guiltie of so manifold dishonoring of the sonne of God CHAP. 11. The Masse drawes men from the true Christ to adore and belieue in a false Christ THe third reason why J call the Masse and their pretended transubstantiation in it an errour is this Because it hath drawne mee and doth drawe all that beleeues it from the true Christ Jesus described in the holy Scripture to a false Christ forged in their fantasie and braines of men giuen ouer for the time to the spirit of delusion in all things contrare to the true Christ our Sauiour the sonne of God for the true Christ is so described to vs in holy Scripture that if an Apostle or Angell from Heauen teach another Gospell especially Gal. 1 8. about the person of Jesus Christ let him bee accursed as the Apostle sayes Well then the Scripture giues vs to vnderstand that the true Christ hath assumed not the nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 14 16. euen our nature of the virgine Mary Partaker of flesh and blood in substance properties like to vs in all things except sinne who himselfe hath giuen vs warrand to account of any obtruded in his name as a false Christ But the doctrine of the Masse drawes vs to a pretended Christ the substance of whose bodie is made of the substance of bread changed by the force of fiue latine wordes said by a Romish Priest Hoc est enim corpus meum Secondly the true Christ his bodie is sensible might be seene touched handled and felt as sensibly as any mans body not only before his death when hee bare our infirmitie but also after his resurrection when he had laide downe our infirmities made vp of flesh and bones the verie same that hang vpon the crosse fastned with nails as himselfe testifies Behold my hands and my feete that it Luc. 24. 39. is I my self handle mee and see mee for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see mee to haue sayth hee wherein hee giues vs all to vnderstand that he wil not haue vs to think that hee hath another body or substance now after his resurrection than he had before his crucifying Next to proue the veritie of his reall and corporall presence he appeales to the true testimony of all their senses being contented that they shuld not esteem him bodily present except they saw and felt him to haue flesh and bones but the Doctours of the Masse teach men to beleeue in and to adore a Christ whose body is borne vp betwixt the Priests finger and his thumbe which neither can be seen nor felt nor any wayes is sensible a false Christ who may not abyde the proof and rule which the true Christ hath set downe in his word to try the trueth of his body and bodily presence by Thirdly the true Christ grew vp from a childe to the ordinarie stature of men before his death and beeing dead his body took vp proportionall rowm in the Sepulchre so that when hee was now risen the Linnings wherein his body was wrapped were found in the sepulchre some of them at the part where his feete lay and some at the part where his head lay and after his resurrection hee shewed his hands and feete in the owne due proportion distant one from another in place but the Papists are made to worship a Christ in the Masse whose head and feete and all the partes of his bodye compleet are not only in the boundes of their paper-thin hostie but in euerie preene poynt rowme of the same for this is their expresse doctrine that Corpus Christi est totum in tota hostiâ totum in quolibet puncto that the body of Christ is whole in the whole hostie and whole in euerie poynt or part thereof Fourthlie the true Christ will not haue vs to imagine of his body that euer it was or shall bee in many places at one time for when Ioseph and his mother sought him three dayes they could not find him till they came to the very place where only he was in the Temple disputing with the doctours when he was vpon the mount he was not bodilie any where else when hee was on this side of the Sea he was not on that side when he was in the wildernesse pinnacle of the Temple in the ship in the house there he was and no where else when he was in the graue his body was not risen and when hee rose the Angell sayeth of the graue he is not here hee is risen behold the place where the Lord lay when hee was with his disciples he sayes himselfe hee was not ascended when hee ascended hee left his disciples in regard of his bodilie presence not to come againe in bodily presence vntill hee came to take them to that place which hee went to prepare for them but these doctours tell vs that their Christ in whom they belieue whom they command to be worshipped hath a body which at an instant and poynt of time is in an hundreth places within a Church and in fiue hundreth places of the same Church is not in a word hath a body which is in as many consecrated hosties as are in the World at one time though there will be thousands dayly and which body is in no other place or space betwixt the hosties and