauing two branches of bread and wine by Christs institution of such nature and qualitie that if by faith his faithfull flock eate but of one branch and leaue the other they perish through heresie but if by faith they tast and feede of both branches that is both of bread and wine they feele much good they are strengthened in the life of their soule and are much nourished thereby according to that of Christ Ioan. 6. Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vit am in vobis Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you Whereby I obserue the great danger the Church of Rome standeth in which will afford here sheepe in the Sacrament only one branch viz. the bread and bereaue them of the other branch viz. the wine and on the contrarie side the great happinesse of the Church of England which affordeth Christs faithfull flocke both branches
I might well thinke my selfe bereâ—uâ—d of my right wittes if I should any longer offend GOD by the still offering of it as I haue done too often and by continuing the practize thereof to the eternall damnation of other mens soules Therefore curteous Reader if thou art a child of the Church of Rome follow no longer such a stepmother leading thee by publique appearances to thine owne ruine and to the dayly prouocation of Gods wrath against thee hate her fooleries detest her idolatries and abandon her communion if thou wilt not eternally perish albeit thou hâ—st long laine asleepe in the deadly lethargie of Romish superstitions awaken at last and breake off all the bands of thy sinfully-habituated affections to that Antichristian monarchie esteeme no longer that to be white which is blacke that to bee holie which is most vngodlie feare not the curses of the Pope in denying the Sacrifice of the masse to be propitiatorie for sinnes his excommunication will haue no such force as Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence had Lipelo in vita Ant. 2. Maij. who denouncing the sentence of excommunication vpon a white loafe of bread made it as blacke as a coale and freeing it afterward from the same curse it returned to be as faire as it was before All the Popes Anathemaes can not make the bread of the masse otherwise than it is idolatrous all the white flower in it cannot make it pleasing vnto GOD or a Sacrifice allowable for Christians Therefore say thou with mee from thy heart with mee in true detestation of all the abhominations committed by such Idolatrie Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Lord bee thou mercifull vnto me a sinner CHAP. XIII Containing an obseruation about the doctrine of transubstantiation which is a principall noueltie taught in the Church of Rome AFter the former obseruations had sufficiently alienated by iudgement and affections from further approbation of the faith of Rome My proceeding about the doctrine of transubstantiation yet because I thought that I could not bee sufficiently enough armed against those errours and falshoods wherein from my youth both my vnderstanding and affections had beene habituated which would be powerfull still to incline and leade my soule againe vnto those Romish abhominations which long custome had made familiar and in conceit religious I still proceeded further to the discussion and discouerie of other errors false doctrines secceeding nouelties taught in that Church that more and more beholding her spirituall fornications and disloyalties I might in my soule bee the stronger to oppse against them and the better able to relinquish and abandon with assurance of truth of my side and securitie to mine owne conscience all communion and participation with her sinfull heresies and nouelties and happily auoyde Gods iust punishments which are threatned by the holy Scripture against her disloyalties to the faith of Christ her heauenly Spouse 2 Amongest all which there was scarce any one thing that wrought more powerfully and fearefully in mine vnderstanding It ought to be a great terror to adore the creature for the Creator euen to the terrour of mine owne soule for my erroneous doctrine deliuered to others than the discouery of this late new-sprung-vp doctrine of transubstantiation which sets vp such an Idoll of bread in the Church of Rome to be adored as God that that seemeth to be truly verified of her which was vttered long before Colet Deum quem ignorauerunt patres eius auro Argento lapide pretioso rebusque pretiosis Dan. 11.38 He shall honour the God whome his fathers knew not with gold and siluer with precious stones and with pleasant things The gainsaying of which doctrine vnto the Church of Rome seemeth so vnlawfull that shee pronounceth most bitter execrations against those that shall so doe Sess 13. an 2. If any shall say sayth the Councell of Trent that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remaineth the substance of bread and wine together with the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ and shall denie that admirable and singular conuersion of the whole substance of bread into the bodie and of the whole substance of wine into the bloud the formes of bread and wine still remaining which conuersion the Catholike Church most fitly calleth Transubstantiation be he accursed 3. Yea The Church of Rome hateth the reformed Churches for nothing more than for impugning the doctrine of Transubstantiation Pet. Besseus concept Theolog. Quadraeg dom 3. Dan. 13. the Teachers and Preachers of that Church doe not hate the worthie Professors and Arch-Doctors of the Gospell for any point of doctrine more than for impugning this of Transubstantiation Peter Besse the great and famous French Preacher against Master Caluin and Luther speaketh thus Two wicked old men of vnbridled lust did wickedly accuse the most chaste Susanna of Adulterie notwithstanding that shee was the most chast and honestest that was to be found in the whole Kingdome of Babylon here againe wee see two craftie knaues marching out vpon the Stage Luther and Caluin that accuse the chaste Susanna