the Apostles Nowe what commaundement hath it which is the thirde thing that is set downe by Bellarmine De effect sacram lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 2. cap. 2 de sacram confirm without which a Sacrament cannot be Bellarmine flatly confesseth that it hath no expresse commaundement in the scripture but in stead of a commaundement he deliuereth vs the execution or practise of it for so himselfe saieth Why then I may thus reason A sacrament must haue a promise of grace a visible or sensible signe and a commaundement from God or else it cannot be a sacrament as Bellarmine confesseth but confirmation hath neither promise of grace nor visible signe nor commaundement from God therefore it is no sacrament Their arguments out of the fathers make a greater shew It is well yet that they cannot presse vs but with the authoritie of men Notwithstanding this may be briefly said for their authorities from the fathers that either they are such as haue no writings extant but onely such scraps as they for their owne purpose haue gathered togither and therefore are witnesses of vs worthily suspected or such as haue no sound credite of any indifferent man or lastly such as make nothing for them or against vs in this questiō For the Papists will haue their Confirmation to bee a sacrament the matter whereof must bee Oyle and Balme but neither doe the most learned fathers make mention of the Balme neither are the Schoole-men agreed amongest themselues that it is needful for this sacrament Lib. 2. de sacram Confirm cap. 9 as Bellarmine confesseth Yea they thinke it absurde that a sacrament should be appointed by our sauiour Christ the matter whereof should bee so rare to finde so vncertaine whether we haue the true thing or not and so costly as hardly it can bee gotten and it is doubted of some whether there be nowe any true Baulme or not And this their sacrament is built vpon so vncertaine foundations that Alexander Alensis and Bonauenture two olde pillars of Poperie cannot find that it was instituted before the counsell at Melda Out of all which it is easie to vnderstande that as this Confirmation hath not in Gods worde any shew of warrant to make it a sacrament so neither out of the fathers can anie certaine argument be gathered for the same But such are all heretikes Iren. lib. 5 and such as imagine they can find out somwhat beside the truth following those things that are spoken diuersly and in sundrie sorts and walking weakly not being alwayes of one minde are led about like blind men by blinde guides they shall and that worthily fall into the hidden pit of ignorance euer seeking the truth but neuer finding it Which iudgement of God here mentioned against the heretikes we see to be fallen vpon the Papists who had rather wander in such vncertaine and blinde wayes than be ruled by the infallible word of God Of the Lordes Supper or Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and namely of Transubstantiation CHAP. 13 THE PROTESTANTS WE teach that by those visible signs of bread and wine the bodie and blood of our sauior Christ is so liuely and effectually represented and offered vnto our faith that the faithfull receiuers in the same Supper doe as truly receyue by faith Christ himselfe with all his treasures and graces to the comfort and foode of their soules as they receiue the bread and wine with their mouth to the nourishment of their bodies And that this our spirituall nourishment maye bee the more liuely represented the substance of the bread wine must needs remaine for our bodilie nourishment as in Baptisme likewise the water remaineth vnchanged to signifie our spirituall washing So that as we chāge not the substance of these creatures without which they cannot bee a Sacrament so we teach Christ to be receiued spiritually and therefore most truly of the faithfull receiuer THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome not content with this spirituall and true receiuing of Christ do teach that by the wordes of consecration as they cal them the very bread and wine haue their substance chaunged into the bodie and bloud of Christ So that Christ whome in the Creed we confesse to be ascended into heauen and that he shall come from heauen to iudge the quick and the dead is by that means brought into euery Pix which ouerthroweth the nature of man which hee tooke of the Virgin Marie for man can bee but in one place Wherby also there follow such inconueniences that it is with them a great question whether the Mouse that eateth the host Hom. par 3 quaest 80 artic 3. do eate Christes bodie or not some affirme it and some answer to say shee doth Glos dist 2 de consec cap. Qui bene Durand ra◠diu lib. 4 rubr 41. is not greatly absurd because the most wicked men doe eate it Others say that it miraculously ceaseth to bee Christes bodie But seeing the first miracle is wrought by the words I pray you howe hath the Mouse wrought this second miracle in making it cease to be Christs bodie and said nothing Seeing this doctrine of Transubstantiation doth bring with it so grosse or rather so monstrous absurdities a man would thinke that no Christian would stand in defence of the same For how can we not abhorre such teachers as indeuour to make vs beleeue that the most wicked persons may eate the flesh of Christ Iohn 6. Which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer as our Sauiour Christ doth often tell vs. And yet to defend their Transubstantiation Bel. de euch lib. 3. ca. 9. they defend this as a good and fruitfull opinion Who will folow such guides as lead vs into such marishes as themselues know no way to get out Such is the question which before I touched whether the Mouse doe eate the bodie of Christ if he eate the host A question not mooued by vs as Bellarmine would seeme to make men beleeue De Ecuhar lib. 3. cap. 14. and therefore would make vs like the Iewes Pagans and Heritikes but moued and disputed by themselues as may appeare by the master of Sentences lib. 4. dist 13 in dist 2. de consecrat cap Qui bene and also in the place before alledged out of Durand Yea Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alledged For first hee setteth downe flatly That although Christ be truly in the Sacramēt yet can he not be hurt and therefore not eaten with Mice but the formes onely of bread may be eaten The absurditie hereof I will not stand vpon in this place But Bellarmine will shewe vs this by a demonstration The Diuinitie sayeth hee is euerie where yet not cōsumed by fire nor defiled by filth Is this good diuinity to make the body of Christ not subiect to corruption because the godhead is not Glorified it is and therfore not corruptible but
bread I trust then it will not bee anie heresie for mee to expounde nature the properties of the bread seeing doctor Chadsey a catholike doth it We see then that this vnanswerable argument that he made so great account of and bragged that it could neuer be answered is long since fully answered by one of his owne friends he knew not of it Ciril is his fift witnes not that learned father that was bishop of Alexandrie but another that was B. of Ierusalē Ciril Ierus cathec Mistagog 4 whose books are but lately set forth by thēselues that now bring him in for a witnes therfore we may doubt whether he be wel delt wtal Out of him he aledgeth 3. places He once turned water into wine shal he not be worthy to be trusted that he turned wine into bloud Beholde here sayth maister Bellarmine a reall change And why so I knowe he will answere because it was so in the water for it was really changed into wine and therfore also saint Iohn Iohn 2 11 who reporteth the storie saith it was a myracle Now to change wine into bloud is as great a miracle and therefore it is likely that if there had bin any such miracle wrought some or other would haue noted it for a miracle seeing so many haue spokē of that matter namely three Euangelists and S. Paul Master Bell. knoweth that the fathers vse many times to speake verie hyperbolically and to amplify with excessiue speaches the matters that they would set forth as here this Ciril doth yet we must not gather thereof such a real change in the wine as I haue said was in the water but this is spoken to win that at our hands that he in that place moueth vs vnto that we should not thinke the sacramentall wine to bee but bare wine His second witnesse for maister Bellarmine is after in that place Vnder the forme of bread the bodie is giuen and in forme of wine the bloud Wherupon maister Bellarmine againe insulteth thus Behold the accidents of bread which remaine We grant it but not the accidents or shew of bread only but the substance also and that he hath not yet denied therefore let vs see his third place Knowe this for a certaintie that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though thy tast perceiue it to be bread In deed hee speaketh here farre otherwise than the auncient fathers doe in that hee sayeth It is not bread For there is not one of the fathers for at the least six hundred yeeres after Christ that euer spake so but this man onely And therefore howsoeuer he