prayer not a verball Wee may forgiue him to say this of the sacrifice of the Masse where there is an offering of a sacrifice to God but Bellarmine was neuer so absurd as to call the act of receiuing from God a reall prayer to God ANS No man I thinke will alledge that the act of receiuing is praying or crauing although these two may agree well together But it is true that the celebration of this Sacrament is a reall thanksgiuing to God for the benefite of our redemption and although it be not a propitiatorie or impetratorie sacrifice as Bellarmine saith yet it is eucharisticke and a commemoration of the propitiatory and impetratory sacrifice of Christ And in the very act of receiuing and by the act of receiuing wee doe openly acknowledge and confesse before the world that our confidence of saluation is onely in the sacrifice of the Lord Iesus Christ which is a reall praysing magnifying extolling and preaching of his death vntill his comming againe Now to conclude yee haue made many long answeres to a short obiection and notwithstanding the argument remaines in force Your obiection proponed was this Wee may pray in the act of receiuing therefore wee may kneele Your first answere to this obiection was That kneeling is not the onely proper and commendable gesture of prayer and thereupon concluded we might not kneele This as we haue shewed is not a good consequence Next yee answered that to pray in the act of deliuery is against the Institution This we haue confuted Thirdly you answered that wee ought not to pray before a creature and therefore might not pray in the act of receiuing The antecedent of this is false as wee haue shewed at least as it is conceiued and the conclusion holds not Fourthly yee sayd that we are not commanded by the act of Perth to pray and therefore that we may not pray This followes not Fifthly because the prayer of the people in the act of receiuing is mentall yee inferred that they might not kneele and this is no good consequence Lastly yee sayd wee may not kneele before the Crucifixe and before Nebuchadnezzars Image and therefore we may not kneele in the act of receiuing the Sacrament And this is most absurd the Sacrament being a part of Gods worship instituted by himselfe but the vse of Idols and Images in his worship he hath expressely forbidden So all your answeres are meere sophisticall captions and abductions from the purpose yet yee proceede to answere some others that yee frame against your selfe PP Their other obiection that we may praise God in the act of receiuing therefore wee may kneele may bee answered after the same manner There is no publike thanksgiuing ordained to be made at the deliuery of the Elements mentall praise therefore must be meant Mentall praise is no more the principall worke of the soule then mentall prayer what was sayd of the ejaculations of the one let it bee applyed to the short ejaculations of the other ANS If yee answere this obiection as yee did the former then let the reply vsed by me be here repeated But I say further that by the words of the Institution Doe this in remembrance of me we are ordayned not onely mentally to giue praise but also really and publikely by the very action and celebration of the Sacrament it selfe in respect whereof the learned Pareus calleth this remembrance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiduciae gratitudinis that is a remembrance of faith because by it our faith is confirmed and a remembrance of thanksgiuing because by it we should praise and magnifie as he saith the clemencie of the Father who gaue the Sonne and the benignitie of the Sonne who offered himselfe a sacrifice for vs. PP The name of the Eucharist giuen to this Sacrament helpes them nothing for it is a name giuen by the Ancients and not by the Scripture ANS The Trinitie is a name giuen by the Ancients and not by the Scripture to the three Persons subsisting in the vnitie of the diuine nature yet the truth of that which the word signifies being found in Scripture it helpes to conuince Heretikes that deny the same so the name of the Eucharist giuen to the Sacrament to declare the thankfull commemoration of our Sauiours death which thereby we performe according to the Scripture helpes vs much against you and your followers that spoile the Sacrament of the most principal end for which it was instituted that is to the praise and honor of our Sauiour in respect whereof it is called Sacrificium Eucharisticum a Sacrifice of thankesgiuing This Sacrifice the Pastor really acts in taking blessing breaking and giuing of the externall Elements for thereby the death of Christ and the application thereof to the faithfull is represented and it is acted by the people in their taking eating and drinking for thereby they declare and testifie the hunger thirst and desire of their soules after the righteousnesse and life of Christ and the ioy they haue in the meditation thereof with that assured confidence wherwith they rest and repose themselues therupon And this representation and application of Christs death with the testification of our faith therein and thankfulnesse therefore by the celebration of the Sacrament is a reall extolling preaching magnifying and praising of the Lords death from which mentall praise cannot be separated without hypocrisie Therefore to praise God in the act of