A General View of Papistry
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, Bellarm. cap. 22.
Ans. First, your first reason is insufficient: for neither do the bare and naked signs or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament, but the substance of thē: for between the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented, there ought to be some conveniency and agreement: namely, as the body is nourished by bread and wine, so doth the soul feed upon the body and blood of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish us, but the substance: Ergo, not the accidents but the substance is the visible sign. Likewise in Baptism, it is not the form or outward accident of water, that is the sign, but the substance of water that washeth.
2. It is a more lively operation of faith, to believe in Christ absent in heaven, then present in earth, although he appear not to the senses. And Christ is indeed properly the object of faith, as he is now in heaven: Hope (saith the Apostle) entereth into that which is within the veil, whither our forerunner Jesus is entered for us, Heb. 6.19. Faith and hope therefore do lead us to things within the veil, that is, things in heaven, and not upon the earth.
3. What a strange saying is this, that Christ giveth his flesh to be eat̄ in the Sacrament, yet hideth it under the forms of bread and wine, lest men should abhor to eat it? for is it to be thought, that Christ would command any unseemly thing, or contrary to humanity? How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstain frō strangled & blood, Act. 15. whē as, by your doctrine, they did eat daily in their assemblies, the raw flesh and blood of Christ? And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his own rule, He that doth the truth (saith he) cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest? John. 3.21. But Christ now flieth the light, & shrowdeth himself under the shape of bread and wine, and will not show his flesh. These therefore are but silly causes which you have rendered, why Christ would have the substance of bread only changed, and not the accidents.
The Protestants.
AS the name of transubstantiation is strange, and newly devised: so is the meaning thereof most unreasonable: that in the Sacrament, the substance of bread should be converted into the body of Christ, the forms only remaining: An opinion contrary to scripture, reason and common sense.
Argum. 1. As Christ said, Math. 26. (pointing to the bread) This is my body: so he saith, John. 6.35. I am the bread: but in this place he was not changed into bread: why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body? for the speech is all one.
Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration, is subject to diverse changes and alterations, and so likewise the wine: for they may be boiled and made hot, they may be infected with poison: for it is certain that Victor the 3. Pope, and Henry the 7. Emperor, were poisoned with the Sacrament: the wine may wax sower and turn to vinegar: the bread may putrefy and breed worms: Ergo, the substance of bread and wine remain still: for the accidents cannot be subject to such alterations: and to say that Christ's body may be thus handled, it were great impiety, Argum. Pet. Martyris.
Bellarmine answereth: Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti, in quo desinunt esse illae species: God supplieth some other matter in the very instant, when the forms begin to be changed, Cap. 24. argum. 6.
Ans. Is not here good gear, think you, that if a man should come to poison the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, which are already consecrate, and made the body of Christ, God should supply by a miracle some other matter for him to work upon, and so God himself should be accessory unto that wicked act? Or if a silly mouse should be so bold as gnaw upon a consecrate Host, that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appointed: and so God shall make miracles for mice? And why, I pray you, may not the substance of bread still remain, as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof?
Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words, Hoc est corpus meum, the bread was transubstantiate, before, or after, or while the words were spoken. Before, they will not say, for the elements were not then consecrate: nor after, for thē Christ's words, This is my body, had not been true in that instant when they were spoken. Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking: for then should it not have been done all at once, but successively, and one part after another, as the words were spoken one after another. But this is also contrary to the opinion of the Papists, that would have it done all together.
Argum. 4. It is against the nature and property of accidents and external forms to be without a subject, or substance, wherein they should rest: such are the whiteness and roundnes of the bread, the rednes and sweetness of wine: if bread be gone, what is become of the roundnes and whiteness, and so of the wine. If a man ask what round or white thing is this, or what red and sweet thing is this, showing the cup: what shall be answered? we cannot say, it is bread, or wine: for there is none left. And I am sure, they will not say, that the body of Christ is either round or white, or such like: and yet somewhat there must needs be, that must take denomination of these accidents.
Argum. 5. You say, the very flesh of Christ that did hang upon the Cross, is in the Sacrament: but that cannot be: for that flesh Christ took of the Virgin Mary: this sacramental flesh is made of bread: Ergo, it is not the same flesh which was crucified upon the Cross.
Bellarm. The body of Christ is made of bread, but not as any matter or material cause thereof, but as the wine was made of water by our Savior Christ.
Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water? was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine? for one of these three changes and mutations it must needs have: first, either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing, and so the wine was created of nothing, which I am sure you will not grant: secondly, or else there was a mixture of wine and water, the one being mingled with the other: which is likewise false, for it was very good and perfect wine: neither, I think, will you easily admit, that the body of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament. Thirdly, there remaineth but the third kind of change, that is, the conversion of one substance into another, as the water was changed into wine: and so is the substance of bread converted into the substance of Christ's body, if you will have any change at all: and thus Christ hath gotten by your help a breaden body: another from that, which he took of the flesh of the Virgin.
Lastly, the diversity of opinions, which this gross conceit of the carnal presence of Christ hath hatched, do easily show and demonstrate unto us, what we are to think of this popish doctrine.
Some do hold, that the elements do still remain in their own nature in the Sacrament, and that together with them the body of Christ is carnally present. Others do teach, that there remaineth no more bread and wine, but only the very natural body of Christ: of each opinion there are three sorts.
First, of them that hold the elements not to be changed. 1. Some are of opinion, that the body of Christ and the elements are locally joined together, either for that instant only, or else because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christ's humanity: of which opinion are the Lutherans.
2. Some there were, that thought only so much of the bread to be changed into the body of Christ, as was received of the faithful: and that part which the wicked received, to be bread still.
3. Others taught, that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the person of Christ, even as his humanity: so that Christ was bread by consecration, as he was man by his incarnation: an horrible and monstrous opinion, which is fathered upon Rupertus the Abbot. Johannes Parisiensis also came near this opinion, who likewise affirmed, that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ, and united unto him, yet not immediately, as the other taught, but by the mediation and means of the humanity of Christ.
Secondly, of those that maintain the conversion of the elements. First, some would have the form only of bread changed not the matter, as Durand. Secondly, some contrariwise, would have the matter altered, and the form to remain. Thirdly, the Jesuits affirm the bread wholly in substance, both in matter and form to be changed, the outward forms and accidents only remaining. ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram, Eucharist. cap. 11.
Thus men, when they begin once to leave the truth, the Lord leaveth them to themselves, and they run mad in their own inventions, not finding any end: and so it is justly come upon them, as S. Paul saith of the heathen:
Rom. 1.21.22.
THE THIRD QUESTION, WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated, be a Sacrament, though it be neither eaten nor drunk.
The Papists.
THe elements in the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, being once consecrate, [error 116] which say they, is done by the prolation of those words, hoc est corpus meum, This is my body, whether they be received or not at that instant, but be reserved and kept in boxes, and pixes, and other vessels of the Church, for days, weeks, months, to be carried solemnly to those that are sick, and to be applied to other uses: are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Council. sess. 13. can. 4.7. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2.
Argum. 1. Christ's words which were spoken over the bread, This is my body, were true as soon as he brought them forth, before he said, Take, eat, and so likewise of the cup: therefore it was a Sacrament, before they did receive and eat it, and had been a Sacrament still, if it had not been received at all at that time. Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. 1. Those words of Christ, This is my body, were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it: but first as S. Math. setteth it down, he brake the bread and gave it to his Disciples, saying: Take, eat, and then follow those words, This is my body. Math. 26.26. which seem to have been uttered even in that instant, when they took the bread, and began to eat it.
Secondly, the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise, partly of a precept: the promise is this, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body: the precept, Accipite, manducate, Take, eat. Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise, then we perform the condition: unless therefore accordingly we do take and eat it, it is not the body of Christ.
The Protestants.
THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the use thereof: so that, though some form of words be pronounced over it, if it be not received and eaten and drunk, it is no sacrament: neither is that which remaineth after the distribution, the Eucharist being ended, either of the bread or wine, any part of the sacrament, but so much only as is taken and used.
Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament, unless it be used according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it: but to the institution it belongeth on the behalf of the Minister, to bless, break, and distribute it: on the behalf of the communicants to take, eat, and drink it: in them all, thereby to show the Lord's death, and to do it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by using the words of benediction only, but by the whole action: for how can they show the Lord's death, or do it in remembrance of Christ, unless they take, and eat? Ergo, if it be not so used, it is no Sacrament.
Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike, and of one and the selfsame kind, there is one way of instituting and consecrating both: but the water in baptism is no part of the Sacrament, but during the solemn action of baptizing▪ afterward it returneth to the common use, so much as is not used. Ergo, it is so also in the Eucharist: for as Christ saith to his Apostles: Ite, baptizate: Go and baptize, so that it was no Sacrament, unless somebody were baptized: even so he saith, Accipite, • anducate, Take, eat. No Sacrament then, unless it be received and eaten.
And here I pray you, let it be noted, how well the Jesuits agree amongst themselves: our Rhemists do commend the reserving also of the water in baptism, and carrying of it home to give it the diseased to drink, annot. I am. 5. sect. 5. Bellar. saith, that Res permanens in baptismo, That the thing permanent in Baptism, that is, water, which remaineth, is not the sacrament, but ipsa actio, the action of baptizing it self, and alloweth only the Eucharist to be reserved, and remain a Sacrament, Etiam extra vsum, Without the use thereof, Bellar. li. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 3. But we have shown already, that both the Sacraments are hallowed and sanctified alike, and that both in the one and the other, the use only and present action according to Christ's institution, maketh the Sacrament.
In Augustine's time some used to receive the Communion daily: but upon the Sabbath or Lord's day, it was commonly received of all: Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere, nec laudo, nec reprehendo, omnib. tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor. Every day to receive the Eucharist, I neither commend, nor dispraise it but every Lord's day I do persuade men and exhort all to communicate. It should seem then, that in those days there was no such superstitious reservation of the Sacrament, seeing every day, or at the least every Sabbath it was administered.
THE FOURTH QUESTION, CONCERNING the elements or material part of the Sacrament, namely bread and wine.
The Papists.
1. The bread which is used in the Sacrament, ought to be unleavened: because it is most agreeable to Christ's institution, who made the sacrament of unleavened [error 117] bread, for he instituted his last Supper, after he had eaten the Passover: which was to be eaten with sweet and unleavened bread, according to the Lawa, neither was there any leaven to be found in Israel for seven days together: and not only Christ, but all the Jews at that time did keep the Passover: and the next day after, in the which Christ suffered, was the first solemn festival day of the seven, being the fifteenth day of the month, as it was commanded, Leviticus 23.5. Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 7.
The Protestants.
1. WE deny not, but that Christ used unleavened bread, at the institution of his last Supper, having immediately before eaten the Paschal Lamb, which we doubt not but he kept, according to the Law, with sweet bread: yet in the time they are greatly deceived, affirming, that all the Jews eat the Passover like wise over eeuen, and crucified Christ on the morrow, which should have been, and was unto them (as they say) a chief festival day.
The truth is, that Christ eat the Passover the 14, day at eeuen, as it is appointed in the Law: but the Jews had a contrary tradition: they would in no wise keep two festival days together: and therefore because the sixteenth day was their Sabbath, they would not have the feast of unleavened bread upon the fifteenth day (though it were so appointed by the law) to avoid the concurrence of two holy days together, but deferred it till the next day, which was their Sabbath, and eat the Passover the eeue before, which was the 15. day at night; whereas Christ reforming that abuse, kept the Passover the eeue before according to the Law, that is, the 14. at night: It appeareth then, that the next day following, which we call Friday, wherein Christ was put to death, was not kept of the Jews as a holy day.
First, the text saith, they would not put Christ to death upon the feast day, fearing the tumult of the people, Mark. 14. 2. Secondly, if they had kept it holy as the Law commanded, they should have done no servile labor therein, that is, no work of the body, Leuitic. 23.7. But what could be a more servile work, then to crucify Christ, to carry the Cross, and pitch it in the ground, and such like; which the Jews would not have done upon that day, which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabbath? It is also called the preparation of the Sabbath, Mark. 15.43. Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabbath what was needful: but such works of preparation could not have been done in that great festiual day. Augustine also saith, that the day of Christ's suffering was not Pascha, sed praeparatio Paschae, It was not the Pasch, but the preparation to it: it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the Jews, the day of Christ's passion, neither that they did eat the pascal Lamb the same eeue that Christ did, but the night following.
If they shall object that place, Mark. 14.12. where the Evangelist saith, It was the first day of unleavened bread, when Christ eat his passover: and therefore all the Jews began then to eat sweet bread. We answer, that the Evangelist hath relation unto the right time of keeping the Passover, as it was prescribed by the Law, and observed by Christ: not to the corrupt custom of the Jews. Wherefore we grant that Christ might eat unleavened bread, but not in such manner and order, as they say.
Secondly, it was not of the substance of the institution to eat unleavened bread, no more then to eat it at night, and to receive it sitting, we are not more bound to the one, then to the other. Again, Christ used unleavened bread, because it was the usual bread at that time: so we do use that which is the usual bread in our time. And S. Paul speaketh of such bread, as was usual among the Gentiles, when he saith, The bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10.17. Ergo, ordinary bread and leavened to be used, not unleavened.
The Papists.
2. COncerning the other element of wine, which is used in the sacrament, [error 118] they say it is to be mixed with water, and they impudently condemn all those Churches, that do not mixe water with wine, in the Sacrament.
Argum. Water gushed out together with blood, out of the side of Christ. Ergo, wine and water is to be used together in the Eucharist, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 10.
The Protestants.
1. WE deny not, but that of ancient time, in hot Countries, especially where their wine was strong, they used to mixe water with wine, in their common drink, and thereupon they so used it in the sacrament: but it was never generally the practice of the East Countries so to do: for the Armenians and Iberians used not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration, Fulk. nnot. 1. Corinth. 1 • . sect. 10.
Secondly, Be it that this mixture of wine were convenient to be used: you cannot make such a matter of necessity of it, as to charge them with heresy, and denounce damnation against them that keep not that custom, especially seeing your Canonists and schoolmen do grant that it is de honestate taunt • m, of decency only, not of necessity. And yet we are fain to drink mingled wine many times against our willes: for the Minister need put in no water, it is mixed to his hands many times. The Vintners craft standeth very well with popish profession.
Thirdly, we hold it rather to be a superstitious custom and contrary to Christ's institution: for he in his last supper gave wine, not water to be drunk, for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine, which is wine and not water.
Fourthly, the water and blood which issued out of Christ's side, signify no such thing, but rather as S. John expoundeth them: by water, is betokened our washing from our sins, whereof Baptism is a pledge: by blood, the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sins, whereof the other sacrament is a • eale, 1. John. 5.6. This is that Jesus Christ, that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood. By the which words the Apostles meaning is not, that by the water and blood, which were shed upon the cross, we should understand the Sacraments of the Church: but those spiritual graces, whereof the Sacraments are lively signs, namely the satisfaction and ransom of our sins by Christ's blood, and our ablution and washing from the same.
