they did eat the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians otherwise his reasō prooues not the point which he hath in hand namely that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corinthians Reason VI. And it is said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath so it may be saide that the sacrament of the Lordes supper was made for man not mā for it therefore man is more excellent thē the sacrament But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the body and blood of Christ then is the sacrament infinitely better then man who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ and made a member of his mysticall bodie whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacrament or outward elements indeede are not better then man the ende beeing alwaies better then the thing ordained to the ende It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall Againe in the supper of the Lord euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ God and man though not the godhead now by this carnall eating we receiue not whole Christ but onely a part of his manhoode and therefore in the sacrament there is no carnall eating and consequently no bodily presence Reason VII The iudgement of the ancient Church Theodoret saith The same Christ who called his naturall bodie foode and bread vvho also called him selfe a vine he vouch safed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie NOT CHANGING NATVRE but putting grace to nature whereby he meanes consecration And The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature For they REMAINE IN THEIR FIRST NATVRE and keepe their first figure and forme and as before may be touched and seene and that which they are made is vnderstood beleeued adored Gelasius saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie and blood of Christ yet so as the SVBSTANCE OR NATVRE OF BREAD AND VVINE CEASETH NOT. And they are turned into the diuine substance yet the bread and wine REMAIN STIL IN THE PROPERTIE OF THEIR NATVRE Lumbard saith If it be asked what conuersion this is vvhether formall or substantiall or of an other kinde I am not able to define And that the Fathers held not transubstantiation I prooue it by sundrie reasons First they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against hereticks which argument they would not haue vsed if they had beleeued a popish reall presence Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them who neuertheles were barred the Lordes table And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies tooke the bread after the administration was ended for common bread Againe it was once an order in the Romane church that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread which had bin consecrated But this order cannot stand with the reall presence in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and bloode Nicholaus Cabasilas saith After he hath vsed some speach to the people he erects their mindes and lifts their thoughts from earth saith Sursum corda Let vs lift vp our heartes let vs THINKE ON THINGS ABOVE and not on things that are vpon the earth They consent say that they lift vp their hearts thither where is their treasure and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father Obiections of Papists I. Their first reason is Ioh. 6. 55. My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed therefore say they Christs body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunke accordingly Ans. The chapter must be vnderstood of a spirituall eating of Christ his bodie is meate indeede but spirituall meate and his bloode spirituall drinke to be receiued not by the mouth but by faith This is the very point that Christ here intendes to prooue namely that to beleeue in him is to eate his flesh and to drinke his bloode are all one Againe this chapter must not be vnderstoood of that speciall eating of Christ in the sacrament for it is saide generally v. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you and if these very words which are the substance of the chapter must be vnderstood of a sacramentall eating no man before the comming of Christ was saued for none did bodily eate or drink his bodie or bloode considering it was not then existing in nature but onely was present to the beleeuing heart by faith II. Obiect An other argument is taken from the wordes of the institution This is my body Ans. These wordes must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure his bodie beeing put for the signe and seale of his bodie It is obiected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speake as plainely as they cā now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament and therefore he spake plainely without any figure Ans. Christ here speaketh plainely and by a figure also for it hath bin alwaies the vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of sacraments to giue the name of the thing signified to the signe as Gen. 17. 10. circumcision is called the couenant of God in the next v. in way of exposition the signe of the couenāt Exod. 12. 11. the paschal lambe is called the Angels passing by or ouer the houses of the Israelites whereas indeed it was but a signe thereof 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock was Christ 1. Cor. 5. 7. The Passeouer was Christ. And the like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament cōcerning the cup which the Papists themselues confesse to be figuratiue when it is said Luk. 22. This cuppe is the new testament in my blood that is a signe seale and pleadge thereof Againe the time when these wordes were spoken must be considered and it was before the passion of Christ whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed and cōsequently neither of thē could be receiued in bodily manner but by faith alone Againe Christ was not onely the author but the minister of this sacrament at the time of institution thereof and if the bread had beene truly turned into his bodie and the wine into his blood Christ with his owne hands should haue taken his owne bodie and blood and haue giuen it to his disciples nay which is more he should with his owne hands haue taken his owne flesh and drunken his owne bloode and haue eaten himself For Christ himselfe did