yet will avow that such a body is but one single and the same body vndivided which was borne of the Virgin and hang vpon the crosse so peart are they to hold vp their false Christ by calling him the true when hee hath nothing of this trueth that is in our Lord. Fifthly the true Christ once died from his giuing vp the ghost vpō the crosse vntill his resurrectiō but after that he dieth no more but is aliue for euermore he suffers no more bodily his blood is shed no more his soule no more seuered from his body this is the Christ which the Scripture teaches vs to beleeue into and to worship but the Popish doctrine drawes these silly soules that beleeues them to beleeue and adore such a Christ whose verie substantiall body is bathed and swimmes in his owne naturall and true blood dayly for when the Priest consecrateth the chalice then the wine as they say is turned substantially in blood as certainly really as Christ changed water into wine Now when the hostie is broken and a part thereof put in the consecrate chalice among the verie blood as they teach which hostie and every part thereof as they say doth containe the very body of Iesus doe I speake any thing but according to their doctrine when I say that that Christ of theirs swimmes dayly in his owne blood incace they abide at their doctrine teaching that Christs words in the Sacrament are taken literally for these words This is my body taking the wordes literally must haue another sense than these wordes This is my blood and so the words beeing taken literally
and as sin althogh inherent into vs and only imput vnto Christ Iesus who had no inherent sin in him made him die the death wherefore may not Christs righteousnesse inherent in him and imput vnto vs bee accepted of God for our iustification to life and that so much the more because Christ Iesus is our head and cautioner which the Saints are not For he hath made him to be sin for vs which 2 Cor. cap 5. vers 21 knew no sin c. CHAP. 13. Of taking away the Cup. TOuching their minching of the holy Sacrament of the Lords Table and depriuing rhe People of the one halfe thereof contrare to Christs institution who commanded them all to drinke of it is a grievous defrauding of the people of their due comfort and that by Iohn 6 which they will haue spoken of the Sacrament except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and Iohn 6. drink of his blood yee haue no life in you So to depriue them of the blood is to depriue them of eternall life And in the primitiue times when persecution raged in the Church the godly Fathers neuer omitted the holy cup to the people that not only because of Christs divine institution but also that they might encourage people to shed their blood chearfully for him who had shed his blood for them did so friely communicate with them in the holy cup. Further Christ sayeth it is the cup of the new Testament in his blood which he shed for the remission of sins Then it appeareth that to depriue the people of the cup is asmuch as to depriue them of the blood of Christ for the remission of their sins for in the hostie there is no shedding of blood as they themselues confes As for the custom of the primitiue Church it is clear in this poynt neither can they or do they deny it yet when either the command of Christ or practise of the primitiue Church seemeth to crosse their businesse they dissalow both him and the ancients and in open counsell giue a decreet to their contrare The councill of Constance holden anno 406 which was the first councill that discharged the cup as an heresie towardes the middest of the Canon Concilium Constantinense 13. sess hath these wordes Although Iesus Christ did institute and administer to his Disciples this venerable Sacramēt vnder the formes of bread and wine and likewise although in the primitiue Church this Sacrament was receaued by the faithfull vnder both kinds neuerthelesse this custome hath with reason beene induced that it should bee receaued by those who consecrate vnder both kynds and by the layity vnder forme of bread only c. And concluds that these that would maintaine the contrare were heretiques where by consequence they make Christ and the primitiue Church heretiques at least in practise which if J had not red and considered in their councils J could not haue beleeued that men could be so impudent and absurd as to affirme CHAP. 14. Of Images HEre J can not passe by their adoration of Jmages 2 book of the images of Saints chap. 21. but must giue a taste thereof Their doctrine is of Images that they are not only relativè as they respect the thing represented but properly and perse by themselfe and terminatiuely without respect to the thing represented as Bellarmine hath expresly yea not only with the worship of dulia or seruice as they call it by the which distinctiō they blind the eys of the ignorant since all religious worship in whatsoueer degrie belongs properly