faciunt quod secus Christus c. The Cup of the Lord communicated to the Laity And again Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere By which reason of Saint Cyprian no Roman Lay-Catholique can shead his bloud for Christ that neuer drank the bloud of Christ Which argument he vseth in another place Epist 54. Sect. 2. With what ground can we teach or exhort them to shead their owne bloudin confessing the Name of Christ if putting them forth vpon that seruice wee denie them the bloud of Christ or how can wee dispose and fit them to drink the cup of Martyrdome vnlesse wee first admit them to their right of communication in drinking the Lords cup in the Church Let our good Catholiques answer this who so punctually forsooth and precisely follow the steps of Antiquity without any swaruing These are all within 300 yeers after Christ and all expresse for the Cup. Athanasius in his second Apologie being accused for breaking a Chalice writeth thus What manner of cup or when or where was it broken In euery house in euery shop there are many pots any which if a man break hee committeth not sacriledge But if any man willingly break the sacred chalice he committeth sacriledge but that chalice is no where but where there is a lawfull Bishop This is the vse destined to that chalice none other wherein you according to institution do drink vnto and before the Laity This was the custome in Athanasius time this in all the Fathers times as I could deduct almost out of euery one This is euery where the custome in all the world vnto this day but in the Roman exorbitant Church as Cassander saith and was not quite abolished in that Church till about 1300 yeeres after Christ and by much art colluding and fine forgery was retained from being cast out of that Church in the late Conuenticle of Trent onely kept-in for a faction but mightily opposed by learned honest and conscionable Catholiques For why who can alter Christ's Institution who dare change that which he hath ordained Sacrificium verum plenum tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse saith Saint Cyprian But saith he again and we knowe it is true Constat Dominum obtulisse calicem in commemorationem Passionis Et quia Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimâ—â— nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus Why Because otherwise wee offer not the Sacrifice as wee should Nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebramus nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit Passioni and that cannot be without powring out of wine that representeth the sheading of his bloud But your Church hath altred it presumptuously done Who gaue your Church such authority Heare Saint Cyprian again Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putauerit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Nam si Iesus Christus Dominus Deus noster ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur sacrificium verum ac plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse You doo not this therefore in Saint Cyprian's iudgement your sacrifice is neither full nor true Much more in that Epistle Saint Cyprian hath and also elsewhere vnto the purpose But you haue Scriptures for the nonce expresly in our Bibles contrary to that we teach and practice to iustifie what you practise and teach touching this sacriledge and perfidiousnesse in altering Christs institution Maruell you should haue Scripture against Scripture Christs institution beeing so direct for Drink you all Produce your Scriptures Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eat of this Bread hee shall liue for euer And the Bread which I will giue is my flesh Heere is eating of Bread and that same Bread Christs flesh but heere is no such matter as wee ought to receiue Bread onely or that Bread alone sufficeth Yes for Lo euerlasting life attributed by our Lord himselfe to eating onely vnder one kinde I grant for doe they in your countrey vse to eat vnder two kindes Is Wine eaten with spoones there I haue heard of communicating and receiuing vnder one kinde but neuer till now heard talke of eating vnder one kinde Goe learne to speake and then write In the Interim I take your meaning Christ that mentioneth onely eating doth not exclude drinking doth not say nor meane eating onely sufficeth Bread is not exclusiue heere no more then where our Sauiour went to eat Bread with a Pharise at which time in your Learning and Logick he did not drink all dinner-time or supper-time because he went onely to eat Bread But Sir your wisdome must knowe that hee which eateth Bread according to the Scripture phrase drinketh also Bread importing necessaries for mans life and to eat Bread is both to eat and drink as to eat his Body is as well to drink his bloud So anon the same Euangelist Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall not haue life in you Lo heere euerlasting life not had without drinking Looke you to this if you looke to haue euerlasting life Iohn 4. 14. Christ promiseth Water to drink of which water whoso tasteth shall thirst no more therefore say you He promised no Wine therefore say I By your reason hee gaue not Bread Therefore if needs you will haue one kinde and no more haue it in Wine not Bread Againe hee telleth his Disciples else-where that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill hee drink it new in the Kingdome of God hee maketh no mention of any Bread Therefore in Heauen belike Wine is drink and onely Wine drunk but they eat no Bread there And yet wee read of Angels food which I can tell you who take it literally I might say our Sauiour speaketh heere of Bread and not of Wine in regard of that fore-going occasion which was the first motiue vnto this his Discourse namely his miraculous feeding 5000 men with fiue loaues so that hee kept him to the Subiect and occasion But this wise mans obseruation is cleane cashierd by our Sauiours Epexegesis afterward ver 53 54. hee plainely and expresly maketh it plaine that hee meant not to exclude bloud speaking of flesh nor shut out Wine where he mentioned Bread Euerlasting life to returne your owne words vpon your self is attributed by our Lord not to eating onely vnder one but both kinds Except you eat the flesh