there is a reall vnion and consequently a reall communion betweene vs and Christ as I haue prooued there must needes be such a kinde of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him that receiues the sacrament in faith And thus farre doe we consent with the Romish Church touching reall presence The dissent We differ not touching the presence it selfe but onely in the maner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the sacrament yet doe we not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall to the signes by sacramentall relation and to the communicants by faith alone On the contrarie the Church of Rome maintaines transubstantiation that is a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christs bodie and bloode by a chaunge and conuersion of the bread and wine into the saide bodie and blood Our reasons I. This corporall presence ouerturnes sundrie articles of faith For we beleeue that the bodie of Christ was made of the pure substance of the virgin Marie and that but once namely when he was conceiued by the holy Ghost and borne But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread and his blood of wine as they must needes be if there be no succession or annihilation but a reall conuersion of substances in the sacrament vnlesse we must beleeue contrarieties that his bodie was made of the substance of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often Againe if his bodie blood be vnder the formes of bread and wine then is he not as yet ascended into heauen but remaines still among vs. Neither can he be saide to come from heauen at the day of iudgement for he that must come thence to iudge the quicke and dead must be absent from the earth And this was the auncient faith Augustine saith that Christ according to his maiestie and prouidence and grace is present with vs to the end of the world but according to his ASSVMED FLESH HE IS NOT alwaies with vs. Cyril saith He is ABSENT IN BODIE and present in vertue vvhereby all things are gouerned Vigilius saith That he is gone from vs according to his humanitie he hath left vs in his humanitie in the forme of a seruant absent from vs when his flesh was on earth it was not in heauen being on earth he was not in heauen and beeing now in heauen he is not on earth Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ according to his humane substance was absent from heauen vvhen he was on earth and LEFT THE EARTH when he ascended into heauen Reason II. This bodily presence ouerturnes the nature of a true bodie whose common nature or essentiall propertie it is to haue length breadth and thicknes which beeing taken away a bodie is no more a bodie And by reason of these three dimensions a bodie can occupie but one place at once as Aristotle said the propertie of a bodie is to be seated in some place so as a man may say where it is They therefore that holde the bodie of Christ to be in many places at once doe make it no bodie at all but rather a spirit and that infinite They alleadge that God is almightie that is true indeede but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do but what he wil do And I say further because God is omnipotent therefore there be some things which he cannot doe as for him to denie himselfe to lie and to make the parts of a contradiction to be both true at the same time To come to the point if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once he should make it to be no bodie while it remaines a bodie and to be circumscribed in some one place and not circumscribed because it is in many places at the same time to be visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament and thus should he make contradictions to be true which to doe is against his nature and argues rather impotencie then power Augustine saith to this purpose If he could lie deceiue be deceiued deale vniustly he should not be omnipotent And Therefore he is omnipotent because he can not doe these things Againe He is called domnipotent by doing that which he will and not by doing that which he will not which if it should be fal him he should not be omnipotent Reason III. Transubstantiation ouerturnes the very Supper of the Lord. For in euery sacramēt there must be a signe a thing signified and a proportion or relation betweene them both But popish reall presence takes all away for when the bread is really turned into Christs body and the wine into his bloode then the signe is abolished and there remaines nothing but the outwarde formes or appearance of breade and wine Againe it abolisheth the endes of the sacrament whereof one is to remember Christ till his comming againe who beeing present in the sacrament bodily needes not to be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of things absent Another ende is to nourish the soule vnto eternall life