the ground Let them proue to vs by Gods owne voice as here that their Images are holy and that Gods presence is in them And yet for all that will not this procure adoration to them no more then Moses adored the earth Fourthly this place if Images were holy should rather keep vs from them then make vs come to them For it is said Approach not or come not hither loose off thy shooes from thy feet for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground It s therefore rather against going to Images then to goe to worship them Adorâ—â—â—e the footstoole of his feet Vnderstood say they of the Arke 1. Chron. 28. 2. Which was worshipped of the Iewes in regard of the Images set vpon it Answ Vnderstanding this footstoole of the Arke as they say it will helpe nothing their worship of Images For first the Arke was of Gods own appointment to be made for manner matter and end Exod. 25. 9. but so bee not their Images Secondly the Arke is called his footstoole But Images are not so called neither claimeth he them for his Thirdly God promised his presence with the Arke Exod. 25. 22. But where is his promise to be with their Images Fourthly the Arke was not an Image What is this then to an Image Fiftly the Arke was in the most holy place into which none could enter but the High Priests Therefore the people could not adore it but a farre off as being in the out-Court without any sight thereof Now their Images are neere and in the peoples view and not only where the High Priest of Rome comes If they will haue Images as the Arke then let his High Priestship keepe them in his most holy Chappell for himselfe and let them be for him only as the most Holy was for the high Priest Sixtly by the Arkes being in so remote a place its cleere that the words must be translated Adore yee towards his footstoele as in 1. King 8. 44. Pray towards the holy Citie and the house which hee had chosen And then the Arke was not adored but God it being the signe of Gods presence before which they worshipped 1. Sam. 1. 19. Seuenthly if it was worshipped because of the Images vpon it then was it only worshipped in the Sanctum Sanctorum For there the Cherubims were spred ouer it and not elsewhere and then onely the High Priest adored it for he onely saw the Images ouer it And then this Text seemeth to speake not to all but to him What is this to the peoples worshipping of Images Eighthly and lastly it is vntrue to say the Iewes worshipped it because of the Images on it For first they neither did nor could euer see any Image vpon it Secondly wee reade of the Arke brought forth in their iourneyings in the wildernesse so in going ouer Iordan also into the Campe of Israel 1. Sam. 4. 5. and at other times but wee neuer read of any that did worship it But if this had beene a commandement here surely there would haue beene some example of adoring it Thirdly they were commanded to worship God Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. but no where to worship any other thing Fourthly how could it be that they worshipped the Arke because of the Images vpon it when the angels which by the Images were represented were not adored of them Would they worship the Image and not the things themselues For as Origen saith No Contr. Cels lib. 5. man adored the heauenly Angels which did submit himselfe to the Law of Moses Phil. 2. 10. At the name of Iesus c. Answ 1. Here is no Image mentioned What is this to Saints worship and their Images For this Text speakes of Iesus our Lord Sauiour Christ because we must bow downe to him the Sonne of God one person God and Man when wee doe make mention of his name Will it follow therefore that we should doe so to dead Images XXIII Proposition That the Lords Supper is to be administred to the people in one kinde onely Confuted by their owne Bible 1. IT teacheth vs that Christ instituting this his last Supper administred it in both kinds giuing a commandement to take and eate and also to drinke Mat. 26. 26 27. Luk. 20. 20. Secondly the Apostle Saint Paul repeating the institution mentioneth both the Bread and the Chalice 1. Cor. 11. 24 25. And first he tels them that this hee receiued of the Lord. Secondly that he deliuered the same vnto them verse 23. Thirdly he in verse 28. plainely prescribeth the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Chalice and that to euery one that commeth prepared and proueth himselfe saying Let him eate of that bread and drinke of that Chalice Out of which place it is euident that the drinking of the Chalice is of equall extent with the duty of prouing our selues before wee come vnto this Sacrament But the duty is generall and belongeth vnto all indifferently The drinking of the Chalice therefore may not be denied vnto any Thirdly the Church then in his dayes did receiue it in both kindes 1. Cor. 11. 