receiuing is a chiefe part of the principall work of the soule and not your me ditation vpon the analogie betweene the signe and the thing signified which is only a catechetick preparation that should precede the principall worke If yee had remembred the Confession of Falth which ye professe your selfe to haue sworne and subscribed I am assured yee could not haue denyed this for in the 13. Sect. thereof about the end yee haue these words The end and cause of Christs Institution and why the selfe-same should bee vsed is expressed in these words Doe this in remembrance of mee as oft as yee eate of this bread and drinke of this Cuppe yee shall shew foorth that is extoll preach magnifie and praise the Lords death till he come If this be the principall end as yee see our Confession speakes of Christs Institution then not onely may wee praise him in the act of receiuing but we ought to praise him In respect of this the Sacrament is called the Eucharist and not in respect of the thanksgiuing wherewith we begin the action as yee would haue it to be in your words following PP Next as it is called Eucharistia so it is called Eulogia for the words He gaue thanks and He blessed are indifferently vsed by the Euangelists Some parts of this holy celebration stand in thanksgiuing as the beginning and the end and therefore is the whole action denominated from a part Saith Casaubone Eulogia Eucharistia vtraque vox à parte vna totam Domini actionem designat It followes not that
to vse any Image in the worship of God for a signe an occasion or a middesse to stir vp a man to worship God for they are prohibited in the second Comandement and by the Prophet they are called Teachers of lyes because by them properly and truly nothing can be brought to our remembrance for which we should adore God but on the other part it is not possible that either our mindes can be informed to know God or our affections moued to worsh ippe him except by the contemplation of the creatures the meditation of the Word and the consideration of the holy Sacraments take these occasions middesse and signes away yee abolish Religion and all the worship of God out of the Word I hope the Reader by this shall see the difference to bee as great in this case as is betweene a lawfull meane of Gods worship commanded by himselfe and the inuention of man prohibited by God Next the Papists will haue these middesse occasions signes not onely obiects of diuine worship actiue that is seruing to stir vp and moue men to worship which is the first degree of their idolatry but they will haue them likewise passiue obiects such as are to be worshipped either in stead of the principall or coniunctly with him this is a higher degree of idolatry In this then they differ also from the Word Sacraments creatures that these being the ordinary obiects instruments whereby men must be stirred vp to worship God so the obiects of diuine adoration actiuely they neither are nor should they be esteemed passiue obiects of adoration that is such as should be adored either coniunctly with God or in his stead This we condemne detest yet must not run on with you to the other extremity say that howsoeuer they were ordained of God to be signes seales of his graces yet they are not in statu accōmodato ad adorādū for although by them before thē that is to make the obcurities which ye affect plaine albeit they should neither be adored in place of God his Son or coniunctly with God his Son as the Papists professe to adore their Images yet certaine it is that there is nothing in nature or religion fit apt to stirre men vp to worship God if the Sacraments be not meet Shall our corporall food when it is presented on table before vs bee in such state as is proper to stir vs vp to worship God with thanksgiuing praier Shall the consideration of the benefit which we haue by the light of the day by our rest sleepe in the night be esteemed motiues of such moment that he who is not thereby moued in the morning when he riseth and at night when he goeth to bed to pray and giue thanks is esteemed a slothfull and ingratefull Christian Shall a seasonable seede time shall the first and latter raine and a faire haruest bee pregnant occasions to remember vs both in priuate and publike to giue thanks and praise God for his goodnesse And shall the blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the very act when it is in giuing and receiuing not be esteemed to be in proper state to moue vs and stirre vp our hearts to pray and giue thanks for that inestimable benefite euen when our Sauiour hath cōmanded that we should do this in remembrance of him It is an absurd opinion Then to conclude If yee hold these two points which ye haue propounded to wit that the Sacrament and creatures of God should not be vsed as occasions middesses and signes to moue vs by the fight and meditation of them to list vp our hearts to the spirituall obiect of our saith that is to God in Iesus Christ because Suarce saith that their Images haue that vse then certainely you must hold that God should not bee knowne nor worshipped in the World for without this vse of the Word Sacraments and Creatures God cannot bee knowne nor worshipped So whilst yee flye idolatry yee fall into Atheisme Next if yee hold that the Sacraments in the very act of the administration are not in statu