but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is onely fed with spiritual food for though the body may be bettered by the food of the soule yet cā not the soule be fed with bodily food Reason IV. In the sacrament the bodie of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his blood as it was shedde vpon the crosse but nowe at this time Christs body crucified remaines still as a bodie but not as a bodie crucified because the act of crucifying is ceased Therefore it is faith alone that makes Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the sacrament Again that blood which ran out of the feet and hands and side of Christ vpon the crosse was not gathered vp againe and put into the veines nay the collection was needelesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life and none knowes what is become of this blood The Papist therefore cannot say it is present vnder the forme of wine locally and we may better say it is receiued spiritually by faith whose property is to giue a beeing to things which are not Reason V. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The fathers of the olde testament did eate the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ. Now they could not eate his body which was crucified or drinke his bloode shedde bodily but by faith because then his bodie and blood were not in nature The Papists make answer that the fathers did eat the same meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke with themselues not with vs. But their answer is against the text For the Apostles intent is to prooue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians because
foundation to the very bottom And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the truth first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture and secondly confute the reasōs which they bring for themselues III. Our reasons Reason I. Heb. 9. v. 15. and 26 and cap. 10. v. 10. The holy ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once Therefore not often and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper the text is plaine The Papists answer thus The sacrifice of Christ say they is one for substāce yet in regard of the manner of offering it is either bloodie or vnbloodie and the holy ghost speakes onely of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ which was indeede offered but once Ans. But the author of this epistle takes it for graunted that the sacrifice of Christ is onely one and that bloodie sacrifice For he saith Heb. 9. v. 25. Christ did not offer himselfe often as the high priests did v. 26. For thē he must haue oftē suffered since the foundatiō of the world but now in the end he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and v. 22. VVITHOVT SHEDDING OF BLOOD is NO remission of sinne By these wordes it is plaine that the scripture neuer knewe the two fold maner of sacrificing of Christ. And euery distinction in Diuinitie not founded in the written worde is but a forgerie of mans braine And if this distinction be good how shall the reason of the Apostle stand He did not offer himselfe but once because he suffered but once Reason II. The Romish Church holdes that the sacrifice in the Lordes Supper is all one for substance with the sacrifice which he offered on the crosse if that be so then the sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a cōtinuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse or els an iteration or repetition of it Now let them choose of these twaine which they wil if they say it is a continuance of the sacrifice on the crosse Christ being but the beginner and the Priest the finisher thereof they make it imperfect for to continue a thing till it be accomplished is to bring perfection vnto it but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected as by his owne testimony appeares when he said consummatum est it is finished Againe if they say it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice thus also they make it imperfect for that is the reason which the holy ghost vseth to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testamēt were imperfect because they were repeated Reason III. A reall and outward sacrifice in a sacrament is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord for one end thereof is to keepe in memory the sacrifice of Christ. Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daily and really sacrificed the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice Againe the principall ende for which the sacrament was ordained is that God might giue we receiue Christ with his benefits and therfore to giue and take to eate drink are here the principal actiōs Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ the priest receiue him of God but contrariwise he giues offers Christ vnto God and God receiues some thing of vs. To helpe the matter they say that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ beeing already made But this answere still maketh against the nature of a sacrament in which God giues Christ vnto vs whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man and man giues something to god a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to apply any thing vnto vs that is giuen of God Reason IV. Heb. 7. 24. 