Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	flesh_n	receive_v	3,631	5	5.7176	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is is to euery one that is partaker therof vnto life and to none vnto destruction And so is the flesh here spoken of ● Christ crucified which is meat not for the body but for the soule to be eaten not with the teeth but with the heart by a liuely faith both in the Eucharist and without it PHIL. Fourthly the Paschall Lambe could not be eaten sauing onely of the circumcised and cleane and in Ierusalem so the Eucharist cannot bee receiued but onely of the baptised and cleane and in the Church sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum vt in cruce immolatum fide manducare i. But others also may and ought to eat Christ by faith as he is offered vpon the Crosse. ORTHOD. Can the vncleane eate Christ by faith This is contrary to the Scripture which teacheth That God by faith doeth purifie the heart Againe No vncleane thing shall enter the kingdome of Heauen but euery beleeuer shall haue life euerlasting therefore no sound beleeuer is to be reputed vncleane PHIL. Faith goeth before both Baptisme and Iustification therefore a man may haue faith before he be cleane ORTHOD. Faith goeth before iustification onely in the order of nature and not in the order of time but it may goe before Baptisme euen in order of time as the Eunuch beleeued before he was Baptized But wheresoeuer it is found or whensoeuer it purifieth the heart and maketh the party cleane Wherefore notwithstanding all these friuolous obiections it is most sure and certaine that the Paschall Lambe was most expresly a Type of Christs Passion PHIL. Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also ORTHOD. Because they were both representations of Christ therefore there is great similitude and correspondencie betweene them And because the Passeouer gaue place to the Eucharist therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist But what then Must it therefore follow that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist God commaunded not onely that the Paschall Lambe should be slaine and immolated but also that it should be eaten Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled vpon the Crosse where Christ our Passeouer was sacrificed for vs and not in the Eucharist The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spirituall eating of Christ both in the Sacrament and without CHAP. IIII. Of their Argument drawen from certaine places of the Prophets PHIL. I Wil proue it by other testimonies of the Old Testament And first by the Prophecie of that man of God that came to Eli I will stirre mee vp a faithfull Priest that shall doe according to my heart and according to my minde and hee shall walke before mine Anointed for euer ORTHOD. This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock in Samuel who succeeded Eli in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar who was of the race of Eli For Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest vnto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo PHIL. S. Austine answereth to this obiection that this Prophecie was fulfilled in Samuel or Sadock insomuch as they did cary the figure of Christian Priests And so the casting out of Eli was a figure of the casting out of the Aaronicall Priesthood and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priesthood Which he proueth because the Scripture when it saith that Eli was to bee cast out with his fathers speaketh plainely of Aaron For it nameth him who was appointed of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt ORTHOD. Suppose all this were granted what can you conclude if the Lord promised that he will raise himselfe vp a faithfull Priest and thereby signified a Christian Priest doeth it therefore follow that he speaketh of a Popish Priest PHIL. That the Lord meant a Priest properly may appeare by the Prophet Esay who prophecying of the time of the New Testament saith In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the middest of the land of Egypt And againe The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and doe Sacrifice and oblation And againe Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord and men shall say vnto you the Ministers of our God ORTHOD. These may be expounded by other places of the same Prophet They shall bring all your brethren for an offering vnto the Lord Where it is cleare that the Prophet speaketh of Spirituall offerings which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel As S. Paul doeth testifie That the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God being sanctified by the holy Chost Which conuersion of the Gentiles the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Leuiticall sacrifices All the sheepe of Kedar shall be gathered vnto thee the Rammes of Nebaioth shall serue thee they shall come vp to bee accepted vpon mine Altar and I will beautifie the house of my Glory Likewise the Prophet Dauid Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of Righteousnes euen the burnt offering and Oblation then shall they offer calues vpon thine Altar Where by calues he vnderstandeth the calues of the lips that is the sacrifice of Prayer and Thankesgiuing The burnt offering also is to be expounded in the like maner and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousnes And a little before he said The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit And as our Spirituall sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Leuitical so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Leuites I will take of them for Priests and Leuits saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly for then the word Leuite should likewise be taken properly but I hope you will not say that your Masse-priests are properly of the tribe of Leui. By these plaine places we may expound the former by you alleadged PHIL. NAy they are Priests properly in regard of an externall sacrifice properly so called which they offer properly as is euident by the Prophet Malachie From the rising vp of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shal be offered vp to my Name and a pure offering for my Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts ORTHOD. The Priests here spoken of are called the sonnes of Leui are your Masse-priests properly the sonnes of Leui PHIL. Of Leui No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion ORTHOD. Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion PHIL. Not so for here is mention of their offering which is called A pure offering ORTHOD. That is to be expounded of Spirituall offerings in the iudgement of the Fathers Irenaeus saith In

