suddaine all Christianity for so it was as all learned men know all Christianity I say both in the East and the West both amongst those who hold with the Roman Church and those who stood in defiance of it eyther amongst the Grecians Georgieans Abissins Aethiopians all I say again all of them who would be called Christians every where firmely believing every where professing and confessing the reall presence of Christ in the Sacramēt ād falling on theyr knees to adore him Is it possible that in a point so hard as this is so many so differing in customes Languages Manners Educations Interests Opinions and beliefes so distant from one another in place and affections in dictamens and practices should all be found at once and no body can tell at what time first to consent most vnanimously Could so great a thing as this be done upon the persuasion of one man and done so silently that no one single writer should be found to record who that omnipotent man was or by what meanes he could possibly effect a thing so incredible all Christianity over without finding any where amongst good or badd learned or unlearned any considerable opposition This seems to me a thing so incredible that all you can say against our faith in this point is nothing so hard to believe as this alone Wherefore if this can not be so as surely it can not you must all be forced to confesse that when the faith was first preached by the Apostles and theyr successours they did not teach your doctrine concerning this Sacrament but they taught and delivered our doctrine And then you will soone understand that all the difficulties here mentioned be easy to be answered For hence you will easily vnderstand how no other beginning thē that of our first Christēdome could be found of this doctrine because such a doctrine as this is found so universally spread over all Christendome and never recorded to have been accounted new or to have had any particular author or opposer could not possibly have had any other beginning or if it had had more notice would have be taken of it But coming in with first Christianity you can not wonder to see all Christianity found embracing it And though it be a doctrine containing so many difficulties yet beeing proposed as a part of that Christian doctrine with all those powerfull motives which first moved all Christians to be Christians you can not wonder to see those who received Christianity to receive allso this Christian belief Whereas if they all had at first received the contrary belief surely at the first proposing of this known novelty some body or other in some one place of Christianity or other would have opened his mouth and sayd Wee can not adore that for God which the whole torrent of Antiquity from Christ to vs hath taught to be bread as allso our senses tells us Had it been to be adored the Apostles and those who were taught by them would have taught us so or at lest some where some body or other would have heard some newes of this doctrine before now But that which You say is too new to be true it is too cōtrary to all peoples fayth to all practice to all reason and comon sense Can any man imagin that in all Christianity there was neither grace nor witt enough to say this And certinly at that time the very saying of this must needs have quite overthrowne that new Paradox or at lest have withdrawne thousands in all natiōs frō following of it with so great facility For against a novelty so notorius and so absurd so much would have been sayd so much would have beē writtē so much would have been acted in Councells either Generall or Nationall or Provinciall that some smale mention of all this would have come to notice of Posterity as we see things of a thousand times lesser concernment have done Even by your owne bakwardness to believe Transubstantiation and by your great wondering at us for believing it and by the many and great difficulties which you still object against us you may clearly see how evidently true all that is which I have here so fully sett downe because it imports so much 3. Lett us go on now when Iohn 6. Christ sayd I am the bread of lyfe v. 48. and v. 51. The bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world The Iewes therefore strove amongst themselves saying as you Protestants say how can this man give us his flesh to eate Iesus therefore sayd unto them Amen amen I say to you unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you shall not have life in you My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed These things he sayd teaching in the Synagogue And he was so farre from declaring himselfe to speake figuratively that by all he was conceived so manifestly to meane litterally that many of his disciples and not only ill affected persons hearing sayd This saying is hard and who can believe it And all this happned though even then he tould them that the words he spoake to them were spirit and life Because as I sayd these words ought to have raysed up theyr spirits to believe this flesh of his not to be meere mans flesh but to be joyned with the divinity which was able by vertue of its omnipotency to give them his flesh to eate like bread and his bloud to drinke like wyne yet there beeing not faith enough