25. The Holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the newe testament and all Leuiticall priests in this that they were many one succeeding another but he is onely one hauing an eternall priesthood which cannot passe from him to any other Nowe if this difference be good then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest of the new testament and no other with or vnder him otherwise in the new testament their should be more priests in number then in the old If they say that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ and that the priest is but an instrument vnder him as they say I say againe it is false because the whole oblatiō is acted or done by the priest himselfe and he which doth all is more then a bare instrument Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and blood for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediatour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith that the priest in his masse is a priest properly and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice differing onely in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and in the very Canon of the masse they insinuate thus much when they request God to accept their giftes and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature vnto God Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church A certaine Counsell held at Toledo in Spaine reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion The wordes of the Canon are these Relation is made vnto vs that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer sacrifices in one daie but in one day if they offer many sacrifices to God in ALL THE OBLATIONS THEY SVSPEND THEMSELVES FROM THE COMMVNION Here marke that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine seruice because none did communicate no not the priest himselfe And in an other Counsell the name of the Masse is put onely for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that praiers supplications Masses which shall be alowed in the Councel be vsed And in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed of the making or compounding of Masses for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie blood of Christ admits no composition Abbat Paschasius saith because we sinn daily Christ is sacrificed for vs MYSTICALLY and his Passion is giuen in mysterie These his words are against the reall sacrifice but yet he expounds himselfe more plainly cap. 10. The blood is drunke IN MYSTERIE SPIRITVALLY and it is all SPIRITVAL which we eate and c. 12. The priest distributes to euery one not as much as the outward sight giueth but as much as FAITH RECEIVETH c. 13. The FVL similitude is outwardly and the immaculate flesh
of the lambe is FAITH INVVARDLY that the truth be not wāting to the sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that we drinke the blood of a killed man c. 6. One eates the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinkes his bloode another seemes to receiue not so much as a mor sell of bread from the hand of the priest his reason is because they come vnprepared Now then considering in all these places he makes no receiuing but spirituall neither doth he make any sacrifice but spirituall IV. Obiections of Papists I. Gen. 14. v. 18. When Abraham was comming from the slaughter of the Kings Melchizedek mette him and brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the most high God Now this bread and wine say they he brought forth to offer for a sacrifice because it is said he was a priest of the most high God and they reason thus Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek therefore as Melchizedek offered breade and wine so Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine offers himselfe in sacrifice vnto God Ans. Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the acte of sacrificing but in regard of his person and things pertaining thereto which are all fully expounded Hebr. 7. the summe whereof is this I. Melchizedek was both king and priest so was Christ. II. He was a prince of peace and righteousnes so was Christ. III. He had neither father nor mother because the Scripture in setting down his historie makes no mention either of beginning or ending of his daies and so Christ had neither father nor mother no father as he was man no mother as he was God IV. Melchizedek beeing greater then Abraham blessed him and Christ by vertue of his priesthood blesseth that is iustifieth and sanctifieth all those that be of the faith of Abraham In these things onely stands the resemblance and not in the offering of bread and wine Again the ende of bringing forth the breade and wine was not to make a sacrisice but to refresh Abraham and his seruants that came from the slaughter of the Kings And he is called here a priest of the most high God not in regard of any sacrifice but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham as the order of the wordes teacheth And he was the priest of the most high God and therefore he blessed him Thirdly though it were graunted that he brought forth breade and wine to offer in sacrifice yet will it not follow that in the sacrament Christ himselfe is to be offered vnto God vnder the naked formes of bread and wine Melchizedeks bread wine were absurd types of no-bread and no-wine or of formes of bread and wine in the Sacramēt II. Obiect The paschall lambe was both a sacrifice and a sacrament now the Eucharist comes in roome thereof Ansvv. The paschal lambe was a sacrament but no sacrifice Indeede Christ saith to his disciples Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passeover in Mark 14. 12. but the words to offer or to sacrifice doe often signifie no more but to kill As when Iacob and Laban made a covenant it is saide Iacob sacrificed beasts and called his brethren to eate bread Gen. 31. 