26. For it is said there So often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this Chalice you shall shew the death of our Lord vntill hee come By both they shew his death And this place shews clearely that so often as they receiued they did eate the Bread and drinke the Chalice Fourthly the Apostles and Ministers of Christ did administer in both For the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which wee breake is it not the participation of the body of the Lord Here the Apostle first mentioneth both the Chalice and Bread Secondly by the word we he vnderstands himselfe and other which did blesse the Chalice and breake the Bread Thirdly he saith that by the Chalice we communicate of Christs bloud and by the bread wee participate of his bodie and not by one of them of them both Saint Paul would haue Christs bloud out of his bodie in the Against concomitancy See D. White his last booke pag. 460 466. Chalice represented and not by the bread onely both his body and bloud Fourthly Christ is perfect food wee must therefore eate him and drinke him Drinke alone preserues not life nor onely to eate but both to eate and drinke therefore Christ instituted both to be receiued If the Aduersaries say that this receiuing was of the Apostles and as they by consequent would See an answer to this there also pag. 488 489 492. inferre of Priests onely which may receiue in both kindes but not the Laitie I answer first that the Apostles receiuing the Sacrament from Christ were then and there for the whole Church They receiued alone because they were Christs family to receiue together the Passeouer Secondly the Apostles were not as yet fully ordained till Christ breathed on them after
his Resurrection Ioh. 20. 21. as some euen of Papists affirme Thirdly if because they onely were present at the institution they therefore should onely receiue in both kinds then what warrant haue they to admit any but Priests to the Lords Supper What warrant to admit women to it so much as to receiue the bread Yea why are any Lay-men admitted to the bread or to the Sacrament at all for no Lay persons did receiue with the Apostles no not Christs Mother Fourthly touching the 1. Cor. 10. 16. there is vnder the word we meant the Apostles and other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments that they blessed and brake that is consecrated and administred the Lords Supper vnto other to wit the Laitie For in verse 21. he plainly sheweth how the Corinthians did drinke of the Chalice and did partake of the Table of the Lord though they could not receiue worthily so doing if they went vnto the Idol Temples Thus are they confuted by their owne Bible Contraried by Antiquitie Ignatius in Epist 6. ad Philadelp giueth vs to vnderstand that in his time the Cup was diuided to the whole Church Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. telleth vs that it was the manner of the whole Congregation to receiue both the Bread and Wine The first Councell of Nice speaking of the holy Table mentioneth both the Bread and Cup. Theophyl on 1. Cor. 11. saith that the Cup was in like manner deliuered vnto all See more for this Athanasius 2. Apolog. Chrysostome Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. and Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian in 2. Epist ad Cornelium in Epist 63. 54. Cyril Catech. mystag 5. Augustine in Ioh. tract 27. Tertul. deresurrect Clem. Alexand. 2. pedagog cap. 2. See Doctor White his last Booke pag. 482. citing Iust Martyr Chrysost Haymo Answ to Fisher Gainesaid by themselues Gelasius the Pope decret part 3. dist 2. ca. comperimus calleth it a fond superstition to abstaine from the Cup and satih that such a diuision cannot bee done without great sacriledge Alex. Hales 4. q. Art 2. saith that whole Christ is not contained vnder each kinde by way of Sacrament but onely his flesh vnder forme of Bread and his bloud vnder the forme of Wine and that there is more power of grace in Communion in both kinds then in one q. 11. in 2. Art 4 5 3. Lorichius lib. 5. Hospinian calleth them false Catholikes which hinder reformation of this point The Church of Rome for aboue a thousand yeeres after Christ vsed both the kinds in administring this Sacrament See this at large proued by Master Perkins in his demonstratiue of the Probleme out of Papists themselues To which adde the opinion in this point of receiuing in both kinds Lyra in 1. Cor. 11. Durand in national lib. 4. also Greg. de Valentia de legit vsu Enchar cap. 10. who confesseth that the custome began not much before the Councell of Constance Caietan 3. part Thom. q. 80. Art 12. q. 3. Ouand 4. p. 221. See Doctor White pag. 497. Fisher the Iesuite acknowledgeth the Lay people in the Primitiue Church to haue frequently receiued in both kinds Scriptures obiected answered Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue him is my flesh Answ 1. This is not spoken of the Sacrament For first Christ So hold many Papists Doctor White pag 495 had not as yet instituted it Secondly he speaketh of spirituall bread then present I am the liuing Bread in the former part of the verse to which the relation is in these words here This bread to wit himselfe the liuing Bread I am the bread of life saith he verse 48. The Sacramentall bread was not as yet when thus he spake Thirdly the bread here was that which when he spake came downe from heauen verse 50. 