ORTHOD. Heresie and schisme saith Thomas Aquinas are distinguished according to those things whereto each of them is opposed properly and directly Now Heresie is opposed properly vnto faith but Schisme is opposed properly to the vnitie of Ecclesiasticall loue Which is agreeable to S. Hierome saying Betweene Schisme and Heresie this I take to be the difference That Heresie hath alwayes a peruerse opinion but Schisme maketh a separation from the Church Out of which words saith Nauarrus We may gather That Schisme taken generally is a sinne whereby one separateth himselfe from due vnitie but taken specially it is a sin whereby he is separated from the vnitie of the Church But what is this to the Pope PHIL. Schismaticks are therefore no members of the Church because they are diuided and rent from the visible head That is the Pope For no man can be vnder Christ and communicate with the Church Coelestiall who is not vnder the Pope and doeth not communicate with the Church Militant Which doth plainely appeare by the decree of Pope Boniface Porro subesse Romano Pōtifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dic●mus definimus pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis That is Furthermore we declare say define and pronounce That to be vnder the Bishop of Rome is to euery humane creature altogether of the necessitie of saluation ORTHOD. What say you then to Athanasius who was persecuted for the Catholicke faith Pope Liberius consenting and subscribing to the Synodal sentence whereby he was excluded from the communion of the Church as witnesseth Binius saying To the wicked profession whereof that is of the Sirmian Councell he that is Liberius subscribed by violence and feare And againe Liberius Bishop of Rome prouoked by violence and threates as Athanasius Hilarie and Hierome doe testifie subscribed to this first forme of faith of the Sirmian Councell condemned Athanasius communicated with the Arrians and signifying the same by letters written to Valens and others hee intreated to be freed from exile and to be restored to his See Yea Liberius himselfe in his Epistle to the Easterne Churches confesseth so much saying So soone as I knew when it pleased God that you had iustly condemned him that is Athanasius I presently yeelded my consent to your iudgement and gaue Letters to be caried to the Emperour Constantius by our brother Fortunatianus of his name That is concerning the condemning of him therefore Athanasius being remoued concerning whom the Decrees of you all are to be receiued of me with the See Apostolicke I say that I haue peace and vnitie with all you with all the Easterne Bishops or through all Prouinces This Epistle is extant in the Vatican Library and acknowledged for true and proper by Binius who thereupon taketh vp a lamentation That Liberius the Romane Samson deceiued by enuie and vaine glory as it were by Dalila was conquered and lost his golden locks Thus it appeareth that this renowned Patriarch this stout Champion of Iesus Christ this pillar of the Church this hammer of Hereticks was diuided from the communion of the Pope and yet hee was not separated from the blessed communion of Iesus Christ For when the whole world was against him he against the whole world defended the cause of Christ and the Lord gaue him victory Shall now this glorious Athanasius be reputed a Schismaticke I hope you wil not dare to say so If he be not then one may be separated from the communion of the Bishop of Rome and yet bee no Schismaticke PHIL. Schisme as Cardinall Tollet defineth it is a rebellious separation from the head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ which possibly cannot agree to Athanasius ORTHOD. Do not you thinke that this was rebellious The Emperour Constantius affirmed that the whole world had iudged that Athanasius should be separated from the communion of the Church which was done in the Councell at Millan and also at Smirnium the Pope himselfe subscribing thereun●o Yet Athanasius stood out stiffely he did not relent but chose rather to remaine excommunicate then to submit and conforme himselfe to your holy father the Pope Now what say you will you accuse him or excuse him Accuse him you cannot because if he should haue yeelded he had rebelled against God and denied the Diuinitie of Christ And if you excuse him then you are forced to confesse That not euery separation from the Bishop of Rome is a Schisme but such onely as separateth from the Church of God and from Christ. Hitherto of Schisme in generall NOw in particular The separation of King Henry was so farre from Schisme that I will proue it lawfull by Bellarmine himselfe who saith As it is lawfull to resist the Pope inuading the body so it is lawfull to resist him inuading the soules or troubling the commonwealth and much more if hee goe about to destroy the Church So there are foure cases wherein Bellarmine holdeth it lawful to resist the Pope Wherefore if King Henries case were any of these foure his resistance was lawfull To passe ouer the first and the last it shal be sufficient if we ponder the other two touching the inuading of the soule and the troubling of the Commonwealth While the King was yet in his nonage hee was dispensed with all by the Pope against the eternall Commandement of God to marry his brothers wife and afterward being informed of the vnlawfullnesse thereof hee intreated the Pope either to iustifie his dispensation by the word of God or to dissolue the marriage yet hee would doe neither but left him long in anguish of minde and perplexitie of conscience and at last gaue finall sentence to binde him to liue in a marriage condemned by his owne Cardinals his owne vniuersities yea and by his owne former Bull wherein hee had pronounced That the King could not continue in it without sin Let any indifferent man iudge whether this were not to inuade the soules of men Now let vs see whether hee did trouble the Commonwealth By meanes of this dispensation the mindes of men were greatly distracted some holding with the Pope others embracing the iudgements of learned men through the famous vniuersities of Christendome Thus the whole world stood in suspence and the inheritance and succession of the Crowne was commonly called in question both by subiects and strangers Was not this euidently notoriously to trouble the Commonwealth So according to Bellarmines positions it was lawfull for K. Henry and his subiects to resist the Pope and therefore this resistance was not schismaticall PHIL. You must consider the manner of resistance set downe by Bellarmine Licet inquam ei resistere non faciendo quod iubet impediendo ne exequatur voluntatem suam non tamen licet eum iudicare vel punire vel deponere quod non est nisi superioris that is It is lawfull I say to resist