Augustine picketh out no such fancy out of this mystery as you do, for the mixture of wine and water: but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church. E Christi latere dormientis in cruce promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae, in Psal. 138. Out of Christ's side dying upon the Cross, issued the sacraments of the Church: namely, Baptism, and the Eucharist. He draweth not both water and wine to signify one sacrament, but applieth them to both.
THE FIFTH QUESTION, OF THE words of consecration.
The Papists.
THese words (say they) This is my body, to be spoken over the bread, and the [error 119] like over the wine, This is the new testament in my blood, are the very forms of the Sacraments and words of consecration: which being uttered, immediately the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ: wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people, but they are only consecratory words, to be pronounced over the elements: Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 13.
Argu. If these were not the only words of consecration This is my body, and if presently upon the uttering of these words the body of Christ was not present: then should not the words of Christ be true, Bellarm. ibid.
The Protestants.
1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all, by virtue whereof the elements are converted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ, as we have before shown. A consecration we grant, which is a setting apart of the elements, which before were common, to holy uses, and by the vetue of Christ's institution, to be made unto us signs of holy things.
Secondly, those are not the only words of consecration, This is my body, and, This is the cup of my blood, and yet Christ's words shall be true: for we must not dismember the sentence: Christ saith, Take, eat ye, this is my body: it is then made his body to be taken and eaten: by taking then and eating, the elements also are consecrated, not only by saying of the words: ye must not then divide the words of the institution, for then they shall no more consecrate, then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words, as, This is, or, My body, and leave out the rest.
Thirdly, that these are not the only words of consecration, it appeareth, because both the bread was broken and distributed, and the Cup also, before Christ spake those words, as Math. 26.26. for first Christ saith, Take, eat, and, Take and drink, before he said▪ either, This is my body, or, This is my blood: neither can ye well tell yourselves, which are your consecratory words for the Cup, whether those that Matthew setteth down, This is my blood of the new testament: or as Luke hath, This Cup is the new testament in my blood. Nay, Bellarmine useth another form beside these: Hic est calix • s •• guinis▪ This is the Cup of my blood, Bellarm. cap. 13.
Fourthly, we conclude then, that not only these words, but all the rest belonging to the institution, are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament, both to instruct the people, that they may know the right use of the Sacrament: and they help also with the rest of the whole action, of taking, eating, drinking, praying, thanksgiving, to consecrate and make the Sacrament, as we have shown more at large before: controu. 11. quest. 1. part 2. to that place we refer the Reader.
THE SIXT QUESTION, OF THE PROPER effect and use of the Lord's Supper.
The Papists.
THey do generally hold, that this Sacrament was not properly ordained [error 120] for remission of sins, neither that the Sacrament hath any such use: but it serveth only as a preservative against sin, Trident. Council. sess. 13. can. 5. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 17.
Secondly, they teach, that faith is not sufficient to prepare us for the Communion: and although a man be never so contrite, quantumcun{que} se contritos existiment, yet they must be thoroughly purged and absolved from their mortal sins, before they come to communicate, Council. Trident. sess. 13. canon. 11. Bellarm. ibid.
Argum. 1. They that receive the Communion, are one body as they are partakers of one bread, 1. Cor. 10.17. but they which are in any grievous and deadly sin, are not lively members of Christ, and of his mystical body: therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all, Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. 1. Neither do we affirm, that men ought rashly & presumptuously to come to the Lord's table, but to repent them thoroughly of their sins, and to have a steadfast and lively faith in Christ, who cannot be said, thus preparing themselves, to remain in their sins: neither yet are they so fully aquitted of them, that they need not to receive the Sacrament to their comfort, and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sins. Secondly, wherefore all this hindereth not, but that they should be true members of Christ's body, even having a troubled conscience, and laboring under the burden of their sins: for the weak and sick parts of the body, are they therefore no partes at all, because of their infirmities? Augustine saith very well, Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecun{que} peccata, peccāt enim et filij Dei: In quibus non est fides, filij sunt Diaboli: Every sin maketh not a man the child of the devil, for the Children of God also sin: but they which have no faith, are the sons of the Devil. Ergo, all sins cut not men off from the body of Christ, but only the want of faith: they then that have sinned, and do repent them and come with faith, are still the sons of God, and members of Christ's body.
Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper use and end of diverse Sacraments: but Baptism is received for remission of sins. Ergo, the Eucharist is not for that end, Bellarm. ibid.
Ans. 1. The death of Christ, and so remission of sins purchased by the same, is properly represented unto us in both Sacraments: yet in a diverse respect: for as to be borne is one thing, to be fed and nou •• shed is another: yet both work the same thing in the body, though diversely: for the birth giveth life, meat and drink preserveth it: the same difference is between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, they both are seals unto us of our justification, in the remission of sins by Christ: but by Baptism we are initiated, regenerate and borne anew, and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirm, increase, and nourish our faith, already begun and planted in us, for the remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's passion.
The Protestants.
FIrst, we do truly affirm and teach, that an especial and principal use of the Eucharist or Communion, is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sins: and yet we deny not, but that it hath other uses beside: for as in Baptism not only the washing away of our sins is shown forth, but it also betokeneth our dying to sin, and rising to newness of life, Ro. 6.3.4. So in the Lord's supper whole Christ with all his benefits is exhibited unto us, as it is a pledge unto us, not only of remission of sins, but that Christ is become our righteousness and sanctification, 1. Cor. 1.30. that he will assist us with his spirit, and replenish our harts with grace, John. 4.14. yea, the spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, is a pledge unto us of the resurrection, and of life eternal, John. 6.54. But that amongst the rest, it also assureth us of remission of sins, thus it is proved.
Argum. Christ after S. Matthew saith, This is the blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for remission of sins, Math. 26.28. But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sins, Jer. 31.34. Yea our Savior setteth it down in plain terms: for why else should our Savior make express mention of forgiveness of sins, if this sacrament did not serve for that use?
Secondly, we do hold, that to have a lively faith in the promises of God, with repentance for our sins, and a full purpose to amend our lives, is a sufficient preparation for the Communion: and that this sacrament is a sovereign remedy for a troubled conscience. Neither ought men to refrain from the Communion, till they have fully satisfied for their sins, as the Papists teach, and are cleared in their conscience of all their sins: for so, few or none at all, should be admitted to the Lord's table: but in whom faith hath already wrought repentance in some measure, he may safely receive the sacrament for his further comfort, and assurance of remission of sins.
Argum. John. 6.35. He that believeth in me, saith Christ, shall never thirst: S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselves, 1. Corin. 11.28. which is nothing else, as himself expondethu it, then to prove whether they be in the faith, 2. Cor. 13.5. Ergo, the examination or trial of faith, is a sufficient preparation for the Lord's table.
Augustine saith, Ad Deum acceditur, fide sectando, cord inhiando, charitate currando. We come or have access unto God in following him by faith, seeking him in our heart, and running to him with love, In Psalm. 33. concion. 2. Ergo, by faith we have access unto God, Rom. 5.2. but a lively faith, which worketh by love, Galath. 5.6.
THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE manner to be observed in receiving the communion.
The Papists.
1 THey hold it in no wise lawful for Christians, otherwise then fasting to [error 121] receive the communion: and that they ought to eat nothing before they do communicate, unless it be in a case of great necessity, Council. Constantiens. sess. 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 22. ration. 4.
The Protestants.
1 WHat they here understand by necessity, it may be doubted, seeing they themselves will not grant the like necessity to be in the Eucharist, as they say there is of Baptism: All sacraments, we grant, are necessary, that is, profitable, expedient, requisite, so often as they may be had: But none so necessary, that the want thereof unto a faithful man, that in heart doth wish and desire them, can be any hindrance to his salvation.
2 That it is lawful for any man to eat before he come to the communion, if his stomach be weak, and not able to fast so long (for otherwise, if a man can abstain, we wish him so to do rather) Saint Paul showeth, writing to the Corinthians, 1. cap. 11.34. If any man be hungry, let him eat at home. Some of them, he saith, came hungry, some drunken, verse. 21. the Apostle commendeth neither, but telleth them, if they be hungry, they have houses to eat in. Again, in that our Savior Christ after supper instituted the sacrament, it doth evidently declare unto us, that it is no sin to eat or drink before we receive the sacrament.
Augustine saith, Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus: We compel none to take the Lord's Supper in dinner while, or after dinner, neither dare we forbid any so to do: so he maketh it a thing indifferent, to communicate fasting or otherwise.
The Papists.
2 THey bind the people only once in the year to receive the communion [error 122] at Easter time, and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to do, Council. Trident. sess. 13. can. 9.
The Protestants.
2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practice of the Apostles, whom the Rhemists confess to have ministered the sacrament to the Christians daily, Annotat. Act. 2. sect. 6. So expounding the words of the text, They continued daily in breaking of bread.
2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Paul's rule, who speaketh of often communicating: Do this, saith he, as oft as you drink it, 1. Corinth. 11.25. For seeing the eating of that bread, and drinking of that cup, is nothing else, but a showing forth of the Lord's death till he come: who seeth not, that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be received, seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembered, and shown forth?
3 Therefore Augustine doth boldly reprehend their custom that content themselves with once receiving in the year: Si panis quotidianus est, cur post annum illum sumas? accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit: If it be thy daily bread, why doest thou take it but yearly? take that daily and continually, which may profit thee daily, In Luk. serm. 28.
THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kind.
The Papists.
[error 123] CHristians (say they) are not bound by any commandment of GOD to receive the sacrament in both kinds, Council. Trident. sess. 21. can. 1. And whosoever saith, that the Church hath erred or done amiss, in decreeing that lay men and the Clergy not saying Mass, should receive in the one kind, that is bread only: Or that it is lawful for them to communicate in both, contrary to the determination of the Church: let him be accursed, Council. Trident. sess. 21. can. 2. Rhemist. John. 6. sect. 11. Bellarmine. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 20.
Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in every parte of the sacrament, his blood by a certain concomitance is in the bread, & his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup, for otherwise Christ should be divided: But every spirit, saith the Apostle, that dissolveth Jesus, is of God, 1. John. 4.3. Wherefore he that receiveth in one kind, is as well partaker of whole Christ, and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament, as if he received in both, Bellarmine. cap. 21.
Ans. 1. We deny any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament: for he is not in his carnal presence with his very flesh and blood there included, as we have shown before: the bread and wine are signs only of his body and blood, and therefore Christ is not divided, they being the signs only and not the thing signified.
2 The place alleged out of Saint John is greatly abused and corrupted by them, while they choose rather to follow their old blind latin translation, then the authentical Greek text: the words in the original are, Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ: not, every spirit that dissolveth: And this may appear to be the true reading, by the opposition in the former verse, Every spirit that confesseth Jesus, is of GOD: therefore this is the best reading, Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus: as being set opposite and contrary to the other verse. Again, the Rhemists understand this place after their own reading, of the dissolving of the humanity and divinity of Christ: not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ, as Bellarm. supposeth.
3 This their device of concomitance ouerthwarteth the institution of Christ: For he saith, the bread is his body, the wine his blood: but by their rule, the bread is his blood, and the wine his body. And be it granted, that the blood of Christ is in the bread, yet how can any man be said to drink it in bread? We use to eat bread, not to drink bread: his blood therefore cannot be there, because it cannot be drunk there.
Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30. Christ brake bread to his disciples, Act. 2.42. the Apostles brake bread: Ergo, to communicate in one kind is grounded upon the example of Christ and his Apostles, Bellarmine. lib. 4. de Eucharist. 24. Rhemist. John. 6.11. And Christ saith, Whosoever shall eat this bread, shall live forever, John 6.58. Ergo, it is sufficient to receive in one kind.
Answer: 1. To the two first places, we say, that it is not necessary to understand the breaking of bread in the sacrament: but the usual bread rather, which was accustomed in their daily repasts and feasts after thanksgiving to be broken. Or, if we take it for the sacrament, the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mystery, as it is an usual phrase of speech in scripture: for otherwise we will conclude as well, that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kind, which they hold for a great absurdity, as that the other received but in one kind: But their opinion is, that although the people must communicate in one kind only, yet the Priest must consecrate both, Rhemist. annotat. John. 6. sect. 11.
2 To the second place we answer: First it is not understood of the sacramental eating of Christ, but of the spiritual manducation of him, which may be done without a sacrament: For whosoever eateth this bread, shall live forever: but whosoever eateth the sacrament, shall not live forever. Secondly, seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often joined in this chapter, as verse. 53.55.56. they might well know, that drinking is here to be understood, though it be not expressed.
Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to be had, as in the cold Northerly countries: and therefore they cannot communicate according to the institution: whereupon that there might be an uniformity in all Churches, it is most meet that where wine may be had, they should notwithstanding be content to receive it in one kind, Bellarmine. cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconvenience in granting the cup to the people, as in spilling and sheading the wine, which after consecration is the blood of Christ, Rhemist. annot. John 6. sect. 11.
Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to be had, so we find that in certain places and regions of the world there is no bread, such as Christ used, made of wheat or the like grayne: as in some places amongst the West Indians, they have a certain kind of bread made of roots called Cazabi, as Benzo witnesseth. Wherefore by this reason of uniformity, we should not communicate at all, either in bread or wine, seeing that as some countries are destitute of wine, so other are of bread: but all this not withstanding, the sacrament may be duly administered in all places in both kinds: and where they have neither bread nor wine, neither can possibly provide them, they may safely use such other elements, as do stand them in the like stead: as in the place of bread, that which cometh nearest to the use thereof: and for wine, some other precious liquor, that is to be had, as in Russia instead of wine they use a certain drink like unto that which we call Metheglen.
2 As for the other reasons of the inconveniences in spilling the wine, shaking the cup, the hanging of it on men's beards, & other such frivolous allegations: as they were no let or hindrance, why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kinds, and the Church accordingly observed it, as we read, the Corinthians did communicate in both kinds: so ought they to be no reason, why Christians should not receive in both kinds now.
The Protestants.
WE hold it to be an Antichristian practice of the Church of Rome, to take away from the people the cup in the sacrament: for although they sometime minister the cup to the people, yet they use no consecration over it, neither give it as any parte of the sacrament, Fulk. annotat. 1. Corinth. 4.10. sect. 4. They do therefore offer great wrong to the people of God, in depriving them of the one half of the communion.
Argum. 1. John 6.53. Christ saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Here we see both eating and drinking are joined together: Ergo, Christians ought to do both. This place maketh strongly against our adversaries, who do expound it of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ.
Argum. 2. Christ instituted the sacrament in both kinds, giving charge and commandment to all Christians in the same manner to celebrate it: for he saith, Drink ye all of this. If our adversaries answer, as they do, that this was spoken to the Apostles: by the like reason they may say also, that when Christ said, Take, eat; he spake unto his Apostles, and so the people should neither receive bread and wine, but the Ministers only.
Agayne, Saint Paul, the best expounder of our Savior Christ, declareth the right use of the Lord's Supper in both kinds for all Christians: for he writeth to the whole congregation, and Church of the Corinthians, not to the Pastors and teachers only: and to every Christian he saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, verse. 28.