for this high point From that time many even of his disciples went backe and walked no more with him v. 67. That you may evidently see how hard this doctrine would have sounded at first broaching of it in the Church if Christ had not delivered it seeing that at that very time when it came first even from his mouth it found so smale acceptance even amongst many of his disciples Iesus therefore sayd to the twelve will you allso depart Peter answered wee believe and know thou art the son of God And so art able by that thy divinity to which thy flesh is joyned to give vs thy flesh to eate lyke bread Now to what end had eyther this been sayd or Christ the lover of soules permitted all those many disciples to go back to theyr ruine and now to walke no more with him to what end this if he might have saved them all by declaring in a word that he only intended to give a signe or figure of his body to eate This one word would have saved both thē and would allso have saved those millions and millions which afterwards believed these words to be litterally meant as I expounded them and S. Peter seems to have vnderstood them when to make them appeare credible he sayd we believe and know thou art the Sonne of God And consequently that thou canst make good thy word which had been a very easy matter if he only spoke of giving
Ghost Yet the practice of the Church testifyed by all antiquity sufficiently teacheth the use of oyle or Holy Chrisme in this Sacrament See the Remish Testamēt upon the place of the Acts now cited There allso you shall find this memorable note That none ever but known heretiks condemned this Sacrament of Chrisme Again Act. 19.5 They were baptized and when Paul had imposed hands on them the Holy Ghost came upon them And whereas some say the Text I alleged for this Sacrament to prove only the guift of the Holy Ghost in order to speak severall languages I remitt them to S. Austin tract 6. in Ep. Io. Is there any man sayth he of so perverse a heart as to deny these Children on whom we now imposed hands to have received the Holy Ghost because they speake not with tongues Out of which words allso you may observe how anciently they then imposed hands and Confirmed Children when they were of yeares of discretion and could speake wisely though not in any tongue but theyr own This is still our practice THE XII POINT Of the Holy Eucharist 1. FIrst this Holy Sacrament under visible signes of bread and wyne signifying nourishmēt doth invisibly conteyne the Body and Blood of our Lord which nourishes up our soules with his grace to life everlasting Iohn 6. v. 48. I am the bread of life your Fathers did eate Manna in the desert and they dyed This is the bread that descendeth from heaven that if any man eate of it he dye not I am the living bread that came downe from heaven If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever Behold here the invisible grace And the bread which I will give you is my flesh the life of the world Behold the outward visible signe truly conteyning his person who gives the grace And tell mee not that it is sayd of his flesh The flesh profits nothing For it is blasphemy to say so of his flesh of which he sayth here My flesh is the life of the world A carnall grosse manner of understanding that his flesh was to this effect to be eaten in its owne kind like flesh in the shambles doth indeed put upon us a sense in which it is true that his flesh profits nothing Neither doth his flesh taken as they tooke it that is as the flesh of one who was only man profit any thing But these his words are spirit and life For they should rayse us in spirit to believe this flesh to be joyned to the divinity which is so able to give his flesh to be eaten that by realy feading upon it they may be nourished to eternall life 2. Here then secondly comes in our beliefe of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which we all professe to be his true body and consequently not to be bread but living bread as S. Iohn calls it whence followeth Transubstantiation or change of the substance of dead bread into the true Body of Christ which we all say to be as truly in the Sacrament as he is in heaven at the right hand of his Father And therefore adoration is no lesse due to him here in the Sacrament then there in heaven as reason perswades if we can shew that the selfe same body is really present in the Sacrament Lett the first proofe hereof be taken from the cleare and so often repeated words even word for word in the Ghospel of S. Matthew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.24 This is my Body this is my blood and in S. Iohn in the words now cited If I can shew that these places be not to be taken figuratively but litterally my buisines is at an end I think I can make this evident by this demonstration If these Texts be to be understood figuratively as you Protestants say then questionlesse the Apostles and theyr successors did tell the first Christians that it was so and to gether with theyr first faith they received that doctrine and they with that faith delivered it to theyr successours And thus all beleived for some time But then you must come to some other time in which some one man began first to teach that those