Catholicke and the followers hereticall We acquit the Masters and condemne the Schollers they are heires of heauen which haue written those bookes the defendours whereof are troden downe to the pit of hell But now the Church hath long agoe with one voice condemned this Heresie When Praetextatus and Felicianus hauing baptised sundry in schisme returned to vnitie the Church did not rebaptise them whom they had baptised but kept them in that baptisme which they had in Schisme For according to Saint Austin some doe minister baptismum legitimum and that legitimè some neither legitimè nor yet legitimum some legitimum but not legitimè Such as performe it in the true element and forme of wordes being themselues in the bosome and vnitie of the Church doe minister both legitimum and legitimè such as faile in the institution and are themselues in Schisme or Heresie doe neither minister legitimè nor yet legitimum such as doe obserue the substance of institution being themselues in Schisme or Heresie doe minister legitimum but not legitimè And those which receiue it from them haue a lawfull baptisme but not lawfully For it is one thing to haue a lawfull thing vnlawfully and another thing not to haue it at all The Sacraments of the Church may be found without the Church as the riuers of Paradise are found without Paradise Heretickes and Schismatickes may haue rem columbae though they themselues be extra columbam PHIL. The trueth of this Doctrine is so plaine that no common Catholick is ignorant of it ORTH. Then to proceede what if the Priest wee speake of were interdicted suspended excommunicated degraded PHIL. Yet if hee obserue in all points of substance the institution of Christ it is effectuall and neuer to bee repeated This is vndoubtedly the iudgement of our Church And therefore in Queene Maries time though the land had beene interdicted and vnder the Popes curse for Schisme and Heresie by the space of twentie yeeres wee did not rebaptise them who were then baptised but haue kept them with vs in their former baptisme ORTH. COncerning baptisme we agree Now to come to the eucharist shall the vngodly life or wicked opinion of the Minister make his ministration of it vneffectuall to the people of God PHIL. In no case so he obserue the ordinance of Christ. ORTHOD. You answere rightly For the sonnes of Eli were wicked men and procured Gods heauie wrath against themselues yet there is no doubt but the God of all Grace did accept of those Sacrifices which his faithfull children with an honest heart presented according to the Law of the Lord to be offered euen by their hands so long as they inioyed the Office of Priesthood Our Sauiour in the Gospel reproued the Scribes and Pharisees for their false and superstitious doctrine which was so commonly receiued and so anciently continued that there can be no question but many of the Priests were infected with it Yet Christ commanded the Leper to shew himselfe to the Priest Yea he himselfe frequented the Feasts wherein Sacrifices were offered by those Priests But to goe forward Can the Eucharist be ministred by a Priest whom the Pope hath excommunicated and degraded PHIL. Though all Priests haue the power of Order vnder the Pope yet for as much as they haue it not immediatly from the Pope but from God therefore the Pope cannot so take it away but that if they will they may vse it For a Priest though the Pope should Excōmunicate suspend interdict degrade him yet if he will himselfe he shall truely Consecrate For euery Priest hath an indeleble Character which is a certaine spirituall and supernaturall power imprinted in the soule of man in Baptisme Confirmation and holy Orders whereby the Baptized Confirmed and Ordered are inabled to giue or receiue the Offices of certaine Sacraments The Character of Confirmation being not greatly to our present purpose may bee passed ouer The Character of Baptisme is a passiue power whereby the Baptized is made ●it to receiue other Sacraments whereof without Baptisme he were vncapable The Character of Order is an actiue power to minister the Sacraments vnto other Now in holy Orders it must be obserued That the Priestly Character doeth differ from the Episcopall For the Episcopall is either an other or the same extended so that it conteineth the Priestly and somewhat else A Priest in respect of his Priestly Character is first of all the publicke and ordinary Minister of Baptisme For a Lay-man may not Baptise publickely but onely priuately Neither priuately in the presence of the Priest or Deacon but onely in their absence Neither alwayes in their absence but onely in case of necessitie for then a Lay-man be he Iew or infidel may Baptize so hee intend to doe that which the Catholicke Church doeth in that kinde of Administration A Deacon may Baptise not onely priuately but publickely so it be at the appointment of the Bishop or Priest But a Priest may suo iure Baptize ex Officio euen in the presence of a Bishop as is declared by Pius Quintus and the Councell of Trent who qualifie the contrary opinion and reduce it to a tollerable sence Secondly a Priest by vertue of his Priestly Character may consecrate the Hoaste which no Lay-man King nor Emperour no Angel nor Archangel can performe because they want this Character Indeed a Deacon may helpe to minister the Eucharist but he cannot Consecrate no not by dispensation If he should take it vpon him he should effect nothing But euery Priest receiueth in his Ordination a Character not from man but from the Eternall God which in respect of the Eucharist is absolute perfect and independent Wheresoeuer it is there God is present ex pacto and cōcurreth to the producing of supernaturall effects which he doeth not where this Character is wanting Now the holy Councels of Florence and Trent do teach vs That this Character is indeleble death onely if death can dissolue it otherwise it is euerlasting ORTHOD. If by indeleble Character bee meant onely a gracious gift neuer to be reirerated then we may safely confesse that in Baptisme and holy Orders there is imprinted an indeleble Character For a man rightly Baptized becomming a Turke or a Iew and afterward returning to the faith and Church of Christ is in no case to be rebaptized the vertue of his former Baptisme is not spunged out but still remaineth auaileable Likewise when a Priest lawfully ordained becoming a schismaticke or hereticke is iustly censured for his crimes and afterward is reclaimed if the Church shall need his labours and hold it conuenient that he execute the Ministeriall function hee may in no case be reordained but may performe it by vertue of his Orders formerly receiued Hitherto of a Priest NOw to transferre our speech to a Bishop Shall his iniquitie hinder him from giuing Orders PHIL. No verily for there is the