amplifieth the matter in wordes to bring vnto the holy Sacraments due regarde which the fathers at those times vpon great causes did much endeuour Catec Mist 3 yet he is not to be thought to haue meant otherwise than that hee sayd before that it is no more common bread For although if they regarde but the taste they shall finde no change yet that sacrament is an authenticall seale of our faith which assureth vs that Christ is spiritually giuen vnto vs. And thus much briefly of these authorities that men may see that they are not so very plaine that infallible arguments may be gathered out of them But now I must needes speake somewhat of the Author And first for the Booke it selfe Lib. Eccles hist ◠ca. 23. out of which these places are alleaged it seemeth to me that saint Hierome hath somewhat burnt it in the eare when he saith that hee wrote it when hee was but a yong man noting thereby perchance his yong and slender iudgement And of himselfe Ruffinus saith Lib. 2. ca. 40 That hee did change sometime in faith and in Communion often And Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall history saith of him that being summoned to answere some accusations that were laid against him he fearing to come to his triall for two yeares together appeared not and therefore was deposed What reason then that wee should be content to stand to his triall for matters in question that was himselfe afraide to be tried by the learned men of his time Or that hee who was deposed from his seate by them that best knew him yea and that as it seemeth by Ruffinus his saying of him for some heresie should now sit as Iudge yea or else be allowed as witnes in so weighty matters As for saint Ambrose De iis qui initiantur mist cap. 9. whom next he alleageth he maketh not against vs. He saith indeede that the bread is that which Nature hath formed but that Blessing hath hallowed Which is nothing else but that which hath beene answered before that it is not common bread but as Theodoret saith Theod. Immutabili◠dialog 1. the Nature not being changed to Nature is Grace added And that this is S. Ambrose his meaning is most plaine not only by that which he afterwardes saith in that very chapter Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes an other thing is named after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified but also most euidently in his bookes of the Sacraments Lib. 4. cap. 4. where speaking of the change that is in these visible signes hee vseth these wordes If there bee so great vertue in the worde of the Lorde Iesus that the thinges that were not beganne to bee how much rather can it worke that they the visible signes in the Sacrament bee that which they were and be changed into an other thing By which hee can meane no other but a sacramentall change because hee flatly affirmeth that these signes are that which they were The first place that hee alleageth out of Chrysost is this It is he that doth sanctifie these things the outward elements and change them In Matth. Hom. 83. but that hee speaketh of a sacramental change only his owne wordes a litle before in that place do prooue For in teaching how that by these sensible creatures he deliuereth vnto vs things not sensible hee bringeth his example of Baptisme wherein I know they wil not say the water is transubstantiated And yet Chrysostome maketh no difference betweene it and the sacrament of Christes body and blood but that in them both in like sort by sensible creatures insensible graces are deliuered But most plainely in an other place doeth he confute that which the Papists woulde force out of these wordes namely the change of the substance of the bread saying Before the bread is sanctified Ad Caesarium monachum wee call it bread but the diuine grace hauing sanctified it by the Priest it is freeed from the name of bread and is vouched worthy of the name of the Lordes body although the nature of the bread abide in it Whereby wee see the change that hee speaketh of is in the vse not in the substance of the bread In the latter place Chrysostome saieth thus Doest thou see bread De Euchar. in encaenus doest
thou see wine doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe God forbid Thinke not so For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing aboundeth euen so heere thinke the mysteries to bee consumed by the substance of the body In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish transubstantiation For although they doe teach that the substance of the bread is perished yet the accidentes they teach still to remaine and euer they say that Christ is present in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine But when waxe is cast into the fire there is not so much as a shew that there hath beene waxe but all is consumed Therefore this similitude maketh not for transubstantiation And in trueth whosoeuer shall reade that whole sermon shall easily perceiue that Chrysost there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the people so to be affected when they come vnto the holy sacrament that their eie shoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures but their minde altogetherr exercised in heauenly cogitations according saith he vnto the promise that you made vnto the Priest when as hee saide Lift vp your mindes and hearts and you answered I haue it lifted vp vnto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vnto vs in an other place that especially in these holie mysteries Chrysost in Math. hom 83 wee shoulde not onely beholde that which is before our eyes but especially remember his wordes But it were too tedious to answere euery place particularly that they doe alleadge and out of this which is already spoken it is easie to answere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or sixe hundred yeares But if any man wil aske why our sauiour Christ doth giue vnto the bread the name of his Bodie and to the wine the name of his Blood And why the fathers doe so call these outward signes the bodie and blood of our sauiour Christ I will answere with Theodoret an ancient father Dial. 1. Immutabilâ—â— Hee would haue them that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are seene but in respect of the change of the name to beleeue the change that is made through grace As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the first of them was more than a thousand yeeres after Christ whereby it may appeare how late this doctrine is whereupon Scotus a schooleman doeth confesse that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the councel of Lateran although Bellarmine reproue him for it Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it so many absurdities is darkened with so many doubtes hath no warrant in the Scriptures no ground in the ancient fathers and is not to be accounted as an article of faith euen by the confession of them that speake of the greatest antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares since let vs take heed of them who crie continually Antiquitie Antiquitie and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuises of their owne and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith deliuered by Christ and his apostles and sincerely preserued many hundred yeeres in the church of God But of this because it is one of the speciall points of doctrine wherein we dissent I haue stoode longer That the wicked receiue not in the Sacrament Christs bodie and blood CHAP. 14 THE PROTESTANTS BEcause that whosoeuer hath eaten the sonne hath the sonne for hee is meate that perisheth not Ioh. 6.50 and he that hath the sonne hath life 1. Ioh. 5.22 And on the contrary De ciuit Dei lib. 21. ca. 25 De consecra dist 2. vt quid paras ex Augustino as saint Augustine saith He can not eate Christs body that is not in his body Lastly seeing he can not be torn with the teeth but must be receiued by faith wee therefore teach that although the wicked may be partakers of the visible signes yet they can not be said to eate or receiue the body and blood of our sauiour Christ And with Saint Augustine In Ioh. tract 59 that they may eate as Iudas did the Lords bread against the Lord but the bread the Lorde they can not eate which doctrine is most plaine and bringeth with it no absurdities or doubts THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. forgetting that the Sacrament consisteth of twoo things that is to say the materiall breade and that which came down from heauen which is Christ do adde vnto these a third namely Bellarm. de Euchar. li. 1 cap. 23 the effect of the body of Christ or his spirituall graces making thereby a separation and as it were a diuorce betweene the bodie of Christ which they teach the wicked may receiue and those graces which can not in deede bee separated from the same and cannot be giuen to the vngodly Whereby they do wrap themselues in such a cloud of doubts as all the Papists in the world wil neuer be able to answer M. Bilsoâ— part 4. whilest some say that this body goeth no further than to the teeth some allowe it to haue passage but to the stomake but not to abide there some to continue there