viz. the holy sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation the chiefe member thereof of Idolatrie then the which notwithstanding there is nothing to be found in the world more holy or diuine And the samd Author soone after for the same point compares them to the two witnesses of most deperate audacitie that gaue false witnesse against Christ adding further That as Christ was crucified in the middle betweene two theenes Ibid. so likewise wee see it fareth with the Sacrament of the Altar where being placed betweene two theeues two most desperate Heretikes it is assaulted with diuers blasphemies who a little after speaketh vnto the Idoll in this manner and also to God saying Worthily therefore O sacred Eucharist thou mayest crie out Dirupisti vincula mea Psal 115. tibi sanctificabo hostiam laudis And thou O Lord Saepe expugnauerunt me a iuuentate mea For often O Lord haue they persecuted thee often haue they blasphemed against thee shot their arrowes at thee and chiefely at Transubstantiation This Preacher it should seeme hath forgot that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is a noueltie of no greater antiquitie than the fourth Councell of Laterance Iacques Gualter Chron. de Pestat du Christianis tries siecle Can. 1. which was held but in the yere 1215 vnder Innocent the third which is not yet 400 yeres since where that doctrine was deliuered in these wordes But the bodie of Christ and the bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar is contained vnder the formes of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated into the bodie and the wine into the bloud by Gods power This it seemeth his Maiestie very iudiciously obserued when after he had said If the Romish Church hath coyned new articles of Faith neuer heard of in the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ I hope I shall neuer be
condemned for an Heretike for not being a Nouelist where numbring vp many nouelties which are vsed in the Romish Church hee reckoneth this Transubstantiation for one 4. Arguments against Transubstantiation Comp. Theol. verit l. 5. c. 58. Which doctrine of Transubstantiation I discouered to containe a notable Heresie by the proofes following First sayth Ioannes de Combis Latria is a seruice and reuerence exhibited to God therefore if the honour due to God be exhibited vnto the creature it is Idolatrie Latria comprehendeth fiue thinges viz. Faith Knowledge Reuerence Sacrifice and Prayer Whereupon I framed this Argument The doctrine of Transubstantiation admitteth this worship in the Church of Rome to a Creature viz. to Bread and Wine which notwithstanding the words of Transubstantiation remaineth still a creature otherwise how is Bread and Wine the externall signes of inusible grace as euerie true Sacrament is or how is the essentiall part appointed by CHRIST in the Sacrament remaining when it ceaseth to be there as Transubstantiation teacheth the Bread and Wine doth Nay the very Scriptures say so much shewing the Bread still to remaine Bread and the Wine still to remaine Wine Saint Paule the heauenly interpreter of CHRISTS wordes doth not admit Transubstantiation but doth so interpret the Sacramentall vnion that still the visible elements remaine for the Bread of the Sacrament hee calleth Bread still euen after the consecration to teach that the substance of the Bread remaineth still and so he calleth the Wne still Wine as appeareth plainely by his wordes The Cup of Blessing which wee blesse 1. Cor. 10.16 is it not the communication of the bloud of CHRIST and the Bread which wee breake is it not the participation of the bodie of the Lord Now then if the Chalice be but a communication of his bloud and the Bread but a participation of his bodie still remaining Bread and Wine for the thing participating is not the thing participated where then is their doctrine of Transubstantiation or how can it stand sound with the truth of the Scriptures He sayth plainely further 1. Cor. 10.16 1. Cor. 11.26 Vers 27. Vers 28. All wee are partakers of one Bread And againe As often as yee shall eate this bread And againe Whosoeuer shall eate this Bread besides Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread Now therefore the Scripture teaching vs so plainely Bread and Wine to remaine in the Sacrament it followeth that there is no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament and so consequently it is apparant that all those commit grosse Idolatrie that worship it with Latria because they giue that worship which is due to God to the creature which they beleeue to be God teach to be God and pray to as vnto God 5. Fathers against Transubstantiation Secondly I summoned diuers auncient Writers to see whether they would afford me any warrant for Transubstantiation and I finde them against it and none for it I finde Tertullian in expresse wordes to say Iesus Christ hauing taken bread Tertul. l. 4. adu Marc. cap. 40. distributed it to his Disciples he made it to be his bodie saying This is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie I finde him likewise to shew as much in expresse wordes in another place Tertul. l. 3. adu Mars cap. 19. saying God hath so reuealed it in the Gospell calling the bread his bodie to the end that thou mayest thereby vnderstand that he hath giuen to the bread the figure of his bodie Now then if the bread be a figure of CHRISTS bodie according to Tertullian then it is not transubstantiated Saint Cyprian sayth Epist 3. l. 2. Wee finde that the Cuppe which the Lord offered was mingled and that which he called his bloud was wine See here Saint Cyprian giueth but a denomination to the bloud attributing substantiall being to the wine by the Verbe Substantiue Lib. 8. demonstr Euang. cap. 1. Eusebius is also cleare agianst Transubstantiation in these wordes IESVS CHRIST gaue vnto his Disciples the signes of the diuine dispensation commaunding them to celebrate the figure of his owne bodie For seeing that he did now no longer receiue