A General View of Papistry
[error 67] 8. THe name Sunday, is an heathenish calling, as all other week-days in our language: some imposed after the names of Planets, as in the Romans time: some by the name of certain Idols, which the Saxons did worship▪ which names the Church useth not, but hath appointed to call the first day the Dominike, after the Apostle, Apocal. 1.10. the other by the name Feries, until the last of the week, which she calleth by the old name Sabbath, because that was of God, not by imposition of the heathen, Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 1. sect. 6.
Ans. FIrst, as the name of Sunday, and the rest, is of the heathenish beginning, and therefore were better to be otherwise termed, as the first, second, or third from the Lord's day, as the Jews called their days from the Sabbath: so your term of feries, is no less heathenish, derived from the word feria, or feriae, which were so called a feriendis victimis, of striking the heathenish sacrifices, as Sextus Pompeius saith, Fulk. ibid.
2. We have other names also that might be reformed, as of our months; as March is so called of Mars, June of Juno, January of Ianus, which were heathen gods: July and August do bear the names of men: yea, and if we might be inuentors of new names, the terms of Christmas, Michaelmas, Candlemas, should not stand in force, nor anymore be used, which are as offensive as the rest: for as for the names of heathen Idols, the most part are ignorant of them: but the vulgar term of Mass, is to too well known, & too much loved of many of our countrymen. Now for the name Sunday, which is so great a mote in your eye, if there were no more but that: Augustine showeth, how it might be favorably expounded, Dies magni solis celebramus, illius solis, de quo dicit scriptura, orietur vobis sol iustitiae: We do keep Sunday holy, namely, of that great Sun, whereof the scripture speaketh, the Sun of righteousness shall arise.
3. We wish that all these terms might be laid down, as Augustine saith, Nolumus, vt dicant, & vtinam corrigantur vt non dicant: We would not have men so to speak, and I wish they were reformed. But seeing by continual custom men's tongues are inured to such terms, let them know, that they are used only as civil names, to call things by, not for any religion or mystery in them contained, or signified.
THE THIRD PART, OF THE FESTIVAL days of Christ and the holy Ghost.
THE feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide, and other solemnities of Christ, were [error 68] prescribed (they say) by the Apostles, Rhemist. Matth. 15. sect. 2. to be kept upon certain days, and that Peter did appoint that Easter should not be kept the 14. day of the first Moon, as the Jews observed it, but the Lord's day after. And of the feast of Pentecost mention is made, 1. Corinth. 16.8. Ergo, these feasts were instituted of the Apostles: Bellarm. cap. 12.13.
Ans. FIrst, we grant that it is expedient for the Church to keep the memorial of the Natiuitie, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ, and of the coming of the holy Ghost; and the days instituted for the remembrance thereof, no doubt, ought to be had in greater account, then any other holy days instituted by the Church. Secondly, it cannot be proved, that they were prescribed by the Apostles, or if they were, but as indifferent ceremonies, which are subject to alteration, and in the which the religion or worship of God doth not consist. Certain it is, that before the time of Constantine the great, there were not many festival days kept, in so much, that the feasts of the Natiuitie of Christ, Easter, Pentecost, were not vniformally observed for many years after, as appeareth by diverse Councils. And before Constantine's time, there was great contention between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East, about the celebration of Easter: they alleging the constitution of Saint John, the other of Saint Peter: wherefore it is like, that the Apostles appointed no such certain days: for then the Church would not have broken them.
Thirdly, Pentecost, whereof Saint Paul speaketh, was the feast of the Jews, which with other solemnities of theirs the Apostles observed not as a portion of Christian religion, but taking occasion of the meeting of the Jews in those festival days: and so do we observe those holy days for order and edification of God's people, that use to assemble at such times, Fulk. Matth. 15. sec. 3.
Fourthly, what cause is there, why Easter and Whitsuntide should be tied to the Lord's day, and the Natiuitie of Christ, which Bellarmine confesseth, was upon the Lord's day, should indifferently be kept upon any day? but that hereby we understand, that it is an indifferent matter, whether they should be kept upon the Lord's day, or any other, and whether upon any certain day, or to be left to the discretion of the governors of the Church to be observed as any other occasion shall be offered, Fulk. annot. Apocalypse. 1. sect. 6.
Lastly, we shown Augustine's opinion, in the first part of this question, how he understandeth that saying, Psalm 118. This is the day which the Lord hath made, only of the Sabbath: thereby insinuating, that other holy days either were not instituted of God at all, or else not with the like necessity.
THE FOURTH PART, OF THE solemnities of Saints.
[error 69] 1. THey hold that holy days may be dedicated unto Saints, for their honor and worship: as Christ promised that the charitable act of Marie Magdalene wrought upon him should be recorded and remembered, Matth. 26. verse. 13. Hereby we learn that the good works of Saints may be recorded to the honor of Saints in the Church, whereof arise their commemorations and holy days, Rhemist. annot. Matth. 25. sect. 1.
1. THe good works of Saints may be remembered to the honor of God, without their holy days and commemorations: Christ instituted no holy day of Mary Magdalene, nor commanded an image of her fact to be made, but a memory of her in preaching the Gospel, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, we grant, that Christian solemnities may be kept, as things indifferent, which the Church may retain or abrogate as it shall seem best for edification, not observed of necessity as a part of the worship of God, nor consecrate to the honor of Saints; seeing all divine worship is wholly to be reserved to God, not to be given to any other: For times and seasons, the scripture saith, the Lord hath put only in his own power: therefore he is only to have the honor of them, Act. 1.7. Thirdly, what honor is due unto Saints Augustine showeth: Colimus martyrs eo cultu dilectionis, & societatis, quo & in hac vita coluntur sancti homines Dei. We do honor Martyrs, with the service of love and fellowship, as holy men are honored in this life. But it is not lawful to consecrate times and days to holy men living, therefore neither to Saints departed: for one and the same kind of honor is due to them both.
[error 70] 2. THey maintain, that there may be holy days and commemorations of all Saints, as Christ promiseth there should be of Mary Magdalene, Rhemist. Matth. 25. sect. 1.
THis is another principal fault, which we find & complain of in their holy days: that they have pestered the Church with such a number of Saints and Saints days. First, as we have partly shown before, they appointed a several Saint almost for every purpose, as here we have set it down:
- Saint Leonard for captives.
- Saint Rochus for the pestilence.
- Saint George for war.
- Saint Anna giveth riches.
- Saint Nicholas and Christopher for the sea.
- Saint Apollonia for the toothake.
- Saint Otilia for the eyes.
- Saint Margaret for women in travel.
- Saint Laurence keepeth from the fire.
- Saint Catherine giveth wit & learning.
- Saint John against poison.
- Saint Quirine for the fistula.
- Saint Protasius and Geruasius, help to bewray theft.
And thus is it true of them, as Jeremiah complained of the Idolatrous Israelites: that their gods were after the number of their cities, Ierem. 2.28. In like manner also have they multiplied their Saints days: for beside the festiuals of Christ, the holy Ghost, and of the Apostles, they have added these besides.
- Saint George his day.
- Corpus Christi.
- Assumption of Mary.
- Natiuitie of Mary.
- Conception of Mary.
- The birth days of the Apostles.
- Magdalenes.
- Laurence.
- The Dedication feast.
- Martin. their holy days.
- Nicholas. their holy days.
- Catherine. their holy days.
- Anne. their holy days.
Beside in the Dioces of Salisburge, fifteen festiuals of Saint Rubert, with many more: whereof some of them are blasphemous, as to keep the Conception of Mary, in remembrance that she was conceived without sin: some of them fabulous and forged; as the Assumption of Mary, in memory of her Assumption in body to heaven, which is a mere fable. But all the rest are idolatrous and superstitious, ordained for the honor and worship of creatures. And thus have they cumbered the people of God with their infinite observations: So that the Lord saith to them, concerning their feasts, as unto the Israelites: They are a burden unto me, I am weary to bear them, Isai. 1.14.
In Augustine's time, or who else it was that made those Sermons, when there were nothing so many festiuals, as now among Papists, yet more then needed, he writeth thus in a sermon upon a festival: Laetus sum hodierno die propter tantam festiuitatem: sed aliquantulum tristis, quia non video tantum populum congregatum, quantus congregari debuit. I am glad today, because of this festival day: and somewhat grieved withal, that the people resort not in such frequency, as they should. We may see by this, that even then the people began to wax weary of their many holy days.
THey enjoin sanctification and necessary keeping of all their festiuities and holy days: and so make no difference between the observation of [error 71] holy days appointed of GOD, and others ordained of men, requiring the like strictness in keeping of them all, Rhemist. Annot. Galat. 4. sect. 5.
THere are no days necessary to be kept, but those that are of the Lord's appointment: the rest, being void of superstition, may be celebrated as indifferent: and therefore not to be commanded with the like strictness, as is the Lord's day. There is greater liberty upon holy days for bodily labor, then upon the Sabbath: for bodily rest upon the seventh day is commanded of GOD: bodily labor upon all other days permitted, and may without offense of conscience be used, when it is not by the lawful authority of the governors of the Church upon just occasion restrained, as during the time of public prayers and fasts, hearing of the word, and such like.
The rest of the Sabbath, so far as it helpeth our preparation and fitness to spiritual exercises, and is a part of sanctifying the Lord's day, bindeth simply in conscience, because it is the commandment of GOD: but the rest upon holy days doth not in it self bind us, no otherwise then by reason of offense, that may arise by our contempt of the constitutions of the Church.
We find that Simon Islip, Archbishop of Canturburie, directed his letters patents to all Parsons and Vicars, wherein he straightly charged them and their parishioners under pain of excommunication, not to abstain frō bodily labor upon certain Saints days, which before were wont to be hallowed and consecrated to unthrifty idleness, Fox. pag. 393. Ergo, by their own judgment, all the festiuities of their Church are not to be kept alike.
Augustine maketh three degrees of festiual days: in the first and highest degree he placeth the Lord's day: Quomodo Maria virgo, mater domini, principatum tenet inter omnes mulieres, ita inter caeteros dies, haec omnium dierum mater est. As amongst women, the Virgin Marie, the mother of our Lord is the chief, so this day is the mother and chief of all other days, speaking of the Sabbath of Christians, de tempore serm. 36.
In the next place or degree he putteth the festiuals of Christ, and the holy Ghost, as the commemorations of his Natiuitie, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension: as in his sermon upon the Ascension day he thus saith, Conditoris basilica huius S. Leontij hodie depositio est: sed dignetur obscurari stella à sole. To day we have the commemoration of the deposition or sepulture of Saint Leontius the founder of this Church: But let not the star think much to be obscured of the Sun. So in the third rank he counteth the commemorations of holy men, which unto the festiuities of Christ were but as the Star to the Sun. We will add a fourth place or degree, distinguishing between the commemorations of the holy Apostles, and other superstitious and popish Saints days, which our Church hath worthily thrust out at the doors.
AN APPENDIX TO THIS parte of the vigiles and night watches annexed to festival days.
1. THey were wont upon Saints eeues to give themselves to fasting, and watching. But their night vigiles or watches they do not now so [error 72] strictly observe, because of the great abuses which did grow thereupon, Bellarm. cap. 17. Yet they have not altogether left them, for they have their Nocturnes or midnight matins, and their prime hours in the morning. Rhemist. annot. Act. 10. sect. 6.
THe Christians in time of persecution had their antelucanos hymnos, their early and timely songs and hymns: they met together to worship God, before the Sun rise, because they could not safely, neither were suffered to assemble in the day time. But that is no reason, why now the Church should use vigiles or nocturnes, seeing we now have free exercise of religion in the day time: no more then Paul's example is to be urged, that prayed by the rivers side with the people, and there preached unto them, because in Idolatrous cities they could have no places of meeting. That therefore we now ought to do the like, having Churches and Oratories to assemble in, Augustine, if the sermon be his, thus witnesseth: Iubente Ambrosio cessabant vigiliae Mediolani, quia cum vigilabant per noctem, ad ecclesiam, ludendo & chorizando conueniebant. At Millaine by Ambroses commandment, the vigiles ceased, because the people, when they watched, did come by night, daunsing, and sporting and playing, to the Church.
2. THey have also another superstitious custom, to set up wax candles, and [error 73] taper light before Images, and upon the altar, to carry them about in procession, and even at middaye, and high noon: And Bellarmine would authorise this custom by the continual burning of the lamps day and night, as he saith, in the tabernacle amongst the Jews.
Ans. FIrst, we say of this, as we did of the vigiles of the Church before: that Christians in those days in their night assemblies used candle light: but it followeth not, that the vigiles being now left, we should burn candles at noon day: and that this was their custom, to burn their lamps only in the night, Augustine showeth, where he speaketh of those that did vow ceram ad luminaria noctis, wax candles for the lights of the Church in the night.
Secondly, it is utterly untrue, that the lamps in the Tabernacle burned all day: the contrary is proved, that they were lighted in the evening, and so burned all night, for those that kept the watch in the Temple, 2. Chron. 13.11. and that in the morning again they were put out, 1. Sam. cap. 3. verse. 3. The Priest shall set the lamps on fire, inter duas vesperas, between the two twilights, that is, the evening and morning, Exod. 30.8. And he shall dress them to burn from the evening to the morning, Leuitic. 24.3. That therefore which the Jesuit made for an argument for himself, we will urge against him: that seeing the lamps amongst the Jews, who abounded in types and ceremonies, were burnt only in the night, and not upon the day; it is shame for those that would be counted Christians, in superstitious customs, to exceed and go beyond them.
THE FIFTH PART, OF LENT and Imber days.
1. THey hold, that the holy time of Lent, (as they do fondly call it, as [error 74] though any time in their sense were more holy then another) is an Apostolic tradition, warranted by the example of Moses, Elias, and our Savior Christ, that fasted 40. days, Rhemist. Matth. 4▪ sect. 2.
Ans. FIrst, that fasting of our Savior Christ, and the holy Prophets, was miraculous, and no more to be imitated then Christ's walking upon the Sea, or raising of the dead, as Augustine saith, Non tibi dicit, Non eris discipulus meus, he saith not, Thou shalt not be my Disciple, unless thou walk upon the sea, or raise the dead: but learn of me, because I am humble and meek. Yet if any of them can fast so many days, as they did, without eating anything at all, we give them good leave.
Secondly, that it was not an Apostolic tradition, it appeareth, because it was not vniformally kept of the Church, a long time after them: For as Irenaeus witnesseth, some fasted one day, some two days, some forty hours day and night. But if it had been necessarily enjoined and prescribed by the Apostles, such variety of custom could not have sprung up, at the least not have been suffered in the Church. Thirdly, Epiphanius saith, that the Wednesdays fast was an Apostolic tradition, and to observe the feast of the six days of Easter, with bread, salt, and water: which observations, are not kept amongst the Papists themselves, yet have they as good testimony of antiquity to be Apostolic traditions, as the Lent fast. Fourthly, in Augustine's time there was no necessary enforcement for every man to keep Lent: Si aliquis, saith he, ieiunare non potest, eleemosyna sine ieiunio bona est. If any man be not able to fast, alms without fasting is good and profitable. Wherefore seeing the Lent fast was then voluntary, it is evident that it was not an Apostolic prescription, which should have bound all men necessarily.
2. A Second abuse in their fasting, is to appoint prescript times, necessarily [error 75] to fast in, as in Lent, on Friday, Saturday, & upon Imber days, which are prescribed for the four solemn times of giving orders: And this also they say, is an Apostolic tradition, Acts. 13.3. They fasted & prayed, and laid their hands upon them, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. FOr prayer and fasting to be used at such times as Ministers are ordained, we doubt not but it is an Apostolic tradition, because we find it written in the Acts of the Apostles: But it was fasting from all meat and drink, which the Apostles used, not abstinence from flesh only, as upon your Imber days. Neither do you observe those days of fast for any such purpose: For your Imber days are kept amongst you, though there be no orders given in the whole diocese.
2. Prescript and set times of civil abstinence from some meats, for the benefit of the common wealth, as your Lent and Imber days, are still retained in England, and no otherwise, we condemn not: But to appoint ordinary times of necessary and Religious fasting, without special cause, was of the ancient Church accounted heresy in Montanus.
This also was the practice of the Church of God in the old Testament, upon special occasion, not at set, and ordinary times, to enjoin public fasting, as the prophet saith, Blowe the Trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, Joel 2.15. which showeth that their public fasts were not usual & ordinary, but especially sanctified, and solemnly proclaimed.
As for the fixed and set fasting days in the week, in Augustine's time, only the Churches of Rome kept the Saturdayes Fast, all the East Churches, and many of the West observed it not: And whereas some alleged, that Peter fasted upon Saturday, being the next day, which was the Lord's day, to encounter with Simon Magus, Augustine saith, it was opinio plurimorum, the opinion of many, quam tamen falsam esse perhibent plerique Romani : yet many of the Romans hold it but for a fable. And so he generally concludeth, concerning prescript days of fasting. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum nō inuenio definitum: Upon what days we ought to fast, upon what days not, I find it not defined by any precept given by our Lord or any of the Apostles. Epistol. 86.
[error 76] 3. A Third abuse in popish fasting, is the difference that they make between meats and drinks: as the forbidding of flesh-eating upon fasting days for more holiness, and the eating of eggs, butter, & cheese in Lent: as it was decreed at Lucerne in Heluetia, Anno. 1524. Abstinence also from some meats upon certain days for religion, is warranted by the Rhemist: as God prohibited Adam the eating of some fruits in Paradise for obedience, and in the law for signification, annot. 1. Timoth. 4. sect. 6.
Ans. FIrst, now Antichrist showeth himself in his colors, making it as lawful for him, to forbid the use of some meats for religion, now under the Gospel, when God hath made them all lawful and free, as God himself might forbid the use of some, for obedience in Paradise or signification in the Law. Secondly, S. Paul calleth it the doctrine of devils, to command to abstain from meats, 1. Timoth. 4.3. Again, let no man condemn you in meat and drink. Colos. 2.16. The Rhemist. answer, that the Apostle speaketh in the first place against those heretics, that condemned meats as evil by creation, such were the Manichees, and in the second, against the Judaical observation of meats. But they only prohibit the use of some meats for the chastising of the body.