accommodato adadorandum you must take away the chiefe and principall ende of the Sacrament commended to vs by the Lord himselfe in these words Doe this in remembrance of me Saiut Paul interprets these words thus So often as yee eate this bread and drinke of this Cuppe yee shall declare the Lords death till he come againe that is as the Confession of our faith which yee haue sworne and subscribed explaines it Yet shall extoll magnifie and prayse his death Now this is a reall act of adoration which both the Lord himselfe and his holy Apostle would haue vs moued vnto by this Sacrament So by these your positions and assertions yee mutilate the Sacrament of one of the most principall ends for the which it was instituted And generally yee take from the Creatures of God and the holy Sacraments the most excellent vse for which they were appointed namely to be meanes and motiues to stirre vs vp vnto the worship of our Creator and Redeomer PP If this kinde of relatiue worship were to be allowed then the holy signes both in the olde and new Testament should haue serued to the same vse then they who are farre distant from the Table should kneele for the Elements are to them obiectum à quo significatiuè then at the sight of the Sunne or any beautifull Creature we should kneele seeing they put vs in minde of Gods incomprehensible beautie and seeing many of them allow the historicall vse of Images we may fall downe before the Crucifixe prouiding the action of the minde be abstracted from the Image ANS We allow no worship whether it be relatiue or absolute that is either giuen to Sacrament or Creature But it is a grosse error to thinke that the worship which is onely giuen to God immediately or directly is relatiue because it is motioned and occasioned by the consideration of Gods Creatures and blessed Sacraments for so all the worship of God must be relatiue because it is all occasioned either by the Word the Sacraments or the Creatures whereas indeede there is no worship relatiue but that which is giuen to some mediate thing for the relation it hath to the principall and as for vs wee neyther giue to the Word the Sacrament or any Creature diuine worship but onely to God whom by the Word the Sacrament and the Creatures wee are taught and admonished to worship The relatiue worship is onely that which Papists giue to their Idols for the relation they haue to the principall which we detest and condemne as much as your selfe Where you say that the signes of the olde and new Testament and the sacramentall Elements when they are onely seene as likewise the Sunne or any beautifull creature might then moue vs to adore I answere that although they be potentially obiectū à quo obiects
all the parts of this holy ministration are actions of thanksgiuing ANS Although the name were taken as Causabone saith from one part of the action yet it is giuen to the whole action not by reason of this part onely but because it declares the nature and chiefe end of the action and albeit all the parts of this holy ministration seuerally considered are not actions of thanksgiuing yet the whole action which consists of these parts being performed Gratitudinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Paraus saith that is with a purpose of thankfulnesse to celebrate the death of Christ is Eucharisticke or an action of thankesgiuing The hand or foot being seuerally considered is not the bodie yet the whole which consisteth of all the parts is the body So it is true to take the bread is not an action of thankesgiuing nor to breake it nor to giue it being seuerally considered but to take breake blesse and giue with intention by these actions to represent the death of Christ and the application thereof to the faithfull for the praise of his glorious grace is an action of thankesgiuing Therefore to conclude as wee come to the Sacrament to bee made partakers of Christs death by faith vnto saluation so wee come to the Sacrament to celebrate the remembrance of his death to his glory In respect of the first end it is The Communion of his body and bloud in respect of the last it is a reall predication and celebration of his death till his comming againe which should bee often performed because as Paraeus speaketh Mors Domini perpetuis laudibus celebranda est that is The death of Christ is to be celebrated with perpetuall praises these are specially offered at the celebration of the holy Sacrament and in this respect it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing PP Obiect What we may craue of God vpon our knees we may receiue on our knees Answ It is false I may pray vpon my knees Giue vs this day our daily bread but I may not receiue it on my knees The people of Israel prayed for food yet they were not esteemed vnthankful for not kneeling when they receiued the Manna ANS I neuer heard this obiection vsed by any man but by you in this place therefore if it bee false your selfe that forged it is author of the falsehood The Bishop of Galloway who is now at rest hath this obiection in his Treatise which is not yet answered as he alledgeth Whatsoeuer spirituall benefit I may lawfully aske on my knees the same I may lawfully receiue vpon my knees with thankesgiuing But I may lawfully with supplication aske saluation by Iesus Christ on my knees Therefore I may lawfully receiue it on