the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaughter of diuers beastes ordained by Moses hee hath taught vs to vse the bread for a signe of his bodie See here it is still called bread and a signe of the bodie how then is it transubstantiated Saint Augustine also standes against Transubstantiation De doctrine Christian l. 3. c. 16. saying These wordes Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud are a figure commaunding vs to partake the Passion of CHRIST and profitably to remember that his flesh was crucified for vs. Nowe therefore if the eating the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinking his bloud is but to partake of the Passion of CHRIST and a profitable remembrance that his flesh was crucified for vs how did Saint Augustine teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation Nay rather doth he not most plainly insinuate the contrarie I finde also the same Doctor to say against Adamantus Chap. 12. The Lord made no difficultie to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here I obserue the word Bodie to bee expounded by the signe of his body Who saith in an other place Epist 23. ad Bonifac. The holy signe of Christs body is after a sort the body of Christ and the holy signe of the bloud of Christ and so the holy signe of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Surely Baptisme can not bee said to be Transubstantiated into faith how then can the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ bee substantially transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Christ Saint Augustine in an other place is yet plainer against Transubstantiation saying Vnderstand that which I say spiritually Super Psal 98. you shall not eate my body which you see neither shall you drinke the bloud which my Tormentors shall shed I haue recommended vnto you an holy signe which being spiritually vnderstood shall make you liue Behold how cleare S. Augustine is against Transubstantiation So also is S. Chrysostome that golden mouthed Doctor of Greece most clearely gainesaying the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament saying The bread before it be sanctified we call bread Ad Caesar Monachum but when the diuine grace sanctifies it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is thought worthy the name of the Lords body though the nature of bread remaine still Now curteous Reader if I should not iudge vnpartially I can not but here conclude that if the nature of bread remaine the substance of bread can not be changed into the body of Christ substantially and therefore no transubstantiation can follow 6. I can not omit here to record Gelasius who saith Other strong places of ancient Fathers agianst Transubstantiation De duabus naturis Christi The bread
of the blessed Sacrament as well Bread as Wine according to Christes owne institution This inducement amongst many hath not beene the least which hath as comfortably drawne mee to the Church of England as the starre which appeared to the three Sages in the East guided them in a short space to the presence of Christ swadled in clothes and lying in a Crib at Bethlem hauing in imitation of them now offered vp my three gifts vnto Christ to be emploied wholly in his seruice my Vnderstanding my Memorie and my Will with all my faculties of body and soule depending or subiect vnto them for the propagation of his Gospell for the demolition of Romish nouelties and for the manifestation of his vnspeakable mercies shewed vnto me and the reformed Churches in freeing vs from those damnable errors and wicked waies wherein the Church of Rome leadeth her blinded followers which fondly shut their eies from the Sunne-shine of truth appearing in the holy Scriptures and from the Prophets and Apostles who like shining starres by their doctrine recorded in the booke of Gods secrets would both comfort and direct their soules in the right way to heauen if flying with humilitie to Christ and acknowledging their owne blindnesse they would crie out with deuotion vnto him like the poore blinde man in the Gospell Domine fac vt videam O Lord make me to see 2. Howsoeuer the aduersaries in the Supper of the Lord make no reckoning of the wine Both formes must be in the Eucharist which is essentiall to the Sacrament yet the true faithfull knowing the dignitie and excellent value thereof will not be so vnmannerly being inuited thereunto as to neglect that which Christ prouideth for them For being rightly enformed that as in the great and pompous supper which Cleopatra Queene of Aegypt set before Antonius there were two pretious iewells and gemmes brought to Antonius which were esteemed to bee worth two hundred and fiftie thousand Crownes Euen so in the supper of the Lord in the blessed Eucharist which is the great supper prouded in the Church of God for his faithfull friends there are two iewells of inestimable price that is the bread and wine by meanes whereof the flesh and bloud of Christ the rich price of our redemption is conueyed vnto our soules therefore there is no iust cause why the Church of Rome pretending to bee the chast Spouse of Christ should be so scornefull of the rich gift of her heauenly Spouse who liberally offereth her both these iewels as most discourteously to suffer and permit that the lay people should be depriued of the one of them since Christ hath appointed both for them The practise to be so is sufficiently knowne to all and that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is so also appeareth by the Councell of Trent saying Concil Trident. ses 21. anno 1. If any shall say that by Gods Precept or vpon necessitie of saluation all and euery faithfull of Christ ought to take both formes of the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed And agine If any shall say Cap. 2. that the holy Catholike Church was not led vpon iust causes and reasons to communicate lay men and Clerkes also not consecrating onely vnder the forme of bread or therein to haue erred let him be Anathema