Ans. First, not only the Manichees and other heretics preferred some meats before other, as more holy, but even the Papists also in the prescript times of their fasts, do command to abstain from meats for piety and religion: And therefore they are counted most holy amongst them that never eat flesh. And Durand testifieth, that fish in interdict days, is rather used then flesh, because flesh and not fish was accursed in the days of Noah. Yea they command abstinence from meats under pain of damnation: what is this else, but with the old heretics to condemn the creatures of God themselves? Secondly, the popish prohibition of meats, is more superstitious, then was the Jews: For they prohibited such meats, as by the law were counted unclean, as to eat beasts that died alone, or were torn with beasts, or strangled, or touched any unclean beast, as likewise they enjoined penance to them, that did eat or drink, where a dog or cat had lapped, or a mouse had been drowned and such like, Fulk. annot. 1. Timoth. 4 sect. 6. I pray you how far are they now from the superstition of the Jews? Nay they go beyond them: for the legal difference of meats for signification, was instituted of God for those times. But this superstitious distinction of meats under the Gospel, which giveth us the free use of all the creatures of God, which are sanctified by the word and prayer, 1. Timoth. 4.5. is brought in by Antichrist, who is an enemy unto God.
3 Neither do they abstain from flesh and other meats for chastising of the flesh: for they permit the use of all other meats upon their fasting days, that may provoke lust, flesh only excepted, as the eating of spices, and other dayntie and delicate confections, the drinking of wine, and all kind of fish. Even like as Augustine reporteth of the Manichees, that would drink no wine, nor eat flesh: but instead of wine they had Pomorum nonnullorum expressos succus vini speciem satis imitantes, at{que} id etiam suauitate vincentes: the sweet liquor of pleasant fruits like to wine in color, but excelling it in sweetness: and for flesh they had their strange & exquisite fruits, with great variety of dishes, seasoned and strawed with pepper. This was the Manichees fast: and this is the popish custom in their fastings at this day. Agayne, if they forbare some meats for chastisement of the body, why might it not be as lawful to eat butter, and eggs, in the time of Lent, as upon other fasting days: but that they make difference of the times, as one being holier then another, and so also a difference of meats, some being more agreeable to holy times, then other?
Wherefore to conclude this point: Civil abstinence from flesh, as for policies sake, and the better maintenance of the common wealth, that there should be a vent for fish, as well as for flesh, and that every man might live of his trade and calling: as also for the health of the body, to abstain from hurtful meats: as likewise to keep a temperate and sober diet, and to take heed of surfeiting and drunkenness: These kinds of abstinence, in making difference of meats, we mislike not: but for piety or religions sake to distinguish them, it is to too great superstition.
FOurthly, their religious kind of fasting they hold not to be a general [error 77] abstinence from all meats and drinks, but only from some certain kinds, as from flesh, and wine, as Timothy refrayned from drinking of wine, and in stead thereof used water, 1. Timothy 5. verse 23. Rhemist.
Ans. FIrst, for chastising of the body, it is lawful to abstain either wholly for a time, or in respect of the quantity or quality of the meats, which may more provoke carnal lusts, not in the prohibition of the whole kind, as the Papists do of all flesh, be it never so gross or small in quantity. Likewise it is lawful for chastising of a man's body to abstain from any kind, as of wine, fruits, spices, flesh, so that the use of them be not forbidden, as though in the very abstinence there were religion, Fulk. ibid.
2 But the true and properly religious fast of Christians, is a general abstinence from all meats and drinks, during the time of such fasting: Esther. 4.16. Nehemiah. 9.4. Where the manner of their fast is described: howe the law was read unto them four times in the day, and as oft did they worship the Lord and confess their sins. It was the custom of the Church also in Augustine's time, in the days of fast, not to abstain only from flesh, or some certain kind of meat, as the Papists use, but altogether to continue fasting till the eeuen. Rogo vos (fratres) (saith he) vt in isto sacratissimo tempore, exceptis dieb. dominicis nullus prandere praesumat: I pray you, brethren, that in this holy time, none of you presume to dine at all, except it be upon the Lord's days. Ergo, they that will keep a true religious fast, if they are able, ought for the time wholly to abstain.
[error 78] FIftly, they err, in affirming fasting to be a meritorious work, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 15. verse. 32. Anna, Toby, Judith, Esther, served and pleased God by fasting, Annot. Math. 15. sect. 3.
Ans. FIrst, we doubt not, but that fasting is a work acceptable to God, being referred to the right end, as to chastise and humble the body, 1. Corinthians. 9.27. and to make our prayers more fervent, 1. Corinthians. 7.5. But otherwise there is no holiness or virtue in fasting of it self, neither is it by the work wrought of any merit or worthiness: For our prayers, which are a more principal work, then fasting is, yet of themselves by any worthiness in them, are not regarded of God: for Solomon saith, When thou hearest, have mercy, 1. King. 8.30. It is of the Lord's mercy, that our prayers are heard, not of any worthiness in them.
Augustine saith very well, Si volumus been ieiunare à cibis, ante omnia ieiunemus & à vitijs. Quid prodest, pallidum esse ieiunijs, si odio & inuidia liuescas ? What doth it help to fast from meat, if we fast not from sin? What availeth it to be pale and wan with fasting, if thou frettest with hatred and envy? Ergo, the external or outward act of fasting of it self is little or nothing worth.
[error 79] SIxtly, and lastly, they grievously offend in their fastings, in laying so straight and hard a yoke upon men's shoulders, as charging them under pain of damnation to keep their fasting days, making it deadly sin, yea, heresy to transgress them: as one Laurence Staple was troubled and persecuted, anno. 1531. because in Lent having no fish, he did eat eggs, butter, and cheese: nay, they were so cruel, that hardly they suffered women in child-bed to have flesh in their houses: As anno. 1532. two young Gyrles were constrained to abjure, because they were found upon Saint Peters eeuen eating broth made of mutton, their mother lying in child-bed. Howe was poor Frebarne tossed too and fro, and brought into great danger, because a pigge was found in his house in Lent time, for the which his wife longed?
Ans. FIrst, no positive law, not grounded upon scripture, can so bind any person, that in the breaking of such he shall sin deadly: And of this sort is the fast of Lent and other days for religion, which were ordained without authority of scripture: Lambert ad articul. 17. And seeing the rest of the Sabbath, being the commandment of GOD, might yet upon necessary cause be broken, as we have shown; how much greater liberty ought the people to have had in the observation of those days, which were only enjoined by men? for who seeth not, that the rest in the Lord's day being God's own appointment ought more surely to bind, then fasting upon forbidden days, enforced by men? yet was it counted an heinous sin to eat flesh upon a day interdict, and a small offense, or none, to violate the rest of the Sabbath.
2 Saint Paul could see no such necessity of fasting and abstinence, when he willeth Timothy to drink wine, and no longer water, for his infirmities sake, 1. Timoth. 5.23. But if there were religion in fasting and abstinence, it ought not to be intermitted for the bodily health: for the less principal is to give place to the greater.
In Augustine's time also there was no such necessity: Qui ieiunare non praeualet, in domo sua praeparet, quod accipiat: He that is not able to fast, let him prepare in his house for his own eating. And again, Si possibilitas non fuerit ieiunandi, sufficit eleemosyna sine ieiunio. If a man have not possibility to fast, instead of fasting let him give alms. What is become now of your Lent and Imber fasts, which you prescribe as necessary to be kept of all?
THE NINTH QUESTION, CONcerning the Virgin Marie.
THis question standeth of many parts: 1. Whether the B. Virgin Marie were conceived without sin. Secondly, whether she vowed Virginitie before the Angel was sent unto her. Thirdly, of the assumption of her body into heaven. Fourthly, of the dignity and preeminence that she hath (as they affirm) above all other Saints, yea, and the Angels to. Fifthly, of the merits of the virgin Marie and of the Ave Maria.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE Virgin Marie were void of original and actual sin.
[error 80] 1 AL men are borne in sin, Christ only excepted, and his mother for his honor: Rhemist. Rom. 5. sect. 9.
Answ. it is no more dishonor for Christ to be borne of a sinner, then to have taken his flesh, and lineally descended, according to his humanity, of Tamar that committed incest with Judah and Rahab which was an harlot: Math. 1.3.5. Secondly, it maketh more for the honor of God that Christ was borne without sin of a woman which was a sinner, and more setteth forth his power, then otherwise, lest he should be thought to have derived his purity from his mother.
2 They hold, that there was no actual sin in the Virgin Marie, no not the lest and smallest sins, which they call venial, Rhemist. 1. John. 1. sect. 5. She was especially protected, and preserved from sinning by the grace of God.
Ans. That God is able clearly to rid his children from sin, & to preserve them from falling thereinto, we deny not: but, seeing you have no scripture for this privilege, that should be bestowed only upon Marie, to be free from sin: but rather the contrary is proved out of scripture, That all have sinned, Rom. 3.23. it is too rash and bold an assertion, contrary to the will of God, to ascribe anything to his power. He is as able to exempt all from sinning as one: unless therefore you can show some especial warrant out of God's word, for Mary's freedom, by your reason, all the children of God shall be freed from sin as well as Marie, because God is able to do it.
THat the Virgin Marie was both conceived in sin, and was also subject to actual sins in her life, as other of the children of God, thus out of the scripture we do declare it.
1 How else can the word of God be true, that saith, All have sinned, Rom. 3.23. &. 5.12. They will answer, that Marie had an especial privilege: then let them show it out of the word of God, and we will believe: otherwise the general conclusion must stand, that all have sinned. Again, Marie herself in her song, calleth Christ her Savior: Luk. 1.47. Ergo, she was a sinner: for how else could she be saved from her sins which she had not? If they answer as they do, that Christ was her Savior only, because he preserved her from sin: We do thus reply. First, that a Savior in scripture is defined to be he that saveth the people from their sins, Math. 1.21. not that preserveth only. Secondly, if Marie were free from original sin, as they say she was, she needed not a Savior to keep her from sin, for she might have preserved herself.
Arg. 2 Marie died, Ergo, she was a sinner: for sin brought death into the world, Rom. 1.5. If she had had no sin, she had not died. Christ indeed, though he were no sinner, yet he bare our sins, and therefore died for us.
Christ checked and rebuked his mother, John. 2.4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Ergo, it seemeth, she was not without fault. Rhemist. answer: It was rather a doctrine to others, to teach them not to do anything for respect of kindred, against reason, then a reprehension to Mary. We reply: But I pray you, how could the Apostles learn to beware of that fault, if it had been no fault in Marie? How could they be admonished in her, if she were not first her self admonished? And the manner of speech showeth, it was a rebuke, Christ saluting her by no other name, then if he had spoken to any other woman.
Argum. 3. The Papists themselves are in a stagger, and dare not constantly affirm, that Marie was conceived without sin, but put in this clause (as many godly devout men judge) Rhemist. Rom. 5. sect. 9. And Bellarmine saith, in maiori parte Ecclesiae pie credi, that the greater part of the Church doth so godly believe, yet he dare not determine upon it himself, de cult. sanctor. lib. 3. cap. 16. But why are they afraid to hold it as an undoubted truth, seeing Pope Sixtus hath clearly determined that it was so, forbidding the Dominick Friers to preach the contrary, and hereupon erected a new holy day of her conception? Here then they are driven to a great straight: for either they must abolutely hold, that she was not conceived in sin, against the Master of sentences, and Thom. Aquinas, with other schoolmen, or else hold the contrary, and so confess the Pope to have been in error.
Augustine saith, beatior Maria percipiendo fidem Christi, quàm concipiendo carnem Christi: Materna propinquitas nihil Mariae profuisset, nisi foeliciùs Christum cord quàm carne gestasset. Marie was more happy in perceiving the faith of Christ, then in conceiving the flesh of Christ: neither had it profited her to be the mother of Christ, if she had not more happily borne him in her heart, then she did in her womb. But what need had Marie to believe in Christ, if she had been pure from her nativity, and had no sins to be forgiven her? Augustine yet more plainly saith, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae: Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, & caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. Marie died being borne of Adam, because of the sin of Adam: Adam died because of his own sin: Christ died in the flesh to take away our sins: Ergo, Marie by his sentence was borne in the sin of Adam.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER Marie vowed Virginitie before the Annuntiation.
[error 81] THey would gather and conclude so much out of the answer of Marie to the Angel, who told her, she should conceive and bear a son: How can this be (saith she) seeing I know no man? That is, she plainly declareth, she could have no child by knowing a man, because of her vow, for otherwise she needed not have asked such a question, how a woman might have a son promised her, if she had married to have carnal copulation. Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 13. Bellarmine. de Monachis. cap. 22.
Ans. First, Ambrose maketh this to be the cause why Marie so answered, she had read the prophesy of Isaiah, that a virgin should conceive & bring forth a son, and therefore knew very well, that this holy child should be otherwise conceived, then by the knowledge or help of man, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, as also the Angel delivering at once his whole message, and showing what manner of child it should be: even the Son of the most high, who should sit on the throne of David, and of his kingdom there should be no end: that is, that the child should be the Son of God: she straightways conceived that such a holy seed could not be borne of man, and therefore asketh, how without man he might be borne. Sic Calvin. Beza.
THat Marie, as she was an entire Virgin before the birth of Christ, so that she continued also a Virgin all her life after, we do verily think, and condemn their opinion that hold the contrary: but that she vowed or purposed Virginitie, before the message of the Angel was brought unto her, it is rashly without scripture, nay rather against it, affirmed.
Argum. 1. The text is plain, that they had a purpose to consummate their marriage: When as Marie was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together▪ Math. 1.18. Ergo, there was a meaning to come together, if she had not in the mean time been found to be with child of the holy Ghost: for otherwise, it should seem to have been a mockery on Mary's behalf, to promise marriage to Joseph, without any purpose to perform the duty of marriage. But if it were done with both their consents, then mocked they with God, who instituted marriage for some ende and purpose, which could not be attained out of marriage: for they should have married neither for avoiding fornication, nor for procreation, which are the two chief ends of marriage: as for the third, which is mutual comfort, it ariseth of the former.
Argum. 2. It was not the manner among the Jews to vow Virginitie, but it was rather a shame and reproach to remain and die a Virgin: and therefore Iephthaths daughter lamented her Virginitie, Judge. 11.38. Howe then could Marie be induced contrary to the custom of the Church, to vow Virginitie? Yea Augustine confesseth as much: Hoc mores Israelitarum recusabant: The manners of the Israelites did not suffer it, de Virginit. cap. 4. though he himself else-where, and in the same place seemeth to incline to the contrary opinion.
THE THIRD PART, OF THE ASsumption of the Virgin Marie.
THey report the story of the death and departure of the Virgin Mary, after [error 82] this manner▪ At the time of her death after she had lived sixty three years, all the Apostles, being dispersed into diverse nations, were myraculously brought together to Jerusalem, to solemnize her funeral. They buried her in Gethsemani: and for three days together the Angels were heard to sing melodious songs: At three days ende also Saint Thomas came; who being desirous to see her body, and not finding it in the grave, they thereupon assuredly deemed that her body was assumpted into heaven, Rhemist. Act. 1. verse. 14.
Argum. 1. It is best agreeable to the privilege of the mother of God, not to see corruption, Rhemist. ibid. Seeing also her son was exempted from corruption, & natura Mariae excipitur, the nature of Marie must be excepted: caro enim Jesus est caro Mariae, the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Marie. And seeing Christ came to fulfil the law, which saith, Honor thy parents: it is very like, eum in morte specially gratia eam honorasse, that he did honor her by special grace in her death. These reasons and other are to be read in a forged book amongst Augustine's works, bearing title, De assumptione Mariae.
Answ. First, there is no credit to be given to the forged writings which pass under the name of Saint Denis, and Athanasius, out of whom they do report the assumption of Marie, nay their own lesson, which they read upon the Assumption day, doth control and confute the other. First, that story saith, that without doubt she was taken up in body. But your lesson leaveth it as uncertain, whether she were raised up in body or not. Secondly, the forged story saith, she was buried in Gethsemani, which was in mount Olivet: your lesson saith, that the place of her burial is in the midst of the valley of Jehoshaphat, which is between mount Olivet and the City, Fulk. ibid. Secondly, it followeth not, because Christ took flesh of the Virgin, that therefore she should also as well be exempted from corruption: for he took flesh also of David, and other his progenitors, who by the same reason should be made immortal. And if she were privileged by being the mother of Christ, from seeing corruption, why not also from having any sin? for her Son after the flesh saw neither. Thirdly, Christ also both did and might honor his mother as he was man, though so great a privilege be not granted unto her. The reverence, which was to be done to his mother, was in regard of his manhood, and so was he obedient unto them, Luk. 2.51. and so long as he lived in the flesh: and therefore he did care for her even upon the cross, commending her to the disciple whom he loved. But he neither was to honor her as he was God, and therefore not to free her from corruption, which had been a work of his Godhead: and the natural affection and honor due unto parents ceaseth after this life. It were then too gross a conceit, to think that Christ hath such regard now of the virgin Marie in heaven, as he had of her, being his mother, in the days of his flesh: for Christ, as he is not now known after the flesh, 2. Corinth. 5.16. so neither knoweth he any after the flesh.
THis uncertain report of the assumption of Mary, with other circumstances thereof, we hold to be a very counterfeit story, and worthy of no credit.
Argum. 1. If it were a matter of such weight, as they make it, who have erected a new found holy-day of the assumption of Mary, surely the scriptures would not have been silent therein: especially Saint John (as Augustine saith) to whose charge she was committed, would have left somewhat in writing of that matter: for saith he, Nullus fideliùs id narrare potuerit, for no man could more truly and faithfully make relation thereof.
Argum. 2 That general sentence pronounced upon Adam and all Adams seed, must needs also take place in the virgin Marie, Thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return, Genes. 3.19. Christ only is excepted, and that by the testimony of the word of God: wherefore, unless this privilege of the virgin could be proved out of scripture, as Christ's is, we must needs hold her subject to that general law of corruption.
Augustine saith, Assumptio eius in apocrypha non in catholica reperitur historia: the assumption of Mary is found in an Apocryphal, that is, an obscure and uncertain, not a Catholic or authentical story.
THE FOURTH PART OF THE HOnor and worship of the Virgin Marie.