to God but also they teach and affirme that the Images of God and the crosse ought to bee worshipped with the selfesame supreme worship that is due to God himselfe which they call Latria as hath expresly their 25. ques 3. arti in the concl 4. article Angelick doctour in his third part Sic ergo dicendum est c. and fourth article in the conclusion Crux Christi c. which conclusion the foresaid doctour prooues by this that wee giue the supreme worship to him in whom we put the hope of our safetie but in the crosse of Christ This is the crosse of wood whereon hee was nailed we put our hope of safetie So the Papists obiect of faith according to his doctrine is an Image of stocke and stone And therefore Suarez sayes in expresse tearmes Per hanc 45. disp 4. sect adorationem c. I shall faithfully translate the words By this adoration a man not only professeth that which hee adoreth to represent God but also to bee God and his supreme Lord and Redeemer otherwise it would not be a true and supreme worship The common people their case in this Idolatrie is deplorable but somewhat more excusable albeit they be involued in that same guiltinesse who must beleeue by an implicite faith whatsoeuer their Church beleeues for their great doctours doe expresly admonish their Readers that their Preachers let not the people vnderstād in their sermons that this Soueraigne worship of God should bee giuen to Images by the principles of the Roman catholicke faith for it might readily skarre them of catholick Romans make them become Calvinist hereticks See Bellarmine of the Jmages of Saints at these words Quantum ad c 22. chap. giues the same watchword in the place forsaid And this 25. ques 54. dis 4. article because as they both acknowledge in the forsaid places the common people can not be capable of these sublime distinctions wherby the foresaid doctrine must be maintained yea skarsly saith Bellarmine our great doctoures themselues Some of them for eschueing the inconvenience of this foresaid doctrine do use these tearmes directly and indirectly but any that pleaseth to examine at more length this defence they shal find it indirect enugh to giue to the creature any way a worship due to the Creator Further for backing of this doctrine their best reason that I could perceiue they euer broght was their blotting out of the second command of the Lords Law for giuing and not graunting that the second command were one with the first yet wherfore do they scrape out so great a part of that command if their best defence stood not in cancelling the Law of God which is opposite to their adoration of Jmages CHAP. 15. Of their new beliefe satisfaction purgatorie IN this place their large addition to their beliefe represents it selfe to my mind as may be seen in the bull of Pope Pitis the 4. concerning the oath taken of their Church-men containing their Trent creed wherein beside the Articles of the Apostles creed they haue ingrossed many other Articles of their most grosse and absurde heresies I can not also omitte heere their idle repetition of Prayers ascrybing merite and satisfaction to the number of them for I my self haue been enioyned to say such a number of Aues Pater nosters by waye of pennance or for the reliefe of Soules and
and faith together and yet the Apostle tells them that if they held Christ so Christ shuld not profite them Jt was a misconceaued Christ Gal. 5. 2. that deceiued the Heretiques of old for euery hereticke pretended an intention to honour the true Christ and it is a false Christ that deceaueth the Jewes who pretend that they are keeping their faith and worship to the true Messias promised but haue forged in their owne braine one altogether different from the true yet none of all these haue euer conceiued a Christ more contrary to the true Christ then is this forged Christ in the Masse without warrand as is said of Scripture and contrare to the tenet of antiquitie howeuer the Priests and Iesuites gull their auditours with pretence of the same For Tertullian sayeth Acceptum panem distributum discipulis lib. 4. ad versus Marcionem cap. 40. corpus suum illud fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Christ tooke bread and gaue it to his disciples making it his body while hee sayes This is my body that is a figure of my body where ye see that this Father who liued two hundreth yeers after Christ doth expone these words of the institution figuratiuely And yet Bellarmine is not ashamed to use this testimony for lib. 3. Eucharistiae cap. 20. proouing transubstantiation but doth bewray heerein his fraud and deceitfull handling of the Fathers for alledging this place so directly contrare him hee leaueth out the Fathers glosse that is a figure of my bodie And Augustine is so cleare in this matter that it is a wonder that any man shoulde oppose him for giuing a rule how to know when the words of holy Scripture are to be taken figuratiuely when properly he sayth thus Si preceptiua loquutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut lib 3. 