also yea some say that it goeth as other meate into the belly yet remaineth stil Christs body so long as the forme of the bread remaineth yea and that it may be voided either vpward or downward and receiued of man or beast Although this vnreconcileable difference that is among them in so materiall a point of their religion namely what is becom of the body of Christ after the wicked haue receiued the same and these filthy blasphemies and detestable shifts that they are driuen vnto for defence of their heresie be a sufficient confutation both of that doctrine of transubstantiation from whence doe spring all these filthie pudles and sinckes and also of this other that the wicked may eate the body of Christ which is but a sowre grape of that vnkindely roote yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant I will by Gods assistance take a short view of their arguments whereby they indeuour to proue that the most wicked men may eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ Now their chiefe and almost onely proofe is taken from transubstantiation of the vntrueth of which doctrine I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the former chapter And now therefore that I may conclude that if the wicked can not eate the body of Christ vnlesse the bread be changed into the bodie as themselues will confesse then because there is no such change therefore the wicked eate not his body But one shew of an argument they make out of the scriptures 1. Cor. 11.27 29 He
that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthily is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord and after eateth and drinketh iudgement vnto himselfe making no difference of the Lordes bodie Out of which place they reason to this effect The wicked or vnworthy receiuers can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord vnlesse they receiue it But they are guiltie of them and receiue iudgement to themselues therby Therefore they receiue the bodie and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true for saint Paul saith it But the first is most false For although the wicked can not be neither are partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ yet because they come not to the sacrament which was instituted of God to offer and assure vs of the heauenly graces with such reuerence as they ought to do and in such sincerity as behoueth them therefore are they accounted and that woorthily to despise the things themselues that are represented by those visible signes And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ they shewed their contempt of the thing signified thereby And therfore S. Ambrose Ambrose saith euen vpon these words Because it is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in mystery S. Hierome Hierome yeeldeth the reason why he is guiltie of the body blood of Christ Because he hath accounted as vile the Sacrament marke his wordes of so great a mysterie Not therefore are they guiltie because they eate Christ but because saith hee they despise the Sacrament of so great a mysterie And Theophilact Theophilact vppon these wordes saieth Hee that receiueth it vnwoorthily shall bee no lesse guiltie of wickednesse than if hee shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see that Theophilact doth compare the vnworthy receiuing of the holie sacrament with the shedding of Christes blood and so maketh them two diuerse things And therefore in his iudgement it is not all one to receiue the Sacrament and to receiue Christ So that by these places it appeareth that the wicked may bee guiltie of the body and blood of Christ which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed vp vnto the faithfull and yet not receiue the body and blood of Christ Yet by the way I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him doeth falsifie his wordes And therefore where the Apostle saith hee that eateth of this bread and drinketh of the Lordes cup vnworthily he saith Hee that eateth the Lordes body Orthod ex pli lib. 7. and drinketh of his blood But it is no great fault in poperie to abvse the Scriptures and to adde to them or take from them as they thinke good Wee see therefore that this cleane meate is for cleane men this holy banquet is for holy guests as they had wont to crie For De benedict patriaâ— ch c. â— as saint Ambrose saith This bread is the foode but of the godlie And why because Our abiding in him Cypr. de coâ—na Domini is our eating of him and our drinking of him is our incorporating into him our seruices being subiected our willes conioyned and our affections vnited to him Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certaine earnestnesse and desire to abide in him Which things to be in the vngodly the Papists will in no wise affirme Many testimonies might be alleaged but with one shift they thinke to answer all The answer of the Papists Christ his body and blood say they may be receiued of the wicked but not the fruit or effect thereof And may Christ be receiued of any and they not to liue by him Confutation of it Can he that is full of all grace and power be at any time as it were robbed of the same God forbid For if they wil speake of his conuersing among the Iewes and of his being among many whilest he was vpon earth that got no good thereby the reason thereof is plaine it was because they receiued him not Ioh. 3.19 20. But to say that any may receiue him and is not partaker of his graces and benefites is most expresly against the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall liue through me They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Sauiour Christ than to say that any can receiue him and yet not be partakers of his heauenly graces So that whilest they take vpon them the defence of the wicked in some sort they set themselues euen wilfully to reproch the holy one of Israel But if it should be granted to them that the wicked may eate Christ how or when wil they agree what shall be done with that body blood of Christ that they so eate For themselues deny that the soules of the wicked are norished by him And that their bodies should by his body be norished is too absurd What then becommeth of his body and blood which they say the wicked receiue To answer this question resolutely and definitiuely they haue not yet agreed they neuer will they neuer can Therefore vntill they can answere directly to such inconueniences as of necessitie follow the doctrine that they teach let vs beleeue that Christ is the foode of the faithfull onely because none other but they do receiue him Let vs not heare them who in the sacraments which should be and are indeede most plaine and easie teach vs wholy to looke for miracles as doe the Papists For Christ is present by miracle and absent by miracle if they say true And so when all learning and scriptures faile then they perswade vs that we must seeke for a wonder and so make them that will giue credite to them in these their grosse deuises the wonders of the world for their folly But enough of this That the Cup ought not to be denied vnto the lay people which thing the Papists do CHAP. 15. THE PROTESTANTS BEcause it is needeful for the nourishment of our bodies to haue not meate onely to satisfie our hunger but drinke also to quench our thirst in And that Christ would represent vnto vs in his Sacrament the perfect nourishment of our souls wherevnto nothing could be added because that nothing should be wanting For this cause did our Sauiour Christ institute his sacrament of these two partes of our nourishment and gaue as well the one of them as the other vnto his Apostles Commanding them also aswel to take drinke of the cup as to eate of the bread And the Church also did practise this more than a thousand yeeres But of late the councel of Constance Anno 1415. Sess 13. did forbid it and commaund the Sacrament to be receiued but in one kinde THE PAPISTS SO that the church of Rome not regarding the expresse commandement of our Sauiour Christ neither the practise of