Argum. 3. The Priest that saith Mass, you allow to consecrate and receive in both kinds, because he must express lively the passion of Christ and the separation of his blood from his body in the same: Rhemist. annotat. John. 6.58. By the same reason all the communicants ought to receive in both kinds, because they do all show forth the death of Christ, and sheading of his blood in the sacrament: 1. Corinthian. 11.26. And seeing the cup is a sign of the blood of Christ shed for remission of sins, Math. 26.28. for as much as the thing signified, that is, the remission of sins, in the blood of Christ, is common to all faithful Christians, why should they not as well be partakers of the sign?
Argum. 4. This prohibition for lay men, not to receive in both kinds, is but a late devise of the Church of Rome, not past two hundred year old, decreed no longer ago then in the Council of Constance, Fox. pag. 1150. yet after that, he Council of Basil granted the use and liberty of the cup to the Bohemians, Fox. pag. 694.
Thus they take upon them to over-rule men's consciences, now restraining, now again granting liberty, binding and loosing at their pleasure.
In Augustine's time there was no such separation of the cup from the bread: but both were indifferently used in the communion: Cum cibo & potu, saith he, id appetant homines vt neque esuriant, neque sitiant, hoc veraciter non praestat, nisi iste cibus & potus, &c. As men by their meat and drink do provide, that they neither hunger nor thirst: so this spiritual meat and drink worketh the same effect in us. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing in the sasacrament is contained and signified the full and sufficient nourishment of our souls by the flesh and blood of Christ, it must needs be resembled by the outward full sufficient nourishment of our bodies, which is not by eating alone, but by eating and drinking.
THE NINTH QUESTION OF THE adoration of the Eucharist.
The Papists.
[error 124] IT was decreed in the Council of Trent, that the Eucharist should be adored even with the highest degree of worship, ( Cultu latreiae ) which is proper to God: that it should also be carried about in solemn processions, to be shown to the people, to be worshipped and adored of them. And whosoever holdeth the contrary, they pronounce accursed, Trident. Council. sess. 13. can. 6.
Argum. 1. Hebr. 1.6. Worship him all ye Angels. Ergo, Christ in the sacrament▪ and wheresoever else his person is, ought to be adored of men and Angels, Rhemist. ibid. This Saint Paul meaneth, they say, by discerning the Lord's body, 1. Corinth. 11.29. that is, adoring, worshipping it, and making prayers unto it, Rhemist. ibid.
Answ. 1. We deny Christ to be present in the sacrament really, corporally, substantially: therefore it is not to be adored: 2. Although the body of Christ were present in that manner under the accidents of bread and wine, yet unless Christ be so present, that the elements or the accidents of the elements be joined and united unto him in one person, as the Godhead and humanity make but one person, he is no more to be adored, then God the father is to be worshipped in the Sun or Moon, in the which he is verily present. But to say that the visible forms and elements are joined in an hypostatical union to Christ, as his humanity is to his Godhead, it is great blasphemy. 3. A reverent estimation and discerning of the Lord's body we grant in the sacrament; in preferring the elements before all other meats and drinks, because of their mystical signification, as we prefer the mystical washing in Baptism before all other: but to kneel, hold up the hands, and to worship a piece of bread, we count it gross and abominable Idolatry.
The Protestants.
THat the sacrament is not to be adored with any godly worship, but only to be duly reverenced as an holy mystery: thus we prove it by the word of God.
Argum. 1. In the first instituting of the sacrament, the Apostles received it sitting, not kneeling, by taking of it, not lifting up their hands to it. Ergo, they did not adore it, neither is it by us to be adored.
Agayne Christ commandeth us, only to Take, and eat and drink, and to do all in remembrance of him: the sacrament therefore was appointed to be eaten and drunken, not to be carried about, or to be gazed upon, or to be kneeled unto.
Argum. 2. Christ, as we have shown, is no otherwise present in the Eucharist, then in Baptism. But the water in Baptism is not to be adored: Ergo, neither the bread in the sacrament.
Augustine did not so much as dream of any adoration of the sacrament: A Cerere & Libero Paganorum dijs, longe absumus, quamus panis & calicis sacramentum nostro ritu amplectimur: We do not worship the heathenish God's of corn and wine, Ceres and Bacchus, although after our manner we embrace the sacrament of the bread and of the cup. His meaning is, that Christians do not worship bread and wine in the sacrament, as the heathen did, Cont. Faust.
In sacramenti sanctificatione & distributione existimo Apostolum proprie iussisse fieri 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 orationes, 1. Tim. 2.1. Quod vero quidam codices, non habent orationes, sed adorationes, non arbitror scienter interpretatum: In the consecrating and distributing of the sacrament, I think the Apostle bade orations or prayers to be made, not as some do unlearnedly interpret, adorations or worshippings, Epistol. 59. Ergo, he approveth not the adoration of the sacrament.
AN APENDIX, OR TENTH PART, whether the wicked do receive the body of Christ.
The Papists.
THe wicked, they say, do in the sacrament eat the true flesh of Christ and [error 125] drink his blood, though they be Infidels, and ill livers.
Argum. They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1. Corinth. 11.27. How can they be guilty of that, which they have not received? And again, by the unworthy receiving of no other sacrament, is a man made guilty of the body and blood of Christ, but only here: Ergo, the wicked are partakers of his body? Rhemist. annot. 1. Corint. 11. sect. 16.
Answer: 1. The wicked may be guilty of the body and blood of Christ in unworthy receiving the sacrament, though Christ be not corporally present: Even as he that contumeliously receiveth the seal of the prince or abuseth his image, is guilty of the Majesty of the prince, though he have not hurt his person. 2. He also may be guilty of the blood of Christ, that despiseth Baptism, which he received as a sign of his washing in the blood of Christ. And so the Apostle saith of wicked men, that fall away from Christian religion, that they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, Heb. 6.6.
Augustine also bringeth in Christ thus speaking to the wicked in the day of judgment, Grauior apud me est, peccatorum tuorum crux, in qua inuitus pendeo, quàm illa, in quam tuimisertus ascendi: the cross of thy sins, whereby thou didst crucify me, was more grievous unto me, then the Cross, to the which for thy cause I was lifted up: Serm. 181. cap. 7. de tempor. Thus we see, that wicked men by their sinful life may crucify Christ, though they can offer no violence to his body.
The Protestants.
THat wicked men and Infidels, cannot in any sense be partakers of the true body and blood of Christ, thus it is proved.
Argum. 1. By faith only are we made partakers of the body and blood of Christ: but this faith the wicked cannot have. The first part is proved out of the Gospel: He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall never thirst again, John 4.14. He that shall never thirst, must believe in Christ, John 6.35. Ergo, he only that believeth doth drink the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith, Nolite parare fances, sed cor, non quod videtur, sed quod creditor, pascit : do not prepare your jaws, but your heart, it is not that which is seen, but what is believed, that nourisheth: Ergo, Christ must be received by faith: therefore Infidels or unbelievers cannot receive him.
Argum. 2. Whosoever eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood, shall have eternal life, John 6.54. But the wicked have not eternal life: Ergo, they neither eat nor drink Christ.
Augustine saith, De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem, quibusdam ad vitam: res vero, cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam; nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit: From the Lord's table some do receive unto life, some unto death: but the thing, whereof it is a sacrament, worketh in all to life, in none to death, whosoever are partakers of it. But the body and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament: Ergo, whosoever receiveth them, hath life thereby; the wicked then receive them not.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING the Popish Mass.
T His part likewise comprehendeth diverse questions.
1 Of the diverse representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ.
2 Of the sacrifice of the Mass, the name thereof, and of the sacrificing priesthood.
3 Of the virtue and efficacy which they falsely ascribe to the Mass.
4 For whom the sacrifice of the Mass is available: whether for the quick and the dead.
5. Of private Masses.
6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Mass.
7. Of the ceremonies which they use in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass: some go before: some are observed in the celebration thereof.
8. Of the form of the Mass, which consisteth partly of the Canon, and of the preface to the Canon, where we are to show the foul and heretical blasphemies, which in great number are belched out by them in the Mass. Of these now in their order.
THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ.
The Papists.
THey are not contented with that one lively representation of the death of Christ, which is exhibited in the Lord's Supper, but they have brought in [error 126] two more beside that, and so make three in all: the first, say they, is simplex repraesentatio, a simple and plain representation of the death of Christ, which is done so often as the Sacrament is received: the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum, A lively and full representation of Christ's death: which they do use yearly to set forth by solemn gestures, apparel, and other ceremonies upon Good Friday, as it is commonly called, before Easter, when they do make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament: the third representation is also a sacrifice beside, and that is the sacrifice of the Mass, Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside, which is in the solemn receiving of the Communion at Easter: So then first, Christ's death is shown forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the year long as it hangeth in the pyx, or when it is carried to house the sick, Catechism. Rom. pag. 408. Secondly, it is represented once in the year by their solemn Pageant upon good Friday, when there is no Sacrament consecrated, but an histrionical expressing by certain gestures and actions, the manner of Christ's crucifying. Thirdly, in the continual sacrifice of the Mass, Christ his death is represented. And lastly, in the solemn receiving at Easter: for then especially, the mystery of Christ our Paschal lamb is commended to the people to be eaten with all sincerity in the Sacrament: and so do the Rhemist. expound that place of Saint Paul, Let us keep feast or holy day, not with the leaven of malitiousnes, 1. Cor. 6.8. literally applying it to the feast of Easter, Rhemist. in hunc locum.
The Protestants.
FIrst, we are taught by the word of God, that by eating the bread, and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament, not by gazing, looking, lifting up, turning, hanging up bread in pixes, or by any such means, but only as we have said, is the Lord's death shown forth and represented, 1. Corinth. 11.26. We acknowledge therefore one only Sacramental representation of Christ, and no more in the Lord's Supper: the sacrifice of the Mass we judge to be an abominable idol, as afterward shall be shown.
Secondly, it is a foul absurdity to make any representation of Christ's death, by bare gestures, shows, and actions of the body without any Sacrament, as they do in their popish pageants upon Christ's Passion day: for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated, Eckius. cap. 15. But the Priest, by certain gestures and motions of the body, in bowing, bending, casting abroad his arms and such like, doth resemble Christ crucified, Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a lively representation being done without a Sacrament, and the other in the Sacrament, simplicem repraesentationem, but a simple and plain representation, is too great presumption: wherein they prefer their own superstitious devises, before the ordinance of Christ.
Thirdly, that place of Saint Paul is unfitly applied to the celebration of Ester: Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise: Diem festum celebremus, non vtique vnam diem, sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis & veritatis: Let us keep holy day, not one only day, but all our life long, in the unleavened bread of pureness and truth. So then in Augustine's judgment, the Apostle had no relation to any certain time, which he would have kept holy: but to the reformation of the whole life.
THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthoode thereto belonging.
THE FIRST PART, OF THE name and term of Mass.
[error 127] THere are diverse opinions amongst them, concerning the original of this name. Some say it is called Missa the Mass, Quia oblatio & preces ad Deum mittantur, Hugo, de S. Victore. Others, quod Angelus a Deo mittatur, quisacrificio assistat ▪ Because an angel is sent of God to be assistant at the Mass. Thom. Aquinas. 3. part. quaest. 83. artic. 4. Some, of the Hebrew word Missath, Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation: Some, ex missis donarijs, & symbolis, of the gifts and offerings sent or put in before the Communion. But what beginning soever it had, they do now generally take the Mass, for that solemn action, whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice, and offered up to God. Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa. cap. 1.
WE do not greatly force upon this name: for both the name and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouths; & we trust in God, we shall never have occasion to know it again. But howsoever it is, this name Missa, Mass, cannot signify any such thing as they pretend.
1 For it seemeth that Missa was derived, à dimissione populi, of the dimission or sending away of the people: and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray, or sing Psalms, or for any other religious duty: As yet to this day in the Dutch language (Messe) signifieth any solemn frequency or congregation of the people. In this sense Cassianus understandeth Mass, that is, for the dimission of the people: speaking of him that cometh not timelie to the hours of prayer: he would not have him to enter in, but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere: he ought standing without the doors to wait for the miss of the congregation.
2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the liturgy or service of the Church, as serm. de tempore 251. if that Sermō be Augustine's. Sunt aliqui, & maxim potentes huius mundi, cum veniunt ad ecclesiam, non sunt deuoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas, sed cogunt presbyterū vt abbreuiet Missam: there are some, and commonly the great men of the world, which come not to Church with any devotion to sing praises to God, but they contstrain the presbyter or Minister to make short Mass. Here this word Mass signifieth the whole liturgy, as singing of Psalms, and praising God; not any sacrifice or oblation: for then he would have said, Cogunt sacerdotem, not presbyterum, They contstrain the priest, not the Minister. Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Mass is of no great antiquity, so neither is the name in that sense.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE sacrifice of the Mass.
CHrist, they say, at his last Supper, did offer up his own body and blood in [error 128] sacrifice, under the forms of bread and wine, to God his father: and at the same instant made his Apostles, and their successors Priests, to offer up his body • n the Sacrament, Council. Tridentin. sess. 22. cap. 1. And the same body which Christ offered up upon the cross, is daily offered up by the ministry of the Priests, the difference only is in the manner of offering, Council. Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternity & proper act of Christ's Priesthood, consisteth in the offering & sacrificing of the body & blood of Christ in the forms of bread & wine in the Church, Rhem. Heb. 7. sect. 8. And we mean always of Priest & sacrifice taken in their own proper signification, ibid. sect. 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very body and blood of Christ offered up to God, by the hands of the Priest, in the forms of bread and wine, Bellarm. cap. 5.
Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek: but the proper act of Melchizedek's priesthood did consist in sacrificing in the forms of bread and wine: Ergo, the eternity of Christ's priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those forms: there doth therefore still remain a proper external sacrifice in the Church, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 8. Bellarm. cap. 6.
Ans. 1. We confess, that Melchizedek was a type of our Savior Christ, and that he was a Priest after Melchizedek's order: but not in any such respect, for offering in bread and wine: for the text saith, he brought forth bread and wine, he offered it not: he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham, and those which were with him, Genes. 14.18.
2. He brought forth bread and wine, and not the forms only of bread and wine, therefore your sacrifice in the forms only is not after his order.
3. If Melchizedek's bringing forth of bread & wine were a sacrifice or oblation, and a type of the like sacrifice to continue forever in the Church, it must also have been a propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, as they say the sacrifice of the Mass is, which was thereby signified: but there is no propitiatory sacrifice for remission of sins, without shedding of blood, Hebr. 9.22. Therefore Milchisedechs act, being without blood, was no such sacrifice, and consequently none at all.