By which it is most apparant how the Church of Rome doth not onely crosse Christs institution and disobey his commaundement but also ouerthroweth the very essentiall part of the Sacrament 3 For first The ministration of the Sacrament vnder one forme is repugnant to the essence of the Sacrament there is nothing more essentiall in a Sacrament than the matter and forme thereof as in Baptisme the water and wordes so in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist the essentiall parts thereof are the Bread and Wine coniunctim ioyntly and the words of consecration of either of them ioyntly and not diuided for the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent defineth a Sacrament thus Cathe ad Parachos A Sacrament is a thing subiect to our senses which by Gods institution hath power as well to signifie as to effect holinesse and righteousnesse Whereby it appeareth that the sensible signe instituted by God is a thing essentiall to euerie Sacrament Which appeares also b Iohan Viguerius saying De sacra in Gene c. 16. v. 3 It is necessarie that the things which are assumed for the Sacraments be determined by Gods institution because that things by their naturall vertue haue no power of sanctifying Now therefore if we consider the matter and sensible signes instituted by Christ for the Sacrament of the Eucharist Jnstit c. 16. ff 3. vers 1. Thom. 3. p. q. 74. art 1. Iohannes Viguerius telleth vs That the matter of this Sacrament before consecration is bread and wine because Christ tooke bread and wine and Melchisedech who in his sacrifice figured Christ offered bread and wine so Christ did institute it vnder the formes of bread and wine and very conueniently First for the vse of the Sacrament which is eating for as water is taken in the Sacrament of Baptisme for the vse of spirituall ablution because corporall ablution is commonly done by water so bread and wine for spirituall refection because most commonly men are corporally refreshed therewith Secondly for signification because this Sacrament is a memoriall of the Lords Passion in the which the bloud was spearated from the bodie so distinctly the bread as a Sacrament of the bodie and wine as a Sacrament of the bloud Thirdly for the effect in respect of the whole Church which consisteth of diuers beleeuers so the bread is made of diuers cornes and the wine of diuers grapes Out of this ground it seemeth that the Iesuit in Rome deliuered in the Schoole the definition of this Sacrament in this manner which I tooke from his mouth with mine owne penne which is De sacramentis tract 4. c. 1. dico 3. That the Eucharist is a Sacrament which vnder the formes of bread and wine containeth the bodie and bloud of Christ for the nourishment of spirituall life giuen by Baptisme From all which doctrine I most clearely gather that bread and wine iointly ministred belongeth to this Sacrament and that without ouerthrowing the essence of this Sacrament according to our aduersaries owne Teachers it cannot be giuen vnder one kind to the lay people for it is to be giuen to lay people according to the essentiall parts thereof instituted by Christ but according to these Writers the essentiall parts thereof are bread and wine iointly as the matter the forme being the wordes of consecration iointly pronounced ouer either forme ergo the bread and wine coniunctim are to be ministred to ther people for the integritie of the Sacrament Whence it followeth that the Church of Rome by the amputation of one forme vtterly crosseth and ouerthroweth the nature of the Sacrament and so maketh it no Sacrament at all
opinion of all the holy Doctors oâ— the Church that this bread and wine was offered for a sacrifice to God and not for a refection to Abraham both this exposition and assertion is false For both Tertullian contra Iudaeos and also Epiphanius expound it of his bringing foorth of bread and wine to Abraham Hebr. 55. Haeres 55. Epiphanius saith Abraham was about eightie eight or ninetie yeares old when Melchisedech met him and brought forth bread and wine vnto him Lib. 1. cap. 11. So also doth Iosephus expound it Melchisedech milites Abraham hospitaliter habuit nihil illis ad victum deesse passus simul ipsum adhibuit mensae Melchisedech vsed hospitality to Abrahams souldiers and suffered them to want no victuals and did take Abraham to his table That this is the true sense appeareth by the Hebrew word which doth not properly signifie to offer and sacrifice but to bring forth and the force of truth maketh some of the Romane Church to confesse this to be true Caietan in Gen. 1.14 Cardinall Caietan vpon this place writeth thus There is nothing heere said of sacrifice or oblation but of bringing foorth which Iosephus saith was done to the refection of them which had gotten the victory And that which in the vnlgar edition is put after as a cause for he was the Priest of the most high God in the Hebrew is not set as a cause but as a clause separated from it Andrad defens fidei â—rident lib. 4. Andradius also doth herein forsake his friends and acknowledgeth this to be the true exposition his words be these We need not Kemnitius to striue about the word offering seeing that both in the best corrected Latine copies and also in the holy Fathers which apply this place vnto the holy Eucharist it is proferens brought forth and I in iudgement agree with them which say that Melchisedech refreshed Abrahams souldiers wearied and fainted with long fight By which it appeareth how vnprofitably this place is cited for a figure prouing the sacrifice of the Masse wherein Christs true substantiall body blood is offred in sacrifice as the Church of Rome teacheth vnder the forme of bread and wine 11 Very impertinent further is that argument Bellarmine maketh for the Masse The Paschall Lambe falsely pretended to be a figure of the Masse De sacrific mis lib. 5. cap. 2. taken from the Paschall Lambe which he saith is an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist saying That the celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an immolation of the victime which was offered therefore the celebration of the Eucharist must bee also an immolation of the victime offered vnto God that the figure may answere the thing figured It is a strange thing that so great a scholler will so impertinently alleage such an argument for who knoweth not that the Paschall Lambe was offered also by such as were no Priests or if they were as himselfe suggesteth concerning this sacrifice there remained an ancient priuiledge Li. 1. vitae Mosis that all housholders should exercise the priesthoode as may be seene in Philo. Besides any man may see that the figure doth not answere the thing figured because the immolation of the Lambe was bloudy which is not found in the sacrifice of the masse as the Aduersaries confesse as also for that the Lambe was sacrificed by a multitude which agreeeth not with the masse which is offered but by one Priest at a time And further in regard that the paschall Lamb was not propitiatorie for sinnes as hee holdeth the masse to be but was only done in commemoration of the Israelites freedome from Egipt There is no man lastly that is so ignorant but knoweth that the Paschall Lamb was a figure of Christs bloudy sacrifice vpon the Crosse and therefore it can onely be gathered hence that our Lamb Christ Iesus was to be sacrificed of whom Saint Iohn the Baptist said Beholde the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Now that we should offer Christ so as the Aduersaries teach vnder accidents without substance of bread and wine doth no where appeare And albeit some of the Church call the Eucharist by the name of a Sacrament yet doth it not follow that the masse is therefore to bee approoued as is the same for it is a fallacious argument from a thing spoken but in some respect to conclude the same thing absolutely The Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice but in some respect onely as first in that all sacred rites may be called by the common word of the olde Testament Sacrifices Quasi à faciendo sacra from doing holy and sacred actions Secondly in regarde that in the Supper there is a commemoration of that onely and true sacrifice of Christ they gaue that name to the action from the chiefest and most principal respect Thirdly in regard of diuers prayers powred foorth in the celebration of the Supper Heb. 5.7 Reuel 5.8 8.4 which are called Sacrifices in the Scriptures Fourthly because the spirituall sacrifices of our soules as Faith Hope and Charitie are exercised and stirred vppe by the vse of the Supper that they euâ—r vnderstoode it to bee such a Sacrifice as our Aduersaries teach the masse where but the formes of the Creatures without substance are adored and worshipped as GOD himselfe and GOD himselfe sacrificed and offered in substance to GOD they will neuer bee able to prooue or make manifest either by Scriptures or approoued Writers of Antiquitie howsoeuer they may with Cardinall Bellarmine make shew to doe it as hee laboureth to doe by the former things so impertinently misapplied as the meanest Scholer is able to discouer their insufficiencie 12 Now therefore curteous Reader hauing thus obserued the sacrifice of the masse to bee vnwarrantable in the holy Scriptures My resolution vpon the obsâ—ruation of al the pâ—emises concerning the Masse and not approoued by the auncient Fathers as iâ— is now taught in the Church of Rome I could no longer continue in league and friendshippe with that Church which pretends so many proofes for it and hath none at all For finding as it appeareth by all my precedent obseruations in this Chapter that it was neuer instituted by Christ that the pretended propitiation thereof derogateth from the Sacrifice Christ made vpon the Crosse that it is but a nouell doctrine in many things vnknowne to the Fathers of former Ages that most hatefull Idolatrie is committed therein that it containeth ceremonies verie ridiculous and vncertaine in their meaning not knowne to the Church of Rome it selfe and such as are neyther ancient nor Apostolicall that it is maintained and defended by false deuised and baâ—â—ard writings that it hath many foolish and false prerogatiues giuen it by the Aduersaries that it is established and confirmed by many lying signes and wonders the arguments of an adulterous generation that the Types and Figures of the olde Testament make no whit for it
because so it wanteth an essentiall part thereof Therefore very iustifiable is his Maiesties assertion when reckoning vp the nouelties of the Church of Rome amongst the rest he ranketh the amputation of the one halfe of the Sacrament from the People Praemonit 4 Secondly that the doctrine of the Church of Rome doth crosse Christs institution It also crosseth Christs institution is also most cleere to any iudiciall man for as my Italian master teacheth me That the Eucharist was instituted in the last Supper Tract 4. de sacra c. 1. dico 2. after the washing of feet before the vsuall Supper the first is a matter of faith out of the Gospell and it is defined in Clementine Vnico in the Tridentine Councell where it sayth Ses 13. c. 1. 