[error 83] THey do ascribe unto her a kind of religious honor, more then to any of the Saynts beside: For whereas they call the worship of Saints, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , service, the honor of the Virgin, they term, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a higher kind of service, Bellarmine. de Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. They call her, Regina mundi, scala coeli, thronus dei, ianua Paradisi, The Queen of the world, the ladder of heaven; the throne of God, and gate of Paradise: yea they give her jurisdiction over her son, Iube natum, command thy son, Iure matris impera filio, command thy son by the right of a mother. Coge Deum, compel God to be merciful to sinners, Annot. Fulk. 1.15.
Again, they say, she is to be honored with the feasts of her Natiuitie, Assumption, and Conception: for the other two, of her Purification, and Annuntiation, are not proper to the Virgin, but concern Christ: the one his Conception, the other his Presentation, Rhemist. actor. 1. sect. 7.
Argum. She her self prophecieth of all Catholic generations, that they should bless her in keeping her festiuities and memorials: but if these festiuities of her Conception and Assumption be not kept, she should have none at all: and so be thought worthy of less remembrance, then any other Saint, Galat. 4. sect. 5. Rhemist.
1. WE do not celebrate any festival days in the honor of creatures, neither of the Virgin Mary, nor any other Saint, but only to the honor of God: and therefore the feasts of the Annuntiation, and Purification, may much better be received, because they belong and are referred unto Christ, then the other festiuities, of the assumption and conception of Mary, the institution whereof was most superstitious: the one for the feigned assumption of her body, which your own writers are uncertain of: the other to maintain the heresy of the Franciscans, that she was conceived and borne without sin. As for the memory of the Virgin Mary, it may better be kept, then by such festiuities: as our Savior Christ taught to keep the remembrance of Mary Magdalene, by preaching the Gospel, Math. 26.13. Fulk. annot. Act. 1.7. And if they only are Catholic generations, that call her blessed in keeping these festiuities in her memorial: then there were no Catholic generations for many hundred years after, and so do you condemn the age of the Apostles: for neither then, nor many years after were these superstitious festiuities heard of. But Mary saith in her song, From henceforth, even from this time forward, shall all generations call me blessed: so that, if her blessedness had consisted in the memory of those days, they should immediately have been kept, especially the day of her nativity, Fulk. Galath. 4. sect. 5.
2. We do allow all praise given unto the Virgin, without the dishonor of God and her Son and Savior Christ: we do acknowledge the honor that God vouchsafed her, not to be a meritorious or principal efficient cause of our redemption, but only an holy vessel, and instrumental cause of the conception and birth of Christ, by whose only merit and worthiness our redemption is perfected, as by a proper and principal, and only meritorious efficient cause thereof. And therefore, those are blasphemous titles which are given unto her, to call her the ladder of Heaven, and gate of Paradise, and such like: and so in a manner to make her our redeemer. Augustine saith, She was more happy, in that she conceived the faith of Christ, then in conceiving the flesh of Christ. If then these titles be unmeet for her, in respect that she received the faith of Christ, which is common to all the children of God, then are they more unfit, in that she conceived the flesh of Christ.
3. It is great presumption to think that the Virgin Mary may command her son in heaven: seeing she had no authority to command him upon earth, in anything pertaining to his office, John. 2.4. And now likewise that carnal respect of children to their parents ceaseth in the kingdom of God.
As for that superiority & higher kind of honor which she hath above all the Saints beside, we find no warrant out of scripture. She is respected now in heaven, not as she bare the flesh of Christ, but as she lived by faith in Christ: she also rejoiced in God her Savior. The scripture therefore maketh one condition and estate of all that shall be saved: and saith generally of all, of others as well as the Virgin Christ's mother, That they shall be as the angels in heaven, Matth. 22.30. Yea, our Savior showeth, that Whosoever doth the will of God, is his sister, brother and mother, Math. 12.50. By the which we learn, that other the faithful servants of GOD may by their faith in Christ, be as well accepted of God, as if they had borne Christ in the flesh. Where then is that high dignity, which she hath, as the mother of Christ, above all Saints? Augustine saith: Tu concinis sine fine choris coniuncta, Angels & Archangelis sociata: Thou (O Virgin) doest rejoice being joined unto the heavenly quire, being associated to Angels and Archangels. He maketh her not Lady or Queen of heaven, but only a fellow companion of the Saints and Angels.
AN APPENDIX OR FIFTH PART OF THE MErites of the Virgin, and of the Ave Maria.
1. THey do teach and hold, that she only amongst all women deserved to [error 84] bear the redeemer of the world, and so by her merits obtained that favor to be the mother of Christ.
Argum. The Angel saluteth her, & calleth her, Full of grace, which showeth the prerogative that she had above other women, and the worthiness that was in her, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 12.15.
Ans. 1. We acknowledge that herein she was blessed above all other women, in that she was chosen to be the mother of our Savior, and that she was endued fully with the graces of the holy Ghost: but those graces she had not of her self, but of the free gift of God, without her merits.
2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifieth freely beloved, not full of grace, as it is likewise taken, Ephes. 1.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He hath made us accepted in his beloved Son.
3. She her self confesseth her self in her song, to be of a low degree, poor in spirit, and hungry, whom God in mercy looked upon, Luk. 1.50. whereas God sent away the proud and rich: as the proud Pharisee that thought himself rich of good works, obtained nothing of God, Luk. 18. Wherefore if she had stood upon her own deserts, she had made her self rich, not poor: neither should she have magnified the mercy of God, but his justice: for when a reward is given according to desert, it is of his justice, and not mercy.
Augustine thus commenteth upon the words of her song, Magnificet animae mea Dominum, & recordetur, quomodo nullis suis praecedentibus meritis, sed sola dei bonitate sit ab iniquitate saluata: Let my soul praise the Lord; and remember, how that not by any merits going before, but through the only gracious goodness of God, it is delivered from sin: Ergo, Mary not saved by her merits, nor consequently the mother of Christ, by her merits, but only by the mere favor of God.
2. THey much commend the often using of the Ave Mary, which is done (say [error 85] they) to the honor of Christ and our Lady.
Argum. They be the very sum and abridgement of the whole Gospel: and therefore to be used, Rhemist. Luk. 1. sect. 11.
1. You do shamefully abuse those words, in making a prayer of them, which was but a form of salutation used by the Angel: neither can you say them in that sense they were uttered in by the Angel. Also you offend in the vain repetition of them upon your beads, as the heathen did, Math. 6.7. and in committing idolatry, in the inuocating of the Virgin, and praying unto her in these words: who is a creature and not a God to be called upon.
2. What mystery soever be contained in these words, yet the people understand nothing at all. And though we deny not but that the words are holy and mystical, yet it followeth not that they should be used for a prayer.
3. What great account they make of the Ave Mary, it may appear by this: that they think they may alter and change it, and add to it at their pleasure: as by Pope Sixtus the 4. there was a clause more added unto the common Ave Mary, in this manner: Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus Christ, and blessed is Anna thy mother, of whom thy virgins flesh hath proceeded without blot of original sin. What a fearful thing is this, that they should thus dare to add unto the scriptures? How can they now escape that judgment that is threatened against all those that do add, or take ought to or from the word of God? Apocal. 22.18.
Thus far of such questions and controversies, as concern the kingdom of Christ, which is his Church: of the which we have now entreated at large: first in general of the whole, and then of the several parts and members thereof in order. Now follow those controversies, which belong unto the Priesthood of Christ, the third excellent and glorious office of our Savior: which his Priesthood is partly seen in his intercession and mediation for us, partly in his sacrifice, where we are to handle the great and weighty controversies of the Sacraments, by the which the sacrifice of his death is applied unto us.
THE TENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE INTERCESSION AND MEDIAtion of Christ, whether he be only our Mediator and Intercessor.
The Papists.
THey seem in these very words to confess, that Christ is the only singular [error 86] advocate and patron of mankind, that by himself alone, and by his own merits procureth all grace and mercy, none asking or obtaining either grace in this life, or glory in the next, but by him. But this letteth not, but that there may be other inferior mediators, though not in that singular sense, Rhemist. annot. 1. Timoth. 2. sect. 4.
Argum. Christ is the only Savior and Redeemer of the world, yet the name of Savior and Redeemer is given to men in the scriptures, as Iud. 3.9. Othniel is called a Savior, Act. 7.35. Moses a Deliverer or Redeemer: and all this without derogation to him, that in more excellent manner is the only Savior of the world: Ergo, there may be also many mediators, in an inferior degree to that singular mediator, to offer up our prayers, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. If Christ be sufficient to procure all grace and mercy unto us, what need then the mediation or invocation of Saints? for we must either doubt of his power, in joining other helpers with him, or make question of his good will and readiness to help us, in making other mediators unto him.
2. They make other mediators and intercessors beside Christ, even in that high and singular degree: for not only Christ by their doctrine, by his merits procureth grace, but other Saints also by their merits are our mediators: as it is plain to see in that popish prayer, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, &c. By the blood of Thomas, which for thee he did spend, make us, Christ, to climb, whither Thomas did ascend. In this blasphemous prayer and a thousand such, they pray only to Christ as God, not as mediator, men departed, and many of them no Saints, they make their only mediators by their own proper merits. See Fulk. ibid.
Again, their Saints are not only intercessors for grace, but conferrers of grace and help, which is the highest degree of mediation. They appoint several patrons amongst the Saints for all purposes: S. Apollonia for the toothach: Saint Rooke for the pestilence: Saint Petronill for the ague: Saint Gregory for Scholars: Saint Morris for Soldiers: Saint Luke for Painters: Saint Crispin for Shoemakers: Saint Nicholas for the sea: Saint Iodocus for corn: Saint Urbane for wine. And thus do they not only (as they bear us in hand) pray for these graces and blessings, but they have power themselves to bestow them.
Ans. 3. Concerning the name and title of Savior and Redeemer, we answer: first, men are called in the Scripture, Deliuerers and Saviors, in respect of some temporal deliverance, not of the spiritual or eternal redemption, which belongeth only to Christ: but you make your Saints mediators of eternal redemption. Secondly, they whom the Scripture calleth Redeemers and Saviors, were appointed by God for such temporal deliverance: but you cannot show the like appointment for Saints to be mediators of eternal salvation, though in an inferior degree to Christ. Thirdly, seeing the name of God and Christ is given to men in the scriptures, as to Princes and Prophets: why may you not as well say, that there may be many God's and Christ's properly, though in an inferior degree to him which is only God and Christ, as to appoint other inferior Redeemers, Saviors and Mediators?
The Protestants.
WE acknowledge but one only Mediator as well of intercession as redemption, even Jesus Christ our Lord: to whom and through whom all our prayers & supplications ought to be made: to him we only pray, as being one God with the Father and the holy Ghost: by him and through him we only pray, as being the only Mediator between God and man.
Arg. 1. S. Paul saith, There is one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, 1. Tim. 2.5. Hence we do frame this argument: The mediator between God and men, must himself be both God and man: but so is none but Christ: Ergo, he is the only Mediator.
Arg. 2. He is only the advocate and mediator for our sins, that is the propitiation for our sins, 1. John. 2.1. Christ only is the propitiation for our sins: Ergo, the only mediator.
Augustine thus writeth upon this place: Si Apostolus ita diceret, &c. If the Apostle had said thus: If any man sin, you have me a mediator with the father, and I do by my prayer obtain pardon for your sins (as Parmenianus in a certain place maketh the Bishop a mediator between the people & God:) Quis sicut Apostolum Christi, & non sicut Antichristum intueretur? Who would behold him as an Apostle of Christ, and not as Antichrist? It is then Antichristian doctrine, in Augustine's judgment, to make any other mediators or intercessors beside Christ.
HERE FOLLOW SVCH CONTROVERSIES, as concern the Sacraments of the Church.
OF the Sacraments then, we must first entreat in general, and afterward handle them in particular.
THE ELEVENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSIE, OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL.
THis Controuersie containeth diverse questions: first, of the nature and definition of a Sacrament. Secondly, of the efficacy and virtue of the Sacraments. Thirdly, of the number and order of the Sacraments, the difference and preeminence amongst them. They thus follow in their order.
THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament.
WE thus define a Sacrament, to be an outward sensible sign, representing an holy, inward, and spiritual grace, instituted of Christ, to be used in that manner he hath appointed, to seal unto us the promises of God, and to assure us of the remission of sins, by the righteousness of faith in Christ, Rom. 4.11.
Some things there be in this definition, that are agreed upon between us and our adversaries: as that the Sacraments are outward signs of spiritual and holy graces, and that there must be a conveniency and agreement between the sign and the thing signified: that not everything may be represented by a Sacrament, but an holy and spiritual grace: that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a divine, not an human authority, Bellar. de Sacram. in gener. lib. 1. cap. 9
The several points then wherein we dissent from them, and which they mislike in this definition, are these: First, concerning the authority of insti • uting a Sacrament, which we affirm to be derived only from Christ, and manifestly to be proved out of the scriptures. Secondly, of the form and manner of celebrating the Sacraments. Thirdly, of the instrumental or ministerial cause, which is the Minister. Fourthly, of the use and end of a Sacrament, whether it be a scale of the promises of God, and instituted for that end.
THE FIRST PART, OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE, that is, the author or institutor of a Sacrament.
The Papists.
THey do willingly grant, that neither the Apostles then had, nor the Church [error 87] now hath authority to institute Sacraments: but that this power is only in Christ, and that the Apostles did but declare and deliver that which they received of Christ: yet for the trial of this, they refuse to be judged by the express word of God, but fly unto their traditions, which they call the word of God not written, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. & 23.
Argum. The sacrament of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, were instituted without express warrant of scripture: for at that time the new testament was not written, when Christ ordained those mysteries: Ergo, for the other Sacraments we need not the express commandment of scripture, Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14.
Ans. First, the traditions of our Savior given unto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments, were afterward written by the Apostles, and expressly set down in scripture: & therefore we doubt not, but that they were of Christ's institution. But your traditions being not committed to writing, concerning your other forged sacraments, are justly suspected, seeing the Apostles should have as well been charged with all the sacraments, if Christ had instituted thē, as with only two. Secondly, how then followeth it, the word of God was sometime unwritten, therefore it is so still? or Christ, who was the author of the word written, might institute sacraments without express scripture: Ergo, the testimony of scripture is not necessary now?
The Protestants.
WE hold no sacraments to be of Christ's institution, but those only which the scripture testifieth to have been commanded by Christ, as Baptism, Math. 28.19. the Lord's Supper, Luk. 23.19. The other, which have no testimony of scripture, were not appointed by Christ.
Argum. 1. S. Paul saith, That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to every good work, 1. Timoth. 3.17. But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the work of the ministry, if he have not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church? for how can he absolutely execute every part of his office, if he fail in the right use of the sacraments? Ergo, seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect, from thence he receiveth sufficient instruction for the sacraments.
Argum. 2. Augustine saith: Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis, observation facilimis, &c. Christ hath joined his people together by the sacraments, few in number, easy in observation: such are Baptism, and the partaking of his body and blood: then it followeth: Et si quid aliud in scriptures canonicis commendatur: And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonical scripture, Epistol. 118. Ergo, we must attend upon the scripture and written word of God, if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament, and the manner of consecration.
The Papists.
THe Sacrament is not consecrated (say they) by all the words of the institution, [error 88] but by a certain form of speech to be used over the elements: as these words to be said over the bread, This is my body: & the like over the wine, This cup is the new testament, &c. And in Baptism these: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. These are the forms of the Sacrament, and very words of consecration, though spoken in a strange tongue, without further invocation of the name of God, or giving of thanks, or without a Sermon, which we require (as they say) as necessary to the essence of a sacrament, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11 sect. 11.15. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament. cap. 19.
Argum. S. Paul saith, The cup of blessing which we bless, 1. Corinth. 10.16. The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice, which is nothing else but the consecration thereof, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, we deny not, but that to bless here doth signify to sanctify or consecrate: but that is not done by a magical murmuration of words over the Sacrament, but by the whole action according to Christ's institution, in distributing, receiving, giving of thanks. Secondly▪ as for the words which Christ uttered in the institution, we rehearse them not, as a magical charm to be said over the bread and wine to convert their substance: but to declare what they are made to us by force of Christ's institution, namely, his body and blood.
The Protestants.
WE do not hold, that it is an essential part of the Sacrament, always to have a sermon before it, as they understand a sermon; which notwithstanding were most convenient, and always to be wished: but this we affirm, that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministered, unless there be a declaration, and showing forth of the Lord's death, not only in the visible action of breaking & distributing the elements: but also in setting forth the end of the Lord's death out of the word of God, with an exhortation to thankfulness, which is always observed amongst us in the daily celebration and receiving of the Sacrament. Concerning the words of the institution, we also grant, that they are necessarily to be used in the celebration of the Sacrament: but not as the Papists use them: For first, they make them not all of one value, but out of the whole institution, pick out certain consecratorie words, as they call them: as, This is my body, This is the cup: whereas the other words, Take ye, eat ye, drink ye, do this in remembrance: do as well belong to the institution, as the other. Secondly, they say, that the words of institution do not serve anything at all for the instruction of the people, to show them the right use of the Sacrament, but only for benediction and consecration of the elements, Bellarm. cap. 19. Thirdly, they do hold, that only by the pronouncing of those words, the elements are consecrated: whereas by the whole action, and cerebration of the Sacrament, the giving, receiving, invocation, thanksgiving, according to Christ's institution, the consecration is performed upon the elements, Fulk. 1. Corinth. 10. sect. 4.
Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed, do help as well to admonish & stir up the people to a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ, as to consecrate & bless the elements, it is manifest: whereas Christ saith, as the words are usually rehearsed, Do this in remembrance of me: and S. Paul saith, That by receiving the sacrament, we do show forth the Lord's death, 1. Corinth. 11.26. Ergo the people are by the words pronounced, instructed and admonished, and taught the right use of the sacrament.
Argum. 2. that the words of institution do help toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements, we deny not, but not by them alone, but prayer also and thanksgiving, and the whole action beside of receiving. To the consecration or sanctifying of any creature, two things are required: the word of God, and prayer, 1. Timoth. 4.5. Neither the word sanctifieth without prayer, nor prayer without the word. Ergo to the sanctifying & cōsecrating of the sacrament, the bare rehearsal of the institution sufficeth not, without invocation and prayer.