gods holy commaundement and follow the institution of our sauiour Christ than to follow any the deuises of man And when he commandeth drinke you all of this it is a great sinne and dedeserueth Gods wrath for any man to answer I will not receiue the cup because the Pope and the Popish church of late hath forbidden it Against the sacrifice of the Masse or of the Altar as they call it CHAP. 16 THE PROTESTANTS NOwe to their grosse absurdities and manifest deprauings of the institution of Christ they adde also their blasphemies against the sacrifice of Christ Iesus which as he was once offered Heb. 10.10.14 and by that one offering for sinnes hath consecrated for euer thē that are sanctified Heb. 9.12 And hath obtained eternall redemption for vs so wee confesse that by that one sacrifice he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1. Iohn 2.2 which he offered for vs vpō the crosse and cannot be dayly offered by the Priest without great wrong to Christes eternall and onely Priesthood and without great presumptiō in that priest that dare offer so excellent a sacrifice neither without derogatiō to the vertue of his death THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome teacheth that in the Masse the priest a sinfull man doth offer vp that most holy sacrifice Iesus Christ vnto God the father a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead yea for the greatest sinnes that wee commit As for originall sin they confesse that Christ hath taken that away by his sacrifice but our voluntarie sinnes which therefore also are more odious must be taken away by this sacrifice that the priest offereth vpon the Altar So haue they turned the Sacrament into a sacrifice Christes holy ordinance into a blasphemous Idoll and al for their owne gaine that the Priestes might bee hyred to vse this remedie for the sinnes of the people this salue for all sores De Missa li. 1. cap. 6 Out of Ge. 14.18 The first argument that Bellarmine hath for proofe of this vnbloudie sacrifice of the Masse is at large handled by Bellarmine but the effect of it is this The thing figured must bee like to the figure But Melchisedech who was the figure offered to God bread and wine as a sacrifice Therefore also must Christ offer his bodie in forme of bread Bell li. 1. ca. 7. de Missa Heb. 7. and his bloud in forme of wine for a sacrifice First his first proposition is not simplie true but onely inasmuch as the one must be figured of the other But in what things Melchisedech is a figure of Christ none can better tell than the Apostle to the Hebrewes who fully handleth that matter Col. cum Tryph. fol. 36 and yet doth not once mention this sacrifice And therefore we may gather that Melchisedech was no figure of Christ in that point For if he was then was not the Apostle faithfull to omit so necessarie a point Iustin also hath a notable comparison of them but he doth not touch that in one worde Secondly a sacrifice must be offered but this bread and wine was but brought foorth for so doth their owne translation testifie Thirdly a sacrifice must be offered to God this place mentioneth no such thing and therefore most likely that it was brought to refresh Abraham and his souldiers Whereby we see that Bellarmines minor hath no truth in it wherein he affirmeth that Melchisedech offred bread and wine to God in sacrifice Lastly what a consequence is this Melchisedech offered to God bread and wine in sacrifice therefore Christ offered himselfe in forme of bread and wine Rather is this a strong argument to the contrarie if wee should graunt that he did offer the bread and wine to God which hath no probabilitie in it But I say if that should be granted wee might thus reason The thing figured must bee like to the figure but Melchisedech who was the figure offered but bread and wine therefore Christ offered nothing else but bread and wine and so maketh it nothing for that sacrifice for which the Papists doe alledge it As for his testimonies out of the fathers for proofe of Melchisedechs offering of bread and wine to God in sacrifice because I purpose especially to goe through his generall arguments I omit of purpose a particular examining of euerie place onely contenting my selfe with this generall obseruation that out of the testimonies alledged hee can hardly conclude that which hee taketh in hande to prooue because the fathers seeme rather to allude many times vnto that which he did than so to alledge his doing as that they thinke anie necessarie argument for proofe hereof is to be gathered out of the same And that may wel be gathered out of Chrysostom vpon this place who saith thus In Gen. hom 3. For the honor that he shewed to the patriarke see how a sacrament is insinuated For he offred to him bread and wine Marke to him that is to Abraham flat against that which they would And this is most agreeable vnto the hystorie written by Iosephus who by all likelihood knew best in his time how that storie was thē vnderstood Ant. li. 1. c. 18 he saith that Melchisedech gaue great intertainment vnto the souldiers of Abraham And so Chrysostome in the place alledged saith Abraham brought forth loaues and wine And thus doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it So that if we rightly consider not onely what they say but how they speake it and vpon what ground to answer whatsoeuer he can bring out of the fathers concerning this point will not be hard Argument 2 The celebrating of the Passeouer saith Bellarmine was an expresse figure of the Eucharist de Missa lib. 1. cap 7. But the Passeouer was a kinde of offering of a sacrifice to God Therefore the Eucharist must so be Maister Bellarmine hath forgotten what he should proue hee must teach Christ to be in his last supper a sacrifice properly so called but this argument proueth the Eucharist to be a kinde of sacrifice This argument to be short is thus answered There were two things in the Passeouer The one was the killing of it by which was Christs death represented vnto vs as Iustine Martir that ancient father teacheth Dialog cū Tryph. Iudaeo The other was the eating of it by which was figured vnto them that spirituall foode of the soule Christ Iesus who was promised vnto their fathers And in this respect may it in some sort bee called a figure of the Eucharist because it represented vnto them that thing that the Eucharist representeth vnto vs. Therfore if in the first proposition Bellarmine meaneth by celebrating the Passeouer the eating of the Passeouer I graunt it but then is his minor or second proposition vntrue For the eating of it was not the killing of it and so not a sacrifice But if by the celebrating of the Passeouer he vnderstand the killing of it then is his maior to be denied because
to set downe the difference in doctrine betweene the church of Rome and vs concerning those Sacraments which we acknowledge to be instituted for Sacraments by God which is indeede my especiall purpose that in few wordes the Reader may take a view both of the one and the other I haue thought good very briefly to note vnto you two or three points wherein in the generall doctrine of the Sacraments we iustly dissent from them because they do dissent from the word of truth Wherein my purpose is not to enter into the darke and daungerous subtilties of the Schoolemen who herein agree not among themselues but onely to point vnto the plaine trueth and the falshoode contrary to the same VVhat a Sacrament is what is the effect of it or what it worketh how many Sacraments there are THE PROTESTANTS What a sacrament is A Sacrament is an externall signe instituted appointed of God to bee vsed in his Church by the receiuing whereof euerie faithfull man and woman is assured of eternall graces I knowe that this word Sacrament may be taken more largely and is sometimes especially by saint Augustine and after his time but this is the true definition of a Sacrament in that sence that we vse it for the two Sacraments vsed by vs in our churches And though we call it a signe yet wee say withall that it is a very effectual and as I may so call it a powerful signe A powerful signe to increase or strengthen faith to strengthen and increase our faith make vs take more sure hold of the promises the perfourmance whereof the Sacraments do as it were seale vp in our hearts neither doeth the sacrament worke this or hath this effect in respect of any vertue that is included in these visible signes but because God hath appointed them to be the seales of his promises as the Apostle witnesseth of circumcision Tertull. De Poeniten Rom. 4.11 of Baptisme For as the seale beeing set to the writing doth assure him to whom the writing is made of the perfourmance of such couenants as therein are contained and yet not because of the print in the waxe but because it is known to be his seale who hath made the couenants with him euen so the Sacraments do serue to confirme and increase faith in the faithfull not because there is any such power in those visible creatures which are the externall thing in the same but because we are assuredly perswaded that God hath appointed them to that end And as the Sacraments doe thus serue to strengthen and increase our faith Profession of our faith so thereby also doe we make profession of this our faith and in token that we haue this perswasion setled in our heart wee come to receiue such Sacraments as God hath appointed to testifie betweene him and vs of his graces towardes vs. And for this cause when the Eunuch desired to bee baptized Phillip answered Act. 8.36 37 If thou beleeue with all thy heart thou mayest Nay the Sacraments are but vnprofitable to them which without faith doe receiue the same Mar. 16.16 but hee that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued We therfore do not teach the Sacramentes to be but bare signes as some would make the simple to beleeue but that they are such signes as God hath made to worke effectually by the power of his Spirite in the hearts of the faythfull to assure them of Gods good graces Nowe of such Sacraments as in the beginning I haue defined wee haue but two How many Sacraments there be that is to say Baptisme wherein we are entred into Christs family and the Supper of the Lorde wherein we are