54. which wordes must not be vnderstoode of killing for sacrifice but of killing for a feast because he could not in a good conscience inuite them to his sacrifice that were out of the couenant beeing as they were of another religion secondly it may be called a sacrifice because it was killed after the manner of a sacrifice Thirdly when Saul sought his fathers asses and asked for the Seer a maide bids him goe vp in hast for saith shee there is an offering of the people this day in the high place 1. Sam. 9. 12. where the feast that was kept in Rama is called a sacrifice in all likelihood because at the beginning thereof the priest offered a sacrifice to God and so the Passeouer may be called a sacrifice because sacrifices were offered within the cōpasse of the appointed feast or solemnitie of the passeouer yet the thing it selfe was no more a sacrifice then the feast in Rama was Againe if it were graunted that the Passouer was both it will not make much against vs for the supper of the Lord succeedes the Passeouer onely in regard of the maine ende thereof which is the increase of our communion with Christ. III. Obiect Malac. I. II. The prophet foretelleth of a cleane sacrifice that shall be in the new testament and that say they is the sacrifice of the Masse Ans. This place must be vnderstoode of a spirituall sacrifice as we shall plainely perceiue if we compare it with 1. Tim. 2. 8. where the meaning of the prophet is fitly expounded I will saith Paul that men pray in all places LIFTING VP PVRE HANDS without wrath or doubting And this is the cleane sacrifice of the Gentiles Thus Iustin Martyr saith That supplications and thanksgiuings are the ONELY perfect sacrifices pleasing God and that Christians haue learned to OFFER THEM ALONE And Tertullian saith We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour as God hath commaunded with pure praier And Ireneus saith that this cleane offering to be offered in euery place is the praiers of the Saints Obiect IV. Hebr. 13. 10. We haue an altar whereof they may not eate vvhich serue in the tabernacle Now say they if we haue an altar then wee must needes haue a priest and also a reall sacrifice Ans. Here is meant not a bodily but a spirituall altar because the altar is opposed to the materiall Tabernacle and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse in which he prooues that we haue an altar The bodies of the beasts whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sinne were burnt without the campe so Christ Iesus that he might sanctifie the people with his ovvne blood suffered vvithout the gate Now lay the reason or proofe to the thing that is prooued and we must needes vnderstande Christ himselfe who was both the altar the priest and the sacrifice Obiect V. Lastly they say where alteration is both of law couenant there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice But in the new testament there is alteration both of law and couenant and therfore there is both new priest and new sacrifice Ans. Al may be granted in the new testament there is both new priest and sacrifice yet not any popish priest but onely Christ himselfe both God and man The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man and the altar Christ as he is God who in the new testament offered himselfe a sacrifice to his Father for the sinnes of the world For though he were the lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world in regard of the purpose of God in regard of the value of his merit and in regard of faith which maketh things to come as
temporall blessings In the first age he appointed vnto him for meate euery hearb of the earth bearing seed and euery tree wherein there is the fruite of a tree bearing seed Gen. 1. 18. And as for flesh whether God gaue vnto him libertie to eate or not to eate we hold it vncerten After the flood the Lord renewed his grant of the vse of the creatures and gaue his people libertie to eat the flesh of liuing creatures yet so as he made some things vncleane and forbad the eating of them among the rest the eating of blood But since the comming of Christ he hath inlarged his word and giuen libertie to all both Iewes Gentiles to eate of all kindes of flesh This word of his we rest vpon holding it a doctrine of deuills for men to commaund an abstinence from meates for conscience sake which the Lord himselfe hath created to be receiued with thanksgiuing Socrates a Christian historiographer saith that the Apostles left it free to euery one to vse what kinde of meate they would on fasting daies and other times Spiridion in lent dressed swines flesh and set it before a stranger eating himselfe and bidding the stranger also to eat who refusing professing him selfe to be a Christian therefore saith he the rather must thou doe it for to the pure all things are pure as the word of God teacheth vs. But they obiect Ier. 35. where Ionadab commanded the Rechabites to abstain from wine which commandement they obeyed and are commended for doing well in obeying of it therefore say they some kinde of meates may lawefully be forbidden Ans. Ionadab gaue this commandement not in way of religion or merit but for other wise and politicke regardes For he inioyned his posteritie not to drinke wine not to build houses not to sowe seede or plant vineyards or to haue any in possession but to liue in tents to the ende they might be prepared to beare the calamities that should be fall them in time to come But the Popish abstinence from certaine meates hath respect to conscience and religion and therefore is of another kind and can haue no warrant thence II. Obiect Dan. 10. 