texts are to be understood litterally as they sound and that one man taught that Christ was really present in the Sacrament and beeing so was also to be adored Now when this one man began this doctrine first for some one man must have been at first the beginner it could not but seeme new as beeing never heard before it could not but seeme suspected of falsity as beeing notoriously thē contrary to what all true believers in the world believed It could not but be manifestly accounted of all understāding men to be Idolatrous as teaching that to be adored for God which all Instructed by the Apostles and theyr successours taught to be nothingh else but bread and wyne It could not be accounted a doctrine incredible which must needs teach the great Body of a man to be wholy conteyned in a smale quantity of a litle peece of Bread And which must needs teach one and the self same Body to be really present at a thousand severall places and to be eaten there and yet to be still present here which allso must needs teach that there should not be bread and wyne where our own sences tell us there was nothing else but bread and wyne yea where as then faith it self tould them the self same This beeing so I ask this vnanswerable question How could this one man who must first begin to broach this new doctrine be able to sett it forth so plausibly that it beeing a doctrine so against all reason all sence all experience and all faith of all men at that time and allso a thing so hard to perswade men of piety and of vnderstanding for feare of open Idolatry and playne innovation in Religion So hard to perswade bad and weake vnderstanding persons who for no kinde of gaine or benefit were to be made go directly not only against theyr ancient faith but to goe flatly against theyr own vnderstanding and common sence How could I say this one man be able to perswade this strange new vnprofitable hard doctrine not to one towne only or Citty or to one country or nation only but to the whole multitude of Christians from the rising of the Sunne even to the goeing downe thereof And this so that no one is known to have either by word of mouth or writing opposed his doctrine but all to have so readely and so peaceably and so vnanimously embraced it that no kind of mention should be made in any history of the lest stop it had or of the lest contradiction made any where against it or of the lest taxing it eyther of Novelty or of strāgnes yea no mention is made in any one country though there be so many countryes in Christianity when or where or by whom this strange new doctrine was begun But behold on the
again And hence these sins are called veniall such as easily have pardon 13. Whence our Saviour himself doth distinguish severall sins and affirms some of them to deserve punishment but not hell fire Matth. 5. v. 22. Whosoever is angry for so the Protestant Bibles read it with his Brother shall be in danger of Iudgment And whosoever shall say to his Brother Raca shall be in danger of Councill And whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire Of which only eternall punishment the two former sins did not endanger us they being but veniall Hence it is evident that there be some sins which God judgeth worthy of punishment and yet not to deserve hell fire and he speaks of the punishment of the next life as of hell c. Again Matth. 12.36 I say unto you that every idle word that man shall speak he shall render an account therof in the day of Iudgment The words of lesser anger deserved not hell fire as the former Text taught us yet they being worse then meer idle words some punishment is due to them For here this Text sayth some account must be rendred even for every idle word But a lesser account then for angry words and therefore they will not alone make us liable to hell fire Again Matth. 7.3 some sins be called Beams some only Mothes which name Christ hating deadly sin to death would never give to any sin that were damnable Neither would he if these lesser sins were damnable speak of them as he doth Matth. 23. v. 24. You tithe Mint and Anise c blinde guides that strain a gnat and swallow a Camel Behold some sins only like gnats and the doing of them compared to the fault that would be in omitting te pay Tythe for Mint and Anise Yet because all veniall sins do something pollute the soule this stain must be purged or cleansed Often this is not done in this world for we see dayly men continew in doing these sins to the last loosing all sense and life allso before they repent them some account then in Iudgment following after death immediately will be given of them Not in Hell for they deserve it not therefore in Purgatory 14. Agreable to this is that which our Saviour sayth Luke 12.47 That servant who knoweth the will of his Lord and doth not according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knoweth it not and doth things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes Hence it is evident that there be some men who do things worthy of stripes which they shall not escape but yet they shall be beaten with few stripes But if these stripes be to be laid on for all eternity as all stripes be which are paid in Hell they will not be few because being everlasting the number of them will be without number will then any one call these stripes few Or can any man perswade himself that a God who is all mercy will in this unmercifull manner punish the speaking of one idle word Yet Christ himself sayth that we shall be accountable for every idle word we speak Matth. 