wordes must not be taken that teacheth transubstantiation Thirdly the circumstances of the place it selfe are flat against this doctrine of transubstantiation For if any thing els had bin signified by the worde This then that which Christ tooke and brake that is the bread it could not but verie much haue astonished them that were present that speaking as it were of the bread hee should haue meant any thing else But to haue taught that it had beene his very naturall bodie indeede it would haue made them much more wonder than they did â—â—â— e sixt of Saint Iohns Gospel when they sayd Ioh. 6 6â— This is a hard saying who can heare it For if they could not abide to heare our Sauiour Christ say they must eate his flesh and drinke his blood howe much lesse woulde they not onely haue heard this saide againe but also seeing him sit at the Table and hauing taken bread into his hand to pronounce that that bread was his naturall bodie that was borne of the Virgine Marie and that they must so eate him But they knew that about Sacraments sacramentall speaches are to be vsed And neuer imagined that because he said This is my body therefore that bread should bee chaunged in substaunce to the bodie of Christ no more than there should be an alteration in Christ because he sayth I am the doore I am the vine yea no more than the cup it selfe was changed in the words of consecration into another thing They knew that it is not such a kinde of speach as is vsed when God is purposed to make any thing Gen. 1. Let there be light let there be a firmament It is not a speach of coÌ„manding but of shewing or declaring when he sayth This is my body And therefore they made no such doubts they did not so much as aske any question how it could bee that he whose bodie they saw sitting with them at the table could haue also an other bodie though inuisible yet a verie true and naturall bodie hidden in those formes of bread And as the Apostles did neuer imagine so grosly of Christ and so absurdly that he had two bodies the one visible the other inuisible the one sitting at the table the other lurking in the formes of bread but did eate that which Christ tooke brake and gaue to them that is to say bread so Saint Paule doeth flatly call it bread 1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14. yea and that after the words of consecration And although Bellarmine would seeme to answere this argument and indeed iustly cyteth the answere which is commonly made to it that it is called bread not because it is so nowe but because it was so for sayeth hee it is not needfull that if sometime that be vsed yet that should bee vsed alwayes yet neither will the answere that hee best liketh of serue the turne For sayeth hee it is called bread according to the Hebrew phrase which calleth all meate by the name of bread Now to strike him with his owne weapon if it bee so sometimes must it so signifie alwayes I am sure maister Bellarmine will not so say for then shall wee doubt what it was that our Sauiour Christ tooke for the institution of the Sacrament And if he dare not say that so it must bee alwayes then must hee giue better reason why heere it should not bee so or else wee cannot beleeue him Especially seeing the Apostle immediately before speaking of the institution of the Sacrament hath shewed howe our Sauiour Christ tooke bread which I trust maister Bellarmine will there confesse to bee bread in deed and not other foode why should hee then without proofe or reason say here it is more generally taken to applie it perchaunce to the foode of the soule Yea this replie may serue for all the answeres that hee hath to this argument because it is not inough for him to say such a worde may so bee taken sometime but hee must prooue that it must in this place so be taken Moreouer if you consider of that which they call the forme of bread it is no other in colour taste or fashion than it was it putrifieth and corrupteth as soone as when it is not consecrated Which to affirme if it were transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ were in my mind absurd and blasphemous Lastly we see by the practise that the godly haue sometime vsed that the fathers in the primitiue Church thought not the bread to be transubstantiated For if they had knowne of any transubstantiation they woulde not haue burned that which remained of the Eucharist as Hesichius Hesich in leuit Ori. in Leuit. and also Origen vpon Leuiticus shew that they did Thus then by many reasons I trust it sufficiently appeareth that the church of Rome cannot without great violence done to the place wring traÌ„substantiation out of these words this is my body In Ioh. tract 47. for Christ is many things by similitude which he is not in deed a rocke a doore c. as saith S. August And so we may see the words to be most easie and plaine if according to the maner of such sacramentall speaches we vnderstand the worde Is. 1. Cor. 10.2 The rocke was Christ that is it was a figure of Christ so here This is my body that is the figure of my bodie Cont. Adimant c. 12. as S August most plainly expouÌ„deth in this place saying The lord made no doubt to say this is my body when he gaue the figure of his bodie And thus much to take froÌ„ them that one weapon which they haue wrested froÌ„ the scriptures to fight against vs wtal Now the which they can bring against vs out of the writings of men can haue no such force and therfore is not so dangerous Answer to the places out of the fathers for transubstantiation Inst Apol. 2 neer the end And yet it will not be amisse to take a short viewe of that which they alledge out of the Fathers of the purer ages namely that liued fiue hundred or sixe hundred yeares after Christ Iustinus Martyr is the first whom he nameth out of whom he gathereth That the meate whereof our flesh is nourished that is the bread sanctified by the prayer of the worde of God is the bodie of the Lorde Wherein I note first that because hee speaketh of meate wherof our flesh is nourished he acknowledgeth no change of the substance of the bread for it must be the substance of the bread that nourisheth our bodies no change I say but Sacramentall in regard whereof he hath said a little before that we receiue it not as common bread because that being so sanctified it is a Sacrament of the bodie of our sauior Christ TheÌ„ the substance of the bread being proued euen by these words to remaine it is nothing hard to see what he meaneth when he sayth it is the bodie of the Lord. For it
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
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
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