4. The Apostle to the Hebrews showeth, wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchizedek's order, Heb. 7. First, in that Melchizedek was both king & Priest, verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly, in respect of the eternity of his Priesthoode: we do not read either of the beginning of his days, or end of his life, nor of any change of his priesthood, verse. 3. Al which is most truly verified in Christ. Thirdly, Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and his Priesthoode of Christ's, because of the excellency thereof above the Levitical Priesthoode: for Levi paid tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek, and therefore was inferior, and was blessed of Melchizedek in Abraham, the less of the greater: so is the Priesthoode of Christ advanced far above Aaron's order. If in any other material point Melchizedek's Priesthoode had resembled Christ's, as in this oblation of bread and wine, the Apostle would not have omitted it.
5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchizedek's priesthood, for the which he received tithes of Abraham: but, as the Apostle saith, he received tithes, and blessed Abraham, Heb. 7.6. Ergo, the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered, but for his blessing. The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthoode.
Argum. 2. They allege that place, Heb. 8.3. Every high Priest is appointed to offer gifts and hosts, wherefore it is necessary that he also have somewhat to offer. Christ then hath a certain host in external and proper manner, as other Priests have, but this visible and external act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heaven: therefore it must needs be meant of the perpetual oblation of his body and blood in the Church: for somewhat he must always have to offer, Rhemist. Hebr. 8. sect. 3.
Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that it is necessary that Christ should still have somewhat to offer in sacrifice: but that it was needful for him to have somewhat, which he had already offered: for the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifieth not the present tense, but the time past: whereby is understood the oblation which he had already offered once, and which need not be repeated, Hebr. 7.27. For as herein he is like to other Priests, that he must have somewhat to have offered, so is he unlike also in this, that they by reason of their infirmity had need to offer often: but Christ our high Priest did it but once, as in that place the Apostle showeth.
2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ, was his body, which he calleth the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pight and not man. But that body of Christ, which they say is offered up in the sacrifice of the Mass, is not of that nature: for it is made by the ministry of man: for everyone of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the body of Christ: but this body, which Christ had to offer, was made only by God, without the help of man, as the Apostle saith. Again, say, if you dare, that the body which you offer, is the true Tabernacle and temple of God: for then it would follow, that God dwelleth in temples made with hands, that is, by the ministry of man, contrary to the Scriptures: seeing you affirm that the body of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministry of the Priest. And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God, think you, which you shut up in a pyx, and hang up in your Churches? A mouse may eat it, the fire may consume it, corruption may take it: would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled? Wherefore upon these premises we conclude, that what you offer in your popish sacrifice, cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christ's Priesthoode.
Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, Hebr. 13.10. We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle. Ergo, we have not only a common table to eat mere bread upon, but a very altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christ's body upon. Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 13. sect. 6.
Ans. First, the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christ's death, whereof we are made partakers by faith: which they can reap no benefit by, which remain in the ceremonial observations of Levitical sacrifices. Christ therefore is our Priest, altar and sacrifice: for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the sufferings of Christ: he meaneth not then the Communion table, which is improperly called an altar, or any material altar beside, but the altar only of Christ's death. Secondly, if wheresoever in Scripture this word (altar) is read, it must be taken for a proper material altar, we shall have also a material altar in heaven, Apoc. 8.3. which I am sure they will not grant. Thirdly, the Apostle saith, We have an altar, which is but one, whereas popish altars are many: it cannot therefore be understood of such altars.
THat there are spiritual sacrifices remaining yet unto Christians in the exercise of religion, we do verily believe, being so taught by the Scriptures: such are the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13.15. The sacrifice of alms and distribution, verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh, is a kind of crucifying, and so a spiritual sacrifice, Galat. 6.14. And in this sense we deny not, but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice, that is, a spiritual oblation of praise and thanksgiving: but that there is a proper and external sacrifice, as in the law of Goats and Bullocks, upon the cross of the body of Christ: so in the Eucharist, of the same body and flesh of Christ: we do hold it for a great blasphemy, and heresy.
Argum. 1. The very flesh, and true natural body of Christ, is not, as we have shown before at large, in such carnal and corporal manner present in the Sacrament: therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed, and offered up.
Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the body and blood of Christ is contrary to Christ's institution: for he saith only, Take ye, eat ye, drink ye: he saith not, Sacrifice ye, or lift up, and make an oblation of my body. Neither do those words, hoc facite, do this, give them any power to sacrifice: for to whom he saith, Eate ye, drink ye, to the same also he saith, Do ye. Wherefore, if do ye, be as much as, sacrifice ye: all Christians, for whom it is lawful to eat and drink the Sacrament, by this rule have authority to sacrifice. Again, the words are, Do this in remembrance. We remember things absent, and which are already done and past: if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the body of Christ, it cannot properly be said to be a memory of his sacrifice.
Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, that Christ need not to offer himself often, but that he hath done once in the end of the world, Heb. 9.26. And with one offering, hath he made perfect forever them that are sanctified, 10.14. Ergo, Christ cannot be sacrificed again: for that were to make his sacrifice upon the cross imperfect.
Bellarmine answereth: that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloody and painful sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, which was sufficient once to be done: but this taketh not away the unbloody sacrifice, which is but an iteration of the former, whereby the fruit and efficacy of that first oblation is applied unto us, Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss. cap. 25.
Ans. First, the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ, for otherwise, if Christ should now be often howsoever sacrificed, the difference would not hold between the sacrifices of the law which were often done, and the sacrifice of Christ, which was once to be performed: for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth, They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christ's death: Ergo, we have not now. Secondly, that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloody and unbloody sacrifice, as they understand it: for there can be no proper unbloody sacrifice of Christ, neither could he be offered up, otherwise then by dying, Heb. 9.27.28. Therefore he is not offered up in the Sacrament, because now he dieth not. Thirdly, neither need we invent a new kind of sacrifice, for the application of Christ's death: for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word, and instituted the Sacraments: whereby the death of Christ with all the benefits thereof, are most fruitfully applied unto us, Galath. 3.1. 1. Corinth. 11.26.
Argum. 4. Augustine in a certain place allegorizing the parable of the prodigal child, thus writeth, Vitulum occidit, quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit: He slew the fat calf, when he renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memory of his passion in his mind. He calleth it the Sacrament, not the sacrifice of the altar: and it only bringeth to our mind the memory of Christ's passion and sacrifice: there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament, but only a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, which we deny not.
AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART, OF the name and office of Priests.
AS they do falsely teach and persuade, that there is yet remaining a proper [error 129] external sacrifice for Christians under the Gospel, so also they maintain a sacrificing Priesthoode. And further they say, that the Levitical Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church, according to Melchizedek's rite, in offering up the body and blood of Christ in the forms of bread and wine, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 7. Wherefore they which minister under the Gospel, are worthily called Priests: which word doth so certainly imply the authority of sacrificing, that it is by use made the only English of Sacerdos, Rhemist. act. 14. sect. 3.
FIrst, we hold it to be a great blasphemy to say, that the Priesthood & sacrifice of Christ vpō the Cross, is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice & Priesthood was translated & changed. The Apostle proveth the contrary: for that sacrifice, whereby the New Testament is established, is that, whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated: but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ, who is the surety of a better testament, Hebr. 7.23. Ergo, his singular sacrifice upon the cross, is that whereinto the old Levitical sacrifices are changed, and no other. Again the Priesthoode after Melchizedek's order is that, into the which the old Priesthoode is changed: but the Priesthoode of Christ upon the Cross was after that order. Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to deny, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was after Melchizedek's order, but do most impudently and blasphemously affirm, that it was after the order of Aaron, Heskin. lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus every vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchizedek's order, then Christ himself.
Secondly, none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek: for unto whom the Lord said, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalm, Sit thou at my right hand, Psal. 110. But this cannot agree to any popish Priest: therefore not the other. Again, the Apostle maketh this difference between the Priesthoode of the law and the Gospel: because then there were many Priests, they being prohibited by death to continue: but Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament, because he dieth not, Heb. 7 23.24. If they answer, as they do, that although there be many Priests, yet it is but one Priesthoode, because Christ concurreth with them in the acts of the Priesthoode, Rhemist.
We answer, first, Christ concurreth with his faithful ministers in the acts of their Ministry: but no such Priesthoode do we acknowledge. Secondly, so Christ concurred in the acts of the Levitical Priesthoode, and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered: wherefore this concurrence of Christ doth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospel, then it did in the law.
Thirdly, concerning the name of Priests in their sense, as it implieth an authority of sacrificing, we utterly abhor it: secondly, but as it is derived of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ which signifieth an Elder, we refuse it not, but wish rather, that it had not been abused in cōmō speech to signify popish sacrificers. Thirdly, as for the word ( sacerdos ) which may be englished a sacrificer, we find it nowhere in the New Testament given to the ministers of the Gospel, and so much Bellarmine confesseth, cap. 17. And therefore unfitly and improperly agreeth unto them. If some of the fathers have confounded the names of Sacerdos and ( Presbyter ) they are not to be commended. The word Sacerdos, a sacrificer, being a proper name of the Levitical Priests, cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospel. To conclude, this word (Priest) as it is the English of (Sacerdos) we do not approve: but as it giveth the sense of (Presbyter) from whence it is derived, we condemn it not: for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder. If common use of speech have drawn it to a contrary sense, it would be amended.
Augustine saith, Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat, &c. No faithful mā doubteth, but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royal Priesthoode in the Church, whereby all that pertain to the body of Christ are consecrated. He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church, then that whereby all Christians are made Priests, to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God through Christ.
THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE VERTVE AND efficacy falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Mass.
The Papists.
1. THey blasphemously affirm, that it is a sacrifice propitiatory, that is, available [error 130] to obtain, ex opere operato, by the very work wrought, remission and pardon of all their sins. Trident. Council. sess. 22. can. 3.
Argum. Christ himself saith in the institution, This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sins: Ergo, the sacrifice of the Mass is available for remission of sins, Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss. cap. 2.
The Protestants.
Ans. FIrst, Christ instituted no sacrifice, as we declared afore, but only a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion. Secondly, the Sacrament rightly administered, serveth to assure our faith of remission of sins by the death of Christ: but it doth not by it own virtue confer remission of sins, neither profiteth by the work wrought: for the Apostle saith, That without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebr. 11.6. wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith.
Argum. The Apostle saith, Where there is remission of sins, there is no more sacrifice for sin, Hebr. 10.18. Seeing then remission of sins is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ, there can be no more sacrifice for sin: Ergo, the Mass is no sacrifice for sin.
The Papists.
2. THe sacrifice of the Mass is not only propitiatory for sins, but available [error 131] to obtain all other benefits, as peace, tranquility, health, and such like. Bellarm. cap. 3.
Argum. S. Paul willeth, That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men, especially for Kings, that we may lead a godly and a peaceable life, 1. Timoth. 1.1. These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Mass, Bellarm.
The Protestants.
Ans. FIrst, the Apostle speaketh generally of all prayers, made by whomsoever, as it appeareth, verse. 8. Therefore this place is unfitly applied to the prayers of Priests in the Mass. Secondly, this place proveth, that temporal benefits are obtained by faithful prayers, not by the sacrifice of the Mass, which S. Paul never knew. Thirdly, Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the public prayers of the Church used in the administration of the Sacrament: for he calleth it, Domini mensam, the Lord's table, not the altar: he meaneth nothing less then your popish Mass
Argum. It is contrary to the institution of Christ, to apply the Sacrament for any such temporal or external use. It was ordained to be received in remembrance of Christ's death, to assure us by faith of remission of sins, and other spiritual blessings: not to give us assurance of health, peace, life, prosperity: for the obtaining of such blessings, according to the will of God, other means are appointed. The ministry of the Sacraments no more serveth for such uses, then the preaching of the word.
THE FOURTH QUESTION, FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of the Mass is available.
The Papists.
[error 132] FIrst, they affirm that Mass may be fayd and offered for all the living, yea for Pagans and infidels, for men absent as well as present: for Saint Paul willeth prayers and supplications to be made for all men, 1. Timoth. 2.1. Bellarm. cap. 6.
Secondly, the sacrifice of the Mass is available for the dead which are in [error 133] Purgatory, Bellarm. cap. 7. Council. Trid. sess. 22. can. 3.
[error 134] Thirdly, Mass may be rightly said in the remembrance and for the honor of Saints, with invocation of them also in the prayers of the Church, Bellarm. cap. 8.
Argum. The Apostles taught the Church to keep a memory or invocation of the Saints in this sacrifice, and that there should be special prayers for the dead: for these and such like were the things (no doubt) that S. Paul saith he would set in order when he came, 1. Cor. 11.34. Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. To the place out of Timothy we have answered before, that it is understood generally of all prayers made by the faithful: neither doth it follow, it is lawful to pray for all men, and therefore the Sacrament is available for all men: for these are two diverse things: prayer is an effect of our faith, the Sacrament is an instrumental or ministerial cause of our faith.
2. It is too great boldness for you, without scripture, to affirm, that these superstitious rites of yours were those very orders which the Apostle promised at his coming to establish: but either they were such as partained not to the administration of the Sacrament, or were but accidental orders meet for the Church of Corinth, and not necessary for all times and places.
The Protestants.
FIrst, the Sacrament (for sacrifice we acknowledge none) is only ordained for their comfort that do receive it: neither can one receive the Sacrament for another, no more then he may be baptized in the stead of another.
Secondly, neither doth the celebration of the Sacrament profit the dead, as we have shown before, that it is in vain to pray for them.
Thirdly, neither are the Saints, either then or at any other time to be prayed unto, or either by this, or any other religious worship to be honored.
Argum. All these superstitious observances are clean contrary and repugnant to the institution of Christ. First, he saith, Take ye, eat ye, do this: wherefore to their comfort only the Sacrament worketh, that do receive it, and are doers in that action: the benefit thereof then is not extended to the absent, but only to the partakers. Secondly, the dead can feel no comfort by it, because they can neither eat nor drink it, nor be doers therein. Thirdly, Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me: he saith not, in remembrance of Angels, Apostles, Saints: but only of me. Therefore it is contrary to the institution to use any commemoration of Saints in the Sacrament.
Augustine saith, Quis offeret sacrificium corporis Christi, nisi pro ijs, qui sunt membra Christi? Who will offer the sacrifice of the body of Christ, but for the members of Christ? Lib. 1. de origin. anim. cap. 9. Therefore the Sacrament cannot be celebrated for Pagans and Infidels, who are no members of Christ.
Again, he saith: Nos Martyribus non constituimus templa, sacerdotia, sacra aut sacrificia: We do not erect either temples, priests, service or sacrifices to Martyrs, De ciuitat. dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. Ergo, it is not lawful to use the Sacrament for the honor of Saints.
THE FIFTH QUESTION OF private Masses.
The Papists.
IF any man shall say, that private Masses, wherein the Priest alone by himself [error 135] doth communicate, are unlawful, and therefore to be abolished, we pronounce him accursed, Council. Tridentin. sess. 22. can. 8.
Argum. The sacrifices of the law were sacrifices, before the people did eat thereof: so the substance & making of a medicine is one thing, the ingredience, or taking of it, another: Ergo, neither is receiving part of the substance or making of the sacrifice of Christ's body, but a consequence only: therefore there may be a sacrifice and sacrament without it, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 14.