Augustine saith, Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fiet Sacramentum. Let the word be joined to the element, and it is become a Sacrament. And in another place, he showeth what word he meaneth: Faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditor, hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus. The word effecteth this, not because it is spoken or uttered, but because it is believed: this is the word of faith, saith the Apostle, which we preach: thus far Augustine tract in Johan. 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange tongue, after the manner of enchaunters, that by any secret force given unto them hath power to consecrate: but the understanding, hearing, and believing the institution of Christ, with calling upon the name of God, and thanksgiving before him.
AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART, WHETHER THE form of words in the institution of the Sacraments may not be by some addition, or other alteration changed.
The Papists.
THe words of institution may be changed two manner of ways: either substantially, [error 89] when the sense is also altered with the words; or accidētally, whē the elements or syllables are only changed, but the sense remaineth the same. If there be a change in the substance of the words, the sacrament is imperfect: if the alteration be of the form only of words, and not of the sense, the sacrament is not destroyed: but he sinneth that doth so alter them. Wherefore it is not lawful any way at all to alter or change the form of words. Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1.
Argum. It is not lawful to add or take, to or from the words of scripture, much less to change the words appointed to be used in the Sacrament. Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. To add or detract to or from the word of God, with a purpose and intent, to wrest it to a contrary meaning, and destroy the true sense thereof, cannot be done without great impiety: and such is the manner of all heretics: But to allege Scripture, in keeping still the full sense, though we miss of the words, is not to be counted so heinous a sin: we see the holy Apostles in citing texts of Scripture, do not always bind themselves to the very words, as Act. 7.43. Heb. 10.5. The Apostle saith, A body thou hast given me: In the Psalm we read, Mine ears hast thou opened: diverse words, yet the same sense.
Augustine saith very well, they that understand the Scripture, though they keep not always the words, are better then they that read and understand not: Sed vtrisque ill melior, qui et cum volet, ea • dicit, et sicut oportet, intelligit: But he is better then both, that both remembereth the words, and keepeth the sense too: yet he also deserveth praise, that beareth the sense in mind, though he cannot the words.
The Protestants.
NO substantial change (we confess) is to be admitted in the form of Institution, which may alter the sense: neither is any particular man by himself to make any accidental change, and bring in a new form of words, but the public and uniform order of the church must be kept, yea, and the church likewise is bound both to retain the true sense, and, as near as may be, the very words, but where occasion serveth, to make some small accidental change: of the words, the sense being nothing diminished, it is not condemned as an unlawful and sinful act.
Argum. 1. The Evangelists report not all the same form of words, which should be uttered by our Savior, neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them, in the precise and strict form of institution: as by comparing of them together, it may be seen,
| Mat. 26. ver. 27. Take, eat, this is my body. | S. Luke. cap. 22. This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ver. 19. | S. Paul. Take, eat, this my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11.24. |
| ver. 28. This is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. | This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you. | This cup is the new testament in my blood, this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me. |
If it had been a sin, to have missed in some terms and syllables, no doubt the spirit of God would not have suffered these holy writers to have made the least scape. Is it to be thought a sin in the Church, which instead of Take ye, eat ye, in the plural number, hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministered particularly in the singular number, to every of the cōmunicants, saying. Take thou, eat thou, drink thou? Wherefore all accidental change of words carrieth not with it a guilt of sin.
Augustine indeed saith, Certa sunt verba euangelica, &c. The words of the gospel are certain, whereby Baptism is consecrated. But yet he saith else where, In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manēs : In the word spoken the sound which passeth, is one thing, the virtue or sense of the words which abideth, is another: It is then the sense of the words, not the sound or syllables, that is certain and permanent.
THE THIRD PART, OF THE INSTRVMENTALL cause of the Sacraments, that is, the lawful Minister.
SOme things are yielded unto of both sides: First, that no man ought to take upon him to administer the Sacraments, unless he be thereunto lawfully called and ordained by the Church, saving that they make exception of Baptism, which in case of necessity, as they teach, may be given by the hands of lay men or women: but of this matter we shall have fitter occasion afterward to consider. Secondly it is agreed, that the efficacy or virtue of the Sacrament, dependeth not of the faith or honesty of the Minister: but a faithful man may receive the sacrament worthily, even at the hands of an unworthy Minister.
The Papists.
THe point of difference between us, is this: They do teach that the efficacy, [error 90] perfection, and being of the Sacrament, doth necessarily depend of the intention of the Minister, so that they hold it to be no sacrament, if the Minister have not, Intentionem faciendi, quod facit ecclesia, A full purpose and intent in ministering the Sacrament, to do that which the Church doth, that is, to consecrate the elements, and to make a Sacrament, Trident. council. sess. 7. canon 11. Bellarm. cap. 27. So that by this rule, if the Ministers intention be not wholly vpō the business he hath in hand, it shall be no Sacrament.
Argum. If the Ministers intention were not necessary to make a sacrament, when it chanceth that the gospel is read at the table by a Minister, there being both bread and wine set before them, and he in reading saith, This is my body, and This is my blood, straightwaies all that bread & wine should be consecrate, and become a sacrament, but because his intention is wanting, it is none▪ Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. 1. But what if the Minister should have a fantastical conceit and intent, as he readeth, to consecrate all the bread & wine upon the table, then it should seem by your rule, that it must needs be a sacrament, which were even as absurd a thing as the other? 2. There are other lets & impediments, from having a sacrament at the table, thē the intention of the minister being wanting or kept back: for the elements are not consecrated, nor the Sacrament made by the bare pronouncing of the words: but the whole institutiō ought to be observed: there must be eating, drinking, taking, and doing all in the remembrance of the death of Christ: there must be distributing, receiving, inuocatiō, thankesgiuing: the whole action in the sacrament, is the consecration thereof: these things thē being wanting, there can be no Sacrament.
The Protestants.
IF the Sacrament be administered aright according to the institution of Christ, whatsoever the Minister be, howsoever affected, be he never so profane in his heart, without any godly purpose or intention: yet to the worthy receiver it ceaseth not to be a Sacrament, Calvin. in antidot. council. Tridentin. sess. 7. canon 11.
Argum. 1. The word of God, with what intention soever it be preached, yet may have his effect, and work faith in the hearer. So Christ be preached (saith S. Paul ) whether under pretence, or sincerely, I therein joy, Philip. 1.18. Ergo the Sacraments also may have their efficacy, without the intent of the Minister. argum. Lutheri.
Argu. 2. If the effect of the Sacrament consisteth upon the intention of the Minister, then should every man be uncertain whether anything be wrought in him, or he have received any benefit by the Sacrament, because he knoweth not the intent of another man's heart, and so should he be deprived of the spiritual comfort, which he might reap by the Sacrament, Calvin.
Augustine saith: Sacramentum Baptismi tam sacrum est, vt nec homicida vel ebrioso ministrante polluatur : The Sacrament of Baptism is so holy, that it cannot, either by a murderer or drunken person ministering it, be defiled. And I pray you, is it not like to be a good intention, that should enter into the harts of such lewd and wicked men? Therefore without any good intention, even by the hands of such, may the Sacraments be given.
THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER THE Sacraments be seals of the promises of God.
The Papists.
[error 91] THey utterly deny, that the Sacraments be pledges and seals unto us of the promises of God, or that thereby our faith is nourished and confirmed, and we assured of free remission of sins by the death of Christ: neither that the sacraments were ordained for any such end. Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram. cap. 14.
Argum. 1. If the sacraments confirm unto us the promises of God in his word, then must they of necessity be more evident, and better known unto us, then is the word of God: for that which is less known, and not so notorious, cannot persuade us of that, which we have better knowledge of. But such are the Sacraments, which are not so evident, being called mysteries of religion, as are the words of God: Ergo Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. 1. It is strange to see, that you should now contend for the evidence, and plainness of Scripture, which you have locked up from the people, with no other pretence, then because they are hard and obscure, and dangerous ro be read of the simple. Secondly, you do not well in comparing the word and the sacraments together: for they cannot be diuorsed or separated: for the word giveth life to the sacraments, the sacraments again give lively testimony and witness to the truth of the word. But let this be the question, not whether the writing by it self, and the seal by it self are of greatest force: but whether an instrument with a seal be not of greater evidence and strength, then without it: So the word of God, which doth but beat upon the sense of hearing, must of necessity, not in itself, but in respect of us, work more effectually, being sealed by the sacraments, where we receive instruction by two other senses of ours, the sight, and the taste.
The Protestants.
THat the Sacraments are ordained of God, to be pledges and seals of his promises made unto us in Christ, that as verily as the external elements are applied to the outward man, so our souls spiritually are refreshed with an assured hope of the remission of our sins in Christ, and so the sacraments to be seals only of the righteousness of faith, and not givers or workers of grace in us: it is evident out of the Scripture.
Argum. 1. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, as the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.1. Circumcision then was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, that is, that he was justified by faith. Ergo so are all other sacraments.
Rhemist. Indeed circumcision was a seal to Abraham, for he was just before, and received this sacrament, as a seal thereof afterward. But it followeth not, that it was so in all: for in Isaac his son, and so consequently in the rest, the Sacrament went before and justice followed. annot. Rom. 4. sect. 8.
Ans. 1. The Apostle setteth forth the example of Abraham, to show how all men are justified before God, and what is the use of the sacraments in all men: and therefore it is no extraordinary or exempt case, but the common case of all the faithful, that righteousness (saith the Apostle) might be imputed to them also, Rom. 4. 11. Secondly, although Isaac with many other, were first circumcised, and after justified: yet this is perpetual, they were no more justified by circumcision, then Abraham, who was justified before he was circumcised, but by faith only: and therefore the Sacraments are seals of the justice of faith, whether the justice of faith go before, or follow after.
Argum. 2. Augustine saith, In Isaac, qui octauo die circumcisus fuit, praecessit signaculū iustitiae fidei, et quoniam patris fidem imitatus est, secuta est in crescente ipsa iustitia, cuius signaculum in infante praecesserat. In Isaac, who was circumcised the eight day, the seal of the righteousness of faith went before: and because he did follow his fathers faith, as he grew, justice it self followed, the seal whereof went before in his infancy. Ergo circumcision was a seal as well to Isaac as to Abraham, and so consequently to all.
THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE efficacy and virtue of the Sacraments.
THis question also hath diverse partes: First, whether the Sacraments do give or confer grace by the work wrought. Secondly, of the difference of the Sacraments of the old and new testament. Thirdly, whether the Sacraments of the new law do imprint a sign or character in the soul, that can never be put out. Fourthly, of the necessity of the Sacraments.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE SACRAMENTS of them selves do give or confer grace.
The Papists.
[error 92] THe Sacraments give grace ex opere operato, by the work wrought, that is, by force and virtue of the work and word done and said in the sacrament, Rhemist. Act. 22. sect. 1. So that not faith only justifieth, but the Sacraments also, and other works of religion. Rhemist. Rom. 6. sect. 5. The Sacraments then are immediate instruments and efficient causes of our justification, not mediately, as they nourish and increase our faith, but properly and in themselves: Faith in the receiver giveth no efficacy to the Sacrament, but only taketh away the lets and impediments which might hinder the efficacy of the Sacrament: as the drynes of the wood maketh it to burn the better, yet is it no efficient cause of the burning, which is the fire only, but only a help. Thus they compare the Sacrament working of it self, to fire that burneth, and faith is as the drying of the wood, but a disposing and preparing of the heart. Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 1.
Argum. 1. Be baptized and wash away thy sins, Act. 22. ver. 16. The Sacrament of Baptism doth of it self wash away sins, Rhemist. And we see in S. James, that remission of sins is annexed to the unction with oil, Rhemist. 1. Timoth. 4.14. Ergo, the Sacraments give and confer grace.
Ans. 1. To the first we answer, that the text joineth with the Sacrament, the invocation of the name of God, to the which salvation is promised, Rom. 10.13. to wash away sins: wherefore that place maketh nothing for your purpose. Secondly, in the other place health of body is promised by the gift of miracles▪ but remission of sins is said to be obtained by the prayer of the Elders. The prayer of faith shall save the sick, I am. 5.15.
Argum. 2. S. Paul. saith, He hath cleansed his Church, by the laver of water in the word, Ephes. 5.26. Ergo baptism is an instrumental cause of our justification. Bellarm.
Ans. 1. It is not unusual in the Scripture to call the sign or Sacrament by the thing signified: as, Exod. 12.11. the Paschal Lamb is called the Passover, whereas it was but a sign and memorial thereof. So Baptism is called, The laver of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. because it is a sure sign of our regeneration by the holy Ghost. Secondly, the Apostle in this place expoundeth himself: for he saith, that We are washed by water in the word: that is, the outward element doth send and refer us to the word and promise of God, whereof it is a seal.
The Protestants.
THe sacraments have no power to give or confer grace to the receiver: neither are they immediate instruments of our justification: instrumental means they are to increase and confirm our faith in the promises of God: of themselves they have no operation, but as the spirit of God worketh by them, our internal senses being moved and quickened by those external objects. Neither do we say, that the sacraments are bare and naked signs of spiritual graces: but they do verily exhibit and represent Christ to as many, as by faith are able and meet to apprehend him. So to conclude: look how the word of God worketh being preached, so do the sacraments: but the word doth no otherwise justify us, but by working faith at the hearing thereof: So sacraments do serve for the increase of our faith: faith is not a servant and handmaid to the sacraments, (as the Jesuit declared by the homely similitude of the fire and dry wood) but faith is the more principal, and the sacraments have no other use or end, then as they are helps for the strengthening of our faith. Grace of themselves they can give or confer none.
Argum. 1. Rom. 1.17. The just shall live by faith: Ergo, he liveth not, that is, he is not justified by any work wrought, as by the sacraments, but only by faith: faith therefore giveth life and efficacy to the sacraments, it is not contained absolutely in themselves. Again, Saint Paul saith, That faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, before he was circumcised, Rom. 4.10. Ergo, he was not justified by circumcision: no more are we by the sacraments: but both he and we are justified only by faith.
Argum. 2. Saint Peter saith, Baptism saveth us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request unto God, by the resurrection of Christ, 1. Pet. 3.21. Ergo, it is faith in the resurrection of Christ, which worketh in us peace of conscience, and not the outward washing, that saveth or justifieth, Kemnitij argum.
Augustine thus writeth: Aliud est aqua sacramenti, aliud aqua, quae significat spiritum dei: ista visibles est, & abluit corpus, & significat, quid fit in anima, per illum spiritum anima mundatur & saginatur. The water of the Sacrament is one thing, the water which signifieth the spirit is another: the one is visible, and washeth the flesh, and signifieth what is done in the soul: but by the spirit the soul is cleansed. The Sacrament of Baptism then, by this fathers sentence, and so all other sacraments, do not give grace, but signify only and represent grace.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE difference of the old and new Sacraments.
[error 93] THe sacrifices and ceremonies of the old law were so far from giving spirit, grace, remission, justification, and thereupon the entrance into the joys of heaven, that they were but mere shadows, obscurely representing the graces of the new testament: whereas the sacraments instituted by Christ, contain and give grace, and justification. Rhemist. Heb. 10. sect. 3.
Argum. 1. They were but shadows of good things, not the image of the things themselves, Heb. 10.1. They were but shadows and representations of the sacraments of the New Testament. Ergo they had not the same efficacy or power. Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. Their sacraments were only shadows of Christ's sacrifice, not of our sacraments, though these come in the place of the other, and are answerable and correspondent unto them. Secondly, neither do the sacraments of the New Testament give grace or justification, but are only lively testimonies of grace and reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ. Thirdly, their sacraments were as effectual to assure the Fathers of grace & remission of sins by Christ, as our sacraments are to us. Fulk ibid.
The Protestants.
WE do hold and constantly affirm and teach, that the Fathers in the law received no less the truth and substance of Christ by faith in their sacraments, then we do in ours: although in respect of more clear and lightsome signification, our Sacraments do far exceed theirs, and so also may more lively stir up our faith: yet the substance and effect both of their sacraments and ours, was all one and the very same.
Argum. 1. S. Paul speaketh plainly, that the Israelites did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drink of the same spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ, 1. Corin. 10.3.4. Therefore Christ was exhibited as well to them in their sacraments, as he is in ours.
Bellarm. answereth, They did all eat the same spiritual meat amongst themselves, not the same together with us. So also say the Rhemists, that they amongst themselves did all feed of one bread, and drink of the same rock. The Apostle saith not, that they and we do eat and drink of the selfsame meat and drink. Rhemist. in hunc l • cum.
Ans. 1. Yes the Apostle saith so in effect, that there is one and the self same spiritual meat and drink to us all, both to them and us: for what do we eat and drink but Christ? and so do they: The rock, saith the Apostle, was Christ. Secondly, Augustine saith so expressly, that they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual cup, that we do: Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, eundem, quem nos cibum spiritual̄ manducauerunt: de vtilitat. poenitent. cap. 2. They which in the eating of Manna did understand Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do. Ergo, Christ was as well present by faith to them in their sacraments, as he is to us in ours.
THE THIRD PART, OF THE Character or badge, which (as they say) is imprinted in the soul by the sacraments.
The Papists.
FIrst, there is a certain seal, and spiritual mark or badge, imprinted by the sacraments, in the souls of the receivers, which can never be blotted [error 94] out, neither by sin, apostasy, or heresy: 2. but it perpetually remaineth for the cognizance of their Christendom, and distinction from others, that were never of Christ's fold, by which also they are consecrated and deputed to God. Thirdly, this indelible Character, is given by three sacraments only, Baptism, Confirmation, Orders; which is the cause they are not reiterable, nor ever to be received but once. Rhemist. annotat. 2. Cor. 1. sect. 7. Trident. Council. sess. 7. can. 9. Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 19.
Argum. 2. Corinth. 1.22. He hath sealed us, and given the earnest of the spirit into our hearts. Likewise, Ephes. 4.30. Grieue not the spirit of God, by whom ye are sealed against the day of redemption. This sealing is nothing else, as they say, but an imprinting in the soul of this indelible mark or Character.