2. This is the tradition of the auncient Fathers Now then if this be so we must examine whether Christ did institute it vnder both kindes or not for if he did then certainely it is also so to be ministred likewise to the people because hee bid that to be done in remembrance of him which he himselfe did then his meaning not being to institute two Sacraments of the Supper whereof the one for the Priestes should consist of two parts or of two kindes the other for the people but of one I finde Saint Matthew to record Christs institution in this manner As they did eate Iesus tooke the bread Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 and when he had blessed it he brake it and gaue it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my bodie Also he tooke the Cuppe and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it them saying Drinke ye all of it for this is my bloud of the New Testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes I finde aso Saint Marke to set it down thus Mark 14. v. 22. And as they did eate Iesus tooke the bread and when he ahd giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my bodie And also hee tooke the Cuppe and when hee had giuen thankes gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and hee said vnto them This is my bloud of that New Testament which is shed for many S. Luke records it thus Luk. 22.19 20 And he tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and gaue to them saying This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also after supper he tooke the Cup saying This Cup is that new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you 1. Cor. 11. v. 23 24.25.26 27.28.29 And S. Paule most largely explicates the same Institution saying I haue receiued a Precept of the Lord which I also haue deliuered vnto you that the Lord Iesus in the night when he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said Take eat this is my bodie which is broken for you this doe ye in remembrance of me After the same manner also he tooke the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as often as ye shall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoeuer shall eat this Bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Let euery man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation because he discerneth not the Lords bodie Now out of all these places of S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paule I finde both kindes instituted by Christ and so inseparably intimated with a copulatiue coniunction that whosoeuer separateth them can but most insolently oppose himselfe against Christs institution and the essence of the Sacrament What greater pride can there be than when Christ sayth in expresse words Drinke ye all of this as well as eate the bread than with the Church of Rome to contradict him teaching the people onely to eat the bread and not drinke the wine Or what greater presumption than so rudely to thwart S. Paule who calleth the institution of the Sacrament a Precept which he deliuereth to the people specifying both formes of bread and wine commaunding as well the receiuing of the wine to be drunke in remembrance of Christ as the bread to be eaten and therefore if the one bind lay people the other also doth as strongly oblige them especially since S. Paule in another place sayth thus 1 Cor. 10.16.17 The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ for we that are may are one bread and one bodie because we doe partake of one bread and one Chalice The Church of Rome taking away the participation of the Chalice in ministring the Sacrament to lay people onely vnder the forme of bread maketh S. Paule to speake false who ioyneth both formes together with a coniunction copulatiue shewing that we are many one bodie because wee participate of both making vs all one And it is here to be noted how the Bibles printed amongst our aduersaries doe varie about this Text and may be suspected that they haue played Legier du maine with the Bible as well in their last corrected Latine as in the Greeke concerning this Text for in them both of one Chalice is left out and yet in an olde Manuscript which I haue now in my hands and in another Bible printed at Paris in the yeare of our Lord 1583 the text is That omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread and of one Chalice Whereby it is more than probably to be feared some notorious imposture hath beene committed in leauing out the Chalice in the latest vulgar editions So that now all these places of Scripture being iudicially weighed the amputation of one part of the Sacrament seemeth not onely to controll Christs owne institution but also his absolute commandement 5 Besides that it is a meere noueltie It is also a noueltie Lib. de Eccles obseruat c. 19. p. 388. Thom. in 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. 6. Aeneas Sil. Hist Bohem. c. 52. Bellar. de Euehalib 4. cap. 26. not grounded vpon antiquitie is most apparant to all that rightly examine the matter for at the first the people receiued the cup as well as the bread afterward sayth Micrologus the Romane Order commandeth the wine also to be consecrated that the people may fully communicate and this was approued by many learned Writers Yet in time the Councell of Constance See 13. ff item ipsae forbad it and then all of the Church of Rome began to change
their mindes Afterward the Councell of Basil released the decree of Constance to some as to the Bohemians and the Councell of Trent confirmed it againe Ses 21. c. 2. Whereby it is apparant that the moderne Church of Rome hath swarued in this point of faith from which it beleeued formerly and since it began to be the seat of Antichrist The most ancient Liturgies in their owne forme shew Cyril Cath. mystag 5. Liturg. Marci pag. 62. Thom. p. 3. q. 80. art 12 q. 3. Hom. 16. in nu 1 that the people receiued the wine as well as the bread And Caietane sayth This custome endured long in the Church and that they had ministring cuppes for the nonce to serue the people with wine which none will denie Origen sayth plainegly Christian people were accustomed to drinke the bloud And S. Cyprian How doe we make them fit for the cup of Martyrdome Epist. 2. if first we doe not admit them by the right of communication in the Church to drinke the cup of the Lord The same Author or another as ancient Serm. de coena Dom. in another place sayth The Law doth prohibit the eating of bloud the Gospell commaundeth that it be drunke That the Chalice also was vsed in S. Ambrose his time himselfe sheweth Apud Theod. 