should I that cannot tell how who can doo it my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take yet is that familiar and in vse euery day When Christ gaue it he said This is my body Saint Paul repeating the Institution saith This is my body It was neuer denied to bee his body it is affitmed still to be his body Mad Papist that imputest to poor Protestants an Idoll a Chimaera of thy owne brain that The bread is but a figure and no more of Christs body Protestants say it not they neuer said it As commonly it happeneth that all Reformations or Innouations are vpon and into extremes so some happely haue that departed long since from the Church of Rome But what is that to our Church that publiquely priuately all and som directly maintains the clean contrary Your great Aduiser C. W. B. hath said enough could he see what himself hath said or you vnderstand what hee alledgeth to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for euer in the coÌ„trary assertions of the Protestants But the diuell bred you in a Faction and brought you vp in a Faction and sent you abroad to do him seruice in maintaining a Faction otherwise acknowledge there is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence See your Fathers if I doo I shall doo more than you haue done for I auow it you neuer read Ignatius for this Read that Epistle ouer vnto the Smyrneans and see if you finde any such thing there if you doo then trust not mee again if you doo not what descrueth that impudent imposture S. Ignat. in his Epist ad Smyr But I can shew you better euidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius pag. 125. edit Paus Maestrei The flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ is one His Bloud one which was shed for vs also one Bread was broken for all one Cup distributed vnto all Bread and Wine after consecration Both distributed to all against your halfe Communion And againe pag. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breaking one Bread which is the medicine procuring Immortality Thus I finde nothing in Ignatius for you this I haue and happly more could against you were I desirous with you to maintaine a faction Iustin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end of his Apologie and willingly make his words our owne For wee doe not receiue these things as common Bread or common Drink but euen as our Lord Sauiour Iesus Christ by the Word of God becomming flesh had flesh bloud for our sakes so are we taught that the food which was blessed by him in the Word and Prayer through which food beeing altered and changed our flesh and bloud is sustained becommeth the flesh and bloud of him that Iesus who took our flesh in his Incarnation Thus that antient Father not fully represented by your director who saith not any thing that Protestants deny For they confesse They eat the flesh of the Sonne of God and drink his bloud they are one with him and hee with them but commeth not home to the Papists Resolution that wee eate it and drink it by Transubstantiation but the contrary for but foure lines before hee calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration Those saith hee whom wee call Deacons doe giue to euery one that is there present part of the Bread Wine and Water consecrated Saint Cyprian Serm. 5. de lapsis Now good Sir Gagger can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote ignorant Asse and yet bold Bayard Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis hee wrote a booke de lapsis diuided into sections by some or other But Reader see the audacious Dunsery of this Ignaro C. W. B. had in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age for transubstantiation cited Cyprian thus Ser. 5 de lapsis for Sect. 5. de lapsis vnlesse he also took his Authors by tale vpon trust and Ser. de coena Domini This blunderer stumbled vpon the first false or true to purpose or not all was one to him and set it downe the second quotation hee left out yet that is it which hee should haue taken for in the first Sect. 5. de lapsis there is nothing in the second Ser. decoena Domini as he will haue it though it bee no Sermon Sect. 6. there is thus The Bread which our Lord reached vnto his Disciples beeing changed not in appearance but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before No man denyeth a change an alteration a transmutation a transelementation as they speake no man otherwise beleeueth but that the naturall condition of the Bread consecrated is otherwise then it was beeing disposed and vsed to that holy vse of imparting Christ vnto the Communicants Stay heere be contented with That it is and doe not seeke nor define How it is so and we shall not