12. Wherefore we must be lyable to some punishment for every idle word so that if a man of full age converted from Idolatry be baptized and by and by after killed before he commit any other sin then the speaking of one idle word only shall this man be tormented for ever and ever so long as God shall be God And shall the Father of mercies give this unmercifull sentence Doubtlesse if any man can do a thing worthy of stripes and for doing it deserve only to be beaten with few stripes this man may hope for this mercy But for greater then this he cannot hope seeing that Christ sayth that some account is to be given for that idle word Some punishment therefore he must suffer but not eternall and consequently not in Hell but in Purgatory For he must be beaten with few stripes not with masny or everlasting stripes If this principle so well grounded in Scripture be true then it cannot but be true that there is a Purgatory 15. The third principle clearly allso contained in Scripture is that prayer may profitably be made for the dead This is proved as well out of the old as new Testament In the old Testament 2. Mach. 12. where after diverse of the souldiers of Iudas Machabeus had been slain in the Battle v. 43. He making a gathering sent twelve thousand drachmes of silver to Hierusalem to have Sacrifice offered for the sins of the dead well and religiously thinking of the resurrection For unlesse he hoped that they who were slain should rise again it should seem superfluous and vain to pray for the dead It is therefore a holy and healthfull cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from theyr sins Your English Bibles so mangle the sense here that I would not follow them I know Protestants will say these Books be not Canonicall though in the third Councel of Carthage Can. 47. They be registred in the Canon Yet not to dispute this matter I take that which is granted without all dispute that is that these Books be writen by a true and faithfull writer of the ancient Church History or else why do you place them in the Bible And without dispute allso they were written before our Saviours time So that by the most grave testimony of so antient a writer of Ecclesiasticall History we have first that Iudas Machabeus who then was High Priest and allso chief commander of the Iewes Gods only true people did hold prayer for the dead to be laudable Secondly that this was not his private opinion but a thing done confirmably to the custome of the Iewish Church which to this very day uses prayer for the dead Thirdly all the souldiers being men who had devoted theyr lives for the defence of the true belief concurred by contributing to this act of Piety That Sacrifice might be offered for the dead Fourthly the Priests of Hierusalem who best knew theyr Churches custome in Sacrifices for the dead which were the same that for sin are never sayd to have scrupulized at the matter Fifthly this most ancient Historian recommends this custome as holy All these things not being singular in those men alone and happening not full two hundred yeares before Christ and still lasting to this day among the Iewes there could not but be many who practised this so commō a thing in his and his Apostles times And yet you never read the least reprehension given them for it 16. Out of the new Testament we have two places First S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.29 What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise att all to what end are they baptized for them As if he would say to what end do men do pennance for the dead To what end is this done if there be no resurrection and
well how much this great humility of his had advanced him yet higher 8. Theyr second objection is that of S. Paul Col. 2.18 Let no man beguile you in worshiping of Angels To answer this objection note that the former passage of S Iohn happened to him when he was in banishment in the Iland called Patmos Apoc 1. Whence it is manifest that S. Iohn in his Apocalips now cited used both these two severall adorations twice worshiping the Angel long after S. Paul had written these words forbidding the worship of Angels which words S Iohn understood either much better or at lest full as well as our Protestants understand them And therefore he knew very well that in adoring or worshiping the Angel two severall times he in neither of these times was seduced in the worship of Angels Wee therefore may adore Angels a S Iohn did and yet not be beguiled in this worship of Angels as S. Iohn was not Those then are rather seduced by willfull mistake of what this worship of Angels is who to make us guilty of it define it to be such a worship as must make S. Iohn as guilty as they would make us Therefore this Text is fondly alledged against us for holding only and maintaining such worship of Angels as S Iohn used twice and that long after he knew what S. Paul had written This then serves our turne that in what sense soever S. Paul is to be understood he cannot be understood in a sense forbidding any thing contrary to that which S. Iohn did and which wee with him do practise The truth is S. Paul speaks only of such Religious worship of Angels as had been taught among the Iewes by Simon Magus who would have Sacrifice offered to all Angels as well evill as good Epiph. heresi 25. Chrysostom Hom. 7. in hunc locum And this is that which is condemned in the Councel of Loadicia c. 35. 