his wordes should bee taken properly but to expresse the similitude most emphatically Euen so our Lord Iesus willing to expresse in how liuely manner the Bread and Wine doe represent his Body and Blood doth not say that they signifie his Body and Blood or that they are signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood but speaking most significantly hee saith this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood Another reason is because our sweete Sauiour would seale all his comfortable blessings vnto the soule of the worthie receiuer as if a King bestowing a Castle vpon one of his subiects and reaching vnto him the sealed writing containing the graunt should say vnto him behold here take what I giue thee it is such a Castle For though hee might haue said this writing doth signifie the gift of such a Castle yet it is more significant and more comfortable to say it is such a Castle For so the king doth cheere vp his heart and by that writing doth put him into actuall possession of the Castle Euen so our Lord Iesus though he might haue said this is a sacrament of my body yet to giue vs more cordiall comfort he saith this is my body assuring vs thereby that in giuing vs that Bread hee giueth vs himselfe and putteth vs in actuall possession of his graces and blessings purchased vnto vs by his body and blood PHIL. Suppose we should grant that the pronoune this did signifie the bread what could you conclude ORTHOD. Bellarmine may teach you who declareth out of the writings of Luther that the words of the Euangelist this is my body according to Luther do cary this sence this bread is my body Which sentence saith Bellarmine must eyther be taken tropically that the bread may be the body of Christ by way of signification or it is plainely absurde and impossible For it cannot be that bread should be the body of Christ properly wherefore the schollers of Luther had rather runne backe to a trope then admit a manifest absurditie Here is a cleere confession that if by this be meant this bread then the proposition must needs be taken tropically that is as we take it or otherwise it is absurde and impossible But it were blasphemy to say that Christ spake absurdities and impossibilities therfore if the pronoune this doe demonstrate the bread the proposition must needes carry that sence which we make of it and then the Protestants haue gotten the victory by the confession of your most learned Cardinall For great is the trueth and preuaileth So your carnall presence and consequently both your sacrifice and Priesthood doe fall to the ground ANd if for disputations sake wee should faine though indeed it bee a meere fiction that the body of Christ were corporally and carnally in the Sacrament yet for all this you are neuer able to proue your Sacrifice vpon which your Priesthood dependeth because the Scripture acknowledgeth no other then that vpon the Crosse. For neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood which the Scripture elsewhere calleth the blood of the Crosse entred he in once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for vs. Hee is entred into the very heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs Not that he should offer himselfe often as the high Priest entred into the holy place euery yeare with other blood for then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the Sacrifice of himselfe And as it is appointed vnto men that they shall once die and after that commeth the iudgement so Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many and vnto them that looke for him shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation This man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God and from henceforth tarieth till his enemies be made his footestoole For with one offering hath he Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified If Christ haue shed offered and sacrificed his blood not often but once and that vpon the Crosse then can it not bee really shed offered and sacrificed in the Eucharist If by one oblation he hath obtained an eternall redemption put away sinne and Consecrated for euer those that are sanctified then your sacrificing of him is vaine and vnprofitable contrary to the Scripture and iniurious to the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ. PHIL. He was sacrificed once and not often in that manner as he was vpon the Crosse yet hee was sacrificed in the Eucharist also as I will prooue both by the words of Christ and by his actions First by his wordes for hee said this is my body which is giuen for you or as it is in Saint Paul which is broken for you And againe this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you Is shed is broken is giuen not to you but to God for you Doe not these words argue a reall actuall and proper sacrifice ORTHOD. They argue a sacrifice to God not in the Supper but on the Crosse. PHIL. You must consider that it is not said which shall bee giuen shall bee broken shall be shed but which is giuen is broken is shed which argues that the place is not to be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse that was to come but of a sacrifice in the Eucharist which was present ORTHOD. The present tense is vsed for the future funditur for fundetur for proofe wherof I wil produce two witnesses which with you are most authentical the vulgar translation and the Canon of the Masse in both which it is not funditur is shed but fundetur shall be shed Whereby you may learne that the present tense vsed in the Greeke is to be expounded by the future vsed in the Latin and consequently it is to bee vnderstood of the sacrifice of the Crosse which was to come PHIL. Both are true and neither of the readings ought to be denyed and especially that of the present tense because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense ORTHOD. Ex ore tuo serue nequam Is funditur in the present tense lesse to be denyed because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense is it so indeede albeit the Canon of the Masse and your vulgar translation which may not be reiected vnder any pretence haue fundetur in the future tense then it seemeth that the blessed originalls are to be preferred before a translation whatsoeuer the Counsell of Trent haue said to the contrary O the force of trueth which breaketh out like lightning and shineth in darkenesse though the darkenes comprehendeth it not but this by the way Now for the present point though the vulgar hath not expressed the letter of the text yet it hath