my knees Another argument was propounded in the Assembly at Perth which neither at that time nor since hath been answered and it is this Whatsoeuer spirituall benefit we should receiue in a solemne act of diuine worship with thankesgiuing and prayer that wee may receiue on our knees The body and blood of Iesus Christ in the Sacrament is a spirituall benefit which in a solemne act of diuine worship wee ought to receiue with thankesgiuing and prayer Therefore we may receiue the body and blood of the Lord Iesus Christ in the Sacrament vpon our knees The proposition of this argument at that time denied was proued thus Whatsoeuer benefit we ought to receiue with thankesgiuing and prayer that we ought receiue with the gesture that is most agreeable to thankesgiuing and prayer Kneeling is such a gesture c. Ergo c. In the Assumption it is affirmed that Christs body and blood in the Sacrament should be receiued with prayer and thankesgiuing This we proue by this reason Whatsoeuer spirituall benefit we should receiue with a spirituall hunger and thirst and with a spirituall appetite and desire after the grace and vertue that is therein to saluation the same we should receiue with prayer which is nothing else but such an appetite and desire But the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit c. Next that it should be receiued with thankesgiuing I proue Whatsoeuer benefit we should receiue by extolling and preaching and magnifying and praysing the inestimable worth and excellence thereof the same we ought to receiue with thankâ—sgiuing But in the Sacrament we should receiue the body and the blood of Christ with extolling and preaching c. Ergo c. The Assumption is confirmed by the words of our Sauiour Doe this in remembrance of me and by the words of Saint Paul So oft as yee eate this bread and drinke this Cup yee shall declare that is extoll magnifie and praise The Lords death till hee come againe Because I finde you fighting against your owne shadow I thought good to set downe the very obiections which were vsed in the Assembly at Perth that as yet are not nor I hope shall euer be answered PP It is againe obiected That in the act of receiuing we receiue from Christ an inestimable benefite ought not a Subiect kneele when he receiueth a benefite from a Prince to testifie his thankfulnesse Answ This relation from Christ to the Sacrament as betweene the Giuer and the gift is common to all the Sacraments both of the old and new Law ordinarie and extraordinarie ANS The relation betweene the Giuer and the gift in the old Testament is not so euident because they wanted a cleare and expresse Word to expound the mysterie Where haue yee such a Word concerning Circumcision This is the putting off of the bodie of sinne by the vertue of Christs Death and Resurrection COLOS. 2.11 or concerning the Passeouer This is the body of Christ that is broken for you this is his blood that is shed for you The Law had but the shaddow the Gospell hath the expresse Image of good things to come In the Law they had the shadow of the Giuer and the gift but in the Gospell we see him with open face Now although to the shadow of the Prince men fall not downe nor doe reuerence they are to be excused but he must bee reputed a contemner who will not doe homage at the presence of his Prince Further as I said before the externall actions of their Sacrament could not bee commodiously performed with such a gesture as is kneeling but the action of our Sacrament may PP Next we receiue the mysticall pledges not out of the hands of God himselfe or his Sonne Christ immediately but out of the hand of the Minister The person who receiues the gift from the King is supposed to receiue it immediately and suppose mediatly yet ceremonies of Court and mediate ciuill worships are not rules of religious adoration which should euer be immediate ANS Wee kneele not to receiue the mysticall pledges but to receiue the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ which the mysticall pledges signifie and are deliuered immediately by the hand of the Lord Iesus
dispensing with his owne hand the Sacrament of his grace Here you see that Christ is the breaker the giuer the distributer of the Bread and not the Disciples And so the Pastor is now the breaker the giuer the distributer and not the people Let the judicious Reader consider whether the iudgement of this learned man doth better agree with the Institution or the opinion of the Pamphlet penner And whether the Pastor who according to the Institution breakes the bread and giues it with his owne hands to the people or they who giue the bread to the people in whole schaues to bee broken and distributed by themselues comes neerer to Christs appointment But to come to the Cup If our Sauiour in giuing of the same did imitate the custome of the Iewes which Scaliger and others wrote to haue beene this that the Master of the Feast after he had blessed the Cup did first drinke thereof himselfe and then gaue it to him who sate next so as it passed from hand to hand till all had drunken it seemes that the Disciples did deliuer the Cup one to another But there is a great difference betweene the distribution of the Cuppe and the Bread for the distribution of the Bread is not a diuiding onely of the Bread from hand to hand but a breaking is conioyned with the