Answ. First, the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the spiritual and inward seal of the spirit of God, whereof Baptism is an outward seal in our bodies. Secondly, it is an absurd thing to hold, that he that hath utterly and maliciously renounced Christianity, and blasphemed Christ himself, should still retain this Character of Baptism, as a cognizance of his Christendom. Thirdly, Baptism is not reiterable, that is, to be iterated or repeated, not because it leaveth an indelible character in the mind of the baptized; which is but a mere devise and fancy: but because, as it sufficeth once to be borne in the flesh, so once to be borne again, and to be regenerate by the spirit (of the which regeneration, Baptism is a seal and pledge) it is sufficient. As for confirmation, and orders, we acknowledge them to be no sacraments: and therefore to have no such indelible character.
The Protestants.
THat by Baptism and some other sacraments, there is imprinted in the soul a mark or character, which can never be blotted out, no not by Apostasy: and that this is the cause why Baptism cannot be iterated, we hold it to be a mere device, and invention of men.
Argum. 1. Where the end and fruits of Baptism are utterly extinguished, there cannot remain any character or badge, or sign of Baptism: The fruits of Baptism are repentance, and regeneration by the spirit: But it is possible for these, in some that are baptized, to be utterly lost, as in them that fall away by Apostasy, they cannot be renewed by repentance, Hebr. 6.6. therefore in such, there is not to be found any character, badge or sign of Baptism, which they have utterly renounced: only the memorial thereof is kept before God, they being so much worse, then they that were never baptized, because they have willfully rejected their profession.
Argum. 2. The cause why Baptism is but once to be given, is not, as they allege, because it leaveth such a sure mark behind, so deeply died in the soul, that it cannot be blotted out. There are other causes that come nearer the truth: 1. As God is but one, who maketh a covenant with us in Baptism, and the faith but one, into the which we are entered by that sacrament: so Baptism is one and the same, Ephes. 4.5. 2. The institution of God is another cause, who hath appointed the other sacrament often to be received, 1. Corinth. 11.25. but for the iteration of Baptism, we have no such commandment. 3. Baptism cometh in the place of Circumcision: as that was but once administered, so likewise it must be in the other. 4. In Baptism God maketh a perpetual covenant with us, which he always remēbreth, & therefore need not to be put in mind, by the often using of that sacrament. These and the like reasons may be alleged, why Baptism is not often to be required: and not that, which by them without any ground is pretended.
Augustine is flat against them, for the iteration of confirmation: Manus impositio non sicut baptismus repeti non potest. Quid enim est aliud, nisi oratio super hominem? The imposition of hands is not as Baptism, never to be iterated again: for what is it else, but prayer over a man? De baptism. contr. Donat. lib. 3. cap. 16. Confirmation in his opinion may be iterated, and therefore imprinteth no such character.
THE FOURTH PART, OF THE necessity of the sacraments.
THey willingly grant, that no sacraments are absolutely necessary in their nature, but in respect of the institution and commmandement of God, for he is as able to work without sacraments, as with them. In this point, we are agreed: the points of difference are these.
The Papists.
1 THese 3. sacraments are absolutely and simply necessary, as they are instituted [error 95] of God: Baptism unto all: Penance to those that fall after Baptism: Orders simply necessary to the whole Church. And thus they understand necessary, that without the which a man cannot be saved: without the rest of the sacraments men may be saved, so there be no negligence or contempt, Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram. cap. 22.
The Protestants.
THough the sacraments being appointed for our comfort, are necessary and profitable as wholesome means to be used for the increase of our faith, and much to be desired and sought for: yet God hath not laid such a necessity upon any of them, as that the want of them should cause hazard of salvation. The thief upon the Cross was saved both without Baptism and Penance: I pray you what penance did Peter after his thrice denial of Christ, but that he wept bitterly, and earnestly repented him of his fall? Such repentance we hold to be necessary, but a sacrament of penance we acknowledge none. So the ordaining of ministers to preach, is the ordinary means to beget men unto the faith: yet many have been called without such preaching: as Paul was converted by the voice of Christ from heaven, Nebuchadnezzar was called by the great miracle of the preservation of the three children in the fiery oven.
So Augustine saith, Vndique vocat nos Deus ad poenitentiam, vocat per lectorem, vocat per tractatorem, vocat per intimam cogitationem▪ vocat per flagellum correptionis, vocat per misericordiam consolationis: God calleth us every way to repentance; he calleth, by the reader, by the preacher, by the inward thought, by the scourge of correction, by the mercy of consolation: in Psal. 102. God therefore may call and instruct us by more ways then one, he is not tied to any.
The Papists.
2 THe sacraments of the new law are necessary to salvation, that is, it is impossible to obtain the grace of justification, by faith alone, without the celebrating of the sacraments, sine sacramentis, aut eorum voto, or at least, having a will, purpose, and desire to celebrate and use them, Council. Trident. sess. 7. can. 4.
The Protestants.
A Necessity of the sacraments we grant, as also of other profitable means, as of preaching the word, of prayer, and the like: but no simple or absolute necessity, as we have said: neither are the sacraments necessary at all, being ordained for no such use, to be means to apply the grace of justification unto us: but our justification is only applied and apprehended by faith, as Saint Paul concludeth, Rom. 3.28. that a man is justified by faith only, without works of the law: yea, all works whatsoever are excluded, as destroying grace, Rom. 11. ver. 6. The sacraments are profitable instruments, to stir up the gift of faith and other graces in us, but not by their proper work to justify us.
Augustine saith: Primo fides catholica Christiano necessaria est, per ipsam renascimur in baptismate, & salutem aeternam impetramus: First of all, the catholic faith is necessary for a Christian, by the which in Baptism we are borne again, and obtain eternal salvation. He saith not that Baptism, but that faith is necessary, and that it is faith which giveth life to the sacrament: it worketh not by it own proper act.
THE THIRD QUESTION OF THE number and order of the sacraments.
THE FIRST PART, OF the number.
The Papists.
THeir general sentence and opinion is this, that there are seven sacraments, [error 96] neither more or less: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Orders, extreme Unction. If any man say that any of these are not truly and properly sacraments, or that they are not all of Christ's institution, let him be anathema, or accursed, Council. Trid. sess. 7. can. 1.
Argum. The number of seven is mystical, prophetical, perfect: the Prophet commanded Naaman to wash himself seven times, 2. King. 4. The Altar must be cleansed seven days, Exod. 29.37. Job offered seven bullocks & seven rams for his friends, Job 42. So in the Apocalypse. 7. Churches, 7. Angels, 7. stars, 7. Candlesticks, 7. thunders, and the like: And why not also seven sacraments? Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 26. Rhemist. annot. Apocal. 1. sect. 3.
Answ. First, the number of seven is sometime applied, to describe mysteries of wickedness, as well as of godliness: As the beast with seven heads, Apoc. 17.8. is called a mystery, or as your vulgar Latin hath it, a sacrament. And with greater reason may we conclude, that this beast with seven heads, is Antichrist, with his seven Popish sacraments: then you out of Naaman's seven times washing, can pick out seven sacraments. But if you will needs make a mystery of seven: it may as well be a mystery of iniquity as of godliness, even the mystery of the beast with seven heads, as we have said. Secondly, what though the number of seven, and of some other numbers, be sometime mystical and significative, when it pleaseth the Lord in his word so to apply and appoint them? doth it therefore follow, that men upon their own heads, may superstitiously apply numbers to sacraments, prayers, fastings, times, as though there were any religion in numbers, or that the Lord had the rather respect unto such things because of the number?
The Protestants.
THis word or name, Sacrament, may be taken two ways: first, generally for any mystical sign or symbol, which may represent an holy thing: and so we will grant, that there may be not only seven Sacraments, but seven and seven: which are more properly symbols and signs, then sacraments: As the covering of the head in the woman is a symbol of subjection, 1. Cor. 11.10. the Sabbath day a symbol or sacrament of the heavenly rest, Heb. 4. In this sense Augustine calleth the mystery of the Trinity a sacrament: yea he saith, the sacrament of fire, because therein in some sort, by the undivided and inseparable properties thereof, the heat, light, and shining brightness, the Trinity, saith he, is shadowed forth. Wherefore every sign or symbol of a holy thing, that hath a spiritual signification, either found in scripture, or devised by men, is not by and by a sacrament.
Secondly, if we will take a sacrament in the strict and proper sense, there are especially three things required thereunto: First, that they do not only signify, but exhibit and represent unto us after a lively manner, the spiritual things which are signified. Secondly, they must have the institution & perpetual commandment of Christ. Thirdly, the sacraments of the new law must succeed in the place of the old. Hereupon we will infer, that there are but two sacraments in the New Testament, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.
Argum. 1. These two alone are not only signs of heavenly things, but seals and pledges unto us thereof, whereby our faith is strengthened, and our hope confirmed in the promises of God: as the remission of sins is represented in Baptism, Act. 2.38. the death of Christ shown forth in the Eucharist, 1. Corinth. 11.26. The like commendation is not given of any other of their sacraments.
Argum. 2. Christ only commanded these two sacraments to be used forever in his Church: to such spiritual purposes, as Baptism is instituted and commanded, Math. 28.19. the Lord's Supper likewise, Math. 26. Many other ceremonies Christ used himself, as lifting up of hands, the tempering of clay and spittle, his Apostles imposition of hands, and anointing with oil: But he hath not laid his commandment upon these ceremonies, enjoining us perpetually to keep them▪ as he hath charged us with the other two.
Argum. 3. The sacraments of the new Testament succeed in the room of them of the old: Baptism standeth instead of Circumcision, the Lord's Supper is come in place of the Paschal Lamb. But they cannot show what old sacraments, those five other newly invented, confirmation, orders, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, do succeed and supply: Ergo, they are none. And beside, if all these should be sacraments, and so seven in all: we should have more in number then the Jews had, which is not to be admitted: for they had but two ordinary sacraments, Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb: two extraordinary, as their baptism in the red sea and the cloud, and their eating of the Manna, and drinking of the rock, 1. Corin. 10.2.3. So they should have but four sacraments, for your seven. Other legal rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices they had, and many typical shadows and significations, but no more sacraments then we have heard.
Augustine yieldeth to have no more sacraments then only two: As Eve was made out of Adams side as he was asleep: Sic ex latere domini dormientis in cruce manauerunt sacramenta, ex quibus formaretur ecclesia: So out of the Lord's side sleeping upon the cross, the sacraments of the Church issued: that is, water and blood: by the which he understandeth the two sacraments.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE order and degree of the sacraments among them selves.
The Papists.
[error 97] IF any man shall say, that these seven sacraments are of equal dignity, and not one in some respect to be preferred before the other, let him be accursed, Council. Trident. sess. 7. can. 3. In diverse respects one sacrament may excel another, as Baptism excelleth the rest, because of remission of sins thereby effected, or, as we say, represented. Orders excel, in respect of the minister, because they are only, say they, conferred by a Bishop. Matrimony excelleth, in respect of the signification, the conjunction of Christ and his Church. But simply the Eucharist exceedeth all, because of the substance of the sacrament, the real and bodily presence of Christ. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 28.
Answer. First, that Baptism and the Eucharist exceed all the other, we do easily admit; for we hold them to be no sacraments: and therefore we stand not upon their several privileges. Secondly, neither Baptism is more excellent then the Lord's Supper, because it representeth the remission of sins: for that also is insinuated in the other: for how can we show forth the Lord's death, which is done in that sacrament, unless we call to mind the benefits purchased by his death, as remission of sins? Neither doth the Eucharist go beyond Baptism, in regard of a more full presence of Christ: for he is not otherwise present in one sacrament, then in the other, presenting himself in both spiritually to be apprehended of the worthy receiver: as for that carnal and gross presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, we acknowledge none: as afterward it shall more fully appear, when we come in order to that question.
Augustine showeth, that Christ is no otherwise present in the Eucharist, then in the preaching of the word, for the manner of his presence: Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est, & quod vobis tracto, panis quotidianus est, & quod in ecclesia lections quotidie auditis, panis quotidianus est: the Eucharist or sacrament of thanksgiving is our daily bread, that which I handle and preach to you, is our daily bread, that which you hear read daily in the Church, is our daily bread. If Christ then be no more really present in the sacrament then in the word, what is become of the preeminence, that the one sacrament in that respect should have above the other?
The Protestants.
THat the one sacrament should be so much extolled above the other, namely, the Lord's Supper to be preferred before Baptism, as the more worthy and excellent sacrament, we find no such thing in the word of God: but that both of them are of like dignity in themselves, and to be had equally and indifferently in most high accompt: thus it is proved.
Argum. 1 They are both commanded and instituted by the same authority of our Lord Jesus Christ: neither is one by the first institution advanced above the other. Secondly, there is the same matter and substance of both sacraments, Christ Jesus with all his benefits. Thirdly, one and the same end of them both, which is the increase and strengthening of our faith in the promises of God: Ergo, they are both of equal dignity and worthiness.
Let them say now, which is the more worthy thing, Baptism, or the word preached: no doubt, they will prefer Baptism: for they hold that the sacraments do give grace by the work wrought, and so doth not the word: yea, they are offended, because we say, that the sacraments are no otherways instruments of our justification, then the word preached is, but that the one worketh by the hearing, the other by the senses of seeing, handling, tasting: but they all serve to one end, namely, to beget and increase faith in us. This our assertion they utterly mislike, Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram. cap. 2. Whereby it appeareth, that they prefer Baptism before the word. We then thus reason out of Augustine: He thus writeth: Dicite mihi, quid plus videtur vobis, verbum dei, an corpus Christi? respondere debetis, quod non sit minus verbum dei:
Homil. 26.
THE TWELFTH GENERALL CONTROVERSY, OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISME.
T His controversy standeth upon diverse questions: 1. Of the name and definition of Baptism. Secondly, of the partes of Baptism. Thirdly, of the necessity of Baptism. Fourthly, of the Minister of Baptism. Fifthly, of the parties which are to be baptized. Sixthly, of the effects of Baptism. Seventhly, of the difference of Christ's Baptism and John's. Eighthly, of the ceremonies of Baptism.
THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptism.
COncerning the name, there is no question between us, for the name of Baptism hath the original and beginning from the scripture: Saint Paul useth this word, Coloss. 2.12. We are buried with him through Baptism. And again, Heb. 6.2. All the question is about the definition of Baptism.
The Papists.
[error 98] THey define Baptism to be a sacrament of regeneration by water in the word: that is not which signifieth and sealeth unto us our regeneration, and assureth us of remission of sins: but actually justifieth and regenerateth us, Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism. cap. 1.
The Protestants.
WE rather, according to the scriptures, define baptism, to be a sign or seal of our regeneration and new birth, whereby we are assured, that as verily by faith in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sins, as our bodies are washed with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: So that Baptism doth not actually bestow remission of sins by the work wrought, but is a pledge and seal of the righteousness of faith, as Saint Paul saith of Circumcision: Rom. 4.11. for it is not the washing of the flesh by water, but the establishing of the heart with faith and grace, that saveth us, 1. Pet. 3.21. See this point handled more at large, Controuers. 11. next before, quest. 2. part. 1.
Augustine saith, Per fidem renascimur in baptismate: by faith we are borne again in Baptism, De tempor. serm. 53. It is then the proper act of faith, to regenerate us, not of Baptism, the use and end whereof, is to strengthen and increase our faith.
THE SECOND QUESTION OF THE PARTES, which are the matter and form of Baptism.
AS touching the matter, that is, the external element used in Baptism, there is no question between us, but that it ought to be plain and common water, Act. 10.47. Saint Peter saith, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? Wherefore we condemn the foolish and ungodly practices and inventions of heretics, that either exclude water altogether, as the Manichees, with others; or do use any other element, as the Jacobites, that instead of water, burned them, that were to be baptized, with a hot iron: or as the Ethiopians, which are called Abissines, that used fire instead of water: misconstruing the words of the Gospel, Matth. 2.11. That Christ should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire: which is not literally to be understood, but thereby is signified the internal and forceable working of the spirit, which kindleth zeal and love in our hearts as fire.
Concerning the form of Baptism: we all agree, that no other is to be used, then that prescribed by our Savior Christ: to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost: that it is neither lawful to change this form in sense, as many heretics have done, nor yet in words, as to leave out any of the three persons in Trinity, and inclusively to understand them by naming of one: for whereas some allege that place, Act. 2.38. Be ye baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins; to prove, that it is lawful only in the name of Christ to baptize, we are to understand, that the form of Baptism is not in that place expressly set down, but the scope only and end of Baptism, which is to assure us of remission of sins in the name of Christ, as Beza very well noteth upon that place. The point of difference between us, concerning the form of Baptism is this.
The Papists.
THey are bold to affirm, that this form of Baptism, to baptize in the name [error 99] of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is not fully concluded out of Scripture, but delivered by tradition: for (say they) the commandment of Christ, to baptize in the name of the Trinity, Matth. 28. may be understood thus: to baptize them into the faith of the Trinity, or by the authority of the Trinity. And it were sufficient, by those words, to do and perform it in act, without saying the words; were it not, that we have otherwise learned by tradition, that this very form of words is to be kept, Bellarmine de baptism. lib. 1. cap. 3.
The Protestants.
WE need no tradition for this matter; the very form which is to be used in Baptism, is plainly proved out of the Scriptures: for that commandment of Christ, Go and baptize, &c. doth necessarily imply a form of speech to be used. We grant, that in the Scriptures, this word (name,) is taken for power, virtue, authority, as Act. 3.6. In the name of Jesus arise and walk. So also, as there is a Baptism with water, there may be a baptizing with fire, Matth. 3.11. Wherefore if part of the commandment be to be taken properly and literally, as this, Go and baptize, why not the rest also, In the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost? If then the whole commandment be properly and plainly understood: how can they baptize in the name of the Trinity, unless the Trinity be spoken and named?
Secondly, it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture, that this form was used in the Apostles time: As
Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, why these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we?
Augustine. tract. in Iohann 80. Upon those words of our Savior, John 15.3. You are clean thorough the word, which I have spoken unto you. Detrahe verbum, & quid est aqua, nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit sacramentum. Take away the word, and what remaineth in Baptism but bare water? let the word be joined to the element, and it maketh a Sacrament. The form then of Baptism, is the word, which Christ spake: and where else speaketh Christ, but in the scriptures? Ergo the form of Baptism, is the word of Christ, prescribed and commanded in the scriptures. Away therefore with your uncertain and deceitful traditions. Our Baptism is built upon a surer foundation: namely, the word of God.
THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE necessity of Baptism.
The Papists.
THey affirm, that Baptism is simply necessary to salvation by God's appointment: [error 100] so that all which die unbaptized, unless the want of Baptism be recompensed either by Martyrdom, or penance, must needs perish, and be deprived of eternal life, Council. Trident. sess. 7. can. 7. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptism. cap. 4.
Argum. John 3.5. Our savior Christ saith,
Ans. First, it is not necessary by water here to understand material water, but the purifying grace of Christ, which is called the water of life, John. 4.11. Water then is here added as an Epithet of the spirit, because it cleanseth and purgeth as water: as John 7.38. He that believeth, out of his belly shall flowe rivers of waters of life.
Thirdly, as you expound these words of Baptism, so ye do apply another place, John 6.53. to the other Sacrament: Unless you do eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
But our adversaries in no wise will admit that the Eucharist is as necessary as Baptism: wherefore they do thus comment upon our Saviors words: that they also do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, which join in heart and desire to be partakers of the Sacrament, and so mystically, and spiritually do receive it, Rhemist. John 6. sect. 8. And why, I pray you, may there not be as well a mystical and spiritual receiving of Baptism without the Sacrament, as of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, seeing this place, John. 6.53. doth as necessarily enforce the receiving of this Sacrament, as that place, John 3.5. doth lay a necessity of Baptism?
The Protestants.
WEe acknowledge no greater necessity in Baptism, then in the other Sacrament: both which we grant to be necessary as helps and props, and profitable means to increase our faith: but not so simply necessary, as that without them (there being no neglect, or contempt had of them) it were impossible to be saved.
Argum. 1. The children of the faithful are holy already, even before they are baptized: for they are within the covenant, and to them also belongeth the promise. The Lord saith, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Genes. 17.7. And Saint Paul saith, that the children of the faithful are holy, 1. Corinth. 7.14. If the Lord then be the God also of children, & if they be holy, being borne of the righteous seed, how can they possibly perish, although they die unbaptized?
Argum. 2. Circumcision was as necessary to the Israelites▪ as Baptism is to us: but their children, which died before the eight day, when they were to be circumcised, perished not: for David doubteth not to say of his child that died the seventh day, I shall go to him, he cannot return to me, 1. Sam 12.18.23. He pronounceth that the child was saved. Ergo, neither children dying without Baptism now are condemned.
Argum. 3. The holy Ghost may be given without Baptism, so it be not contemned and neglected, when it may be had: therefore life eternal may be had without Baptism: for the holy Ghost is able without the sacrament, to regenerate us, and bring us to eternal life.
The first is proved, Act. 10.47. Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? They had the holy Ghost before and without Baptism, as Augustine saith, Adhuc loquente Petro, non dico nondum imponente manum, sed nondum baptizante, venit spiritus sanctus: While Peter yet spake, before he laid on his hand, or Baptized them, the holy Ghost came: Ergo Baptism not necessary.
Argum. 4. You yourselves make two exceptions: of Martyrs and them that do penance, which may be saved without Baptism: Ergo Baptism is not simply necessary. And if our Savior speak of Baptism, John 3.5. as ye say he doth: there is no privilege for any, no not for Martyrs, for all must be borne of water and the spirit: that is, say you, baptized. Neither are your two exceptions general enough: for the thief upon the cross was saved, and yet neither died a Martyr: for he himself confesseth, that he was righteously punished, Luk. 23.41. neither did he any such penance, or made any such satisfaction, as you require.
AN APPENDIX, WHETHER THE want of Baptism may be by any other means supplied.
The Papists.
Our adversaries make three kinds of Baptism, Baptismum fluminis, baptismum [error 101] sanguinis, baptismum flaminis: the Baptism of water, the Baptism of blood, which is Martyrdom, and the Baptism of the spirit, which is contrition and penance: by these two, the first, say they, may be supplied.
They affirm, that Martyrdom, and penance or contrition, do by the very act or work wrought remit sins, and justify the workers, and not in respect of the faith only, which is in Martyrs or penitent persons. Bellar. cap. 6. lib. 1. de baptism.
Argum. The Innocents, which were slain by Herod, were saved only by their Martyrdom, they had neither faith, nor works. So the thief upon the Cross was not only justified by his faith, but by the act and work of contrition.
Ans. First, it is not necessary to hold all those children to be Martyrs, and so to be saved: for Macrobius writeth, that one of Herod's sons, which was nursed in those parts, was slain among the rest: the infants which were saved, were within the promise, and belonged to the covenant, and so could not be lost: their salvation depended of their free election before God, it was not purchased by the very act of their dying.
Secondly, the thief also upon the Cross was justified by his faith and belief in Christ. And therefore Augustine doth chiefly commend his faith: Tunc fides eius de ligno floruit, quando discipulorum emarcuit: Then his faith did as it were bud and flourish out of the tree of the cross, when the faith of the Disciples withered.
The Protestants.
NEither the outward work of Martyrdom nor contrition do justify, or give remission of sins: but the faith only of Martyrs and penitent persons, whereby they apprehend Christ.
Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith, 1. Corinth. 13.3. That if a man give his body to be burned, and have no love, it profiteth not. Ergo
Argum. 2. Neither is the bare work of sorrow and contrition in it self acceptable to God: for there is a worldly repentance that causeth death, there is a godly repentance not to be repented of, which worketh in us care, zeal, fear, desire, which are the fruits of faith, 2. Corinth. 7.10.11. Ergo it is faith only that maketh all our works to be accepted of before God: for without faith, it is impossible to please him, Hebr. 11.6.
The Papists.
2. MArtyrdome and contrition or conversion of the heart unto GOD, [error 102] though they be no Sacraments, yet may supply the lack of Baptism, Bellarm. ibid.
Argum. Martyrdom in the scriptures is rightly called a Baptism: as Christ speaking of his death, saith, I must be baptized with a Baptism, Luk. 12.50. And therefore it may fitly stand instead of Baptism.
Ans. If everything, that hath the name of Baptism, may be used in place thereof; then add unto your number of such devised supplies, the Pharisaical washing of cups, for they are called baptismata calicum, the Baptismes, or cleansings of cups, Mark. 7.4.
The Protestants.
WE need not any such supplies to make good the want of Baptism, neither is it safe so to do.
1. It is great presumption and boldness, without warrant of God's word, to give the effect and blessing, which God hath annexed to the Sacraments, to any other external work: for what is this else, but to institute other Sacraments, then Christ left? And shall we not think, that God by his spirit can better supply the loss and the want of the Sacraments, then we by our own inventions can help our selves?
2. Concerning contrition of the heart, if you understand by it true repentance, and withal a vow and true desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, which cannot be obtained because of some remediless necessity: that in such a case it standeth as available, as if a man had been actually Baptized: for thus the Rhemists expound themselves, annot. John 3.2. I pray you what greater necessity is there now of Baptism, then of the other Sacrament? For this is true, and we willingly grant: that every man that shall be saved, must either receive the Sacraments, or have a desire unto them: for the neglect and contempt of the Sacraments without repentance is a sin damnable. And thus you overthrow yourselves, making Baptism necessary without necessity.
3. Augustine admitteth none of these supplies, but only Martyrdom: Nemo fit membrum Christi, nisi aut Baptismate Christi, aut morte pro Christo: No man is made the member of Christ, but either by the Baptism of Christ, or in dying for Christ: here Augustine maketh but one supply of Baptism, they make two. When men follow their own inventions, there can be no agreement.
THE FOURTH QUESTION, WHETHER women and Lay-men ought to baptize.
The Papists.
[error 103] THey hold, that not only Lay men, but Pagans: that are not baptized themselves, yea and women also, may be ministers of Baptism, in a case of necessity, eBllarm. cap. 7.
Argum. Exod. 4. Zipporah circumcised her son, and the Lord was pleased therewith, and went away from Moses, whom he came against to have slain him. Ergo women may as well now minister Baptism.
Ans. First, there is not the like strict necessity of Baptism, as there was then of Circumcision: for if every man child were not circumcised the eight day, the Lord threatened to cut him off from among the people, Genes. 17.14. But Baptism is not tied or limited to any such time or number of days. Secondly, there was great necessity, which enforced Zipporah to circumcise her child: for they had neglected the time, and passed the stint of days: wherefore the Lord struck Moses with sickness: and being not able himself to perform that duty, his wife in great haste taketh the child and cutteth him, to save her husbands life: but she in great indignation cast away the fore-skin from her, knowing that she was constrained to commit an unwomanly act. There cannot be any such necessity of Baptism, as there was then of Circumcision; which was to be done within a certain compass of days. Thirdly, you may as well prove by this example, that a woman may baptize, the Bishop, Priest, or Deacon standing by (which notwithstanding you hold utterly unlawful) as that it is lawful for her to baptize: For Zipporah did it in the presence of Moses.
The Protestants.
NEither lay men, of what calling soever, nor yet Midwiues, or any other women, ought to be suffered in a well reformed Church to baptize infants: neither are they authorized so to do amongst us.
Argum. 1. The commission and charge to baptize, was given only by our savior Christ to his Apostles, and all lawful Ministers their successors, Matth. 28.19. Ergo, Lay men and women, in baptizing, go beyond the commission of Christ.
Argum. 2. The preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, are and ought always to be joined together. And the care and charge of both is committed to Pastors and Ministers lawfully ordained: Go, saith our Savior, and teach all nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28.19. But it is not lawful for women to preach the word, 1. Corinth. 14. verse. 35. Ergo not to baptize.
Argum. 3 If it be lawful for such to baptize, it is only in the time of necessity: but there is no such necessity, as we have shown of Baptism. Ergo, it is not at all lawful for them.
Augustine's judgment is this: if a Lay man do give Baptism: Nescio an pie quis dixerit esse repetendum: I cannot tell, whether it may well be iterated or repeated. He doth not allow Lay men to baptize: but is of opinion, that they are not to be baptized again, that receive Baptism at their hands. Yet he speaketh vncertainelie, (I cannot tell saith he) and so we will conclude with Augustine, Si Laicus baptismum dederit, nulla cogente necessitate, alieni muneris vsurpatio est. If a Lay man do baptize, where there is no necessity, it is an usurping of another man's office. But there is no such necessity to cause him so to do: Ergo.
THE FIFTH QUESTION, OF SVCH AS are to be admitted to baptism. Of the Baptism of Infants. part. 1.
THat infants are to be baptized, it is fully agreed and concluded between us. Which point we do strongly maintain by the Scriptures against the Anabaptists of our age. But herein we dissent from our adversaries.
The Papists.
[error 104] 1. THey affirm, that the Baptism of children and infants is grounded upon tradition, and not upon Scripture, Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo dei. cap. 9.
The Protestants.
IT were very hard, if we had no more certain ground for the baptizing of infants, then tradition, which is but a feeble weapon to fight against heretics withal: we have manifest proofs out of Scripture for it.
First, they belong unto the covenant: Genes. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed: Ergo they have right to the sign of the covenant.
Secondly, they are called holy, which are borne of faithful parents, 1. Cor. 7.14. Ergo, are not to be denied Baptism.
Thirdly, they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, who died for all the children of God, John 11.52. To them belongeth the kingdom of God: Ergo also Baptism, which is a pledge of remission of sins and eternal life.
Fourthly, it is also proved by the practice of the Apostles, who baptized whole families, with all that thereunto belonged, Act 16.33.
Fifthly, Augustine also proveth it out of Scripture, by comparing our Baptism with the circumcision of the Jews: Veraciter coni • cere possumus, quid valeat in paruulis baptismi sacramentum, ex circumcisione carnis, quam prior populus accepit. How available Baptism is in little ones, we may guess by the circumcision, which the former people in the law received. Ergo not only by tradition, but chiefly by Scripture the lawfulness of children's Baptism is confirmed.
The Papists.
2. BAptisme, they say, giveth grace and faith to the infant that had none before, [error 105] Rhemist. Galath. 3. sect. 6. This then is their opinion, that infants, though actually & fully they have not faith, as other have, yet there is a certain habit of faith and hope infused into them in Baptism, so that partly they do believe of themselves, and partly by the faith of others, namely of them that bring them to Baptism, Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptism. cap. 11.
Argum. Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. Rom. 3.28. We hold that a man is justified by faith. Ergo children, if they have no faith, are neither justified, neither yet do please God, Bellarm.
Ans. First these places do as well prove that children have an absolute, perfect, and actual faith: (for it is a perfect faith that justifieth us, and maketh us acceptable to God) which I am sure our adversaries will not yield unto. Secondly, the justification and salvation of children dependeth of the free election of God, Rom. 9.11. And that which faith worketh, in those that are of understanding, the spirit of God is able to effect in infants, by some secret way, best known to himself.
The Protestants.
THat infants neither have faith in themselves, nor yet are profited or furthered to their salvation by the faith of others, it is thus proved.
Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. 10.17. But infants can neither hear nor understand the word of God: Ergo, no faith is wrought in them.
Argum. 2. There is no habitual or potential faith that pleaseth God: but the justifying faith is always actual, working by love, Galath. 5.6. Ergo, children have either no faith, or it must needs be an actual or working faith.
Argum. 3. Infants are not justified, nor relieved or helped forward towards their salvation by the faith of their parents, or Godfathers, when they are baptized: for the Scripture saith, The just shall live by faith, Rom. 1.17. that is, by his own faith, not the faith of another.
AN APPENDIX, OF THE POpish use in baptizing of Bels.
The Papists.
[error 106] THey begin now to be ashamed of the blind practices of their superstitious and ignorant forefathers: for Bellarmine flatly denieth, that bells are baptized amongst them: but they are only consecrate and hallowed for divine uses, as other Church vessels are, lib. 4. de Roman pontific. cap. 12.
The Protestants.
IT is a great shame for them, to deny so manifest a thing. For in the halowing of bells, first, there were Godfathers chosen, secondly, they gave names to the bells: thirdly, the bells had new garments put upon them, as is accustomed to be done to Christians in their Baptism. Fourthly, the baptizing of bells was only permitted to the Bishops suffragane, whereas their Priests and Deacons did usually baptize infants: all this showeth, that it was not only a Baptism, which they bestowed upon bells, but in a more principal kind, then common Baptism was. This was one of the greeuances, which the Princes of Germany complained of in the assembly at Noremberge, that the suffragans exacted of the people such great sums of money for the baptizing of bells: with what face then, can they deny this ungodly custom of theirs, in Christening and baptizing of bells?
THE SIXT QUESTION, OF THE effects and fruits of Baptism.
THe partes of this question are these: first, whether our sins are wholly remitted, and clean taken away in Baptism. Secondly, whether Baptism serveth only for the remission of sins that are past. Thirdly, of the liberties and privileges, which are obtained by Baptism: which partes are now severally to be handled.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER IN BAPtisme our sins be clean taken away.
The Papists.
THe sins which are past, they affirm, not only by the grace of Christ [error 107] received in Baptism, to be forgiven and pardoned, and no more imputed, but even wholly to be rased, and rooted out: Et tolli omne illud, quod veram habet & propriam rationem peccati: And all that wholly to be taken away, which hath the nature and quality of sin, Council. Trident sess. 5. For the concupiscence or original sin, remaining after Baptism, is now no more to be called sin. In infants then newly baptized, there is neither mortal nor venial sin, Rhemist. 1. John. 1. sect. 5.
Argum. The Scripture saith, Behold the lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, John 1.29. Christ doth sanctify and cleanse his Church by the washing of water, through the word. Ergo, by remission, sins clean taken away, Rhemist. Rom. 4. sect. 7.
Ans. First, if sin in baptism were wholly removed, not only the guilt, but the very stain and blot of sin: how cometh it to pass, that many which are baptized, do fall afterward into deadly sins, yea there is no man, that liveth without sin? If sin once have been utterly expelled and banished out of the flesh, how cometh it in again? if their justification have once clearly rid them from sin, how can they be subject to it again? for the grace of justification, being once obtained, can never be lost: the gifts of God are without repentance. Rom. 11.29.
2. The Scripture is true, that Christ by his blood, cleanseth, washeth, taketh away our sins: not by actually purging us from all corruption, but in freely acquitting and discharging of us before God, both of the guilt and punishment of sin: so the Scripture saith, Blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, and to whom the Lord imputeth no sin, Rom. 4.7.8. Our sins therefore may be truly forgiven, though some corruption of sin do still remain in us.
The Protestants.
THere are three things to be considered in sin. First, the stain or blot, corruption or remnant of sin in us. Secondly, the guilt, fault, and offense of sin. Thirdly, the punishment and stipend due unto it. By our spiritual washing in the blood of Christ, whereof Baptism is a seal, both the guilt and punishment of our sins are not only hid and covered in God's sight (as our adversaries do falsely charge us to say:) but they are truly forgiven us for Christ's sake, and shall never be remembered anymore. But yet there is left in us some remnant of sin so long as we live in this flesh, which in the end together with the corruption and mortality of the body, shall be clean taken away.
Argum. 1. If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us, 1. John. 1.8. Ergo, there are none living at any time void of sin, no not in their Baptism. Saint Paul also exhorteth to be renewed in mind, and to put on the new man, and put off the old, Ephes. 4.23. Ergo, there remaineth some sin and corruption after Baptism: what need else this renewing of the mind, and putting on the new man afterward?
Argum. 2. Original sin is not taken away in Baptism, therefore some sin remaineth still: And that this original corruption is properly called sin and is sin indeed, S. Paul showeth evidently, Rom. 7. ver. 7, 8. where he nameth lust and concupiscence sin.
Augustine thus writeth, Meminisse debemus peccatorum omnium plenam remissionem fieri in Baptismo, hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari : We must remember, that all our sins are fully remitted in Baptism: but the quality of man (that is the corruption, and stain or blot of sin) is not wholly changed.
THE SECOND PART: WHETHER BAPtisme serve only for remission of sins past, & not for the sins also to come.
The Papists.