offered in himselfe and he is daily offered in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is a memoriall made of that which was done once PHIL. ONely a memoriall Nay I will prooue that there is truely and properly a sacrifice for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and reall sacrifice cōsisteth First of common it must be made holy Secondly being made holy it must be offered to God Thirdly That which is offered must be ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction ORTHOD. Then let vs consider whether these three things bee found in the Eucharist and first it is euident that Bread and Wine of common are made holy euen the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice then earthly elements are offered for the redemption of the Church which once to imagine were horrible impiety PHIL. That which of common is so made holy that it remaineth and that onely without doubt is properly sacrificed but the substance of the Bread and Wine doe not remaine and therefore they are not the sacrifice ORTHOD. That they doe remaine hath beene alreadie proued and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy that it remaineth then a piece of bread shal be the sacrifice for the sinnes of the world But if we should faigne that the substance of the elements were taken away and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally vnder the formes of Bread and Wine yet you could not proue your sacrifice for where doe you find the second point that is oblation PHIL. Deo offertur dum in altari dei collocatur Nam victimam in altari ponere est reipsa illam deo offerre quia vi consecrationis fit vt corpus Christi sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare mediante manu Sacerdotis ideo verbis consecrationis vera solennis oblatio celebratur that is It is offered to God while it is placed vpon the Altar of God For to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar is in very deed to offer it vnto God and because it commeth to passe by the force of Consecration that the bodie and blood of Christ beginne to bee reallie vpon the Altar by the meanes of the Priests hand therefore a true and solemne oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration ORTHOD. First if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ beginne to bee really vpon the Altar then it is by meanes of the Priests tongue and not of the Priests hand Secondly it is one thing to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar and an other thing really to offer it as may appeare by the wordes of the Scripture And when they came to the place which God had shewed him Abraham builded an Altar there and couched the wood and bound Izhak his sonne and laied him on the Altar vpon the wood Here the sacrifice was really laide vpon the Altar but it cannot bee said that hee was really sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering but onely in Abrahams intention and Gods acceptation Thirdly if the sacrifice bee the body and blood then seeing by your owne doctrine the bodie and bloud are not vpon the Altar til the words of Consecration be finished it followeth that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished and consequently there is no oblation of the sacrifice begunne before the Consecration bee finished Now if the oblation beginne after the Consecration is ended then is it not celebrated by the wordes of Consecration vnlesse you will say that an oblation may bee celebrated before it bee and that a thing is ended before it beginne But let vs faigne that the body and blood of Christ were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration yet you cannot thence conclude a sacrifice For you required a third condition in a sacrifice that is the destruction of the thing sacrificed PHIL. The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction which is necessary to the beeing of a Sacrifice For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice bee plainely destroied that is So changed that it ceaseth to bee that which it was before ORTHOD. How were the sacrifices to be destroied PHIL. If they bee liuing things by killing if without life and solid as meale salt and frankincense they were to be destroied by burning if liquid as blood wine and water they were to be destroied by effusion or pouring out ORTHOD. Then it will follow from your owne positions that if Christ bee aliue in the Eucharist either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him or else he killeth him before hee sacrifice him and consequently either there are no sacrifising Priests in the New Testament except Christ onely or if there bee any they are all murtherers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist and yet not aliue how can this bee Is not Christ in the Eucharist now as hee was at the first institution When Christ said this is my bodie his bodie was then aliue and now also is liuing in Heauen PHIL. The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Councell of Trent that not onely the Body and blood but also the soule and diuinity yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist but it is certaine that the soule and diuinity are not in the Eucharist by vertue of the Consecration but onely by naturall concomitance because where the one is there the other must needs be vnited with it ORTHOD. If the soule bee vnited with it then it is aliue and then it is either no Sacrifice or else the former absurdities follow and if the bodie should bee without life in the Eucharist then according to your positions seeing it is a thing solid it cannot bee a Sacrifice vnlesse it bee plainelie destroied by burning if it bee capable of burning or destroying it is not corporallie the bodie of Christ For the holie one shall not see corruption and if it bee not destroyed then you confesse that it is no Sacrifice so euery way you are intangled But seeing you hold this to bee a Sacrifice and that euery Sacrifice must be consumed therefore you must tell vs how this is consumed PHIL. It is consumed and destroied by eating ORTHOD. The people doe eate it as well as the Priests shall they also be sacrificers PHIL. As it is performed by the people it is no part of the Sacrifice but as it is performed by the Priest it is an essentiall part ORTHOD. Doe your Priestes eate Christ properly or improperlie if improperlie then how is the sacrifice consumed For if it bee consumed onely by eating and you doe not eate it but improperly then it is not consumed but onely improperly and seeing you hold this consuming to bee of