nourished in the same For although the people of Israel had many representations of Gods fauour towardes them to assure the faithful of sanctification and iustification yet Circumcision was commaunded without exception Gen. 17.10 to all the males in whō also the women were consecrated to the Lord and the eating of the paschall Lamb belonged to al the congregation of the children of Israel Exod. 12.47 whereas their other ceremonies were for the most performed by the Priest And in like maner although wee may haue sundrie visible signes of inuisible grace yet such sacraments as the sacrament of Baptisme the Supper of the Lorde neither the scriptures nor the fathers for 400. yeares after Christ did acknowlege any other than those two For as for Saint Augustine he taketh the word Sacrament so largely that hee accounteth for Sacraments many thinges that are not by the Papists themselues accounted Sacraments THE PAPISTS BVT the Papistes doe define a Sacrament to bee Concil Trid. Catechis A thing subiect to the senses which by Gods institution hath power both to signifie and to woorke Holinesse and Righteousnesse So that by this it is easie to vnderstād what vertue and efficacie they will giue to the Sacraments Yea it is by Bellarmine plainely confessed that they teach a Sacrament to haue that strength of it selfe De Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 11 that it can sanctifie and iustifie And that wee may the better vnderstand what they meane hereby De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. ◠with one consent they teach and Bellarmine by name that the Sacraments doe woorke these things without either faith or any inward motion So that their meaning is that the very worke it selfe of receiuing the Sacrament euen by vertue of that sacramentall action Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 2. doth giue to the receiuer grace How blasphemous this doctrine is may appeare first because they doe manifest wrong to the spirit of sanctification in ascribing vnto these visible and externall creatures whereof the Sacraments doe consist that which only gods spirit can worke in vs by putting into our hearts Ierem. 32 4◠the feare of God Ierem. 31.33 Ezec. 36.25 Rom. 15.9 and vniting his lawe in the same and purifying our hearts by faith And therefore is this spirit called Holy or the spirite of sanctification because it onely can make holy Secondly to giue vnto the Sacraments power by the vertue thereof to iustifie is iniurious vnto the bloud of Christ which precious ransome is able onely to take away sinnes and to make vs appeare iust and righteous before God Then also this doctrine is absurd as may be prooued in a word or two If it be true that the Papists teach then did not our Sauiour Christ teach vs the true vse of the Sacrament when he said Doe this in remembrance of me for hee shoulde rather haue said Doe this to sanctifie and saue your selues But to thinke that Christ taught vs not the true benefite of the Sacrament is too grosse wickednesse Therefore is it verie absurde to ascribe that vertue to the Sacrament or outward signe Secondly if the Sacrament doe giue grace as they say or if it do sanctifie or iustifie of it selfe then the infantes that die before
Gods Church much more then a thousand yeeres after Christ neither that fulnes of comfort that wee learne by the bread wine that Christ is vnto vs both meate and drinke that is the perfect and sufficient foode of our hungry and thirstie soules haue robbed the lay people of the one halfe of the Lordes supper proclaming thereby vnto the world that they are disobedient against Christes commaundement iniurious to his people and that in steede of the continuall and auncient practise of the Primitiue Church they establish their owne new deuise Lo what cause haue they to bragge of their ancient faith And for the vpholding of this their doing against both Trueth and Antiquitie they bring some reasons Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester in his booke against the assertions of Luther Artic. 16. to defende that it was lawfull for the church to alter the institution of Christ and therefore to take awaie the cup from the lay people alleadgeth the example of the Apostles who are saide to baptise in the name of Christ only whereas the sacrament of baptisme Acts 8.16 10.48 Matth. 28.19 was commaunded In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holie Ghost But to bishop Fisher the papist I oppose Bellarmine the Iesuite and a papist who writing of the sacrament of baptisme Lib. 1. cap. 3. plainelie denieth that the Apostles baptised in the name of Christ only and largely proueth it and sheweth that where it is saide that they baptised in the name of Iesus or in the Lordes name the meaning is that they baptised in the faith of Iesus or by his authoritie or with baptisme which he instituted or in his name but not in his name only So that this reason which Fisher maketh for to proue the authoritie of the church heerein De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28. is verie sufficiently answered by Master Bellarmine It is therefore needefull hee shoulde make a supplie of some other argument to proue that seeing hee hath taken that weapon out of their handes Let vs therefore see how hee mendeth the matter The church saith hee may ordaine and prescribe those thinges that belong not to the substaunce of the sacramentes and are not ordered by the word of God But the rite of eating vnder one kinde or vnder two is such Therefore it maie bee ordered and prescribed of the Church These are his verie wordes this is his argument whereof the maior or first proposition as himselfe saith is most true and therefore wee graunt it but the minor which is that to eate in one kinde or in both kindes is not of the substaunce of the sacrament or ordered by the word of God that is most false And because it containeth two pointes I will brieflie touch them both Where he saith it is not of the substance of the sacrament whether we receiue in one kinde or in two it is in my iudgement euen against all reason and testimony of antiquity and the very nature of a sacrament For the sacrament must needes consist of matter and forme The matter is the bread and wine I speake of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter Iren. li. 4. ca. 34 To the forme of this Sacrament belong these wordes He brake breade and gaue them and saide take eate Math. 26.26 27 this is my bodie Hee tooke the cup blessed and saide drinke yee all of this c. Yea and neither of these can be wel omitted but that therby we are the lesse occasioned to meditate of the efficacy of Christs death passion For as the breaking of the bread that it might be giuen to vs that our bodies might be nourished thereby is a representation of Christes body which was for vs tormented so the drinking of the cup is the representation of the shedding of Christs bloud for vs. Moreouer let vs consider what is that which they would haue the material part or rather a substantial part in this sacramēt To receiue the sacrament as appeares by the censure of Collen Expl. dialog 9 expl Theol lib. 7. and Andradius but in what kinde it is receiued is not materiall say they Marke their boldenesse In the institution there is not one word that willeth vs in such generall termes to receiue the Eucharist or Sacrament but expresse wordes to will vs to Take and eate the bread and to drinke of the cup and yet that which God doth not mention they will haue to be of the substance of a sacrament and that which is expresly set downe in the word they may chuse whether they wil doe it or not But how doth Bellarmine prooue that the rite of communicating in on or two kindes De Euch. li. 4. cap. ◠8. belongeth not to the substance of the sacrament The vse of a thing saith he that is permanent is not the substance of it but the communicating is the vse of the sacrament which sacrament is a thing permanent Therefore the communicating in one or two kindes is not the substance of it The whole force of this argument consisteth in that which is chiefly in question amongst vs that is whether the sacrament is a thing permanent or not And we vpon iust cause deny it And therefore his argument is a plaine fallacie called the begging of the thing that is in question and can bee no strong reason against vs. By a thing permanent they vnderstand that the Eucharist is not onely a Sacrament as they say their other sacraments are and as baptisme is in respect of the vse and receuing of it but also that it being consecrated once to be a sacrament continueth so to bee whether it be receiued or not Which opinion they holde stiffely for the maintenance of their adoration and carrying it about For they teach it still to bee a sacrament howsoeuer they vse it Out of which absurde principle hee gathereth this false and detestable doctrine that they may change this point of Christs institution as they will But wee knowing that the Sacraments are onelie helpes for our infirmities and instituted to supply our wants and that the eating of the bodily foode in the Sacrament and so applying it to the nourishment of our our bodies is that which representeth vnto vs most liuely our receiuing of Christ by a true faith to the nourishment of our soules detest and despise those captious and curious subtilties whereby the papistes doe seeke to defend their wonderfull boldnesse in changing the very institution and in breaking the expresse commaundement of Christ Wherein wee haue for our warrant the worde of Christ which biddeth vs eate and drinke and therefore it can not be but arrogant presumption for man to forbid that which Christ hath commaunded howsoeuer hee will pretend that it is not of the substance of the Sacrament We haue also the practise in the primitiue church which is testified by Isichius In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. which vsed for to burne that which