Ans. First, we deny that there is any sacrifice in the Eucharist, but a Sacrament only: and therefore the comparison holdeth not between a sacrifice, which consisted both of oblation to God, and the participation of the people that offered, and the Sacrament which Christ in his institution offered not to God, but to his Disciples. Secondly, neither doth the similitude of a medicine conclude: for you cannot prove that the Sacrament not received hath virtue in it, as a medicine hath: for faith is requisite to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, which is not necessary in the applying of a medicine: and yet it is not properly called a medicine, unless being made, it be also applied, and being received doth heal.
The Protestants.
WE utterly condemn the superstitious practices of popish priests, who do use to communicate alone in their Masses, the people standing by▪ gazing and looking upon him: yea you might have seen many Masses said in one Church at once, almost in every corner one, no person being present for the most part, but the priest and his boy.
Argum. This private receiving of the Sacrament is contrary to the institution of Christ, who saith, speaking to many, Take ye, eat ye, and divide this amongst you: there must be then a division and distribution. Saint Paul also saith, We that are many are one bread and one body, in as much as we are partakers of one bread, 1. Corinth. 10.17. Ergo, many must communicate together· For the Apostle speaketh not of the mystical communion of the faithful in this place, which do all make but one body in Christ, (for so we do communicate with the Church by faith, not only in the Sacrament, but without it) but of the Sacramental communion of as many as receive together: for how else can they be said to be partakers of one bread, or loaf, unless they receive together.
Augustine saith, that, Sacramentum benedicitur, sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur: That the Sacrament is blessed, sanctified, and broken to be distributed: Ergo, where there is distribution, there must be many to receive.
AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of the Sacrament.
THey utterly mislike these names of the Sacrament, that it is called amongst us the Lord's Supper, or Communion: belike (say they) they will bring it again to the Supper, or evening service, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 6. And the name Communion, is as ignorantly used of them, thereby making the people believe, that many should communicate together, 1. Cor. 11. sect. 24. they should rather use the names of the Eucharist, Mass, or Leiturgie.
FIrst, for the name of the Lord's Supper, we do learn of S. Paul so to call it: When ye come together, (saith he) this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.20.
Rhemist. The Apostle calleth their feasts of love, which they were wont to make after the receiving of the Sacrament, the Lord's Supper, coenas dominicas, because they were made in the Lord's houses, which were called Dominicae: he meaneth not the Sacrament.
Ans. First, there were then no such distinct places, as Churches, and Oratories for the service of God, which began to be built many years after, but they assembled together in their own houses. Secondly, if their love-feasts were called the Lord's Suppers, it would follow that they never had them but at night, and that then also the Sacrament was celebrated about the time of their feasts, which must be at the eeuentide. But this, I think, they dare not affirm▪ that they celebrated the Sacrament at night: wherefore the Apostle cannot mean any other Supper, but that which was instituted by Christ, as it followeth, verse. 23.
Augustine calleth it the Lord's Supper, Coenam manibus suis consecratam discipulis suis dedit: His Supper being consecrated, he gave with his own hands to his Disciples. And although we sat not down at that feast: Ipsam coenam tamē fide quotidie manducamus: Yet we eat that Supper daily by faith.
2. The name Communion, the Apostle also himself useth: he calleth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The communion of the body of Christ, 1. Corinth. 10.16: so doth Augustine name it, Communionem corporis Christi. de ciuit. Det. 20. cap. 9.
3. As for the names of Eucharist, and Leiturgie, we mislike them not, being understood in their own sense: but because they are Greek and not understood of the people, we use them not. The horrible sacrilege of the Mass, is the cause also why we use not that term.
THE SIXT QUESTION, OF THE MANNER OF saying and celebrating Mass.
The Papists.
IT is not necessiarie that the Mass (or as we call it, the Sacrament) should be said or done in the vulgar and familiar speech, but for the greater reverence, to be kept in the Latin tongue, they say, it is more convenient: and that the words of consecration should not be uttered in a loud and audible, but in a soft and low voice, Bellarm. cap. 11.12.
Argum. Christ for the space of three hours, being so long upon the Cross, uttered nothing in the hearing of the standers by, but 7. short sentences: Ergo, in the sacrifice of the Mass, it is not necessary to utter all in the hearing of the people, Ibid.
Ans. First, they have not proved by this example, that the Priest should mutter and mumble to himself; but the contrary rather: that either he must altogether hold his peace, or else speak aloud; unless they can show that Christ spake some words secretly to himself. Secondly, we must not fetch the right use of the Sacrament of our own heads, from the example of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross: but we are commanded to resort for direction, to the institution in his last Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.23.
The Protestants.
FIrst, for the Sacrament or any other part of the service of God to be ministered in an unknown tongue, is contrary to S. Paul's rule, who would have all things to be done in the Church to edifying, and in such sort that the unlearned might say, Amen, 1. Corinth. 14.16. But the people cannot be edified by a language which they understand not: nor yet can say, Amen unto strange prayers. But of this matter we have already elsewhere entreated more at large.
Secondly, it is also contrary to S. Paul's rule, that the Priest should mutter to himself, and not speak aloud in the hearing of the people: for he saith, Ye do show forth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , annuntiatis, preach or declare the death of Christ, so often as ye receive it, 1. Corinth. 11.26. But they do not annuntiare, that is, preach, set forth, and declare the death of Christ, that speak only to themselves.
Augustine saith, Populus cum episcopo orat, & quasi ad eius verba subscribens respondet, Amen: The people prayeth with their pastor, and subscribing to his words, say, Amen. But how can the people say, Amen, where nothing is heard, or subscribe in their hearts unto it?
THE SEVENTH QUESTION, OF THE CEREMOnies which they use in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass.
The Papists.
[error 138] SOme ceremonies go before the celebration of the Mass, and they are of such things, as they have always in a readiness for that impious service: such are the vestments and apparel of the priest, the Albe, Chesil, Stole, Dalmatike, with such other: Altars, Altarclothes, Corporasses, Pixes, Paxes, Dishes, Candlesticks, Platters, Censers, water-pots: all these and the like trumpery ought of right to be used in the sacrifice of the Mass, the better to discern the body of Christ, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 18.
The Protestants.
FIrst, for diverse causes we do condemn and reject these superstitious usages of the Papists: 1. Because of the superfluous & unnecessary number of them, fewer by a great deal may serve for the Communion to be kept, after Christ's institution: neither do we read, that Christ at his last Supper used any such, who notwithstanding would not have left out anything requisite and needful for the Sacrament.
2. The superfluous and excessive cost, in making so many Church vessels of gold and silver, so many Mass garments of silk, fine linen, embrodered with gold, pearl, & precious stones, was both an intolerable burden to the Church, at whose charge such things were provided, and a great deal more costly, then became the simplicity of the Gospel.
3. Conuenient vessels and instruments, which are necessary for the administration of the Sacrament, with other seemly ornaments: as a decent covering for the Communion table, a clean and hansome vessel to keep the wine, a cup of silver for the distribution, clean linen napkins for the bread: such instruments and ornaments of the Lord's table we condemn not, but use them our selves: yet none of them for such ends or purposes, as they pretend, to discern the body of the Lord by them: as though they were ordained to wait and attend upon the bodily presence of Christ, which they have falsely imagined: but we use them for decency and order sake, and due reverence, which is to be yielded to so great mysteries.
In the Apostles time they had no consecrated Altars, but Communion tables, 1. Cor. 10.21. neither is it like that they used vessels of gold or silver in the Lord's Supper, when they had neither silver nor gold in their purses, Math. 10.9. Wherefore such things are not necessary for the discerning of the Lord's body.
The Papists.
2. THere are other ceremonies, which they observe and use in the very action it self and celebration of the Mass: as the diverse gestures of the Priest, to lift up his eyes, and cast them down again, and to lift them up the second, the third time: sometime to cast abroad his hands, to close them again, to warble with his fingers, to bow, to bend, to ducke, to turn on this side and on that, now on the right hand, again on the left: to sigh, to smite upon his breast, to lift up the Chalice, and show it to the people, and set it down again: as also the dividing of the host into three parts, which signify three parts of the Church, in heaven, in earth, and in purgatory: the rinsing of part thereof in wine, and eating part dry, the washing of his fingers before consecration: kissing of the altar, the patten, the book, the paxe: sprinkling of holy water, censing of odors, crossing the chalice, the bread, their mouth, breast and face, which sign of the cross they make above twenty times in one Mass while: Add also unto these, their tedious & irksome songs, the rude noise and vnedifying sound of strange instruments, and the whole course of their Mass music set forth in a strange language, and endited to the honor of Saints. All these superstitious rites, with diverse more, vain, unfruitful, abominable, they notwithstanding with force and main defend and maintain, Bellarm▪ lib. 2. de missa. cap. 14.15. Council. Trid • ntin. sess. 22. ca • . 7.
The Protestants.
1. THis multitude of human inventions, agreeth not with the institution of the Lord's Supper: for we read not of any such kissing, kneeling▪ becking, bowing, or the like ridiculous gestures to have been used, when our Savior instituted the Supper, nor afterwards by the Apostles to have been practiced▪ wherefore we contenting our selves with the plain institution of Christ, do worthily reject all such toys.
2. Most of these gestures are impious, and tend to idolatry in the adoration of bread and wine, which are but creatures: and they are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true devotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the body. Augustine saith very well: Corpus genibus flexis prosternis, collum curuas in oratione, video vbi iaciat corpus, sed quaero vbi volitet animus? Thou bowest the knee, bendest thy body in prayer stretchest out thy neck, I see where thy body lieth: but what is become of thy soul?
3. Concerning Church songs and Music, Augustine thus writeth: S • brie Psallimus in Ecclesia diuina cantica Prophetarum: We sing treatably and soberly in the Church the divine songs of the Prophets. Two conditions he requireth: first, that we sing holy Psalms taken out of the scriptures. Secondly, that they be sung treatably and distinctly: Etiam illic (saith he) si sonum non sensum libido audiendi desideret, improbatur: Even in good songs, if we follow the sound, not the sense, it is to be discommended: but in popish songs neither of these conditions is kept: for both the dittie, for the most part, is idolatrous, stuffed with invocation and adoration of Saints, and the note is so divided and drawn out in length, that nothing can be understood.
THE EIGHT QUESTION OF THE FORME OF THE Mass, which consisteth partly of the Canon, partly of such things as are rehearsed before and after the Canon.
THE FIRST PART OF THE PRAIERS WHICH go before the Canon of the Mass.
WE do not utterly condemn whatsoever is said or sung in their Leiturgie or Mass: for as they have their introite, so we do bid the people, after due preparation, in our Communions to draw near. We have also our Confiteor, a confession of sins to be said before the Communion. Other forms also, which have been used of ancient time, we do not refuse: as Dominus vobiscum, The Lord be with you: Kyrieeleson, Lord have mercy of us: Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts: with Alleluia, praised be God, and Sanctus, Sanctus, holy, holy: and Gloria in excelsis, Glory be to God on high: the preface also to the Communion, Vere dignum, & iustum est, It is meet, right, and our bounden duty: And we use also the Lord's prayer after the distribution. These forms we mislike not, using the same our selves, which notwithstanding we borrow not from them, but from the ancient and purer ages of the Church. But the corruptions, additions, immutations, which are used by them in these prefaces to the Mass, we do utterly condemn, as their introite and confiteor, is stuffed full of idolatry, and invocation of Saints: their Kyrieeleson is 9. times repeated in an unknown tongue Eleuation and adoration was brought in by Pope Honorius, anno. 1222. the Agnus was devised by Pope Sergius, ann. 700. the Pax by Innocentius, plura apud Foxum. p. 1403.
THE SECOND PART, OF THE Canon of the Mass.
1. FIrst, the form of their Mass they have (they say) by tradition from the Apostles: [error 139] Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 22.
THeir own authors do testify, that every patch of their Mass was thrust in by Popes later then the Apostles: as by Leo the 1. Gregory the 1. Gregory the 3. Innocentius the 3. Honorius the 3. with many other: yea, Gregory the 1. confesseth, that one Scholasticus made the most part of the Canon. Ergo, it was not devised by the Apostles. Bellarmine answereth, that Gregory setteth not down any one man, by this name Scholasticus, but meaneth generally some notable learned man: and in this sense S. Peter, saith he, which was the author of the Canon, may be called Scholasticus, Bellarm. cap. 19.
Ans. This devise of the Jesuit is rather to be laughed at, then to be confuted: whoever heard before, that S. Peter and the other Apostles were Scholastici, Schoolmen? what is this else, but to set the spirit of God to school, in saying that the Apostles being men endued with the holy Ghost, were brought up in Schools? Again, Gregory findeth fault with the said Scholasticus, that in composing the Canon, he would put in his own prayers, and leave out the Lord's prayer: but if this Scholasticus had been Peter, I think Gregory would not have been so bold, as to have rebuked him.
2. THe Canon of the Mass (they say) is perfect and absolute, void of all error, and therefore not to be changed or abrogated, Council. Trident. sess. 22. can. 6. Bellarm. cap. 21.
BVt we on the contrary side, more truly and agreeably to Scripture, doubt not to say, that there can be nothing more corrupt, abominable, fuller of all impiety, heresy, lying, then is their idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass: as it shall now more particularly appear, by the collection of the several errors.
THE ERRORS AND BLASPHEMIES that are to be found in the Canon of the Mass.
1. THe Priest speaking of the bread and wine, thus saith,
2. The Priest saith, Worshipping the memorial of the Virgin: But Christ instituted the Sacrament to be kept in remembrance of himself, and not for the worship of Saints.
3.
4.
6. He saith further:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Grant me so worthily to take this holy body and blood, that I may merit to receive forgiveness of sins:
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Thus we see with how many and what great and horrible blasphemies this popish, nay rather, devilish canon of the Mass is stuffed: indeed it is an epitome and abridgement of Papistry, the marrow, sinews, and bones of their idolatrous profession: yea the very darling of the popish Church: it is the very proper badge and mark of a papist. He that hateth the Mass, hateth the whore of Babylon: he that loveth the Mass, cannot love the truth.
If then I should be demanded at once, which of all popish blasphemies and heresies I think most abominable, contrary to the faith, and to be abhorred of all good Christians: (though I know that there are many of this kind) yet I would redily answer the Mass: the invention whereof, I am well assured, cannot be ascribed but to the devil himself, the author of all lies and blasphemies.
I conclude therefore with that saying of Gregory, as he said concerning the word, Antichristus : so may I in as good sense of this word, Missa, as it is now understood of Papists. Si spectes quantitatem vocis, duae sunt syllabae; si pondus iniquitatis, est vniuersa pernicies. If you mark the quantity of the word, it standeth but of two syllables: but if we respect the weight of iniquity, it containeth all impiety and ungodliness.