contest or contend with you Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum aliquando carnem sanguinem aliquando panem Christus appellat portionem vitae aeternae cuius secundum haec visibiâ—ia corporali communicauit Naturâ— Panis iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam et incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum et non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Thus the same Saint Cyprian so we we confesse it we beleeue it we cannot comprehend it Saint Ambrose saith no more then wee will subscribe Lib. 4. de sacramentis Before consecration it was Bread common ordinary meere Bread but after consecration it becommeth the flesh of Christ because then the Sacrament is consummate But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made That I finde not that I expect that I must finde or I finde nothing to your purpose One Father yet you adde Saint Remigius saith but you cannot tell where your Director told you it was in his comments vpon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins wombe and the Bread consecrated in the Church are the same body And yet beeing consecrated he calleth it Bread How can your Saint Remigius make that good Hee should haue said for doubtlesse hee meant so The Bread which was beeing consecrated in the Church is transubstantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins womb and becom the same body This Remigius saith not a great signe hee meant not And indeed hee did not meane it hee goeth no further then Reality he determineth not modum praesentiae at all And yet this Remigius is not peraduenture the man you would haue him namely Saint Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who conuerted King Clouis of France to the Christian Faith who liued within 500
great likelihood of their saluation to whom the benefit of Christian parentage being giuen the rest that should follow is preuented by some such casualty as man hath no power himself to auoid So that the most this Fellow can impute vnto vs is that In some case of ineuitable and inunicable necessity little infants may bee charitably supposed saued by their parents faith And so that of Iohn 3. 5. for necessity of water will iustifiably bee answered If it bee possible to attaine it That of Tit. 3. 5. vrgeth no more but that the washing of Regeneration is the ordinary entrance into life As for Gen. 17. 14. to admit all paralleld in Circumcision and Baptisme all were not damned that died vncircumcised nor all cast away that die vnbaptized as this Fellow himself will or must grant but those that neglect contemn or omit the meanes which may bee had As for Mark 16. 16. the very words doo support this mitigation for though Christ saith Hee that beleeueth and is baptized shall bee saued yet he doth not say Hee that is not baptized shall be damned but Hee that beleeueth not shall bee damned that being euery way of indispensable necessity this sometime tolerable the rather because we are plainly taught of God that The seed of faithfull parentage is holy from the birth which the children of Pagans are not these hauing an habituall interest and consecration to God in their parents which the other want But whatsoeuer in charitable constructions may be thought of extraordinary courses they are not for vs we must leaue them to God in whose most rigorous courses of constitutions and most sharp denunciations deep mercies are euer hidden who though he bee the God of iustice yet is hee the Father of mercies And yet ordinary waies are for vs and our children Ordinary way vnto life eternall there is none but by Baptisme of water and the holy Ghost Gag them Sir Goose that teach otherwise The Church of England is not guilty thereof XXXIIII That imposition of hands vpon the people called by Catholiques Confirmation is not necessary nor to be vsed NOT by Papists alone but by Protestants also is it called Bishopping or Confirmation not vsed onely by them but by Protestants likewise commended commanded to bee vsed Look in the Communion-book good Reader and wonder at the impudent face of this leud Impostor that dares giue the Lie vnto publick Records that dares tell the world It is midnight at mid-day for if there be then any Sun in heauen this imposition of hands by the Bishop alone called Confirmation is both maintained as necessary vsed and commanded as euery man knoweth in the Church of England Would any man but hee or some of his Camerades take vp the priuate fansie of euery Peddler and expose it to view for Protestants doctrine contrary to knowledge to conscience But so it is If it were not for such courses the poor needy Fellow would haue nothing to prate on vnto his Proselyte-gossips in Partridge-Alley The Lie is so loud the case so apparant for Bishopping or Confirmation I shall not need to say any thing but Blush for shame XXXV That the Bread of the Supper is but a figure of the body of Christ. IS but a signe or figure and no more Strange and yet our formal words are This is my body this is my bloud This is is more than this figureth or designeth A bare figure is but a phantasme He gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my bloud And yet our Catechisme in the Communion-book authorized saith expresly The body and bloud of Christ taken and eaten in the Lords Supper not the figure or signe of his body and bloud which can neither bee taken nor yet eaten Poore Woodcock or Catholique Cockscomb that sendest a Protestant to