in the Eucharist is no killing or shedding of bloud But on the contrarie a man may thus reason The celebrating of the Passeouer was not in euerie respect a figure of the Eucharist For the Passeouer must haue the sprinkling of blood which might not be sprinkled but by the Priest only as appeareth 2. Chron. 30.16 where that solemne keeping of the Passeouer by king Ezechiah is described and 2. Chron. 35.11 where it is declared how zealously Iosiah performed the same seruice And in that respect onely is it to be counted a Sacrifice for that onely belonged to the Priests to doe so as no other but the Priests might doe it All other things might be and were performed by others But the Eucharist they all with full mouth confesse to bee vnbloodie and therefore in this thing wherein onely the Pascall Lambe may be accounted a sacrifice it is no figure of the Eucharist So the celebrating of the Passeouer euen in that point wherein it is a sacrifice doeth nothing proue that sacrifice which the Romish church would teach in the Masse And see how vnnecessarie an argument this is In the celebrating of the Passeouer there was a bloody sacrifice therefore in the Eucharist must bee a bloodie sacrifice This consequence the Papists themselues will not graunt and yet it is as good and necessarie as that of theirs In celebrating of the Paschall Lambe there was a sacrifice therefore in the Eucharist there must bee a sacrifice For this principle that master Bellarmine doeth set downe That celebrating of the Passeouer was en expresse figure of the Eucharist if it proue the Eucharist to haue a sacrifice it doth also proue it to haue a bloodie sacrifice for otherwise the Lambe or Passeouer was not an expresse figure of the Eucharist If therefore the Papists will denie that it is a bloudy sacrifice why should we grant it to bee a sacrifice vnlesse they can alledge better reason than this that is taken from celebrating the Passeouer And thus much for the second argument Argument 3 The third argument that master Bellarmine bringeth he sayeth hee neuer read answere to it and this it is The blood of the olde Testament Exod. 24. Cap. 8. was the bloud of a sacrifice alreadie slaine and offered therefore the blood of the new Testament is so Answere But this blood of the new Testament is the blood of Christ as himself faith This is my bloud therefore he was the sacrifice offered vp in the Supper It is true that when Moses said This is the bloud of the couenant that God hath made with you the beast for sacrifice was alreadie slaine but that it must needes be so in the bloud of the newe testament there is no necessitie and therefore that argument must bee denied First because master Bellarmine maketh the especial thing in this couenant to be that the bloud was shed before the words were spoken whereas the principall part in deed is that the couenant must be established by bloud And therein Moses directed them to Christ in whose bloud the couenant of grace is established with Gods people Which the Apostle to the Hebrews doth rightly consider of Heb. 9.8 and therefore looketh not to the time wherein the sacrifice was slaine but to the matter wherby the couenant was established Secondly the order which Moâ— ses doth vse and the Apostle obserueth out of him as a verie materiall point is of vs to be marked For first the couenant was made betweene God and the people then it was raâ—â—â—â— by the blood euen so because Christ must needs make this couenant and set downe thâ— s hâ— s last will and Testament therefore his blood 〈◊〉 must of necessitie bee after the 〈◊〉 of this his last will so that although that blood of the 〈◊〉 Testament was 〈◊〉 before the words were spoken yet it is not needfull it should so bee in the newe Testament Nay it can not so bee because hee must maâ— e this conâ—â—â—â— whilest yet hee was â—â—â— e and no other coulde make it for him Then do hee confirme 〈◊〉 by his bloâ—â— shedding which was afterwardes vpon the crosse whereof that bloud of the olde Testament was but a shadowe And thus I trust iust cause appeareth to denie his argument And then that which followeth that Christ therefore must be sacrificed in his last supper without 〈◊〉 further labour falleth to the grâ—â—â—â— As for the fiue sundrie arguments alledged by him in the â—â— th Chapter of the aforesaâ— de booke it is no marâ—â—â—â— though master Beâ—â— armine make no great account of the same For he cannot proue out of them that Christ in hâ— s last supper did offer vp his owne bodie to God ◠〈◊〉 2 3â— and his blood in forme of breed and wâ—â—â— His arguments are taken out of the story of Hely the 2. out of the Prouer. 9.1 2 The third out of Esay 19 21. The fourth out of Esay 66 21 â—â— d Ier. 33.17 18 the fifth out of Dan. â— 11 12 and 12 11 Read the places who so will and it shall easily appeare that they serue not to proue that which Bellarmine would and therefore I passe them ouer thus briefly But the mighte argument the wâ—â— ght whereof well beare downe all before it is taken out of Malachy I haue no pleasure in you saith the Lord of hostes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sunne vnto the going downe of the same my name 〈◊〉 great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shall 〈◊〉 offred vnto my name and a pure offering for my name 〈◊〉 great among the heatheÌ„ saith the Lord of hosts Which place to be vnderstood of a sacrifice properly so called 〈◊〉 not of spirituall sacrifices master Bellarmine will proue by sundry arguments The first is drawne from the Hebrew word which the Prophet vseth there which master Bellarmine will not in any wise haue to be vsed but for those sacrifices that are properly so called And yet in this very booke a little before Cap. â— he confesseth that sacrifice that is called by the same name to be But as a part or as it were the sâ—â—â— ce of another sacrifice And that answer did then as he thought serue his turne to stop the mouth of Kemnitius But now hee will haue it not onely to be a sacrifice but euen a most proper sacrifice But by that word and 〈◊〉 that place we are taught that the sacrifices of Christians shal be the true sacrifices not consisting onely of outwarde shew but hauing that 〈◊〉 seasoning and true sâ—â— ceritie which through Iesus Christ shal be acceptable vnto God And that singlenes of heart was signified by that Mincha which was commanded to be offered by the people of God with their dayly sacrifices Therefore the name proueth not strongly inough the sacrifice for which it is brought His second argument is taken out of that worde Cleane
Tertullian did not so much as dreame of any incense there and it is so placed that it must needes expound how he vnderstandeth that cleane sacrifice spoken of by Malachie The next commeth in Cyprian who saieth That the olde sacrifice is abolished and the new celebrated and then sayeth Bellarmine he citeth this place of Malachie Ad Quirin lib. 1. ca. 16 Esay 1.11.12 Psa 50.14.15 23 It is true but first he citeth Esay and the 13. verse of the 50. Psalme or as he doeth recken it of the 49. for reiecting of their externall sacrifices and then out of the same Psalme hee teacheth that prayer and prayse are the true sacrifices and also out of the 4. Psalme Psal 4.6 hee speaketh of the sacrifice of righteousnesse And then followeth that of Malachie whereby it is most manifest that Cyprian vnderstandeth by the sacrifice mentioned in Malachie no other than that which out of the Psalmes he learned And in all these places Bellarmines euill dealing is notorious For hee will not so much as see the wordes that are before his eyes but onely picketh out that which hee thinketh serueth for the establishing of his errour and concealeth that which would giue light to the trueth And it were too tedious to answere to euerie testimonie especially seeing that which hath beene saide of the places before alledged doth sufficiently testifie what was the iudgement of the auncient fathers concerning this place of Malachie nowe in question I will therefore returne to his generall arguments Argument 5 Maister Bellarmine his fift principall argument Ioh. 4.21.23 is taken out of saint Iohn where he sheweth that the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth but this worship must needes be saieth he the offering of sacrifices propely so