[error 108] CHristes death applied to man by Baptism, wipeth away all sins past, for new sins other remedies be daily requisite, Rhemist. Heb. 10. sect. 4. The council of Trent holdeth them accursed, that think all sins to be forgiven, fide Baptismi suscepti, by faith of Baptism received, sess. 7. can. 10.
Hereupon their saying ariseth, that Baptismus est prima tabula post naufragium: that Baptism is the first board of refuge after shipwreck: & Poenitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium: penance is the second board of refuge: So that if a man do fall after Baptism, he must use other helps and means for the remission of sins: for Baptism is not available for sins afterward committed, Bellarm. cap. 18.
Argum. It is impossible, saith the Apostle, for them that have been once lightened, and tasted of the heavenly grace, if they fall away, to be renewed by penance, Heb. 6.6. that is, they which fall away from faith and grace, after Baptism, cannot be baptized again, or be illuminated, or renouated, by so easy a cleansing of sins, as the Sacrament of Baptism did yield: Ergo, Baptism is not available for remission of sins, which men fall into afterward, Bellarm. cap. 18.
Ans. The Apostle speaketh not of this or that kind of Repentance, but generally of all, showing, that there is no hope of remission nor grace to repent left for those which fall into the grievous sin of Apostasy, which he here describeth, for they crucify again the Son of God, and make a mock of him, ver. 6. And that the Apostle understandeth the sin of Apostasy, & the sin against the holy Ghost, it appeareth by comparing that other place, Heb. 10.29. with this: for there they are said, to tread under foot the son of God, and to despite the spirit of grace. The Apostle then cutteth off such from all hope of grace, and repentance: not only barreth them from some special kind of repentance.
The Protestants.
THe external act of Baptism neither wipeth away sins going before, or coming after: but it is the inward working of the spirit of God, which by the virtue of Christ's death, testified and shown forth in Baptism, that washeth away our sins. And Baptism is a seal of remission of sins, for the confirmation of our faith, even of those which are committed after Baptism, as well as of sins done before: and although the ceremony of Baptism be not repeated, yet the virtue of God's spirit testified thereby, remaineth to our lives end.
Argum. 1. Mark. 16.16. He that shall believe and be baptized, shall be saved. We reason thus, Baptism is a seal of that faith, whereby men are saved, or to the which salvation is promised: but that faith believeth remission of all sins, both past and to come: therefore Baptism also sealeth unto us the remission of all our sins, going before or following after.
Argum. 2. Baptism is a sign and seal of our mystical washing in the blood of Christ: But all our sins both before and after are washed away by the blood of Christ: Ergo, Baptism doth assure us of a perfect remission of all our sins.
So saith Augustine: Eodem lauacro regenerationis, & verbo sanctificationis, omnia prorsus mala hominum regeneratorum sanantur, etiam quae posterius humana ignorantia aut infirmitate committuntur.
THE THIRD PART OF THE LIBERTIE and privileges obtained by Baptism.
The Papists.
1. THey have defined, that a man, by Baptism, is not only debitor fidei, [error 109] sed etiam vniuersae legis Christi implendae, not only a debtor of the faith, but is made a debtor to perform the whole law of Christ, Council. Trident. sess. 8. can. 7. that is, Baptism is not only a sign of free justification by faith, neither doth he which is baptized profess himself only by faith to be justified, but partly also by his works, and the keeping of the commandments of Christ.
The Protestants.
Ans. IN Baptism we make profession of our obedience, to die unto sin, and rise up to newness of life, Rom. 6.2. yet not thereby to be justified: but in being baptized we show our faith and hope, only to look for remission of sins and salvation of our souls by the death of Christ.
Argum. 1. Circumcision, in place whereof Baptism is given to us, is called by the Apostle a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4 11. not of the righteousness of works: much more then is Baptism, which is a Sacrament of the Gospel, a pledge unto us of the justice of faith.
Argum. 2. By Baptism we are freed from the curse of the law: for it is a Sacrament of the death of Christ, and of all the benefits thereof: and Christ by his death hath borne for us the curse of the law, Galath. 3.13. But if by Baptism we bind our selves to the observance of the law, to be justified and find life thereby, we must needs fall into the curse, because we are not able to keep the commandments. Wherefore seeing Baptism delivereth us from the curse, it also exempteth us from the works of the law.
The Papists.
[error 110] 2. ALthough Christians are bound by solemn vow in Baptism to walk in obedience before God, and to keep his commandments: yet are they not therefore freed and exempted from the observance of the laws and ordinances of men, the which they are bound in conscience to keep, and under pain of damnation, Bellarm. cap. 16.
The Protestants.
BAptisme only bindeth us to keep the commandments of God: and so far forth also to obey men, as they command things lawful: but we must not be brought in bondage to men's traditions and observations, seeing we are the Lord's free men, and by Baptism consecrate to his service.
Argum. Math. 28.19. Go and teach, baptizing them, &c. and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Ergo, Baptism bindeth us only to the observation of God's precepts. 1. Corinth. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, be not the servants of men: Baptism is a sign of the death of Christ, the price of our redemption. Ergo, we are freed from all mere human service, in receiving of Baptism. For this cause is it called the Baptism of Christ: Augustine saith, Paulus dixisse legitur euangelium meum: baptismum autem Christi nemo Apostolorum ita vnquam ministrauit, vt auderet dicere suum. Paul is read to have said, My Gospel: but never any of the Apostles durst call the Baptism of Christ their Baptism. Ergo, seeing it is the Baptism of Christ, and we are only baptized in his name, not in our own name, or the name of men: we must only hope to be saved by faith in him, and become his servants wholly.
THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE difference between the Baptism of our Savior Christ, and the Baptism of John.
The Papists.
THe Baptism of John (they say) was of another kind then Christ's Baptism was, neither was it sufficient without Christ's Baptism, nor had the [error 111] like force or efficacy, as his Baptism had: and therefore such as had been baptized of John, were afterward admitted to Christ's Baptism, Council. Trident. sess. 8. canon. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis. cap. 20.21.
Argum. 1. Matth. 3.11. John himself saith, I baptize you with water: but he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost: Ergo, John's Baptism and Christ's not all one: for John's Baptism gave not the holy Ghost. Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. John speaketh not of diverse Baptismes, but of diverse operations, and ministries, in one and the same Baptism: for John, as all other ministers do, did but give water: and Christ working together with them, giveth the holy Ghost. But it will be answered, that John saith not, he doth baptize, but he shall baptize: Ergo, Christ did not baptize together with John by his spirit.
Ans. The same John in another place speaketh of Christ in the present tense. John. 1.33. This is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost: Ergo, Christ did both then baptize with his spirit, and afterwards also more manifestly, when the gifts of the spirit began to be shed forth more plentifully upon men.
Argum. 2. Saint Paul baptized twelve men at Ephesus with Christ's Baptism, that had received John's before, Act. 19.4.5. Ergo, John's Baptism was not the same that Christ's was, Bellarm.
Ans. There can be no such thing gathered out of that place; for those words in the fifth verse: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, are part of the narration which Paul maketh of John's manner of Baptism: so that the sense is this, they that heard John's doctrine, were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. It is not so to be read, as though they were baptized again of Paul, but he layeth only his hands upon them, that had before received the Baptism of John.
The Protestants.
THat John's Baptism was not diverse from Christ's Baptism, but was all one with it in property and effect, and that they which were baptized by John, were baptized into the name of Christ, and therefore needed not again to be baptized; thus it is made manifest out of Scripture.
Argum. 1. John's Baptism differed not in the matter of the Sacrament, for he baptized with water as Christ's Apostles did. There was also the same form of both, the word of God: for John also taught the people to believe in Jesus Christ that was to come, Act. 19.4. There was also the same scope and ende of John's Baptism: For he preached the Baptism of repentance, for remission of sins, Mark. 1.4. Ergo, it was the same with the Baptism of Christ.
Argum. 2. If the Baptism instituted by Christ were another Baptism, then John's was, and yet he himself was baptized of John: then it would follow, that we are baptized now with another Baptism, then Christ himself was, for he received John's Baptism: but this were very absurd, to say, that there is not the same Baptism of the head and the members, of Christ and his Church: Ergo, John's Baptism all one with Christ's.
Bellarmine denieth, that the proper end and scope of John's Baptism was for remission of sins: yet Augustine granteth it, who notwithstanding being carried away with the error of that time, doth else where put some difference between the Baptism of John and Christ: Si quis contendat in baptismo Johannes dimissa esse peccata, non ago pugnanter: If any man will contend, that remission of sins also was given in John's Baptism, I will not be against it. There being then the same proper end and scope of both these Baptismes, how can they choose but be all one?
THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF the ceremonies and rites of Baptism.
The Papists.
[error 112] THey have brought into the Sacrament of Baptism a multitude of superstitious ceremonies, whereby they have greatly polluted the holy Sacrament of Baptism, mixing therewith their own inventions.
First before Baptism, they have devised these toys to be used. First, they do exorcise, conjure, and exufflate the evil spirit from the party to be baptized. Secondly, they touch the ears and nostrils with spittle, that his ears may be opened to hear the word, and his nostrils, to discern between the smell of good and evil. Thirdly, the Priest signeth his eyes, ears, mouth, breast, forehead, nostrils, with the sign of the cross, that all his senses thereby may be defended. 4. Then hallowed salt is put into his mouth, that he may be seasoned with wisdom, and be kept from putrifiyng in sin. 5. The party is anointed then with oil in his breast, that he may be safe from evil suggestions, & between the shoulders, which signifieth the receiving of spiritual strength.
Secondly, these ceremonies do accompany Baptism it self. 1. The Font and water therein is consecrated and hallowed, in the name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost. 2. He is thrice dipped in the water, to signify the being of Christ 3. days in the grave.
Thirdly, after Baptism, they have this use, 1. He is anointed with holy Chrism in the top of the head, & thereby is become a Christian. 2. A white garment is put upon him, to betoken his regeneration. 3. A veil is put upon his head, in token that he is now crowned with a royal Diademe. 4. A burning taper is put into his hand, to fulfil that saying in the Gospel, Let your light so shine before men, &c. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism. 25.26.27. Catechism. Rom. p. 310. Gabr. Biel. lib. 4. distinct. 6. qu. 3.
The Protestants.
AGainst these Popish ceremonies, which they use in baptism, we do reason thus.
1 It is contrary to the rule of the Gospel, that there should be such types, shadows, significations, brought into the service of God, as they make in Baptism: for seeing we have the body which is Christ, all such shadows ought to be abolished, Coloss. 2.17.
2 In one sacrament they have forged and found out many, as their chrism, oil, salt, spittle: which they make not only seals of holy things, but givers and conferrers of grace, which is more then any sacrament can have: and it is contrary to the scripture: for the spirit of GOD is as the wind that bloweth, where it listeth, John. 3. It is not tied to creatures, elements, external signs, as they include the spirit (as it were) in these outward things, which have power (as they affirm) to give wisdom, strength, power against the devil, and such like. But Saint Paul saith, that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, 2. Corinthian. 10.4. The means whereby Christians both obtain spiritual graces, and shend them from evil, are spiritual: For if in Christ Circumcision avail not anything, which was notwithstanding instituted of God: but faith is all in all, Galath. 5.6. Much more vain and unavailable are the devises and inventions of men.
3 This beggarly company of ceremonies doth also deface and impugn the sincere and pure institution of Christ: None of all those ceremonies were used when Christ himself was baptized, Math. 3. which notwithstanding had been most fit, considering the worthiness of his person that was baptized. Neither did Christ give any such thing in charge to his Apostles, but biddeth them only preach, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Math. 28.19. nor yet were any such ceremonies in use in the Apostles time. Saint Peter saith, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? He calleth not for oil, salt, spittle, or any such thing, but only for water.
Augustine utterly misliketh this cumbersome rabble of needless ceremonies, Ipsam religionem, quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit, onerib. premunt, vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur: They do cumber religion with their burdensome inventions, which Christ made free with a very few sacraments: so that the Jews case was more tolerable, who though they knew not the liberty of the Gospel, yet were subject to the legal ceremonies, not to the inventions of men.
And is it not even thus (I pray you) in the Popish Church? for never was Jewish circumcisiō stuffed with the third part of ceremonies, which their Baptism is defiled withal.
THE THIRTEENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE, OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER OR EVCHARIST.
THis Controuersie hath two parts: First, of the sacrament itself. Secondly, of the sacrifice, which they say, is offered up in the sacrament: which they call the sacrifice of the Mass.
THE FIRST PART, OF THE SAcrament of the Eucharist.
THis part of the controversy standeth upon diverse questions: First, whether the body of Christ be really and substantially in the sacrament. Secondly, whether the elements of bread and wine be changed, converted, and transubstantiate into the very body and flesh of Christ. Thirdly, whether the Eucharist remain a sacrament after the use and celebration. Fourthly, of the outward elements in this sacrament. Fifthly, of the words of consecration. Sixthly, of the proper effect of the Lord's supper. Seventhly, of the manner of celebrating it. Eighthly, whether it ought to be ministered in one kind. Ninthly, whether it is to be adored.
THE FIRST QUESTION, CONCERNING the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.
The Papists.
IN the sacrament of the Eucharist, under the forms of bread and wine, by [error 113] the efficacy of the word of Christ spoken by the Priest, is really, verily, and substantially present, the natural body and blood of Christ, which was conceived of the virgin Marie ; the same body, that is now in heaven, Rhemist. Mat. 26. sect. 4. yet after another manner: For he is in heaven according to the natural existence of his body: in the sacrament, he is really present in his flesh, yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power, Council. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1.
Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented: the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel: therefore they ought to be inferior. But unless the bread & wine should be the very blood & flesh of Christ in the sacrament: their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior, but far superior to ours. As for example, the Paschal Lamb is in nature to be preferred before bread, and the slaying of the Lamb did more lively represent the death of Christ, then the breaking of bread, the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spiritual nourishing, then the eating of bread. Wherefore, unless we believe a real presence in the sacrament; their sacrifices, in dignity and excellency should far exceed and excel ours, Bellarm. lib. 1. de. sacram. Eucharist. ca. 3.
Ans. 1. It is not true, that their sacraments were figures of ours: But S. Paul showeth, that both their sacraments and ours do figure out and represent the same thing, as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ, 1. Corint. 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs, and theirs also had a certain reference and relation to ours: but they were not types of ours: for then our sacraments should be the body of theirs, whereas Christ is the body both of their sacraments and ours. Saint Peter saith, that Baptism is an antitypon, a figure answerable to the saving of the eight persons in the flood: 1. Pet. 3.21. They are correspondent one to the other, and had mutual relation and respect one to the other. But that was not properly a type of Baptism, but both Baptism and that are figures and signs and lively representations of our salvation in Christ.
2. If the real presence of Christ only commendeth the sacrament, and advanceth it before the rites of the law, which in all other respects are better: by this argument Baptism still remaineth inferior to the sacraments of the law: for you affirm no real presence in Baptism, as you do in the Eucharist: and in all other respects it must needs give place to Circumcision: for the cutting of the flesh is a more lively representatiō of regeneratiō, thē is the washing by water: and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water. So by this reason, though you have won credit for the Eucharist, yet you have lost it for Baptism.
3 We answer therefore, that although the real presence be set apart, yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs. First, the price and worth of things in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament, but they must be considered in respect of the use, to the which they are ordained by the institution. Flesh, you say, is better then bread: so is wine and milk better then water in their nature: but in Baptism water is better then they, because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy use. Secondly, the slaying of the Lamb doth more lively represent, say you, the death of Christ, then the breaking of bread.
Answ. We grant, that if breaking of bread had been used in the law, it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts: but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospel, in this abundance of knowledge and instruction, being a sign of a thing already done and finished, must needs be more pregnant and lively in representation, then the killing of sacrifices in the law, which were types of things to come, the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world. Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs, in respect of the more clear light and fuller signification, which they have by the word of God, & the preaching of the Gospel joined unto thē: We need not devise any other way of excellency for our sacraments, then this, which we have said, agreeable to the scriptures, 2. Cor. 4.3. Galat. 3.1.
The Papists.
ARgum. 2.
John. 6.55. Christ saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in deed: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
First, this place must be understood not of any spiritual eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament, but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament. First, Vers. 51. The bread, saith Christ, that I will give: he speaketh of a thing to come, for the sacrament was afterward instituted: but if this bread were to be taken for his word, and the eating thereof for believing in him; in this sense the bread was given already.
Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense, verse. 32. My father giveth you the true bread from heaven: & I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, verse. 51. He saith not, he that shall eat, but, he that even now eateth. And afterward he speaketh of the time to come;
The Papists.
SEcondly, those words being applied to the sacrament, must needs also be understood properly and literally, for the very eating of the flesh of Christ, & drinking his blood, not tropically, or figuratively.
1. The flesh of Christ, which Christ promiseth to give them to be eaten, he preferreth before the Manna, which their fathers did eat in the wilderness: the true bread which he giveth them, is more excellent then the bread of Manna. But if the bread in the sacrament do but signify the flesh of Christ, and be not it in very deed, it should be no better then Manna, which also did signify and show forth Christ, Bellarm. cap. 6.
Ans. Christ compareth not the spiritual substance of Manna, with his flesh and blood, but the corporal food, which being received into the belly, and not received into the heart by faith, hath no power to give eternal life. For, verse. 32. Christ saith, that Moses gave them not Manna from heaven: Ergo, he meaneth the corporal food, not the spiritual substance of Manna, for as it was a sacrament of Christ, it was heavenly bread. Again, verse. 49. Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness and died. He speaketh of the material food, for they that did Manna spiritually by faith, died not in soul.
Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prove, that this place contained in the sixth chapter of John, cannot be so understood as they expound it.
First, Christ speaketh not only of the sacramental eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, but generally of the spiritual participation by faith, whether in the sacrament or without, which is wrought in us by the holy Ghost.
1. If it be understood of the sacrament, then it will follow that no man can be saved, unless he do receive the sacrament: for Christ saith,
verse. 53. Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you.
2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament, then must it of necessity be ministered in both kinds, for in every place he joineth both these together, the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.
Augustine also thus writeth upon these words, Hoc est manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum manentemin se habere. This it is to eat that flesh, and to drink that drink, to abide in Christ, and to have him abiding in us, but this may be done without the sacrament, Ergo, it is not necessary to understand it of the sacrament.