seek a figure who is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Were the peace of the Church and vnity of faith which is more mystically insinuated in this Sacrament than else-where in the Materials therof both Bread and Wine so deare and precious as it ought to bee vnto such common Barretters of Christendome as Priests and Iesuites are for priuate ends this and many other Controuersies on foot might cease For it is confessed on either side that Sacraments which haue their Beeing from institution are signes of Gods loue and promise seales of his couenant and grace and instruments and conueiances of his mercy What they intimate signifie and represent they conueigh vnto the soule In the ordinary Catechisme alone allowed and I would no other were tolerated the question beeing asked What meanest thou by this word Sacrament the answer is I mean an outward and visible signe of an inward and spirituall grace giuen vnto vs ordained by Christ himself as a meanes whereby wee receiue the same and a pledge to assure vs thereof This is more euen in your little vnderstanding than a bare figure a means and a pledge whereby c. Sir we acknowledge right willingly and professe that in the blessed Sacrament as you call it of the Altar the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour Christ is really participated communicated and by means of that reall participation life from him and in him conueied into our soules This wee beleeue and professe knowing that he is able to effect it who hath spoken it by that mighty working whereby hee is able to doo whatsoeuer he hath said We are not sollicitous for the manner how he worketh it not daring to pry into the secret Counsels of the most High We haue learned that Reuealed things are for vs secret things are for God Therfore we wonder why the world should be so much ammused at and distracted with those vnexplicable Labyrinths of Con-substantiation and Trans-substantiation which onely serue to set the world in diuision nothing to piety nor yet information As we therefore condemn that presumptuous definition of Trans-substantiation in the Laterane Councell so wee doo not like nor yeeld assent vnto that jejune and macilent conceit of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius whereby men account of this Sacrament but onely as of a bare shadow emptie void and destitute of Christ but ingenuously profess that by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and bloud and really and truely performs in vs his promise in feeding our soules vnto eternall life As for the manner how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This inexplicable that vnutterable it is faith onely that can giue the resolution Trans or con we skill not of Iohn 6. 51. The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Therefore his flesh is bread the Bread of life Most true but not therefore his flesh by Trans-substantiation You finde not that in the Gospell or any where else Life begun in Baptisme by the Lauer of Regeneration is confirmed and sustained in the holy supper by his body and blood How I cannot explicate How
yeeres after Christ though he died about 544. This man wrot nothing that I can heare of eyther in Sidonius who liued at that time or Hinckmarus or Flodoard or Sixtus Senensis or Bellarmine or Chesneu or any other Hee that wrote the notes vpon Saint Paul's Epistles taught indeed at Rhemes as appeareth by Flodoard and thence grew the error I suppose of those who took him for Saint Remigius Bishop of Rhemes but hee is called Remigius Antisiadorensis because hee was borne at Auxerre Of him we read in Sixtus Senensis that hee wrote on Saint Paul's Epistles He is of a much later date liuing vnder Charles the bald about 880. Howsoeuer we are not touched by him or any of the rest for wee neither beleeue nor say that the Bread of the Supper is but a bare figure of the body of Christ not his Body we professe wee receiue the Lords Body and drink his bloud in commemoration of his Death and Passion as hee hath appointed If you say otherwise we haue done with you XXXVI That wee ought to receiue in both kindes and that one alone sufficeth not WEE ought so indeed nor is it sufficient to administer the Communion as the Romanists now doe vnder one kinde This is the authorized and receiued and iustifiable Doctrine and Orthodox practice of the Church of England Artic. 30. thus we reade The Cup of the Lord is not to bee denied vnto the Lay-people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike And in the Communion book it is expresly said That the chiefe minister if there bee moe present as it often hapneth in Colledges especially and Cathedrall Churches shall receiue it first himself and then deliuer it to other Ministers and so to the People in both kindes This is our practice and our profession for which I ioyne issue with all Papists liuing that it is the prime originall institution of our Sauiour which giueth Birth and Beeing to a Sacrament that it is Sacriledge to alter it therefrom that it neuer was otherwise vsed in the Church of God for aboue 1000 yeeres after Christ Let all the Papists liuing prooue the contrary and I will subscribe to all Popery As for this poore fellow hee can say no more then hee findeth ready to hand or is put into his mouth his Camerades were conscious to themselues of nouelty and innouation for in a point so notorious so scandalous of such consequence wee are not sent as accustomed to see any