Christs breathing For as in the second of the Acts hee gaue the Spirit in the forme of tongues Because then hee gaue them the gift of preaching so here he gaue it by breathing because hee gaue them the gift of forgiuing of sinnes not by preaching as you dreame but plainely by quenching and dissoluing them For as the winde doth quench the fire and scater the clouds so the absolution of the Priest doth scatter sinnes and maketh them to vanish according to which Metaphor we read in Esay I haue blotted out thy sinnes as a cloud ORTHOD. Christ did breath to signifie that this heauenly gift proceeded from himselfe and therefore our Bishops when they vtter these words doe not breath because they are not Authors of this spiritual power but only Gods delegates and assignes to giue men possession of his graces Moreouer Christ by breathing did signifie that none was fit for this heauenly function but such as he enabled with his spirit and also that this holy spirit should assist his ministers in the dispelling of sins Neither is the place of Esay for your purpose when the sky is darkned with clouds and mists the Lord sendeth a wind out of his treasure house whereby they are scattered the skie cleared and the golden beames of the sunne restored euen so when the poore soule and conscience is ouercast with clouds of sin and mists of sorrow God by his holy spirit concurring with his blessed word bringeth men to faith and repentance and so forgiueth their sins that he will neuer remember them any more But what is this to your Popish absolution PHIL. THe sixth argument is drawne from the authority of the Fathers and first of Chrysostome out of whose third booke of Priesthood our learned Cardinall produceth sixe places the first where it is said that God hath giuen such power to those that are in earth as it was not his will to giue either to Angels or Archangels for it was not said vnto them what soeuer you bind in earth shal bee bound in heauen but surely the Angels may declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen therfore in the iudgement of Chrysostome power is giuen vnto the Priest truely to bind and loose and not by way of declaration ORTHOD. Though the Angels being ministring spirits may when it pleaseth the Lord declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen aswel as the Angel said to Cornelius b Thy prayers thy almes are come vp into remembrance before God yet this is rare and extraordinary but the Priest doth it by his ordinary office in which regard Chrysostome hath reason to say that such power is giuen to Priests as is neither giuen to Angels nor Archangels PHIL. Chrysostome proceedeth and telleth how earthly Princes haue power To bind the body only but the Priests bond toucheth the soule and reacheth vnto heauen Now earthly Princes doe not declare who is bound or loosed but bind or loose their bodies indeed and therefore the Priests in binding and loosing of soules doe not declare who are bound or loosed but by authority in the roome of Christ doe bind or loose them indeed if the comparison of Chrysostome be of any value ORTHO He compareth them in respect of the obiects not in respect of the manner the obiect of the Princes bond is the body the obiect of the Priest is the soule but doth follow because the Prince doth bind or loose the body properly that therfore binding or loosing of the soule is attributed in the like propriety of speech vnto the Priest PHIL. Chrysostome vpon these words whose sins you retaine they are retained saith What power I pray you can be greater then this but it is no great matter to declare that sins are forgiuen to the beleeuers and retained to the vnbeleeuers For any man may perfourme it which can read the Gospell neither Priests onely but the layity also neither Catholikes onely but Heretikes also yea and the diuells themselues ORTHOD. It is no great matter to pronounce the words but the excellency of the Ministery consisteth in this that they doe it ex officio and that according to Gods owne ordinance therefore in the reuerend performance therof they may expect a comfortable blessing PHIL. Chrysostome saith The Father hath giuen al maner of power to his sonne and I see the same power in all variety giuen to them by the sonne but the Father did not giue to the sonne a bare ability to declare the Gospell but by authority to forgiue sinnes therefore the like is giuen to the Priests ORTHOD. The power which the Father gaue to Christ conteineth all power in heauen and in earth but I hope you will not say that Christ gaue all power in heauen and earth to his disciples therefore the words of Chrysostome need a gentle interpretation and must not bee taken litterally as they sound but for a rhetoricall amplification Againe the power to forgiue sins is giuen to Christ and to his Disciples but not in the same manner for God the Father forgiueth sinnes by not imputing them Christ God and Man meritoriously the Ministers onely Ministerially as you heard before PHIL. Chrysostome compareth a Priest not with the kings Herald which only declareth what is done but with one who hath power to east into prison and deliuer out of prison how could he more openly declare that the Priests power is truly iudiciall ORTH. The Herald only proclaimeth the kings pardon and is no instrument to effect it but the minister so proclaimeth saluation by Iesus Christ that he is Gods instrument to worke it so the ministeriall declaration is not a bare but an effectuall declaration that mens sinnes are forgiuen For first the Law must bee effectually preached to humble the soule then the Gospell must bee effectually applied to kindle true faith And as the Minister is Gods effectuall instrument in working so he is his Ambassadour effectually to minister comfort to the penitent soule Yet for all this he doth not forgiue sinnes properlie but onely ministerially The like is to bee said of his deliuering the soules of men out of prison For that it cannot bee meant properly may appeare by the other branch because the Minister doth not properly cast any man into the spirituall prison but the wicked being already imprisoned and ●ettered with the chaine of their owne sins and refusing the light of the Gospel when it shines vnto them the sweet mercies of God in Iesus Christ are said to bee bound by a Priest because hee retaineth that is pronounceth that they are tied and bound with the chaines of darkenesse and denounceth the iudgements of God against them so long as they remaine impenitent PHIL. Chrysostome makes an other comparison betweene the legall Priests and the Euangelicall for the Legall did purge the leprosie of the body or rather not purge it but examine those that were purged But