THE THIRD BOOKE OR CENTURY, CONTAINING A THIRD HVNDRED OF POPISH ERRORS, AND HERESIES, ABOUT the controversies of the five Popish Sacraments, and of the benefits of our redemption, and concerning the person of Christ,
CONSISTING OF SEVEN SEVERAL CONTROVERSIES THE 14, 15.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. in number.
Jmprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man. 1592.
To the right honorable Sir Robert Cicil Knight, one of her Majesty's most honorable privy Council.
B Oth that general love (right honorable) which the Church of God doth bear to your worthy and honorable Father, for his sincere and sound affection to religion, and the dutiful reverence which our university of Cambridge, and generally the whole company of Students doth owe unto him as their singular good Patron, have moved and caused me at this time, to commend this last part of this work to your Honor his son: of whose love also unto the Gospel, following your Fathers steppes, we are all persuaded, and conceive no less hope of your honorable favor to learning: I have (as your Honor seeth) undertaken an hard piece of work, and thrust my shoulders under an heavy burden: for in this work I have taken upon me, to discover and lay open all popish Heresies, and Errors, to portraite and decipher the whole body of papistry, to spread abroad the whore of Babylon's skirtes, that her filthiness may appear: to uncover her whorish face, which masked under the visour of the Church, and religion: for we may say to them, as Leo Bishop of Rome did sometime to certain Heretics: Ecclesiae nomine armamini, sed contra Ecclesiam d • micatis : You are armed with the name of the Church, and yet you fight against the Church.
This difficult matter being thus by me enterprised, I have exposed myself to the obloquy and evil speech of two sortes of men: against whom in the defense of this work I must crave your Honors aid and protection. The first sort, is of our hollow hearted Countrymen, that have English faces, but Romish harts, who will forge cavillations (I know) against these labors of mine: and not cease to accuse me of lying and falsehood, as not having truly and indifferently set down the opinions of the popish Church. To meet then with those slanderous accusations, let such men know that I have been most careful and circumspect in this behalf, throughout this whole work, not to charge them with any opinions, which I have not gathered out of their own writings, and alleged their own Authors for them: so that with a good conscience I can protest before God (that one day shall open the secrets of our harts) that to my knowledge I have not anywhere used any forgery, cavilling, or deceit, in setting down their assertions: and I would to God their writers were as free from this fault, and as indifferent in alleging the sentence of our Church, as we do deal plainly with them. But as for them, it is a shame to see, how without all fear, the Rhemists in their annotations upon the new testament, do bely and slander our Church: I will for example sake note a few places.
They charge us to say, that God is the author of sin, annot. Math. 13. sect. 2. which blasphemy is further off from us, then it is from them: though we grant, that nothing is done in the world beside the will of God, not by his permission only.
That we affirm all things to be easy in Scripture, annot. Luk. 6. sect 1. whereas we say only, that the doctrine of faith is plainly declared in Scripture: and deny not, but that many things are therein hard to be understood.
That we should say, that the preaching of the Law, and the judgment to come, maketh men hypocrites, Act. 24. sect. 2. whereas we hold the preaching of the Law to be necessary to bring men to repentance: but justification by keeping the Law, which they teach, we utterly condemn.
That we condemn good works as sinful, Pharisaical, hypocritical, annot. Rom. 2. sect. 3. whereas we acknowledge them to be the good gifts of God, the fruits of justification, the way wherein all Christians must walk to salvation: we only exclude them from being any cause of our justification before God.
That we allow no fasting, but moral temperance, and spiritual fasting from sin, Act. 13. sect. 5. whereas we do acknowledge a Christian use of fasting and abstinence from all meats and drinks, for the taming of the flesh, and making us more fit to pray: not an abstinence from flesh only, as they do superstitiously practice.
That we should say, man hath no more free will, then a piece of clay, Rom. 9. sect. 7. whereas we only say, that our free will hath no power or strength at all, to will or do the thing that good is, without the grace of God.
That Calvin holdeth Christians children to be so holy, that they need no baptism, annot. 1. Cor. 7. sect. 11. Whereas Calvin clean contrary reasoneth thus against the Anabaptists, That children ought therefore to be baptized, because they are holy, as S. Paul saith: And such slanderous accusations they have published against us, which would require a several treatise to be set forth at large.
Let indifferent men now judge (comparing their writings with ours) which of us hath dealt most untruly, and unfaithfully each with other: and whether we have not more just occasion to complain of them, then they of us. But to let accusations go, I would desire them rather to listen to the words of exhortation, that they would but indifferently weigh with an equal balance of Christian judgment, what is set down on both partes in this book: I trust if they be not willful and obstinate in their opinions, that they may in time conceive some better liking of the truth.
Augustine in a certain place maketh mention of drunken Polio, who one a time came from his pots and riotous company to Xenocrates school, to laugh the grave Philosopher to scorn: but it fell out to his good far otherwise: Ad extremum totum se illi, ad quem deridendum venerat, discipulum tradidit: But Polemo being clean changed by Xenocrates speech, became his Scholar whom he went to scorn: and whereas he came drunk, he returned sober. So I wish that our English recusants would but take up this and such other books into their hands, if it were but to scorn them, God may so work with them, that their scorning shall be turned into a love and liking of the truth. And I further say unto them, as Augustine to the Pelagians: Quod dicimus, orent, vt aliquando intelligant, non litigent, vt nunquam intelligant, quod dicimus intendant, non contendant, illuminentur, non calumnientur.
An other sort of men there is beside these (Right honorable) against whom I must arm myself: they are such, as are given to extenuate, disgrace, and discommend the labors of others. Me thinks I hear them thus to give out of me. He hath taken a matter in hand above his strength, some of his writings are extant already, we know what he can do, he is like to perform no great matter, and what doth he? he doth but abridge other men's writings, he bringeth nothing of his own. To these accusations I thus answer: First, I confess my strength to be small of it self: yet God by weak means may work great things. Some Pamphlets of mine, I confess, are abroad unworthy this learned age, though perhaps befitting the person that wrote them, his time & age, and the occasion considered. But I say rather with August. I count myself in the number of those, qui scribendo proficiunt, et proficiendo scribunt, which profit in writing, and by profiting write. Secondly, concerning my labor & pains taken in this work I boast not; he that thinketh it light, let him try first himself before he give his judgment: the weight of this burden he only knoweth that felt it, and God that gave strength to bear it: but as for my part, I hunt not for the praise of men, I desire only to profit the church of God: I had rather men should hold their peace then flatter. It is very well said of him, Si inter quos viuis te recte viuentem non laudauerint, illi in error sint: si autem laudauerint, tu in periculo es. I had rather other mē should be in a small error, then I in great danger. Epictetus wise saying is much commended: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sustine, abstine, sustain, and abstain I would we might part it between us: sustine hath been mine, I have endured the labor▪ I would abstine might be theirs, that they would abstain from ill speaking.
Lastly, if I have taken upon me more then is performed, I have done foolishly: for that old verse might have warned me sufficiently,
Thus I end, commending these my labors to the charitable and Christian judgment of the Church of God, whom I desire to profit, and to your Honors protection, whom I wish in virtue and honor to tread your Fathers path, and both of you to live so long as it pleaseth God, to his glory, and the comfort of his Church, and afterward to be everlastingly rewarded in heaven, through the only merits of Christ Jesus, to whom be praise forever.
Your Honors to command in the Lord Christ, Andrew Willet.
HERE ENSVE THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE FIVE OTHER POpish Sacraments: Penance, Matrimony, Confirmation, Orders, Extreme Unction.
THE FOVRTEENTH CONTROVERSIE, of popish Penance.
V Nto this controversy belong these questions following,
First, of the name Penance, whether it be rightly given.
2. Whether that which they call Penance, but we much better, Repentance, be a Sacrament.
3. Whether there be any other Sacrament of repentance beside Baptism.
4. Of the essential partes of penance, as the matter and form, and of the 3. material parts, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction: with an appendix, whether repentance go before faith.
5. Of Contrition, 1. The cause thereof, 2. The quantity thereof, 3. Whether it be joined with faith, 4. Whether it be satisfactory, 5. Whether contrition be necessary for venial sins, 6. Of contrition which only proceedeth of fear.
6. Of Auricular confession, 1. Whether it be necessary, 2. whether it be a divine ordinance, 3. To whom it is to be made, 4. Of the time.
7. Of satisfaction, with the several branch • s of this question.
8. First, of penal injunctions, 1. Whether necessary, 2. By whom to be imposed. Secondly, of indulgences, 1. Whether there be any such, 2. The ground of them, 3. In whose power they be.
9. The circumstances of penance, 1. Their habit, 2. Their works, 3. Of the time of their penance.
THE FIRST QUESTION, OF THE name of Penance.
The Papists.
THe Latin word Poenitentia, which they translate, Penance, being derived of [error 1] poena, doth signify (say they) not only confession and amendment of life, but contrition and sorrow for the offense, and painful satisfaction, Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 7.
Argum. Math. 11.21. the word must needs signify, sorrowful, painful, and satisfactory repentance, Rhemist. Math. 3.2.
The Protestants.
Ans. THe place quoted out of S. Matthew, proveth no such thing: where our Savior saith, that Tyre and S • don would have repented in sackcloth and ashes: which is no satisfaction for sin, but an outward sign of true sorrow for sin.
Argum. The Greek word everywhere used, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth, emēdationem mentis, the change or amendemēt of the mind; and no such outward satisfactory penance as they pretend. Wherefore it is more fitly englished, Repentance. And although the Latin word Poenitentia do not properly express the Greek word, to the which resipiscere, & resipiscentia, repentance and to repent do better answer: yet agere poenitentiam, in Latin, is not to do penance, as the Rhemists translate it, but is all one, as to say, repent, yea, and so the Rhemists themselves read, be penitent. Mark 1.15. and not, do penance. And Act. 11.18. they translate, poenitentiam, repentance.
Augustine thus taketh this word poenitentia, Recte poenitens quicquid sordium contraxit, oportet vt abluat saltem mentis lachrymis. The true penitent man must at the least wash away his sins with the tears of the mind. If then repentance be in the soul, what is become of this outward satisfactory penance?
THE SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER THERE be any Sacrament of penance.
The Papists.
[error 2] CHrist (they say) instituted the Sacrament of penance, when he breathed upon his Apostles after his resurrection, and said unto them: Receive ye the holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: whose sins ye retain, they are retained. John. 20.22. The faculty of the Priesthoode consisting in remitting of sins, is here bestowed upon the Apostles, Rhemist. annot. John. 20. sect. 5. Herevpon they are bold to conclude, that penance is truly and properly a Sacrament, Council. Trident. sess. 14. canon. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent. cap. 10.
Ans. 1. If the power of remission of sins were here first instituted, how could the Apostles baptize or minister the Lord's supper before, without power to remit sins to the penitent? Christ therefore in this place doth but renew and confirm the authority of their Apostleship, which was granted to them before, Math. 18.18.
Secondly, this power here given, is principally exercised by preaching of the word of God, and denouncing publicly or privately the promises of God, for remission of sins to the penitent, or the threats and judgment of God, in binding the sins of the obstinate and impenitent: So Luke 20.24. Christ commandeth his Apostles to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name.
Thirdly, we confess also a iudiciary power of the keys, in binding and loosing, which is exercised in ecclesiastical discipline, in punishng and absolving according to the word of God: as the incestuous person was bound, when he was delivered up to Satan, 1. Cor. 5.5. he was loosed again, when he was restored to the Church, 2. Cor. 2.7. But neither this nor the other was commended to the Church as a Sacrament.
The Protestants.
TRue repentance we do acknowledge, which is a dying to sin, and a walking in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. But a Sacrament of repentance we find none in Scripture, and therefore we deny it.
Argum. 1. In every Sacrament there is an external sensible element, as water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's Supper: but there is none in their penance: Ergo, no Sacrament.
Bellarm. answereth, that the words of absolution and confession, are the outward signs in penance: it is not necessary it should be a visible sign: it is a sensible sign being audible, cap. 11.
Ans. 1. There must be the word beside the element: as Augustine saith, Accedat verbum ad elementum, Let the word be joined to the element: and it maketh a Sacrament: the word it self cannot be the element: for the same thing cannot both sanctify and be sanctified. And if the audible word be the element, by this reason the preaching of the word also shall be a Sacrament.
Argu. 2. There was repentance and absolution of sins both, in the old testament: for both David confessed and was sory for his sin, and the Prophet Nathan pronounced forgiveness from God, 2. Sam. 12.13. so likewise John preached repentance for remission of sins, and the people came and confessed their sins: here were all things necessary for true repentance, yet was it no Sacrament all this while, as they themselves confess, which they hold to be instituted after Christ's resurrection, Trident. council. sess. 14. cap. 1. Why then should it be rather a Sacrament now, then before?
Augustine thus writeth, Sacramentum ideo dicitur, quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: It is called a Sacrament, because one thing is seen, another understood. And then he saith, Quid tale aut ipsi vident, aut alijs queunt ostendere in eo, quod sacramentum poenitentiae vocant: But neither do they see, or can show to others, any such visible sign in that which they call the Sacrament of repentance Here Augustine denieth repentance to be a Sacrament, because it hath no visible sign.
THE THIRD QUESTION, WHETHER THERE be any other Sacrament of repentance, beside Baptism.
The Papists.
[error 3] BAptisme serveth only, they say, for remission of sins done before: for sins committed after Baptism, the Sacrament of penance, which is a distinct Sacrament from Baptism, is appointed for a remedy: and therefore is fitly called, The second table of refuge after shipwreck, Council. Trident. sess. 14. canon. 2.
Argum. S. John saith, If we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us: 1. Epist. 1.19. he saith not, that by the memory of Baptism, but by confession, which is a part of penance, our sins are forgiven, Bellarm. cap. 13.
The Protestants.
Ans. FIrst, we say not, that by the bare memory or remembrance of baptism, sins after committed are done away: but that the sacramental force of Baptism doth extend it self to our whole life, that is, to be a seal unto us of remission of all our sins in the blood of Cbrist. Secondly, so that confession of our sins is not a taking away of the force of baptism, but a more effectual applying thereof, as the people which were baptized by John confessed also their sins.
Argu. We acknowledge no other Sacrament of repentance, but baptism: for so the scripture calleth it, The baptism of reap̄tance for remission of sins. Mark 1.4.
So Augustine calleth Baptism, Sacramentum fidei, et poenitentiae, the Sacrament of faith and repentance: what need we then seek for a new Sacrament of repentance, which cannot anywhere be found in Scripture?
THE FOURTH QUESTION, OF THE essential partes of Penance.
THE FIRST PART, OF THE MATTER and form of popish penance.
The Papists.
[error 4] THe form of this Sacrament, say they, consisteth in the words of absolution, pronounced by the Minister, the matter thereof is the contrition, confession, and satisfaction of the party penitent, Council. Tridentin. sess. 14. cap. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 15.
The Protestants.
NEither is their penance a Sacrament, neither can these be partes of a Sacrament.