distributing for he that giues to his Neighbour breakes before he giues Now in this breaking we know there is a mysterie which signifies the breaking of the Lords Body which is an act as is before made euident that onely appertaines to Christ both in the veritie when he did offer himselfe on the Crosse and in the mysterie when he did represent his oblation or the breaking of his body by the breaking of the bread and therefore is such an act as ought onely to be performed by him who in the Sacrament acteth the part of Christ and represents him sacrificing himselfe In distribution of the Cuppe there is no such mysterie for the giuing of it from hand to hand signifies not the shedding of our Sauiours bloud but the taking of the Cup by the Pastor and the drinking thereof doth represent that Cup which the Father propined to his Sonne and the Sonne receiued and dranke when willingly hee suffered his bloud to bee shed on the Crosse for the remission of the sinnes of many and for confirmation of the new Testament which Cup Bloud and Testament is in the Sacrament deliuered to the People by the Pastor in Christs name commanding them to take and drinke all thereof He in whose Name this command is vttered is properly the Giuer and propiner because by his authoritie it is giuen and by the warrant of his word it is receiued When the King drinks to any of his Subiects and sends it by the hand of his seruant the seruant is not properly the giuer and propiner but the deliuerer of the gift and propine and therefore as in the Sacrament the Pastor when he takes the Cup and drinks acteth the part of Christ and represents him taking and drinking that most bitter Cuppe of his Passion and death for our sinnes so when he giues and commands the people to take and drinke all thereof he acteth the part of Christ applying his bloud and giuing the New Testament confirmed thereby to euery worthy receiuer whether the same be deliuered immediately to euery one by his owne hand or if it bee sent by the hand of the Deacon as is was in the Primitiue Church or if it be deliuered from hand to hand by the Communicants amongst themselues But without all question if the Pastor may commodiously by himselfe make the deliuery it is most agreeable to the person which hee carries in that holy action who represents our Sauiour first willingly vndergoing death for vs then most bountifully applying it to vs with his owne hand O but in the 22. of Luke verse 17. our Sauiour sayd Take this Cuppe and diuide it amongst you The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Part it amongst you Here you trouble your selfe and the Reader much with a long discourse prouing that in this place the Eucharisticke Cuppe and not the Paschall is meant Yet let it be so What then they are commanded to part it amongst them ergo to reach it from hand to hand This followes not for when euery one takes his owne part of that which is to be parted they diuide the whole amongst them although euery one deliuer not with his hand to his neighbour the thing which is to be diuided or the remanent thereof as by example When the Manna which was gathered in the Wildernesse was cast together in heapes and the families came forth and parted the same amongst them euery man taking his Homer which was his part the Families diuided the whole amongst them without reaching from hand to hand the heape which was diuided so when the Disciples were commanded to diuide the Cup amongst them if euery one did drinke no more then his owne portion did leaue the rest to his fellow the cōmand was obeyed albeit when euery one had drunken the last had set downe the Cup on the Table or had deliuered it into his hand from whom he had receiued it or if one or two had beene maymed and lacked the vse of their hands so that the Cup behoued to be holden to their heads yet if they dranke no more but their owne part with respect to their neighbour who was to drinke after them they diuided the Cup for the diuiding is not the giuing of the Cup but the parting of the wine amongst them that was in the Cup So if they did drinke with such moderation that one two or three dranke it not all but that all did drinke as our Sauiour commanded howbeit they did not deliuer it one to another but receiued it seuerally euery one from Christs owne hand as wee doe out of the hand of the Pastor they neuerthelesse diuided the same amongst them To conclude the command giuen to the Apostles importeth that Poculum beneditionis is not Poculum ebrietatis fed charitatis that is to say The Cup of blessing is not the cup of drunkennesse but the Cup of charity which should not be carowsed by one but should be parted amongst many And therefore these two phrases the one vsed by Saint LVKE Diuide it amongst you and the other by S. MATTHEVV and S. MARKE Drinke thereof all and they dranke of it all are equiualent As to the giuing and deliuering of the Cup whether it should be by the hand of the Pastor or by the mutuall deliuering of the people one to another because it is not defined by the Scripture it is indifferent and left to bee determined by the Church These grounds being sure let vs consider your syllogisme Whatsoeuer action or command is inclosed within the Institution may not lawfully be broken But that the Cōmunicants should distribute amongst themselues was both an action