3. Daniel beeing in heauines for three weekes of daies abstained from flesh and his example is our warrant Ans. It was the manner of holy men in ancient times when they fasted many daies together of their owne accordes freely to abstaine from sundrie things and thus Daniel abstained from flesh But the Popish abstinence from flesh is not free but stands by cōmandement and the omitting of it is mortal sinne Againe if they will follow Daniell in abstaining from flesh why doe they not also abstaine from all pleasant bread and wine yea from ointments and why will they eate any thing in the time of their fast whereas they cannot shew that Daniel eate any thing at all till euening And Molanus hath noted that our ancetours abstained from wine and dainties and that some of them ate nothing for two or three daies together Thirdly they alleadge the diet of Iohn Baptist whose meate was Locusts and wild honie and of Timothy who abstained from wine Ans. Their kinde of diet and that abstinence which they vsed was only for temperance sake not for conscience or to merit any thing thereby let them prooue the contrarie if they can Thirdly and lastly we dissent from them touching certaine endes of fasting For they make abstinence it selfe in a person fitly prepared to be a part of the worship of God but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe and therefore no part of Gods worship and yet withall being well vsed we esteeme it as a proppe or furtherance of the worship in that we are made the fitter by it to worship God And herevpon some of the more learned sort of them say Not the worke of fasting done but the deuotion of the worker is to be reputed the seruice of God Againe they say that fasting in or with deuotion is a worke of satisfaction to Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of our sinnes Wherein we take they doe blasphemously derogat from Christ our Sauiour who is the whole and perfect satisfaction for sinne both in respect of fault and punishment Here they alleadge the example of the Ninevites and Achabs fasting wherby they turned away the iudgements of God denounced against them by his Prophets We answer that Gods wrath was appeased towards the Ninevites not by their fasting but by faith laying holde on Gods mercy in Christ and thereby staying his iudgement Their fasting was onely a signe of their repentance their repentance a fruite and signe of their faith whereby they beleeued the preaching of Ionas As for Ahabs humiliatiō it is nothing to the purpose for it was in hypocrisie if they get any thing thereby let thē take it to themselues To conclude we for our parts doe not condemne this exercise of fasting but the abuse of it and it were to be wished that fasting were more vsed of all Christians in all places considering the Lord doth daily giue vs new and special occasions of publike and priuate fasting The thirteenth point Of the state of perfection Our consent Our consent I will set downe in two conclusions I. All true beleeuers haue a state of true perfection in this life Math. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your father in heauen is perfect Gen. 6. 9. Noah was a iust and perfect man in his time and walked with God Gen. 17. 1. Walke before me and be perfect And sundrie kings of Iuda are said to walke vprightly before God with a perfect heart as Dauid Iosias Hezekias c. And Paul accounteth himselfe with the rest of the faithfull to be perfect saying Let vs all that are perfect be thus minded Phil. 3. 15. Now this perfection hath two partes The first is the imputation of Christs perfect obedience which is the ground and fountaine of all our perfectiō whatsoeuer Heb. 10. 14. By one offering that is by his obedience in his death and passion hath he consecrated or made perfect for euer them that beleeue The second part of Christian perfection is synceritie or vprightnes standing in two things The first is to acknowledge our imperfection and vnworthines in respect of our selues and hereupon though Paul had said he was perfect yet he addeth further that he did account of himselfe not as though he had attained to perfection but did forget the good things behinde and indeauoured himselfe to that which was before Here therefore it must be remembered that the perfection whereof I speake may stande with sundrie wants and imperfections It is saide of Asa that his heart vvas perfect vvith God all his daies and yet he pulled not dovvne the high places and beeing diseased in his feete he put his trust in the Physitians and not in the Lord. Secondly this vprightnes standes in a constant purpose endeauour and care to keepe not