Argum. 1. In every Sacrament there are two things required: res terrena, and actio externa, the earthly thing or element, as is water in Baptism, and the external action: neither doth the element alone, nor the action alone make a sacrament: as in baptism there is both water, which is the matter: and the washing, that is the action. Wherefore seeing in their penance there is nothing but the action of the Minister, and the action of the receiver, it can be no sacrament.
Argum. 2. The partes of every sacrament, as the form, the matter, must be instituted of Christ: But this are they not able to show for the form and matter of penance, namely, the institution of Christ: Ergo, it is no sacrament.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS QUESTION, OF the three material partes of popish Penance, contrition, confession, satisfaction.
The Papists.
THese three (they say) are the true and proper partes of penance, contrition, [error 5] and painful sorrow of the heart, confession to the Priest, and satisfaction to God for our sins, Council. Trident. sess. 14. can. 4. Rhemist. Math. 3. sect. 2.
Argu. Contrition is proved, Psal. 51.17. A contrite heart is a sacrifice to God. Confession, Math. 3. They were baptized in Jordan confessing their sins. Satisfaction▪ Math. 11.21. They would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, Bellarm. cap. 19.
Ans. 1. That godly sorrow and contrition of the heart, is necessary to true repentance, we never will deny, but that this sorrow is any satisfaction to God's justice, we abhor it as a monstrous blasphemy. Secondly, Confession and acknowledgement of our sins unto God, and in some cases, where the conscience is not satisfied, to the Minister or some other faithful man, we do willingly grant: but that it is necessary to make general confession of sins to the Priest, that place proveth it not: for John had had shriuing work enough for many years, to hear every man's particular confession: Thirdly, that sitting in sackcloth and ashes, was no satisfaction for sin, but an outward sign of true sorrow for sin.
The Protestants.
WE do make two partes only of true repentance, according to the scriptures, that is, the mortifying of the old man with his works, by dying unto sin: unto the which belongeth true sorrow, and contrition of heart for our sins, 2. Corinth. 7.11. acknowledgement and confession thereof before God, 2. Sam. 12.13. and a perfect hatred and detestation of sin, and indignation with our selves for the same, 2. Corinth. 7.11. The other part is the renewing and quickening of the new man in us, which consisteth partly in setting our consciences at peace with God, our sins being forgiven us, Rom. 5.1. and working in us a zeal, study, care and desire of newness of life, 2. Corin. 7.11. these two partes only we find in Scripture.
Argum. Isai. 1.17. Cease to do evil: Learn to do good: we must die unto sin and walk in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. Put off the old man, put on the new, Coloss. 3.9.
Augustine saith, Fructus est dignus poenitentia, transacta deflere peccata, & ea iterum non agere, This is true repentance, to lament for sins past, and not to commit the same again: though this be no perfect definition of repentance, yet we see that both confession and satisfaction are excluded.
AN APPENDIX, WHETHER REpentance go before faith.
The Papists.
[error 6] THeir opinion is, that repentance goeth before justification by faith, and that it is a way rather unto faith and justification in the remission of sins: poenitentia est via ad remissionem peccatorum, et prior iustificatione, Bellarm, cap. 19.
Argum. Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins: Remission of sins followeth repentance: Ergo justification also and faith, Bellarm.
The Protestants.
Ans. FIrst, this place proveth not, that remission of sins followeth repentance, because baptism was given after repentance, for Baptism doth not give remission of sins, but it is a seal only and confirmation of our faith, in the remission of sins. 2. Neither is remission of sins obtained by our repentance: but we are already, being once called, justified before God, by the remission of our sins, and imputation of the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 4.7.8. By repentance and other works that follow, our calling is made sure, 2. Peter 1.10. and our salvation finished unto our selves, Philip. 2.10. and our faith perfected.
Argum. Justification goeth before sanctification: for this is the fruit of the other: but repentance is part of our sanctification, renovation, or regeneration, being called by S. Paul, A walking in newness of life, Rom. 6.4. Ergo, it followeth and cometh after our justification. And seeing without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6: how should our repentance be acceptable to God, unless it proceeded of faith? faith then is initiate and begun in us before repentance, which we deny not, by true repentance and other fruits of sanctification, to be daily strengthened and increased.
Augustine saith, No man is justified but by the grace of Jesus Christ:
THE FIFTH QUESTION, OF CONTRITION: the first part of their penance.
THere are certain points which we do agree upon.
1. We grant, that true contrition and sorrow of the heart is necessary unto repentance, and that it standeth very well with the liberty of the Gospel, and is profitable for Christians, 2. Corinth. 7.10.
2. That true contrition is joined both with a full hatred and detestation of sin committed, 1. Corinth. 11.31. We must judge and condemn our selves, as also with a full purpose to amend our lives, Act. 11.23.
Let us then now see what difference of opinion there is between us concerning contrition.
The Papists.
1. THey hold that contrition is neither wholly of man's free will, nor yet wholly of God: but that man by his free will, holpen of God, is able to repent: [error 7] so that he doth only, Deo adiuuante, poenitere, He is brought to repentance, God only helping and assisting him, Bellarm. de poenitent. lib. 2. cap. 3.
The Protestants.
TRue contrition of heart, as all other good thoughts in us, as they are good, come only of God: our cogitations indeed are our own, but all the goodness of them is the mere gift of God, I am. 1.17.
Argum. 1. Timoth. 2.25. If at any time God will give them repentance: Repentance thē is the gift of God. And Augustine writing upon these very words, saith, Quantumlibet praebeat poenitentiam, nisi ipse dederit, quis agit poenitentiam? Although he never so much give occasion of repentance, yet unless he bestow upon us the full gift of repentance, no man is able to repent. Thus he plainly distinguisheth between praebere poenitentiam, to offer occasion to repent: as he proveth out of S. Paul, Rom. 2.4. The bountifulness of God calleth thee to repentance: and dare poenitentiam, to give or grant repentance. But if God should only help our free will, and work together with us to repentance, and not do all alone himself, he should rather praebere, then dare poenitentiam: offer occasion by stirring of us up to repentance, then grant us repentance it self, which were contrary to the Apostle.
The Papists.
[error 8] 2. THey teach, that contrition ought to be perfect, because it must proceed from the love of God, which is the most perfect kind of love, Catechis. Roman. pag. 439: and that the greatness of the grief ought to be answerable to the quantity of the sin: So they conclude, that a man shall never know when he is sufficiently contrite, Thom. Aquinas: for he must be contrite for every great sin he hath committed, Tileman Heshus. loc. 9. de poenitent. err. 25.27.28.32.
The Protestants.
WHat is this else but a plain doctrine of desperation? for when is a man able so perfectly to be contrite, as his love toward God ought to be perfect? or how can his sorrow be equivalent to the weight of his sins? or can a man remember all his sins, that he should be sorry for?
Argum. 1. The sorrow of Christians is not infinite or uncertain, but it is determined and limited. Saint Paul saith, That he should not be swallowed up of too much heaviness, 2. Corinth. 2.7. And again, My Epistle made you sorry, though for a season, 2. Corinth. 7.8.
Augustine saith, Ista est vera poenitentia, quando quis sic conuertitur, vt non reuertatur: This is true repentance, when a man doth so turn unto God, that he return not unto sin. When a man therefore hath in this manner repented, he may be sure that he hath mourned sufficiently: It is therefore untrue, that a man is uncertain when he hath sorrowed enough.
The Papists.
[error 9] 3. COntrition (they say) as it is not altogether without hope to obtain mercy: so can it not have certitudinem remissionis peccatorum, a certainty or undoubted assurance of remission of sins, Council. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 9. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2.
The Protestants.
GOdly sorrow and contrition bringeth joy and comfort to the soul in the end, with undoubted assurance of the forgiveness and remission of sins.
Argum. 1. Godly sorrow worketh in the true penitent person, a clearing of the mind, 2. Corinth. 7.11: but the soul and conscience cannot be cleared and set at rest, unless we be persuaded that our sins are forgiven us, Ergo.
Argum. 2. All hope is certain, and bringeth undoubted assurance, and therefore it is called the anchor of the soul, Heb. 6.19. Wherefore either contrition is void of hope altogether, (which they will not grant) or if it have any hope, it is sure and stable, and worketh a full persuasion and assurance of the mercy of God.
Augustine saith, Petrus mox à Domino indulgentiam accepit, qui amarissime fleuit trinae negationis culpam: Peter straight way received pardon and indulgence, when he had most bitterly bewailed the sin of his threefold denial of Christ. How could Peter immediately have felt and received the remission of that great sin, if the Lord had not assured his conscience thereof?
The Papists.
4. THey make contrition a part of satisfaction for our sins, and to be a cause [error 10] of justification and remission of sins, not only in disposing and preparing of us thereunto, but in that thereby we verily obtain remission of our sins, Bellarm. lib. 2. de poenitent. cap. 12.
Arg. Luk. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved: Not only faith, but love or charity obtaineth remission of sins, Bellarm. ibid. Rhemist. in hunc locum.
The Protestants.
Ans. THe argument is not from the cause to the effect, but from the effect to the cause: for Christ doth not reason thus, she loved much, therefore many sins are forgiven her: but contrariwise, Many sins are forgiven her, therefore she loveth much. As the next words declare: to whom little is remitted, he loveth little. And our Savior saith in plain words in the last verse, That her faith had saved her, whereof her love was an effect.
Argum. That the contrition of the heart is no means of our justification, nor a meriting cause or procuring of remission of sins: Saint Paul showeth, Rom. 4.5, 6. To him that believeth faith is counted for righteousness: And David declareth the blessedness of that man, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works: It is faith then only that obtaineth remission of sins: and a man is justified without any respect had to his works. Therefore neither contrition, nor any other work inward or outward, procureth remission of sins, but faith only is the mean.
So Augustine saith,
De fide & operib. cap. 14.
The Papists.
5. COntrition (they say) is not necessary for venial or small offenses, neither [error 11] is a man bound thereunto, So. lib. 4. distinct. 17. articul. 3.
The Protestants.
THis assertion is clean contrary to scripture: for the Prophet David prayeth not only to be kept from presumptuous sins, Psalm. 19.13. but even to be cleansed from his secret faults, verse. 12.
Augustine agreeth:
The Papists.
[error 12] 6. THere is a kind of cōtrition that proceedeth only from the fear of punishment, when a man doth leave sinning, not for any love or delight he hath in God, but only for fear of damnation: Even this contrition also is good and profitable: yet this servile fear is at length clean driven out by charity. But there remaineth still in the godly an awe and fear of God, and his judgments, with mistrust, and fear of hell and damnation: as Math. 10. Fear him that can cast body and soul into hell, Rhemist. John. 4. sect. 6. Bellarm. lib. 2.17.
The Protestants.
FIrst, we acknowledge that the fear of punishment is necessary in the beginning, to make a way for true love to enter, as the bristle or needle (as Augustine saith) maketh room for the thread to enter. We also confess, that there is a continual fear and reverence of God in the godly, such as children have of their parents: but as for any mistrust or fear of hell and damnation, after love be once entered, and we made the children of God, which breedeth terror and anxiety of conscience, it is clean expelled, and thrust out of the doors by love.
Argum. So saith the Apostle, There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, and maketh us to have confidence in the day of judgment, 1. John. 4.17, 18. But he that feareth damnation and is afraid of the day of judgment, cannot have confidence in that day. So Augustine: Quid dicimus de illo, qui caepit timere diem iudicij? si perfecta in illo esset charitas, non timeret? What say we to him, that feareth the day of judgment? if love were perfect in him, he would not fear it?
THE SIXT QUESTION, OF AVRICVLAR Confession, the second part of penance.
The Papists.
[error 13] NOne can rightly seek for absolution at the Priests hands, unless they confess particularly at the least all their mortal sins, whether they be committed in mind, heart, will and cogitation only, or in word, and work, with all the necessary circumstances and differences of the same, Rhemist. John. 20. sect. 5. And this sacramental confession, as they call it, must be made secretly to the Priest, Council. Trident. sess. 14. can. 6.
Argum. 1. This wonderful power of remitting and retaining of sins, which was given to the Apostles and their successors, John. 20.22. were given them in vain, if no man were bound to seek for absolution at their hands: which cannot be had of them without distinct utterance to them of our sins: for they cannot rule the cases of conscience, unless they have exact knowledge and cogitation of their sins, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. God hath not made his ministers in Christ's stead judges of cases of conscience, as though there were in them an actual power to remit and absolve sins: but their office is only to declare and set forth unto all penitent persons, the promises of God for remission of sins, & the severity of God's judgment against impenitent persons: which is especially performed in the preaching and applying of the word either publicly or privately: as S. Paul calleth the Gospel committed unto him, The word of reconciliation, 2. Cor. 5.16.
2. A man therefore may by their ministry, which are the preachers of reconciliation, find remission of sins, without a particular declaration thereof: neither is it necessary for them to have so exact a knowledge of our sins, seeing they are not absolute judges of the conscience, but the ministers and ambassadors of reconciliation, 2. Corinth. 5.20.
3. And Ministers are not to stay while suite is made unto them for their help, but they ought to exhort and desire men to be reconciled to God by their ministry.
Argum. 2. As the Priests in the law had only authority to discern the leprosy of the people, and therefore Christ sendeth the lepers to the Priest, Luk. 17.14. so men must reveal the spiritual leprosy of sin to the Priest, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. First, the leprosy was not healed by the Priest, but only declared to be healed: so sins are declared to be forgiven by the Priest, not properly forgivē. Secondly, the Priest received not knowledge of all diseases, but of this, that was contagious: therefore it would not follow hereupon, that all sins are to be confessed to the Priest: but such as are notorious, where public confession is by Church discipline enjoined: and such confession we deny not. Thirdly, the argument followeth not from the Priests of the law, to the Ministers of the Gospel: for the Priesthood of the law is translated wholly unto Christ, who hath all knowledge to discern, and power to heal our spiritual diseases.
The Protestants.
COnfession of sins, such as the scripture alloweth, we do acknowledge: as namely these four kinds: There are private confessions, either to God alone, as Daniel confesseth, 9.4. or for the easing of our conscience, to man also, as to him whom we have offended, Math. 5.24. Or to any other faithful man, the Minister or some other, that we may be holpen and comforted by our mutual prayers, I am. 5.16. There are also two kinds of public confession, either of the whole congregation together, Nehem. 9.3. or of someone or more, that make public confession of their sin, for the satisfying of the congregation, whom they have offended: which belongeth to Ecclesiastical discipline, 2. Corinth. 2.6. But this particular confession of all sins, yea of them that are secret, and to none but the Priest, is an Antichristian yoke and too heavy for Christians to bear.
Arg. 1. It is not necessary to make confession at all unto men: the Prophet David confessed only unto God, Against thee O Lord only have I sinned, Psal. 51.4. Augustine also saith,
Confess. lib. 10.3.