Fathers It is manifest saith Cessander a man professing himselfe a Romane Catholique though of wonderfull modesty moderation and learning that in administration of the sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist the Vniuersall Church of Christ vntill this day and the Westerne or Romane Church for more then 1000 yeeres after Christ especially in their solemne and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament did exhibit and giue vnto all faithfull Christians not one only but both the kinds of Bread and Wine as is most cleere and euident out of innumerable testimonies of the old Writers both Greeke and Latine which I can make good and of some will giue a taste Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Bread is broken vnto all and one Wine giuen to the whole multitude This man was Saint Iohn's Disciple Martialis as you say one of the 70 Disciples Epist 1. Sect. 3. Nunc autem multò magis sacerdotes Dei honoratis qui vitam vobis tribuunt in calice et viuo pane and he speaketh you see to the people Dionysius Areopag S. Paul's Disciple pag. 157. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for hauing discouered the couered vndiuided bread and diuided it into many parts and distributed to all the Vnity of the Cup hee consummateth in those Symbols and signes the Vnity of the Church and so in many other places S. Clement Saint Peter's Disciple and Successor in his Masse hauing set downe the order and forme of consecration cometh to participation thus Let the Deacon giue the cup and when all haue receiued men and women let the Deacons carry the remainder into the Reuestry So Saint Mark in his Liturgie another Disciple of Saint Peter So Saint Peter himself in his Liturgie or Masse as you call it So the rest Iustin Martyr in the end of his Apologie describing the seruice of those antient Christians saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They whom we call Deacons giue to euery one present part of the consecrated Bread and Wine Irenaeus in lib. 4. cap. 33. prooueth the Resurrection because we participate of the body and bloud of Christ And lib. 5. cap. 11. speaking of a Christian man he saith that de calice qui sanguis eius est nutritur de pane qui est corpus eius augetur That railing Feuardentius in his Notes vpon Irenaeus was not able to produce one Testimony for half Communions though he vaunt it was a practice in the Apostles time Tertul. in de Resurrect speaking of all Christians in generall Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima saginetur And because these Patrons of a desperate cause contrary to all art and reason conclude negatiuely The cup was not communicated because the bread is alone sometime remembred we may inferre alike The bread was not giuen but the cup because Tertul. in depudicitia remembreth onely the cup thus Aqua aliis initians cui ille si fortè patrocinabitur pastor quem in calice depingis prostitutorem ipsum Christiani Sacramenti mento et ebrietatis idolū moechiae asylum post calicem subsecuturae de quo nihil libentius bibas quà m ouem poenitentiae secundae The man was then I yeeld a Montanist but that hinders not his credit from relation of truth and vniuersall practice on foot though he oppugn it Clemens Alexandrinus Stro. 1. p◠117. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which cause some men when as they distribute the holy Eucharist as the custome is permit euery man of the common people to take a portion And what he meaneth by Eucharist himself explaineth 2. Paedag. 2. cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The mixture of both in one that is of Wine and the Word is that which wee call the Eucharist whereof the Faithfull when they participate are sanctified in soule and body both Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria in Euseb Hist lib. 7. cap. 8 writing vnto Xystus Bishop of Rome relateth of an antient Christian no Priest but a Lay-man that vpon occasion supposed he had not been well baptized Of him he writeth there that long before and often hee had been partaker of the body and bloud of Christ not of his body alone but of his bloud also in expresse words Saint Cyprian in moe places than one Epist 63. Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in Calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc
of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you Lo without drinking no life euerlasting then poore deceiued Papists what will become of you you shall perish in your sinnes though your bloud shall bee required at the hands of your ignorant or rather deceitufll guides that thus mis-leade you from Christs Institution Luk. 24. 30 35. Christ at Emmaus communicated his disciples vnder one kinde Two things are insisted on out of these words as it appeareth by the laying downe First that this was actio sacra a Communion of the Body of our Sauiour then that it was done vnder one kinde this is taken as granted because there is no mention of drinking of Wine there is made mention of breaking the Bread Ignorants and wilfull take things amisse an ordinary Hebrew phrase it is in the Scriptures to eat bread to break bread for to eat and drink to take a refection or repast This man imagineth that all their meales were sicca conuiuia altogether without any liquor nor Wine nor Water vsed though in hot countries Such a foole would haue no other answer made vnto him but as Arisotle would haue made to him that should deny motion or that hee should neuer drink at his meales the best answer could possibly be made vnto him That it was actio sacra and not communis our Sauiour did celebrate the Communion of his Body and Bloud though I know it is controuerted for my part I will not contend at present I know it is held so by Augustine Theophylact and I adde too Beda and Hierome with others but take heede of the Precedent for if hee communicated onely Bread then I know not what vse of Wine at all there will bee in the blessed Sacrament For these were peraduenture of his Apostles but without all question of his Disciples and so had interest in the Cup if any had at all See more wee cannot Acts 2. 