least he partakes in the sinnes and punishments thereof Indeede to goe vpon ambassage to any place or to trauell for this ende that we may performe the necessarie duties for our speciall or generall callings is not vnlawfull but to trauell out of the precincts of the church onely for pleasures sake and to see strange fashions hath no warrant And hence it is that many men which goe forth in good order well minded come home with crased consciences The best traueler of all is he that liuing at home or abroad can goe out of himselfe and depart from his own sinnes corruptions by true repentance FINIS An advertisment to all fauourers of the Roman religion shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the Catechisme GReat is the number of them that embrace the religion of the present church of Rome being deceiued by the glorious titles of Vniuersalitie Antiquity Successiō And no doubt though sōe be wilfully blinded yet many deuoted this way neuer saw any other truth Nowe of them and the rest I desire this fauour that they will but way and ponder with themselues this one thing which I will nowe offer to their considerations and that is That the Romane religion nowe stablished by the councell of Trent is in the principall points thereof against the very grounds of the Catechisme that haue beene agreed vpon euer since the daies of the Apostles by all Churches These groundes are fowre the first is the Apostles Creede the second is the decalogue or ten cōmandements the third is the forme of praier called the Lords praier the fourth is the Institutiō of the two Sacramēts baptisme and the Lords supper 1. Cor. 11. 23. That I may in some order manifest this which I say I will beginne with the Symbole or Creed And first of all it must be considered that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ the head of the Catholike church that there is a fire of purgatorie after this life that images of God and Saints are to be placed in Churches and worshipped that praier is to be made to Saints departed and their intercession to be required that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead These points are of that moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand in the councel of Trent the curse Anathema is pronounced vpō all such as deny these or any of them And yet marke the Apostles creede which hath bin thought to containe all necessarie points in religion to be beleeued and hath therefore beene called the Kay and rule of faith this creed I say hath not any of these points nor the Expositions made thereof by the ancient fathers nor any other creed or confession of faith made by any councell or Church for the space of many hundred yeares This a plaine proofe to any indifferent man that these be new articles of faith neuer known in the Apostolike Church and that the fathers and Councells could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the olde and new Testement Answere is made that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the articles I beleeue the Catholike Church the meaning whereof they will haue to be this I beleeue all things which the catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued If this be as they say we must needes beleeue in the Church that is put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and the certentie of all doctrines necessarie to saluation and thus the eternall truth of God the Creator shall depend on the determination of the creature and the written word of God in this respect is made vnsufficient as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation And the ancient Churches haue bin farre ouerseene that did not propounde the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith but left them to these latter times 2. In this Creede to beleeue in God and to beleeue the church are distinguished To be leeue in is pertaining to the Creatour to beleeue to the creature as Ruffinus hath noted when he saith that by this proposition in the Creatour is distinguished from the creature and things pertaining to God from things pertaining to men And Augustine saith It must be knowne that we must beleeue the Church NOT BELEEVE IN THE CHVRCH because the church is not God but the house of God Hence it followes that we must not beleeue in the Saints nor put our confidence in our workes as the learned Papists teach Therefore Eusebius saith We ought of right to beleeue Peter and Paul but to beleeue in Peter Paul that is to giue to the seruants the houour of the Lord we ought not And Cyprian saith He doth not beleeue in God which doth not place in him alone the trust of his whole felicitie 3. The article conceiued by the holy ghost is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the masse into the body and blood of Christ. For here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward and we acknowledge the truth of his manhoode and that his bodie hath the essentiall properties of a true bodie standing of flesh and bone hauing quantitie figure dimensions namely length breadth thicknes hauing part out of part as head out of feet and feet out of head beeing also circumscribed visible touchable in a word it hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a bodie It will be said that the body of Christ may remaine a true bodie and yet be altered in respect of some qualities as namely circumscription But I say againe that locall circumscription can no way be seuered from a bodie it remaining a bodie For to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall propertie of euery quantitie and quantitie is the common essence of euerie bodie And therefore a bodie in respect of his quantitie must needes be circumscribed in one place This was the iudgement of Leo when he saide The bodie of Christ is by no meanes out of the truth of our bodie And Augustine when he saide ONELY God in Christ so comes that he doth not depart so returnes that he doth not leaue vs but man according to bodie is in place and goes out of the same place and when he shall come vnto an other place HE IS NOT IN THAT PLACE VVHENCE HE COMES To helpe the matter they vse to distinguish thus Christs bodie in respect of the whole essence thereof may be in many places but not in respect of the whole quantitie whereby it is onely in one place But as I haue saide they speake contraries for quantitie by all learning is the essence of a