〈◊〉 doctrina christiana cap. 16 utilitatem aut beneficentiam iubens non est figurata si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem aut bene ficentiam vetare figurata est nisi manducaueritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguineÌ„ biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere figura est ergo If the precept forbid any crime or wicked deede or command any profite or beneficence then is it not figuratiue but if it seeme to command any crime or wicked deed or to forbid any profite or beneficence it is figuratiue then doth he giue for instance to this rule these words of our Sauiour Except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood yee haue no life in you These wordes sayeth hee seeme to command some crime and wicked deed therefore they are figuratiue Many other passages of Fathers J might cite but I feare to be too tedious neither neede J to insist much on Fathers seeing the very Canon of the Masse doth ouerthrow transubstantiation For after the wordes of consecration the Priest offering Iesus Christ to God prayeth after this maÌ„ner Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicâ—re digneris sicuti accepta babere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abell On which things may it please thee to look with a good and fauourable countenance and to accept of them as thou did accept of the presents of Abell thy righteous seruant Any man may easily perceiue that if there were nothing there but Christ as they affirme the Priest durst neuer take vpon him to be a intercessour betwixt the Father and the sonne as though the son had lost the fauour of his Father for whose only sake wee all are receaued in fauour And since J haue now made mention of the Masse J can not conceale what secreete reluctation was euer in my minde euen when J was most bewitcht with the inchauntments of Poperie against their propitiatory sacrifice dayly offered vp in the Masse which so flatly contradicts the words of Scripture With an offering hath he reconciled Heb. 10. 14. Vers 10. for euer them that are sanctified And to exclude reiteration the Scripture sayeth We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once made And most clearly As it is appoynted for euery man once to die c. Neither Heb. 9 27. 28. will the distinction of a bloody and vnbloody sacrifice satisfie this passage seeing that the Apostle showes that as a man dieth but once so Christ is offered but once How ridiculous a thing should it bee for one to say that a man can die but once a bloody death but hee can die oftner an vnbloody death and if this distinction of theirs can not hold in the death of man neither can it in the offering of the Lord Jesus Seeing the Scripture precisly compareth them in number that they are both but once Yea in â—â—presse wordes of that same chapter the Scripture excluds this distinction while it sayth Without shedding Ver 22. of blood there is no remission of sins If then the Masse bee an vnbloody sacrifice by it there is no remission of sins And lest this should be eluded by the typicall sacrifices of old the Apostle speakes in the present time c. And this much concerning their Masse which was the second part whereof I promised to speake CHAP. 12. Of Merites FOllowes here the third part whereof J promised to speak which contains some of their common absurdities and first of Merites for the mixture of our works and the workes of Christ Iesus is vntolerable and more incompatible than the mixture of wine and water for to make vp the blood of their Sauiour in the Masse how can wee haue good workes before wee bee made good by regeneration seeing an euill tree can not bring foorth good fruite Yea they are gone so farre on in this mixture that they exclude Christs merites altogether from the formall cause of our iustification and only makes Christs righteousnesse a helpe whereby we our selues may fully formally bee iustified before God Si quis dixerit homines iustificarivel sola imputatione iustitiae Canone 10 11 sessione 6 Concilii Trident. Christi vel sola peccatorum remissione exclusa gratia charitate quae in cordibus eorum per spiritum sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaereat aut etiam gratiam qua iustificamur esse tantum fauorem Dei anathema sit If any man say that wee are formally iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ let him bee accursed c. Neither doth their doctrine stay heere but proceeds to works of supererogation whereby they put God in their debt and enrich the Pope by laying of these works of supererogation in his store-house to bee sold out at his pleasure for moneyes Since these works can be applyed to men for their satisfaction which they haue not wrought wherfore may not the merits of Christ Jesus be applyed to vs to our iustification