42. then we haue seene already mention made of breaking of Bread which is not exclusiue from drinking of Wine no more then 1. Cor. 11. 13. drinking doth exclude eating at all Poore shifts for Sacriledge and impiety of late made an Article of faith in the Church of Rome He that instituted the one ordained the other ioyntly both and at the same time with all circumstances alike if any aduantage is it is for Drink not for Eat For Drink you all of this saith the Author of the Sacrament hee saith not expresly Eat you all of this as foreseeing that impiety which in time humane presumption should bring-in vpon and against his owne institution fulfilled in the Church of Rome at this day XXXVII That Sacramental vnction is not to bee vsed to the sick VSe it if you will wee hinder you not nor much care or enquire what effects ensue vpon it but obtrude it not on vs or vnto the Church as in Censu of the Sacraments of the time of Grace as Baptisme is held and the Lords Supper Visible signes of inuisible Grace Powerfull instruments ordained by God to work in our Soules eternall Life by conueighing the meanes thereof vnto them Sacramental vnction call it if you please so farre as in the writings of the antient Fathers all Articles peculiar vnto our Christian faith and beliefe are sometime called Sacraments all duties of religious piety vnto God all diuine and Ecclesiasticall ceremonies are named Sacraments in which sense you might reckon not seuen but seuenscore if you were disposed to make a search for Sacraments In the Apostolicall and Primitiue Church it was a custome to anoint the sick with oyle to pray ouer them and so commit them vnto God This Saint Iames remembreth 5. 4. Is any sick among you Let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray ouer him anointing him with oyle in the name of the Lord. The Apostle doth not call it a Sacrament Sacramentall vnction as the Thesis proposeth and which is that should bee expresly prooued Our Bibles say the sick were anointed but not our Bibles nor theirs doe say that this anointing was a Sacrament And Fathers wee are not sent to see that proue it so the place is not to purpose as it is proposed Mar. 6. 13. is a Text defacto They anointed with oyle many that were sick and healed them but de iure there is not a word in that Text whether yea or no this Anointing should bee a Sacrament The Master of controuersies confesseth himselfe that it is not accorded whether in this Text or not Sacramentall vnction was instituted and himselfe is of opinion that it is not grounding on the resolution of the Councell of Trent to which all Papists are tyed to subscribe and yeeld and how dare you bring this as a proofe Now say the truth Sir Goose and shame the diuell How plain are these Texts that set your great Directors together by the ears Where were your sick wits that did not aduise you Take heed of falling foule with the Councel of Trent the cynosura of your faith Sure they were made of the pappe of an apple so easily they squeeze themselues out to nothing your great Dictators haue found hitherto but one direct Text Iames 5. 4. can we think your sharp sight should spy out three more a Fox or a Fearne-bush somewhat or nothing for Mat. 16. 18. Acts 28. 8. nor oyle nor vnction is remembred bare imposition of hands vpon the sick and diseased so that wee stand in some possibility heerafter to haue added an eightth Sacrament to the former seauen XXXVIII That no interior grace is giuen by the imposition of hands in the Sacrament of holy orders THis indeed is contrary vnto the expresse words of our Bible and therefore directly contrary to our Opinion Doctrine and Practice Can this fellowe bee so ignorant as not to know or rather so impudent as to deny that in giuing of holy orders we vse those memorable formall words of our Sauiour Receiue the holy Ghost Was euer man made Minister in the Church of England but in that sort with that forme Can hee deny that wee not onely practise it but propugne it command it to bevsed enquire of and punish the neglect opposition and contempt thereof What shall wee say to such a base detracting Varlet as shameth not in view of heauen and earth to deny the Sun shineth at noone-day Romane Catholiques I admire your patience that suffer such Hog-rubbers to leade you by the nose and make you beleeue the snowe is black Poore deceiued Soules trust no such Merchants that would sell you to the diuell for a morsell of bread and make you stand out vpon tearms of Separation for their owne aduantages against the Church as Schismaticks in which you liue and haue beene baptized XXXIX That Priests and other religious Persons or any others who haue vowed their chastity vnto God may freely marry notwithstanding their vowes TOuching marriage of Ministers this is our Doctrine resolued