it is granted to our Priests not to purge the leprosie of the body but the spots of the soule I doe not say to examine them being purged but altogether to purge them In this place to vse the words of Cardinall Bellarmine Saint Chrysostome doth so plainely condemne the opinion of our aduersaries that nothing at all can be answered for them ORTHOD. Doth the Priest altogether purge the spots of the soule then it seemeth when the penitent is presented before the Priest his soule is spotted but by vertue of the Priestes absolution the spots are presently washed away but I pray you tel me whom doth the Priest forgiue and absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued or him whom the Lord hath not absolued if the Priest absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued then hee doth not altogether purge the spot of the soule no nor properly purge them at all but onely declare that the Lord hath purged them If you say that the Priest absolueth him whom the Lord hath not absolued then hee shall bee forgiuen whom the Lord hath not forgiuen which is most absurd Againe doeth the Priest before hee pronounce absolution see any tokens of faith and repentance If hee see none then how dare he pronounce absolution and if hee see any then the party is already purged Whereby it appeareth that the absolution of the ministerie is onely declaratorie Therefore the speech of Chrysostome cannot bee taken properly but his meaning must bee this that the Priest seeing him brought by the ministery of the Gospell to faith and repentance and consequently purged certifieth his conscience that he is altogether purged and his sinnes washed away by the blood of Iesus Christ. PHIL. GRegorie Nazianzen saith that the law of Christ hath subiected temporall gouernours to his authoritie and throne and that his power is more ample and perfect then theirs ORTHOD. The Prince as supreame gouernour may by his royall authoritie establish true religion command both Priest and people to doe their dutie and punish those which doe otherwise by temporall punishments but the ministration of the Word Sacraments and the exercising of spirituall censures belong to the Bishop and as the prelate ought to bee subiect to the sword in the hand of the Prince so a vertuous Prince submitteth himselfe to the word of God in the mouth of the prelate But doth this prooue that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Ambrose proueth that Christ gaue to the Priests power to forgiue sinnes and it is plaine that he speaketh of true power and not of the ministerie of preaching both because the Nouatians did not denie that the Gospell might be preached to all men but they denied that the Priest might forgiue sinnes by authoritie and also because Saint Ambrose saith that Christ hath communicated to the Priests that power which he himselfe hath ORTHOD. The Nouatians did thinke that the Church had authoritie to bind but not to loose as may appeare by S. Ambrose in the same place And S. Cyprian being requested by Antonianus to vnfould the heresie of Nouatian sheweth that hee denied that such as were fallen should be admitted any more into the Church Baronius saith that he grew to such rashnesse as to deny that the remission of sinnes which is in the Apostles Creed was to be found in the Church Therfore as they denied that Priests might forgiue sinnes by authoritie so they denied that they might forgiue sinnes by way of declaration for they denied that there was any forgiuenesse of sinnes in the Church Wherefore Saint Ambrose in confuting the Nouatians hath no more confuted our opinion then hee hath confuted yours PHIL. SAint Ierom speaking of Priests saith Claues regni caelorum habentes quodam modo ante diem iudicij iudicant i. hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement S. Austin expounding these wordes I saw seates and them that sate vpon them and iudgement was giuen them saith thus Wee must not thinke that this is spoken of the last iudgement but the seates of prelates and prelates themselues by whom the Church is now gouerned are to be vnderstood neither can we better apply it to any iudgement giuen then to that of which it is said whatsoeuer you bind in earth shall be bound in heauen Whereupon the Apostle saith what is it to me to iudge of them that are without doe not you iudge of them that are within ORTHOD. According to Saint Ierom the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose as the Leuitical Priests did make the lepers cleane and vncleane Which in his iudgement was not properly but because they had the knowledge of leprous and not leprous and should discerne who was cleane and vncleane This is that which Saint Ierom meaneth when hee saith they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement which kind of iudgement wee acknowledge PHIL. In iudgement there are two things causae cognitio sententiae dictio the knowledge of the cause and the pronouncing of the sentence Haue you these two ORTHOD. Wee haue for first the partie maketh a profession of his faith and repentance vnto the Minister here is causae cognitio and then the Minister by the authoritie which Christ hath committed vnto him pronounceth forgiuenesse of his sinnes here is sententiae dictio This is the practise of the Church of England agreeable to the law of God and the ancient Fathers But if by causae cognitio you meane a particular enumeration of all their sinnes as a matter necessarie to saluation and by sententiae dictio vnderstand such a sentence as imposeth workes of penance satisfactorie to God when you can proue them out of the Scripture we will embrace them in the meane time wee knowe them not Hitherto of Saint Ierom. The same answere also may serue for the place of Saint Austin if he meane the same iudgement PHIL. POpe Innocent the first saith De pondere aestimando delictorum sacerdotis est iudicare c. 1. It is the office of the Priest to iudge what sinnes are to be esteemed heauiest ORTHOD. He must discerne the deepenesse of the wound before hee can apply the medicine But how doth this prooue the point in question to wit that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Gregorie saith principatum superni iudicij sortiuntur vt vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant quibusdam relaxent i. the Disciples obtaine a principalitie of iudgement from aboue that they may in Gods stead retaine the sinnes of some and release the sinnes of others ORTHOD. They are iudges to discerne sinne that so they may applie the medicine according to the qualitie of the offenders yea wee doe not deny but the Church may enioyne an outward penance for the further mortifying of sinne testifying their inward remorse and for the more ample satisfaction both of