called Therefore the true worshippers in the daies of Christ shall offer these sacrifices properly so called In Iohn Hom. 32 But Chrysost vpon that place can find no such sacrifices but expoundeth this place by the 12. to the Romans of our spirituall sacrifices with whom also Theoph. seemeth to agree In. Iohn Tract 15. And S. August thinketh not that this kind of worshipping needeth to be performed in any materiall temple but that our selues are Gods temple yea and that his holy temple and therefore that this worship must bee in our selues therefore spirituall Hitherto haue we heard some reasons to proue in the Eucharist that there is a sacrifice properly so called gathered partly of the figures of the old law of the which I may truly complaine De vnit Eccl cap. 19. as S. August did of the Donatists You stay saith he vpon those dark points least you should be forced to grant that which is plaine or else forced out of some other doubtfull sentences whereof also with the same father against the same heretikes I may say Alledge something that needeth no interpreter Cap. 16 that cannot be prooued to be spoken of some other thing and you indeuour to draw it to your owne meaning And therefore out of such vncertaine allegations a certaine conclusion cannot be gathered But now let vs see what is alledged out of the verie institution it selfe for if any thing worth hearing can bee brought out of it it must needs be forcible Therefore thus he reasoneth Argument 6 Bel. de missa li 1 ca. 12. Christ in his last supper offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread wine to God the father and commaunded that to be done of the Apostles and their successors to the end of the world But this is to offer a sacrifice properly and truly so called and to institute that it should be offered Therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice properly so called For the maior in this argument wherof all the doubt is it is a plain fallacie for he beggeth to haue that confessed that is denied to haue that granted that is in question For if he could proue that Christ did offer himselfe in his last supper to God the father we would easily confesse it to be a sacrifice true and proper So that on the contrary I may as well reason thus Christ cōmanded nothing to be don but that which himself did in his last supper but himselfe did not sacrifice and therfore he commaunded no sacrifice in the last supper Wel his first proof of this vntrue proposition is that which he hath said of Melchisedech the paschal Lambe the blood of the couenant of which I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the iudgement of any indifferēt man in my answer to his 3. first principall arguments Luke 22.19 20 1 Cor. 11.24 His second reason is this These words Is giuen is broken is shed which are words of the present time do signifie that he was giuen broken shed vnto god for a sacrifice M. Bellar. seemeth to me to be hopshakled that he cānot wel step forward He hath taken vpō him to proue out of these words that christ offred his body in his supper to his father for a sacrifice how doth he proue it because the words shew that he is giuen broken and shed for a sacrifice to God is not this a good leape thinke you And yet his proposition that he should prooue and his reason whereby hee doeth it are all one But if hee stand vpon these wordes Is giuen broken and shedde therefore it is an act that then was done and therefore done in the Supper what will hee say to their owne translation which translateth Shall bee shed in Matthew and Marke and Luke also and also of the bread This is my bodie which shal be giuen for you It seemeth when that translation was first set foorth that peece of scripture was not so taken as it is now but that those words of the supper Math. 26.28 mar 14.24 luk 22.20 1. cor 11.24 were taken for a promise of that which Christ performed the next day as in truth they were I but master Bellarmine telleth vs that al these readings are good because there may be a good reasō of either of them I confesse that to be true and therfore M. Bellarmins reason is not strōg whose force hangeth vpon these wordes onely which may well be translated otherwise But by the way what if I should thus reason A representatiue sacrifice is not a protiatorie sacrifice but Christs sacrifice that in his supper hee offred vnto God was representatiue saieth Bellarm. in this place therefore not propitiatorie and much lesse then is the Masse a propitiatorie sacrifice Neither do I see to what end Christ should represent to God the sheding of his bloud which should be afterwards vpō the crosse although M. Bellar doth say it because he is loth to tell the true reason which I haue alreadie touched why their cōmon Latin translation did not precisely follow the Greeke in translating of these words shal be giuē broken shed His third reason out of the words of the institution to proue his sacrifice
is as strong as the second and is this Breaking cannot be spoken wel of the bodie and in this place which is broken for you cannot be true of the bread for the bread is not broken for vs therefore it must be vnderstoode of Christs bodie in forme of bread In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar translation which somtime he and his fellowes doe highly extoll for that saith which shal be deliuered And so doe Chrysostome Ierome Primatius Theophilact yea and Thomas of Aquine also al of them expounding these very words Epist 3 And Cyprian in his second booke of Epistles and so doe our English Remists translate it likewise Al whose translations do sufficiently proue that they espied not any such mysterie in that worde is broken but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true sence of it shal be deliuered to signifie that the body of Christ should suffer the torments vpon the crosse which S. Paul did expresse by the word of breaking And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine who woulde faine haue the Eucharist to be a sacrifice say it is a Representatiue sacrifice of Christs passiō 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. by which passion hee gaue his body to death for vs. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representatiue sacrifice read and peruse who so will the words of the institution it will not be found that our Sauiour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the vse of the sacrament which then he instituted As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speake of the shedding of the cup not of the bloud Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28 Mar. 14.24 make the matter more plaine and tell vs that the bloud of Christ is shed Doth not this wringing wresting of scriptures to force them from their true and natural sence to serue their turne manifestly argue that it must needs bee a weake tottering building that is raysed vpon so bad foundations and that it is but for want of better proofe that they are faine to scrape togither such poore helps The second argument of M. Bellarmines to proue a sacrifice by the institution is this in effect Christs body bloud are receiued in the Eucharist therefore they cannot but be sacrificed Which argumēt for vs to deny it is sufficient seeing that M. Bellarmine himselfe seemeth to inforce this only against them that confesse a real presence in with vnder the bread and yet deny the sacrifice But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties wherof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist M. Bellar. can finde them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests who are willed to sacrifice in these words if ye wil trust Bellar. Do this Who would euer haue gathered thus that had eies to looke vpon the words of the institution You must Doe this ergo you must sacrifice Yea Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter to be half ashamed of this argument and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius because they say that with the papists in that place those words To do is to sacrifice and therfore it needeth no farther answer But for the act of sacrifising it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out neither knoweth he howe to distinguish betweene that act I meane the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he and other actions in the supper And yet master Bellarmine is sure that such a thing there is there but where to finde it he cannot tell Is this thinke you good dealing for them that should be good guides vnto others to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themselues The words for a sacrament are very plaine but if you would follow with a bloud-hound you can neuer finde a sacrifice out of those wordes As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers they shall haue this answere The Eucharist is in sundry respectes called a sacrifice A sacrifice of the fathers not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of praiers and thankes giuings and duties of loue but also and that especially because it is a memoriall of the true sacrifice which Christ offered for vs vpon