5. Hist 15. In 2. Malach. speaking to Theodosius With what boldnesse wilt thou partake with thy mouth the cup of precious bloud S. Hierome sayth in expresse tearmes The Priestes which make the Eucharist and distribute the bloud of the Lord to the people And Paschasius sayth Super cap. 15. Drinke ye all of this as well the ministers as the other beleeuers Apud Gratian. can Comperimus de consecrat dist 2. Gelasius sayth We finde that some receiuing onely the portion of the sacred bodie abstaine from the cup of sacred bloud Who doubtlesse because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be obliged either let them receiue the entire Sacraments or let them be expelled from the entire Sacraments because the duision of one and the same mysterie cannot be without grat sacriledge All which places doe most liuely expresse the faith and practise of the ancient Church to haue beene otherwise than it is now in the present Church 6 Is it not a lamentable thing to see Obserue well this Councell Ses 13. that the Councell of Constance confesseth That Iesus Christ instituted and administred the Sacrament vnder both kinds and that in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds And yet against Christs institution and the practise of the Primitiue Church the same Councell most blasphemously complaineth That in some parts of the world some rashly presume that Christian people ought to receiue the Sacraments vnder both kinds and thus censures it to be presumption and rashnesse to follow Christ Of the Fathers of that Councell with the Pope himselfe I may well say Concilium inierunt vt caperent Iesum in sermone Exod. 7. But as the Serpent of Moses deuoured the Serpents of the Sorcerers so Christ will ouercome the malice and craft of such wicked counsellors It is a folly for our aduersaries to say That when Christ said Doe this in remembrance of me he spake onely to Priests for then it would follow that the lay people may be debarred of both kinds and it is as impertinently obiected that the Apostles were Priests therefore Christs Precept Drinke ye all of this belongs to Priests onely for then the Primitiue Church did amisse and S. Paule the Apostle also who deliuered the Supper to the lay people without amputation of either kind in such manner as he had receiued it of the Lord. My conclusion vpon the precedent obseruation Now therefore vpon due consideration of all the premisses finding the Church of Rome to adulterate the word of God to ouerthrow the nature of the Sacrament to goe against the doctrine of the Primitiue Church and to checke most impudently Christs owne institution cursing them that beleeue as Christ teacheth and doe as he commaundeth in drinking as well of the Cup as in eating the Bread of the Sacrament without diuision or amputation I see no ground of faith to warrant the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this case and therefore it is to be feared vnlesse God shew her the greater mercie for all her maledictions and curses to the terror of poore simple Christians shee her selfe will one day inconsolably tast of the bitter cup of Gods wrath and indignation which vpon the suddaine will be poured vpon her to her vtter ruine and destruction and shee that hath so much afflicted and tormented others will find it true that Horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viuentis It is a horrible thing to fall into the hands of the liuing God CHAP. XV. Containing an obseruation of the Pardons and Indulgences which the Peope annexeth to Crosses Graines and Meddals I Haue obserued in reading the liues of Saints a storie worth the noting of Iohn the Bishop of Hierusalem Metaph. in vita S. Epiph. Laurent Surius 12. Maeij who hauing with his honors changed also his minde being surprised with extreame couetousnesse he grew to heape vp great store of treasures beyond all reason or measure which Saint Epiphanius vnderstanding endeuoured to draw him to some liberalitie towards the poore but he who preferred his gold before all other workes of charitie cared not for the poore Epiphanius seeing this obtained of him a certaine summe more by force than by loue which he distributed amongst the poore with great ioy Few daies after the Bishop redemanded againe his money with great importunitie vnto whom Epiphanius gaue good wordes promising to repay him soone after but the Bishop was not contented but vsed him with some violence vttering iniurious speeches against him calling him impostor and cosener Epiphanius nothing troubled spit in his face wherewith instantly strucken blind he fell to the ground whereupon at length he acknowledged his fault crauing pardon Then Epiphanius shewed him into what a gulfe of couetousnesse hee was plunged putting his hand vpon his head restored him his right eye againe who praying him to restore him also his left eye the holy man refused it to the end he should be alwaies warned by that marke euer after to vse more modestie and more carefully to auoid that plague of couetousnesse In this example courteous Reader you haue a liuely representation of the Bishop of Rome his insatiable auarice now that hee is come to such temporall greatnesse in this world and consequently of the spirituall blindnesse wherewith God hath strooken him for the same not suffering him to see the light of truth but to runne head-long into diuers inextricable heresies as a iust punishment for such his greedy desires for the nouelties which are now broched in the Church of Rome were not knowne till this hateful sinne of auarice tooke