it bringeth vnto thē a singular comfort if they be past sence yet if God shal restore them whē they heare what was done it will reioyce them and if they doe not recouer yet it shall bring this benefit to all that shall heare it that Gods messenger vpon due examination hath pronounced that they dyed in faith and repentance PHIL. If absolution be only declaratory then this declaration is either absolute or conditionall If it be absolute then it is either rash or superfluous For if the Priest know not whether the party hath faith and repentance and yet pronounce absolutely that his sinnes are forgiuen then hee cannot bee excused from rashnesse and if hee know it in some sort yet because the party knoweth it better then hee his declaration shall be superfluous And if the declaration be onely conditionall then it cannot comfort the conscience and consequently it is to no end and therefore both rash and superfluous ORTHOD. The declaration is conditionall For though vpon due and speciall consideration wee may say priuately and particularly to this or that man i pronounce that thy sinnes are forgiuen thee yet this is alwayes to be vnderstood with a secret condition and the condition is this If thou beleeue and repent Neither may wee pronounce it otherwise then vpon a charitable perswasion proceeding vpon probable grounds that this condition is fulfilled PHIL. But how can it comfort the conscience seeing the condition is vncertaine ORTHOD. It is certaine to the conscience of the party himselfe PHIL. What need is there then of the Ministers absolution ORTHOD. Yes for the party knowing in his owne soule that he made a sincere confession is comforted by the messenger of the Lord of Hostes declaring ex officio the sweet promises of the Gospel according to Christs appointment PHIL. If it be onely declaratory then it may be performed by a Lay-man by a woman a childe an infidel yea by the diuell himselfe yea by a Parret if he be taught to speake as well as by a Priest ORTHOD. Who taught this Parret thus to speake let wise men iudge But to the point A man may be said to pronounce and declare remission of sinnes two wayes First by a narratiue and historicall rehearsall out of the generall duetie of charitie and so may euery Christian. Secondly by a Ministeriall power giuen by a speciall commission from God adorned and established with a speciall promise and so may euery lawfull Minister The commission is giuen vs in our Ordination Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen The promise was made in these words Behold I am with you vntill the end of the world Both are expressed in these words of Iob If there be an Angel with him that is with the man whose soule draweth neere vnto the graue or an interpreter one of a thousand to declare vnto man his righteousnes then will hee haue mercy vpon him and will say deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit for I haue receiued a reconciliation Here are two persons to be considered First a man lying at the point of death distressed and groning vnder the burthen of his sinnes Secondly the man of God appointed to comfort those that mourne in Sion The latter is described foure wayes by his Titles Office Commission and Gods promise vnto him His Titles are an Angel or interpreter his Office to declare vnto man his righteousnes that is the righteousnes of Iesus Christ imputed to all beleeuers according to the couenant of grace his Commission Deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit The promise Then will God haue mercie vpon him and say I haue receiued a reconciliation Such Titles such Office by such speciall Commission and promise are not giuen to any Lay man in the Booke of God Wherefore though they are bound by their generall calling to edifie and comfort one another yet this belongeth to the Minister in a speciall maner Neither is there any doubt but God will giue a speciall blessing to his owne Ordinance Thus haue we examined all Bellarmines arguments and find them to be nothing els but smoke He hath sowne the winde and reaped the whirlewinde Hitherto of Absolution as it belongeth to the Minister Now the parts of penance which you require in the penitent as Contrition Confession and Satisfaction may bee passed ouer because wee speake of the Priest and not of the penitent Yet giue me leaue to tell you that Auricular confession as it is vsed in the Church of Rome is a pollicie to diue into the secrets of men not so much to apply salues vnto their sores or to yeeld true comfort to the wounded conscience as to worke for your owne aduantage and to turne all things to your owne pleasure and profit If you say that this may be the fault of some particular men and not of the Church yet to vrge it as you doe as a thing necessary to saluation by Law diuine is the fault of your Church Surely this doctrine was not knowne to S. Austine when he said Quid mihi cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos i. What haue I to doe with men that they should heare my Confessions as though they should heale all my diseases Nor to Chrysostome who saith Art thou ashamed to confesse thy sinnes rehearse them dayly in thy prayers for I doe not say that thou shouldest disclose them to thy fellow seruant who may mocke thee but to God who healeth them And as for your Popish Satisfaction it is a most blasphemous derogation from the all sufficient Satisfaction of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. For you doe not meane thereby a satisfaction to the party offended nor Canonicall satisfaction to the Congregation for the taking away of publique scandall both which we willingly embrace but you teach that after the Priest hath forgiuen the penitent his sinnes there still remaineth the very same punishment which the sinner should haue suffered in hell fire excepting onely eternitie for which you enioyne him to make satisfaction to God by workes of Popish penance Moreouer you teach workes of supererogation and that many holy men haue suffered more for God and righteousnes sake then the guilt of their temporall punishments to which they were subiect by reason of their sinnes required and that this superfluitie remaineth as a treasure in the Church to be dispensed by the Prelates in their indulgences especially by the Pope in the yeere of Iubile which shamelesse practise what is it else but a deuise to get money Thus you haue turned repentance into a Sacrament of penance and penance into Mines of siluer and gold Hitherto of our Presbyters Now let vs come to the Deacons CHAP. XI Of the third controuersie concerning Deacons PHIL. THere are no Deacons in the Church of England and therefore you cannot be lawfull Presbyters ORTHOD. Bellarmine confesseth that the