the crosse Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which we deny not but that it is a sacrifice properly so called which the papists affirme but cannot proue Argument 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no answer for it is so weak that euery child may see the fault of it For out of those wordes Act. 13.2 As they ministred vnto the Lord speaking of Paul Barnabas others ministring seemeth to be or may be taken for sacrifycing ergo it is takē there for sacrifycing saith M. Bellar. Iudas seemed to be a true seruant of Christ but was not Lib. 1. de M◠ssa ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to say such a thing may be therfore it is so Argument 8 Rhem. Test De missa li. 1 cap. 14 But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinths which the Papists make their strong bulwarke maister Bellarmine findeth three arguments His first argument is this Euerie altar which in deed is an altar is builded for offering of sacrifices But the Lords table after a sort is an altar therefore it is for offering of sacrifices We will not striue with master Bellarmine much for this point for we will confesse that such sacrifices are offered vpon the altar as maister Bellarmine confesseth the altar to be The Lordes table saith he is a kinde of altar or an altar after a sort So we say that sacrifices after a sort namely spirituall sacrifices are offered thereupon His second reason out of this place is a lowde lie For thus hee saith For the Apostle speaketh plainly that we that are faithfull doe so receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord at the table of the Lord as the Iewes their sacrifices or the Gentiles their meates offered to Idols on their altars or tables And because hee cannot proue this to bee true you must trust him of his owne worde for he bringeth no proofe at all Let the indifferent reader peruse the place and marke his false dealing with it The wordes cited by him begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter and continue vnto the 22. the summe whereof is this as they that consider the place may see As by participating at the Lords table you are made partakers of Christ and ioyned togither amongst your selues in one bodie verse 16 17 so by participating at the table of Idols you are made partakers of them and ioyned in fellowship with the Idolaters But that which he telleth vs is so plaine in these wordes cannot be gathered out of them And this
saint Augustine by this prison meaneth hell De salut docu cap. 64 from whence the sinner shall neuer come Now what is this to purgatorie The fift place alledged by master Bellarmine is out of the same chapter Mat. 5.22 Whosoeuer is angrie with his brother c. Here master Bellarmine gathereth out of S. August that all these punishments belong to the life to come Then also that there are three sorts of sinnes De ser dom in mont li. ◠He might also haue told vs out of S. Augu. that in Gods iudgement anger that is the least of these sinnes deserueth hell But that maketh against purgatory and therefore he would not see it And it is most certaine that our sauiour Christ there teacheth vs that the cōmandement Thou shalt not kill is sundry waies broken Neither can out of these words be gathered that there must be satisfaction after this life which Bellar. would proue Moreouer he reasoneth out of S. Luke Make you friends of riches of iniquitie Luke 16.9 that when you shall want they may receiue you into euerlasting habitations If by friends in this place we should vnderstand the saints yet it maketh not for purgatory as may appeare For in this argumēt there can be no necessarie cōsequence The saints must receiue vs into heauen therfore we must go by purgatory but the saints cānot neither must they haue that honor giuē to thē that they shuld receiue vs into the euerlasting habitations Mat. 25.34 it is Christ that must say Come ye blessed He must giue that inheritance that hath bought it with his pretious bloud or else a man may giue it vnto the wicked that shall neuer come there or to such as out liue him neither of which can bee there to receiue him By al which reasons it appeareth that in those words our sauior Christ doth but allude vnto such as whilest they haue ability doe make others their friends So would hee haue vs whom God hath made his stewards with well vsing of our riches to please God that hee also of his gratious goodnes may shew mercy to vs. Luk. 23.42 Seuēthly Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdome saide the thiefe that was put to death with Christ therefore saieth maister Bellarmine he thought that sinnes might be after this life remitted So that this is his meaning as the papistes would perswade vs remember me that is let me be praied for when I am dead Vers 43. But they doe not remember how Christ promised he should not come in purgatory but be with him euen that day in Paradise His eight place He loosed the sorrows of death so it is in greeke Act. 2.24 but M. Bellarmine that hee might get an argument out of that place woulde haue vs reade the sorrowes of hell It is not worth answering because hee must alter the wordes or els he must haue one argument fewer than hee looked for His last place himselfe misliketh and thinketh it not to proue any thing for them and therefore I will not speake of it Now for their argumentes out of the fathers hee that will but indifferentlie consider of them shall finde the fathers to be in this point verie vncertaine And the question being amongst vs whether purgatory bee a catholicke doctrine wee haue not to regard what they in their priuate and doubtful opinions doe set downe but what with one consent and constantly they teach Seeing therefore that neither the fathers with one consent teach it neither themselues knowe well what to saie of it as in many places of maister Bellarmine his two bookes of purgatory may appeare I wil conclude with that golden saying taken out of Gelasius a pope We reade that Christ raised the dead Causa 24. Q. 2. ca. legitur but that hee absolued such as died in error wee doe not reade And afterwardes speaking of the authority of binding and loosing giuen in those words Math. 16 1◠Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shall bee loosed in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth c. Gelasius thus inferreth In earth saith he for he that is dead being bound he said not that he should be absolued or loosed An abridgement of Vincentius Lirinensis with some obseruations vpon the saide Author CHAP. 32. NOw in steede of a conclusion vnto this treatise of controuersies I haue thought good to draw into a briefe summe that booke of Vincentius Lyrinensis against heresies which is so much alleadged against vs. Whom because they so confidently produce against vs in defence of their cause I take his authority to be so much the stronger against them that euen by the iudgement of their owne witnes for so they recken him they may bee conuinced of newnesse and falshood in their doctrine and of vntruth in challenging to their errours the name of catholicke faith and to themselues of catholicke men or women But before I come to the treatise it selfe that we may the better vnderstand vpon what occasion he so greatly accounteth of the ancient tradition of holy men for the interpretation of the scriptures first wee must perswade our selues that this learned father coulde not bee ignoraunt of that way to finde out the true meaning of the scriptures which the godly fathers a little before his time had set downe namely by conferring one place with another and by waying the circumstances of the place it selfe As S. Hillary de trin li. 1. Ambr. in Psal 118. Serm. 8. Hierom vpon Esay 19.1 Basil in reg breu quaest 267. Chrysostome vpon Gen. hom 12. And saint Augustine in many places haue plainly taught Neither yet must we imagine that Vincentius contrary to that which himselfe teacheth throughout this whole booke would that this his rule shoulde bee accounted the onlie way to finde out the trueth of Gods worde and that which so many before him with such a ful consent haue taught vs shoulde bee reiected Therefore it is cettaine that his meaning is to such godly waies as others before him haue vsed for trial of the truth to adde this also as a rule that may bee profitable and doe much good if it bee vsed wisely and truly considered of And the rather did hee teach vs this way because the Pelagians so boldly and confidently preferred their newe doctrine before the ancient faith whereof this authour complaineth fol. 15. And Nestorius condemned all that were before him as if they knew nothing in comparison of himselfe as wee maie see fol. 54. For this cause Vincentius teacheth vs in this his booke which hee therefore calleth Commonitorium an admonition or caueat to auoid the new deuises of priuate men and to holde fast the ancient faith of the vniuersal church And yet although Vincentius Lyrinensis did then see that that which was then catholicke and auncient it was also true and therefore that then it was a good rule to trie doctrines by yet the argument of the Church of