58. But the bread which Christ administred at his last Supper neuer came from heauen Fourthly this bread whoso eateth maketh him that eateth it to liue for euer but so doth not the Sacramental bread which may be eaten by the wicked Fiftly he himselfe expoundeth what he meaneth by this Bread euen his owne flesh which he giueth for the life of the world and which he did giue vpon the Crosse But the Sacramentall bread is not his owne flesh As for that errour of transubstantiation the vanitie of it shall be confuted in the next question Sixtly if this bee spoken of the Sacrament then all that receiue it not haue no life in them verse 53. as Infants and other before they come to ripe age which they will not affirme And yet will it vndeniably follow if this be properly meant of the Sacrament II. If it were granted that Christ spake here of the Sacrament which hee would institute yet this place helpeth not our Aduersaries but rather maketh hue and cry after their the euery for presuming to rob the people of the Cup. For first in vers 53. Christ plainely saith Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you And in verse 54. he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life So he bindeth life to both and secludeth life from such as receiue not both Secondly therefore both being so necessarie it followeth that when he onely mentioneth the eating of bread there is a figure one part for both Else should the diuine Oracles of our Sauiour thwart one the other in pressing both eating and drinking affirmatiuely to the obtaining of life in receiuing both and negatiuely to losse of life in not receiuing both Thirdly Christ goeth about to declare himselfe to be sufficient food for the life of his which beleeue in him Now a man cannot liue by onely eating nor onely drinking but by both Therefore saith he My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed verse 55. He saith not that his flesh is both meate and drinke He knew that his body had flesh and bloud yet he willeth to eate and drinke Now the flesh is to be eaten and the bloud to be drunke In eating his flesh wee cannot be said to drinke his bloud For that which is to be eaten cannot bee said to bee drunken too these being two distinct and differing actions for two things If one would haue serued the vrging of two had beene needlesse Fourthly and lastly hee mentioneth Bread not to exclude Wine and eating not to exclude drinking but because hee had spoken of Manna the Israelites bread in the Wildernesse and so called himselfe Bread keeping the subiect and occasion of which hee had begun to speake So in Ioh. 4. speaking with the Woman of Samaria occasioned by the drawing of water out of the Well hee promiseth to giue her water to drinke Would any therefore hence conclude that onely water were sufficient and no need of eating bread As we cannot conclude so from the one no more can we from the
cont Pelag. cap. 25. God doth not onely helpe vs to be able to worke but worketh in vs to will and to worke and in cap. 17. he saith that God without vs doth worke in vs to will and in Epist. 107. It is God who by his secret calling worketh the minde of man to giue consent Prosper de vocat Gent. cap. 6. The turning of the heart vnto God is of God alledging the place of Ieremie 24. 7. Fulgent ad Monimum lib. 1. Both our good will and also our good workes are of God And againe this Father saith We in no wise suffer nay according to wholesome Doctrine we forbid whether in our faith or in our workes to challenge to our selues any thing as our owne S. Bernard de gra lib. arb The creating of vs to freedome of will is wrought without vs. The Arausicane Councill 2. cap. 4. determineth that if any doe maintaine that God expecteth our will that wee may be purged from sinne and doth not confesse that by the infusion and operation of the holy Ghost it is also wrought in vs to be willing to bee purged hee resists the Apostles Doctrine who saith that it is of God that worketh in vs both the will and the deed Bishop Vsher lately handling this point citeth Austin and Fulgentius Prosper Ierome and others to whose learned Tract I referre the Reader Gainesaid by their owne men Bayus de vit imp cap. 8. Free-will without Gods helpe is of power to doe nothing but sinne The Master of the Sentences lib. 2. D. 25. saith that Free-will before Grace repaire it is pressed and ouercome with concupiscence and hath weakenesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore may sinne and cannot but sinne euen damnably Cornelius Mus Concion tom 1. pag. 252. Our strength is not sufficient to bring vs backe from death wee cannot be conuerted and saued by our owne power The exciting grace which disposeth thee to thy conuersion God workes in thee without thee God so weth it in vs without vs. Alphonsus aduers haeres lib. 7. verbo gratia Our will when by Gods helpe it hath begunne to doe any good it cannot without the same speciall helpe prosecute the good begun nor perseuere in it Greg. Ariminensis 2. D. 26. pag. 95. without this speciall aide it can doe nothing Sec Bishop Vsher in his last booke citing Gelasius with a Synod of 70. Bishops at Rome the French Bishops in the second Councill at Orange Bradwardin the Archbishop of Canterbury Scriptures obiected answered 1. Cor. 7. 37. Hath power ouer his owne will c. Answ 1. This is nothing to the question in hand which is of free-will and power thereof in the first act of a sinners conuersion Secondly we grant that in such a case as this to wit to marry his Virgin or not to marry her man hath free-will that is power and right Ioh. 1. 11 12. Hee came in to his owne but his owne receiued him not but as many as receiued him c. Answ 1. In the former part is mans inabilitie to entertaine Christ they receiued him not they would not We grant mans free will to euill till God change it Secondly in the latter part it is said Many receiued him But it is not said By the power of their owne will Wee acknowledge that by Gods preuenting grace men may receiue Christ which here is to be vnderstood for they that receiued him did it by faith and are said to beleeue in him but the Apostle saith Faith is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. and not in mans power Thirdly the very next verse following in this Chapter verse 13. cuts the nerues of the power of free-will in our new-birth For saith the text We are borne of God not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man Deut. 30. 19. I haue set before thee life and death blessing and cursing therefore choose life Answ This and all other exhortations and commandements as Ios 24. 14 15. Deut. 10. 12. and 11. 16 18. Ephes 4. 22. Phil. 2. 12. and in many other places in Moses Psalmes Prophets and in the New Testament doe not conclude in man any naturall power of his owne will to chuse or refuse to obey or not to obey of his owne free will as our Aduersaries doe imagine no more then they can conclude the lame man in Act. 2. 2. so borne to bee able to rise and walke because Peter said to him Rise vp and walke verse 6. First because in none of the exhortations dehortations and commandements there is any mention of the power by which man comes to be able to performe that which hee is exhorted vnto Therefore the power is to bee gathered out of other Scriptures which is the power of Gods grace and not the power of mans freewill as all the Scriptures before alledged doe fully proue Secondly for that all those places doe no more but shew what duties man oweth to God but not what hee can doe of himselfe A Creditor demanding paiment of his Debter and exhorting him to pay doth not therefore imply necessarily that he is able to pay for he may perhaps for all that be altogether vnable to pay as wee may reade Matth. 18. 25. So these places shew what we owe and what God requireth but not that therefore we are able to pay what hee commandeth for all the Scriptures afore alledged deny it Thirdly all these commandements and exhortations are spoken to those in the Church which consists of a mixed company both of vnregenerate which are either abiects or elect of God till they be called as also of regenerate persons Now to the first sort God thus speakes shewing them what they could haue done for God commandeth nothing that hath beene is and shall bee euer impossible to man and what yet they ought to doe vpon perill of damnation but not what either they now can doe or shall hereafter be euer able to doe of themselues being dead in sinne and void of grace and God not bound to giue it them To the second sort the elect not yet borne a new by the Spirit God thus speakes to shew not onely what they could haue done once what now they ought to doe but also what by Gods preuenting grace they may bee able and shall doe For God vseth such meanes to conuert them vnto him at that time the day of their visitation being come inwardly by his Spirit and worketh their will to that which hee outwardly by word commandeth and exhorteth vnto Act. 2. 38 41. As Peters exhortation to the lame man by which God conueighed strength and power into the man to make him able to walke Act. 3. 6 7. This appeareth liuely in Ezek. 37. 7 10. To the third sort the already Regenerate who haue by Gods preuenting grace free will God thus speaketh as to them that can doe what he commandeth and exhorteth vnto He vseth threats to keepe them in