sweet prouidence and mercie for those that liue in a most blinded and yet zealous ignorance of the errors they are in wrapped in by the slights of their false teachers seducing them who are much more industrious and laborious for the kingdome of Antichrist than the true professors of the Gospell are for the kingdome of Christ according to our Sauiours owne words Prudentiores sunt filij tenebrarū quam filij lucis in generatione sua The children of darknesse are more prudent in their generation than the children of light Against whom I will daily pray that those who stand as sentinels ouer the reformed Churches may both haue aud carefully practise our Sauiours words in another place as an holesome Autidote Estote prudentes sicut serpentes simplices sicut columbae Be ye prudent like serpents and simple like doues vsing serpentine prudence to defend their faith and soueraigne rulers as their heads though with hazard of their owne bodies and liues and not omitting such a sweet doue-like simplicity and mildnesse without gall of malice that their aduersaries may be ouercome by the obseruation of their wisdome and their Christian-like charitie towards them 3 But to returne whence I am digressed The Church of Rome by terrors more thē by proofes endeuors to plant the beliefe of seuen Sacraments I discouer the idlenesse of the Romish Anathema by the error and noueltie of the doctrine of seuen Sacraments for the desence wherof the Councell hath thundered it out for I can find no Scriptures making properly for seuen no nor any one ancient Father reckoning seuen onely and no fewer nor more as for Baptisme and the blessed Eucharist there is no doubt to be made for all the things which the Church of Rome requireth to a Sacrament properly taken do concurre therein Belarm lib. 1. de sacra Bapt. cap. 1. Hebr. 6. vers 4. Ephe. 5. vers 26. Iohn 3. vers 5. the externall right is expressed in Saint Paul calling it The lauer of water in the word of life The institution and commandement vnlesse a man be borne of water and the spirit he cannot come vnto the kingdom of God c. and in going teach ye al people baptising them in the name of the Father Mark vlt. v. 16. and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost the promise of grace who beleeneth and is baptised shall be saued but who beleeueth not shall be damned So likewise in the Eucharist the externall rite is found to be bread and wine Mat. 26. vers 26 Ioh 6. vers 57. The institution and commandement at the last supper do this in remembrance of me The promise of grace he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Whereby it is apparent that of these two Sacraments the Scriptures shew al the things most plainly belonging vnto a Sacramēt properly taken as the Church of Rome vnderstandeth of Sacrament with all the things necessarily belonging thereunto and therefore that these two are Sacramnts is cleere in their vnderstanding which the Church of England according to all antiquitie doth admit but the other fiue receiued by the Church of Rome either in one effētiall thing or other belonging to a Sacrament properly taken are defectiue as either in the sensible signe or in the institution and commandement or in the promise of grace notwithstanding that all must concurre according to the Church of Rome to a true Sacrament Now therefore although I could particularly shew by the disabling of the other fiue that there are not seuen Sacraments as the Councell of Trent defineth yet because I will auoid prolixitie I will only proue it by shewing that penance is no such Sacrament 4 All Diuines of the Church of Rome do ioyntly agree that euery Sacrament consisteth of matter and forme Penance no Sacrament properly neither is auricular confession any essentiall part thereof Tho. Aquin. part 3. quaest 84. art 2. in corp S. Tho. part 3. vbi supra art 3. in corp the matter say they of this sacrament are cōtrition cōfession and satisfaction for the sinnes on the behalfe of the penitent the forme is the words of absolution pronounced by the Priest Thomas of Aquine their cheefe Doctor saith thus The nearest matter of this Sacrament are the acts of the penitent whose matter are sins which he repenteth which he confesseth and for which he satisfieth And in the next article he sheweth the forme saying It is cleare that this is the most conuenient forme of this Sacrament I do absolue thee With whom Viguerius also agreeth saying Ioannes Viguer Instit cap. 16. vers 1. The nearest matter of the Sacrament of Penance are the acts of the penitent contrition confession and satisfaction the matter of which acts are sinnes which the penitent repenteth which he confesseth and for which he satisfiesh In whose assertions I obserue two notable errors first that they count Penance a Sacrament which is onely a vertue disposing men to the Sacrement of the Eucharist according to that Probet seipsum homo sic de pane illo edat Let a man proue himselfe and so eat of that bread which prouing must be by repentāce And secondly that they make auricular confession consisting in a circumstantiall enumeration of sinnes in their numerall distinct kinds to a Priest an effentiall part of that Sacrament neither of which can bee proued in Scriptures I cannot but admire to see so great a Doctor as Thomas Aquinas was Tho. Aquin. part 3. de sacra poenit art 1. sed contra Act. 8. to make a most weake argument for proofe of this Sacrament saying that as Baptisme is adhebited for the purification of sinne so Penance Therefore Peter said to Simon do penance for this thy wickednesse but Baptisme is a Sacrament as is said before therefore Penance also for the like reason Heere is a stout reason and of great force certes especially when we consider that the Angelical doctor following the vulgar translation misalleageth the Scripture for in the Greeke set out by Arias Montanus the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not do penance Arias Montan. in 8. Act. Apost vers 22. but repent thou as the same Author though a Romanist translateth it Neither is it heere to be omitted how notoriously the Rhemists do depraue the same place of Scripture who in excuse of their following the vulgar translation adde a notable falsehood and vntruth saying In annot Act. 8. vers 22. That the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie as much is it not strange then that Arias Montanus I thinke as good a Grecian as any of them would haue swarued from their translation but their imposture in this place is most inexcusable shewing that they care not what they say so they may crosse the reformed Churches as appeareth when in the table before the new Testament printed anno 1600 wherin they charge the English editions of false translation