9. There is another very pertinent exposition of this Text in Tertul. l. 5. contra Marcionem That is that the Apostle laboreth in that place to prove that the new Christiās should not keep the old Iudaicall Law and for this end he sayth let no man beguile you in the worship of Angels by saying that wee owe so much respect to the Angels that although Christ hath abolished the old Law yet because that old Law was given them by the Ministery of Angels Act. 7.53 it ought still to be kept out of respect to the Angels by whose Ministery it was given Again some then taught that this as a heavenly verity had been revealed by some of the Angels But the Angels revealers of such doctrine being Angels of darknes S. Paul calleth the Iudaicall observation of meats maintained by these Christians out of this principle the doctrine of devils 1. Tim. 4.1 Such allso is the worship of Angels given them by such observances And it is to be noted that immediately before these words he expresly spook against the Iudaicall observation of meats saying let no man judge you in meat v. 16. Of which Text see more Point 45 n. 5. 6. THE XXXVII POINT The Angels and Saints can hear our Prayers 1. PRotestants undertaking to reforme all our pretended errors out of Scripture can with no ground pretend to reforme our error in believing Saints to hear us unles they can shew some cleer Text to prove that Saints cannot hear us It is enough for us to go on still believing what wee ever believed unles they can shew us Scripture to the contrary They produce but one poor Text falling farre short of any cleer proofe It is Isa 63. v. 16. Thou art our father though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israël acknowledge us not Thou ô Lord art our father our Redeemer I answer that the Iewes considering how enormiously they had continually swarved from the life example and instruction of Abraham and Iacob did with great reason feare that they would not look upon them as theyr Children as that word acknowledge doth expresse Wherefore knowing Gods mercy to be infinitely greater then that of the greatest Saints they hoped that he still would looke upon them They did not say Abraham and Iacob knew not theyr state or condition but they conceived that they for theyr sinns well known to them had all reason not to owne them as Children and to say wee know you not as Christ shall say one day to the reprobate 2. Again though wee should graunt that Abraham and Iacob did not know the state of the Iewes then when Abraham and Iacob were still in Limbo Patrum it doth not follow that the Saints now present with God enlightned with the light of beatificall glory cannot by vertue of that light know all that passeth on earth as farre at lest as any thing maketh to theyr felicity For it is a part of hapines to know how things passe with our deerly beloved friends especially when wee are in a condition to helpe them easily as the Saints are Yet is allso false that Abraham even in Limbo knew not what passed among the Iewes after his death For he could tell Dives that his five Brethren had Moyses and the Prophets Luke 16. v. 28. though Moyses and the Prophets lived long after his death See n. 4. 3. As our adversaries have but this one poor proofe out of Scripture against us so wee have many for us Iacob calls upon an Angel to blesse his Children No man would call upon one who could not hear The Text is Gen. 48 v. 16. I shall speak largely of it in the next Point n. 2. Again 1. Sam. 28. The witch whom Saul consulted calling by her charmes upō the divel instantly was heard by him for presently she did that which without helpe of some ill spirit could not be done Shall devells hear witches presently and shall saints want power to hear their suppliants See what I here say n. 7. Raphel one of the seaven which assist before our Lord Tob. 12.15 Although he be there assisting yet he truly told Toby v. 12. When thou didst pray with tears and didst bury the dead by night I offered thy prayer to our Lord. If this be not Canonical Scripture yet at lest it is a most ancient Ecclesiasticall History and of such credit that SS Cyprian Ambr. Austin Hierom Gregory the 3. Councel of Carthage and many more held it Scripture ād consequently they thought it as true as Scripture that Saints could hear our prayers And you must bring something more then your owne imagination to discredit it on this account Eliphaz in Iob c. 5.1 spoak thus to him call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne This sheweth the common practise of invocating Angels in that time for as then no Saints but Angels were in heaven Whence the Septuagint whom you use to extoll do here interpret the Saints to be the Holy Angels David supposed the Angels to hear him