Secondly, though we should grant that this whole treatise John. 6. may fitly be referred to the sacrament, yet the words must be taken figuratiuelie, for the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament, and not otherwise.
1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his own words:
2 Christ understandeth another manner of eating of his flesh, then the Capernaites did. But they imagined that Christ would give his very flesh and blood to be eaten: And therefore they went away offended, and said, This is an hard saying, verse. 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erroneous conceit, saith unto them, that his words were spirit and life, that is, spiritually to be understood, verse. 63.
So Augustine interpreteth those words of Christ, as if he had said, Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum, You must understand spiritually, that which I have said. You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood, which shall be shed for you. Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos: I have commended a certain mystery and sacrament unto you, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you.
The Papists.
ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament, said unto his Apostles, after he had given thanks and blessed: Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body: that is, that which is contained in this bread, or under the forms of this bread, is my very body, Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these words must needs be taken properly, not to be a trope or figure.
1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flat precepts and commandments, and directory rules in obscure terms, or figurative speeches, but plainly and evidently: therefore it is not like, that Christ, being now to prescribe unto his Apostles the perpetual law and form of this sacrament, would speak obscurely.
2 Though he spake by parables and signs to the Pharisees, yet there was no cause why he should so do, none being present but his Apostles, Bellarmine. ibid.
Ans. 1. It is very well, that you will now (though I think unawares) grant unto us, that the precepts and rules in scripture are set down simply and plainly: wherefore the scriptures cannot be so hard and obscure, as you would bear us in hand they are: for if the precepts and rules of faith be evidently in scripture expressed, as you seem to confess, what reason have you to keep back the people from the reading of scripture?
2 It is false that the scriptures use no figures nor tropes, in the declaration of the laws and sacraments of the Church: for saith not Saint Paul, speaking of the sacraments of the Jews, Petra erat Christus, the rock was Christ, 1. Cor. 10.4. that is, signified Christ? Likewise in the 17. verse. We that are many are one bread: that is, our spiritual unity and conjunction is represented, in that we are partakers of one bread.
3 Sometimes our Savior would speak darkly, being alone with his Apostles, thereby to stir them up more diligently to attend unto his words, as when he biddeth them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Mark. 8.15. Yet this speech of our Savior Christ uttered in the hearing of his Apostles, This is my body; was neither so dark nor obscure, that the Apostles need much be troubled about the understanding. Nay, many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphorical words, are uttered with greater grace, and carry a fuller sense: When Christ said, I am the door, John 10.9. I am the vine, John 15.1. he spake by figure as he doth here, for neither was he a vine, or a door, as the bread was not his body: Yet which of the Apostles was there, that understood him not, when he called himself a vine, and a door? Neither could they doubt of our Savior Christ's meaning here.
Contra. Now on the other side, we will make it plain, that these words of Christ, are spoken tropically:
1 Where Christ saith according to Saint Luke, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, Luk. 22.23. we must needs admit a double trope or figure: for first, the cup is taken for that which was contained in the cup. Secondly, the wine in the cup was not the new Testament, but a sign of the New Testament. If then in one parte of the sacrament he spake by a figure, why not also in the other, when he saith, This is my body, that is, a lively sign and seal thereof?
2 It is no unusual phrase in the scripture, to say (this is) that is, signifieth as Genes. 17.10. Circumcision is called the covenant it self, where it was a sign only of it. And Exod. 12.11. the Lamb is called the Lord's passover, which it betokened only: In the same sense Christ saith, This is my body: that is, exhibiteth and representeth unto you my body.
Augustine so expoundeth these words, Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corpus sui: Christ doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign and sacrament of his body.
The Protestants.
THat Christ is present with all his benefits in the sacrament, we do willingly grant, neither do we think that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signs of the body and blood of Christ, but Christ is verily by them exhibited unto us, and spiritually by faith, we are truly made partakers of his precious body & blood: not that Christ descendeth from heaven to us, but we ascend by faith and in spirit unto him: yea, we confess as much as Bernard saith, whose speech they themselves allow, In sacramēto exhiberi veram carnis Christi substantiā, sed spiritualiter non carnaliter: that the very substance of Christ's flesh is exhibited unto us in the sacrament, but spiritually, not carnally. This Bellarmine acknowledgeth to be true, though he would not have the word (spiritually) to be used, lest it might be, as he saith, by us misconstrued. This then is our faith and judgment, that we are verily in this sacrament engrafted into the body of Christ, and do truly eat his flesh, and drink his blood: but all this is done spiritually only and by faith: As for their carnal eating and devouring of Christ, we utterly reject, and condemn it.
Argum. 1. In the receiving of the sacrament there is a double conjunction, we are joined to Christ, & make one body also amongst our selves: so saith S. Paul,
1. Cor. 10.16.17. We are made partakers of the body of Christ, and we that are many are one bread, and one body: but our participation with the mystical body of Christ is spiritual.
Arg. 2. If the body of Christ be in the sacrament, thē is it eaten, & torn with the teeth: And what is eaten goeth into the belly, & is cast out into the draught, Mark. 7.19. I pray you what is now become of the body of Christ? doth it pass the same way that other meats do?
Bellarm. answereth, lib. 1. cap. 11. ad argum. 5. that they are the accidents of the bread and wine which are eaten, and chawen, or rent by the teeth, & not the body of Christ: and yet the body of Christ goeth down into the stomach, but no further: but when the forms of bread & wine begin to be corrupted there, the body of Christ goeth away, Bellarm. cap. 14.
Ans. 1. This is new learning, that the accidents of meat are chawen in the mouth, & not the meat it self: & that the forms only, not the substance is altered, & corrupted in the stomach. Say also that men are nourished with accidents & not with the substance: If the priest chance to drink too deep of the chalice, and so become drunk, I pray you what is it, that maketh him so light headed? Is it, think you, the accidents only of wine? Surely a drunken man would not say it. If a Mouse chance to creep into your pyx, and fil her hungry belly with your God-amight: what is it that the Mouse feedeth upon? trow you they be accidents only? for you say that the consecrated host goeth no further then the stomach: and yet it is too much that the housel of Christians should be housed in a mouses belly. These are but ridiculous and light questions, yet such, as have troubled your grauest and sagest heads, and remain unanswered.
2. Bellarmine. denieth, that the body of Christ being eaten, goeth any further then the stomach: But our Rhemists go further; they say, that we are made a piece of his body and blood: They should rather have said, that his body and blood is made a piece of us, being converted into our substance. But silly men, we pity them: If we should press them still with these questions, they would sooner run mad, then find out any reasonable and sober answer for us.
Argum. 3. Christ in his flesh is ascended up to heaven, and there must remain till his coming again, Act. 3.21. Agayne he saith, The poor you shall have always, but me always you cannot have, Mark. 14. Ergo, Christ being now in his humanity in heaven, cannot be present in the sacrament upon earth.
Bellarmine answereth, that the carnal presence of Christ doth not draw him out of heaven: his natural body remaineth there still: yet by his omnipotent power, he can make his body to be in many places at once, cap. 14.
Ans. If Christ's body be in heaven and in earth, and in many places at once; it must either be his own natural body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, or he must every day create himself a new body: but this were to too absurd to be granted, that every day there should be a new Christ. Neither can the first be admitted: for a natural body hath a natural presence: but so hath not Christ's body in the Sacrament: for it is not there naturally, being without shape or form, neither visible nor sensible. And how can it stand with the property of a true natural body, to be in a thousand places at once? for so must Christ's needs be, and in more too, seeing he is kept and hanged up in every popish Church. And further, if totus Christus, whole Christ, be in the Sacrament, both with his body and soul: you must either grant, that there are many whole Christ's, seeing he is in many places at once: or else if there be but one whole Christ, his humanity must be dispersed everywhere as his Godhead is: and so are you against your wills become Vbiquitaries.
Hearken what Augustine saith: Cauendum est ne ita diuinitatem adstruamus hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus: We must take heed we do not so maintain the divine nature of the man Christ, that we take away the nature of his body.
Argum. 4. The fathers in the law did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink in their Sacraments that we do, 1. Corinth. 10.2.3. but they did not eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood, but only spiritually by faith: Ergo, no more do we.
Argum. 5. There remained wine still after the consecration and distribution amongst the Apostles: for Christ saith, He will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, Math. 26.29. So S. Paul calleth the other element bread after the consecration, 1. Corinth. 10.17. We that are many are one bread, because we are partakers of one bread. Likewise, cap. 11.26. Ergo, there remaineth still bread and wine in the Sacrament. And therefore nobody of Christ: for they cannot be there both together, as they teach.
Lastly, we must understand, that this their devised and forged opinion of the real presence of Christ, is of no antiquity in the Church: neither was there any question about it for a 1000. years after Christ, til the time of Berengarius, who lived about Anno. 1060. who was sore troubled, for maintaining the truth against the carnal presence, and under Pope Leo the 9. and Nicholas the 2. was constrained twice to recant: yet there was no public law or decree made in the Church concerning transubstantiation, till the Council of Lateran, which was held under Pope Innocent the 3. Anno. 1215.
And that this gross opinion favoreth not a whit of antiquity, it may appea • e by the resolute judgment of Augustine: Sacramenta ex similitudine ipsarum rerum nomina habent, secundum quendam modū sacramentū corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, &c. The Sacraments, because of some likeness, do bear the names of the things themselves: as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner called his body.
Christus corporis sui figuram discipulis commendauit: Christ did commend to his disciples a figure of his body. Quid paras dentem & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti? Why doest thou make ready thy teeth & thy belly? Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten him.
Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiam carnis recte dictum est discipulis, Me semper non habebitis: According to the presence of his Majesty we have Christ always: according to his carnal presence, it was truly said to his disciples, You cannot have me always. By these and many such places in this ancient father, it is manifest, that in those days there was no such opinion held of the carnal presence.
AN APPENDIX TO THIS QUESTION, WHETHER it stand with the power and will of God, that Christ's body should be carnally present in the Sacrament.
THere are two difficulties or impossibilities, which do hinder the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: First, it would follow, that a natural body, such as Christ's is, might be in two places at once: for they say, that it is in heaven, and in the Eucharistall at once. Secondly, that a natural body may be in a place, and yet not occupy or fill a place: for if Christ's body be in the Sacrament, it occupieth no place: the compass of a thin and round cake is not answerable to the proportion of Christ's body.
Notwithstanding both these difficulties, it is agreeable both to the power and good pleasure of God, that the body of Christ should be included in the Sacrament, Bellarm.
Argum 1. It is possible for the body of Christ to be in many places at once, and it also standeth with his will: as Act. 9.4. Christ appeared to Saul, either upon the earth, or in the air next to the earth: for how could he either hear the voice of Christ sitting in heaven, or see the light so far off? Ergo, Christ was in two places: he appeared to Paul upon earth, and he was at the same time in heaven, from whence he shall not move till the day of judgment, Bellarm. de sacram. Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 3. Rhemist. Act. 9. sect. 1.
Ans. First, the text is plain, that Christ spake from heaven, from whence the light shined, verse. 3. he was neither in the air nor upon the earth. Secondly, do you make question, whether Paul could see a light, or hear a voice from so far; seeing that the Sun, whose body is so far distant from us, doth disperse his beams over the face of the earth; and the voice of the thunder is hear • • ery far? Will ye deny Christ to have that power, which we see to be in his creatures? Thirdly, and why was it not as possible, that Christ from heaven should be heard of Paul, as he was seen of Stephen sitting on the right hand of God? Act. 7.56.
Argum. 2. The body of Christ may be where it pleaseth him, and yet shall not need any natural place, or occupy any room: he is able to bring a Camel through the eye of a needle, Math. 20.26. He also came through the doors in to his Apostles, rose out of the sepulcher thorough the stone, was borne, his mothers womb being shut: therefore he may as well, and is no doubt, present under the shapes of bread and wine in the Sacrament, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 3. de. Sacram. cap. 6.
Ans. 1. Christ showeth in that place, that it is as impossible for a rich man, that is high minded, and trusteth in his riches, to enter into heaven, as for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle: but it is possible with God to give rich men humble and lowly minds, and so make them fit for his kingdom, as to make the Camel less, and so draw him thorough a needle. It is not proved out of this place, that God can or will draw the huge body of a Camel through a needle, remaining still of that bigness: no more then that it is possible for God, to bring a proud, rich, arrogant man to heaven, his affections not altered: both these are impossible to God, because they are contrary to his will and ordinance: the one is against the law of justice, to bring a wicked man to heaven: the other against the law of nature.
2. For the other three examples: it is not proved out of scripture, that the body of Christ pierced the doors, the grave, stone, or his mothers womb: although the doors were found shut after Christ's entrance, the grave covered, and his mother remained a Virgin still: for all these passages might give place for a while to the body of Christ, and return again to their place: as the red sea was divided till the Israelites passed, and afterward the waters came together again. And concerning the last instance of the birth of Christ, it is certain out of the scriptures, that Christ opened the womb of his mother in his birth, Luk. 2.23. Hitherto therefore they have proved nothing.
Our adversaries do falsely charge us to say, that God can do no more then he hath done, or will do, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. This we say: that Christ is almighty, and yet can do nothing against his own will, his word, or glory: as to dishonor his glorious body, and to bring it within the compass of a piece of bread, that it may be devoured of cats, dogs, rats, mice, or which is worse, to be eaten of wicked men the members of the devil: although the question be not so much between us, what Christ is able to do of his absolute power, but what he will do according to his word, Fulk. Math. 17. sect. 1.
Argum. 1. It standeth neither with the power or will of God, to do contrary to his word: For it is impossible that God should lie, Hebr. 6.18. And this thing, not to lie, is not a want of power, but a sign of greater power in God. But it is plainly declared in scripture, that Christ hath a true natural body, and is in all things like unto us, Hebr. 2.17. Therefore neither can his body, being a true human body, as ou • s are, be in many places at once: neither can it choose but occupy that room and place where it is. The Angel said, He is risen, he is not here, Math. 28.6: but it had been no good argument, to say, he is risen and gone to another place, and therefore he is not here, if so be the body of Christ might be in many places at once. The scripture then hath defined it, that Christ's body is in one certain place: wherefore to say, that Christ hath a true natural body, and yet retaineth not the natural properties of a body, is to speak contradictories, that he hath, and hath not a true natural body: and this were to make God a liar.
Augustine saith of Christ: Secundum corporalem praesentiam, simul in sole, luna, cruce, esse non potest: Christ according to his corporal presence, cannot be in the Sun, the Moon, and upon the Cross all at one time.
And concerning the other point, he writeth thus: Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt: Take away space of place from bodies, and they shall be nowhere, and if they be in no place, then are they not at all.
Argum. 2. The real and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is a thing superfluous, needles, and unprofitable. First, the favor of God in the remission of sins through Christ, is as well sealed unto us in Baptism, as in the Lord's Supper▪ what need then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other? Secondly, that Christ is in body present in the Sacrament, is not perceived by any sense: for they neither taste him, see him, nor feel him: it must be then a work of faith: but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent, as being supposed in this manner to be present: Ergo, this kind of presence is needles.
Argum. 3. It is an inglorious, unworthy and unseemly thing, that the glorious and impassible body of Christ, should be enclosed in the forms of bread and wine, devoured and chawed, eaten and gnawed of mice, subject to mould and rottenness, to be spilled upon the ground, burnt in the fire: for all these inconveniences must needs follow upon the carnal presence.
Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the body of Christ, thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb, to be swathed in swaddling bands, and to be subject to injuries which were done to his body upon earth.
Ans. First, as though there be the like reason of the passable body of Christ, while he lived in the world, which was buffeted, whipped, pierced with nails, crucified; and of his glorious and impassible body now, that it may in like manner be rent and divided. Secondly, neither was it possible that Christ's passable body should be subject to the like infirmities, as to rottenness, corruption, consumption in the fire, as his body is now in the Sacrament. If it were then verified in Christ, Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption: for his body did not putrefy or corrupt in the grave: much more is it true in the glorious body of Christ, that it cannot suffer any such things: How then are you not ashamed to affirm, that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament, the very body and blood of Christ: seeing those elements, if they be kept long, will wax sower, and mouldie, and fall to corruption? which things once to think of the glorious body of Christ, were great impiety. Leave off for shame then these your gross opinions, so much derogatory to the glory and honor of Christ.
THE SECOND QUESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation.
The Papists.
IF any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration; or shall deny that the whole [error 115] substance of bread is changed and converted into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the forms and shows only of bread and wine remaining, which singular and miraculous conversion the Church calleth Transubstantiation; let him be accursed, Council. Tridentin. sess. 13. can. 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra. euchar. cap. 19. Rhemist. Matth. 17. sect. 1.
Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his body marvelously in the Mount, as we read, Math. 17. sect. 1. Ergo, he is able to exhibit his body under the forms of bread and wine, Rhemist.
Ans. First, your argument followeth not, Christ could give a glorious form to his passable body: Ergo, he can take away the essential properties of his natural body, and yet keep a true body still. Or thus, Christ could glorify his body not yet glorified: Ergo, he can or will dishonor his glorious impassible body: by enclosing it under the forms of base creatures to be devoured of dogs and mice: which is honored and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heaven. Secondly, the question is not so much of Christ's power, as of his will: therefore you conclude not aright, Christ is able to do it: Ergo, he will.
Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ, need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his body, Rhemist. John. 2. sect. 2.
Ans. First, when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conversion, as we have for this miracle, we will give ear unto you. Secondly, and when it shall appear to the senses, that the bread is changed into flesh, as the water was known to be turned into the wine, by the color and taste: we shall then no more doubt of this conversion of the bread, then they did of the other of water. Thirdly, if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures: what reason have you to give such an omnipotent power to every priest, with a few words to do as much, as Christ himself could when he was present? Fourthly, all this proveth but an ability and power in Christ, not a will or purpose, to work any such change or conversion.
Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be changed, yet the forms remain still for these causes. First, because if the forms also should be changed, there should be no sensible sign left, and so no Sacrament. Secondly, the faith of the receiver is the better tried this way: who believeth the flesh of Christ to be present, though he see it not. Thirdly, Christ would not have the forms altered, because man abhorreth to eat human flesh in the proper shape,