Argum. 2. If a man otherwise cannot find ease of conscience, but will open his sins to men: it is not always necessary he should seek to the Minister, though it be most convenient, if he be a fit man: any other faithful godly man may serve: for so the Apostle biddeth us, Acknowledge our faults, not to the priest, but one to another, I am. 5.16. Whereupon Augustine writeth,
Argum. 3. Such a particular enumeration of sins is not necessary, neither is it possible: It sufficeth, where our sins are kept from our sight, to say with the Prophet, Cleanse me from my secret sins, Psal. 19.12. Augustine saith, Quot habes in cord compunctiones facinorum, tot habe illic punctiones confessionum: Look how many sins do prick thy conscience, so must thy confession be. It is an uncomfortable doctrine to teach men to labor to remember all their sins, and to make a particular catalogue of them: they have work enough to be eased of those sins that lie heavy on the heart.
AN APPENDIX OF OTHER CIRCVMSTANCES of Auricular confession.
The Papists.
1. THis order and custom of Confession, they hold to be a divine ordinance, [error 14] no human tradition, Council. Trid sess. 14. can. 6.8.
The Protestants.
THey are never able to show that it had any divine institution: but it was a mere devise and invention of men. First, we read that Nectarius a good Bishop of Constantinople, did abrogate this custom of Confession upon this occasion, which had before time been used in that Church: for it was found out, that a certain woman of the city, under this pretence of confession, had unlawful company with the priest to whom she confessed: whereupon the good man abolished that custom, seeing more harm then good to come by it. And this act of his was approved by that famous preacher Chrysostom, who succeeded him in that see: but if it had been the ordinance of God, it ought not for some abuse to have been abolished.
Augustine also saith, Si deest sacerdos, confiteatur proximo: If a priest cannot be had, let a man confess to his neighbor: Ergo, to confess to a priest, is no certain ordinance of God: for then might it not be changed.
The Papists.
2. IT is necessary that every man should confess to his own parish priest, [error 15] Thom. ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 7. err. 46.
The Protestants.
YEa, but Augustine saith, Sacerdos, vt perfectus medicus, primùm sciat curare peccata sua, & tum detergere aliena:
De salutaribus docum. cap. 50. And in another place, Quaerat sacerdotem scientem ligare & soluere, ne ambo cadant in foueam: Let him seek a priest that knoweth how to bind and loose, lest both fall into the ditch,
De poenitent. cap. 10.
The Papists.
3. IT is enough for men once a year in the time of Lent, to confess themselves, [error 16] Council. Trid. sess. 14. can. 8.
The Protestants.
AVgustine saith contrary, Non tantum laici, sed etiam sacerdotes vna die esse non debent sine poenitentia: Not only lay men, but not priests ought to be one day without repentance, In Apocal. hom. 2. His reason is, because they cannot be one day without sin.
THE SEVENTH QUESTION, of satisfaction.
THis question containeth these parts: First, whether the sin being forgiven, there remain any punishment.
2. Whether the temporal punishment of this life may be redeemed by good works.
3. Whether the wrath of God may be satisfied for sin, and the punishment due unto the same.
4. Whether one man may satisfy for another: of these now in their order.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE PVNISHment remain, the sin being once pardoned.
The Papists.
[error 17] THey do affirm, that it may stand with the justice of God to forgive the sin committed, & yet reserve the punishment, Council. Triden. sess. 14. can. 14. Argum. The Lord forgave unto David the sin of adultery and murder, which he had committed, yet he punished him in the death of his child, 2. Sam. 12.13.14. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2.
The Protestants.
Ans. THat cross was laid upon David, not as a punishment of his sin, but as a fatherly correction or chastisement, to exercise him & make him more careful for the time following: as Augustine saith, writing upon the same example: Subsecutus est illius comminationis effectus, vt pietas hominis in illa humilitate exerceretur, at{que} probaretur: The effect of the threatening immediately followed, that David's godliness might thereby be tried and proved: He saith not, that David might thereby be punished.
Argum. Christ said to the sick of the palsy, Mark. 2.5. Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Whereby our Savior would have them to understand, that the sin being once forgiven, the sickness of the body, which was the punishment of sin, could not continue: for the cause being removed, the effect ceaseth.
The afflictions of this life are the loving corrections of God to admonish us, not plagues to punish us: as Augustine saith well, Tota miseria generis humani dolor medecinalis, non sententia poenalis: The misery of man is but a medicinal grief, not a sentence of punishment: In Psalm. 138.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER THE TEMPOrall punishment of this life may be redeemed by good works.
The Papists.
[error 18] THat we may redeem and buy out as it were the punishments due to sin in this life, by other good works, it is their general sentence: and they prove it thus.
Argum. Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar the King, Redeem thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, cap. 4.24. Bellarm. cap. 3.
The Protestants.
Ans. THe text is rather thus to be read: Break off thy sins by righteousness: that is, leave off to do evil: as it is by Tremellius translated more agreeably to the Hebrew: for if redemption be here properly understood, it would follow that men may redeem not only the punishment of their sins, but the sins themselves: and so take Christ's office out of his hand.
By true and faithful repentance, and other good works proceeding of faith, we may avoid God's heavy judgment due to our sins, yet not for the merit or satisfaction of any work, but through the merits only of Christ.
Argum. Look how our sins are forgiven, so is the punishment due unto them: but our sins are forgiven us freely in Christ, Ierem. 31.34. Ergo, so is the punishment.
THE THIRD PART, WHETHER A MAN may truly satisfy the wrath of God, for the punishment due unto sin.
The Papists.
IT is not a sufficient satisfaction, to believe that Christ hath abundantly satisfied [error 19] for us; neither yet is it enough to amend and correct our lives: but God also must be satisfied for our sins, by the punishment and chastisement of our selves, as by affliction laid upon us by God, or penance enjoined by the priest, or by prayer, fasting, alms deeds, which we do take up our selves, Council. Trid. sess. 14. can. 13. Rhemist. Matth. 11.21.
Argum. 1. Matth. 3.8. Bring forth fruits worthy repentance: he preacheth satisfaction by doing worthy fruits of penance, as fasting, prayer, alms, and the like, Rhemist.
Ans. Fruits worthy of repentance, are no satisfaction for sin, but arguments of true repentance, effects, not any part thereof.
Argum. 2. Judge yourselves, that you be not judged, 1. Corinth. 11.31. We must punish our selves according to the weight of the sins past, Rhemist. And again saith the Apostle, What great punishment hath it wrought in you! 2. Corinth. 7.11. This is nothing else but the satisfactory punishment for our sins, Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 8.
Ans. The Apostle meaneth nothing else, but an hearty and earnest sorrow for our sins, whereby we do judge and condemn, and as it were punish our selves, yet we are far from making any satisfaction hereby for our sins: as Augustine saith,
The Protestants.
THat satisfaction ought to be made unto men, either by restitution, as Zacchaeus restored that which he had wrongfully gotten: or by reconciling our selves to those, whom we have offended, as Matth. 5.24. we do willingly grant: but that the wrath of God may be appeased and satisfied for our sins, or the punishment due unto the same by any work of ours, it is a great blasphemy, and clean contrary to the course of Scripture.
Argum. 1. That it is sufficient to return unto God by true repentance and amendment of life, without any satisfaction, either for our sin, or the punishment of sin: the Prophet Ezekiel showeth, where speaking of the conversion of a wicked man, he saith, His iniquities shall no more be mentioned, or laid to his charge, chap. 18.22. But if after the sin remitted, there should remain some punishment behind, his sins should still be remembered and mentioned: there is therefore no satisfaction for the punishment of sin, because none remaineth.
Argum. 2. Isai. 43.25. I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake. Likewise, 53.4. He hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. God of his free mercy doth forgive our sin: Christ also hath fully satisfied for us: Ergo, there is no satisfaction in us: we are made whole by his stripes, and not our own.
Argum. 3. Our prayers, fastings, alms, and what works soever, are neither meritorious, nor satisfactory: for when we have done all, we are but unprofitable servants, and we did no more then was our duty, Luk. 17.10.
Augustine saith, Peccasti in fratrem? fac satis, & sanatus es. Hast thou offended thy brother? satisfy him, and thou art healed. Qui multos offendit peccando, placare multos debet satisfaciendo: He that hath offended many in sinning, must appease many by satisfying them. These kinds of satisfaction both publicly and privately we acknowledge: but satisfaction to God, neither he, nor we acknowledge. Lachrymas lego, satisfactionem non lego: I read of Peters tears, saith he, but of no satisfaction.
THE FOURTH PART, WHETHER ONE man may satisfy for another.
The Papists.
[error 20] SAtisfactorie works are not only profitable to the sufferers themselves, but also for other their fellow members in Christ, and one may bear the burden, and discharge the debt of another, Rhemist. Coloss. 1. sect. 4.
Argum The passions of the Saints are suffered for the common good of the whole body, as Saint Paul saith: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fulfill that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ for his bodies sake, which is the Church, Coloss. 1.24. Here Saint Paul's afflictions are meritorious and satisfactory for the Colossians, Rhemist.
Ans. The Apostles sufferings were for the glory of God, and the confirmation of their faith: but therefore it followeth not, that they were meritorious, either for himself, or others. His sufferings are said to be Christ's, who suffereth in his members, not that they receive any force from Christ to be satisfactory, but because he was made like and conformable by his sufferings unto Christ, Rom. 8.17. Augustine also thus expoundeth the place, Non dixit, pressurarum mearum, sed Christi, quia membrum erat Christi: He saith not, of my sufferings, but of Christ's, because he was a member of Christ: they are not then the sufferings of Christ, as though they received a satisfactory power from Christ: but because he was a member of Christ, who suffered together in and with his members.
The Protestants.
NOne can merit or satisfy for themselves, much less for others: neither can one man bear the burden, or pay the debt of another man's sin.
Argum. The Scripture saith, The soul that sinneth, the same shall die, Ezech. 18.20. Every man shall bear his own burden, Galath. 6.5. None can redeem his brother, or give a price to God for him, Psalm. 49.8.
Augustine upon those words, John. 16.23. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, he will give it you:
THE EIGHT QUESTION, OF INDVLgences and penal injunctions.
THE FIRST PART: WHETHER PEnall and painful works are necessary unto repentance.
The Papists.
NOt only amendment, and ceasing to sin, or repentance in heart before [error 21] God is always enough to obtain full reconcilement, but there must be outward penalty, correction, and chastisement beside, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect. 2.
Argum. The incestuous person was rebuked of many, 2. Corinth. 2.6. which word implieth, beside his inward repentance, outward correction and chastisement.
The Protestants.
Ans. WEe acknowledge, that in notorious sins, and offensive to the Church, as this of the young man's was, inward repentance is not sufficient, but that after sharp discipline, by the outward testification of sorrow, and public confession, satisfaction must be made to the Church: but it followeth not that this course should be taken for all sins, which a man repenteth him of. And yet we grant that outward signs of our sorrow are always necessary in true repentance, not as satisfactory means to redeem our sins, but only as infallible tokens and effects of our repentance. As Augustine saith, Satis durus est, cuius mentis dolorem oculi carnis nequeunt declarare: He is hard hearted, the grief of whose mind, the eyes of his flesh do not show forth, de poenitent. cap. 9.
Argum. There are but two essential partes of repentance, and true conversion unto God: To turn from our sins, and lead an holy life. So saith the Lord by the Prophet, If the wicked will return from his sins and keep all my statutes, Ezech. 18.21. This is all God requireth, without any other penal works: wherefore ceasing from sin and amendment of life, which necessarily include the true sorrow and conversion of the heart, are sufficient for repentance.
THE SECOND PART, BY WHOM penal works are to be inflicted.
The Papists.
[error 22] THe priests only, they say, have power to enjoin works of penance, as affliction of body, mulct, penalty, correction, by alms-deeds, fasting, abstinence and such like, Conc. Trid sess. 14▪ can. 15. Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect. 2.
Argum. To them is given authority to bind, and loose: Ergo, to enjoin penance, Bellarm. cap. 5. lib. 4.
The Protestants.
Ans. 1. SOme kind of mulctes Church discipline is not to deal withal: as bodily punishment, and pecuniarie fines, which are to be imposed at the discretion of the magistrate. Secondly, we grant a wholesome use of the keys in Church discipline, in punishing and cleansing of notorious offenders in the open face of the congregation: but privately to enjoin men penance for their secret sins is an Antichristian yoke.
Argum. True repentance is a free work, not of compulsion, or coaction: Saint Paul exhorteth men to judge themselves, that they be not judged, 1. Corinth. 11.31. But now when penance is laid upon a man, and not voluntarily taken of himself, he is judged rather of another, he doth not judge himself. Augustine saith,
THE THIRD PART, OF PARDONS and Indulgences.
The Papists.
1. THe principal Magistrates of the Church are no less authorized to pardon, then to punish, & to remit the temporal punishment due to sinners, [error 23] the offense being first forgiven, which we call an Indulgence or pardon, Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2.4. Council. Trid sess. 25.
Argum. To whom you forgive anything, I forgive also, 2. Corinth. 2.10. Here the Apostle forgiveth the young man a piece of his punishment, when he might have kept him longer in penance for his offense, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. 1. We deny not, but that the Church may release such public exercise of humiliation, which is enjoined offenders for trial of their repentance, and some satisfaction of the Church, when it seeth, that they are sufficiently humbled. But it followeth not, that the Church therefore may dispence with any necessary part of repentance towards God. Secondly, whereas you say, the Apostle, notwithstanding his rebuke was sufficient, might have kept the young man still in temporal punishment: it is clean contrary to the Apostles own rule, who persuadeth the Corinthians to forgive him, least he should be overcome of too much heaviness, verse. 7. The Apostle therefore would neither forgive nor release him, before they had forgiven him, and he had satisfied the whole Church, verse 10. Neither would he keep him longer in punishment, having once sorrowed sufficiently, verse 6. The Apostle therefore did neither bind nor release him at his own pleasure, but as he saw repentance to be wrought in the offender.
The Protestants.
THe power which the Pope and popish Bishops do challenge unto themselves, in giving Pardons and Indulgences, is most blasphemous.
1 They do take upon them to release both the punishment of this life, and the pains of purgatory also, and say, that their pardons profit both the dead and the living, Bull. Leon. 10.
2 They pardon not only the punishment, but the sin both past, and to come, for days, years, hundreds, thousands of years: how so ever the Rhemists would bear us in hand that an indulgence is a release but of the punishment. Such was the first Jubilee pardon granted by Boniface 8. an. 1300. And another by Leo the 10. an. 1513. See also the Boston pardons granted by Pope Innocent, Pope Iu • ye, Pope Clement, which gave them release of all their sins for five hundred years, Fox. pag. 1178.
3 And, which filled up the measure of iniquity, they set their pardons to sale: as in Pope Leo his time, his pardoners for ten shillings would give to any man power, to deliver one soul at his pleasure out of purgatory.
Argum. The scripture saith, that God only forgiveth sins, Mark. 2.7. And that Christ no otherwise, then as God, forgave sins, verse. 10. His Apostles only as his ministers and Ambassadors, and in his name, declare and pronounce remission of sins, 2. Corinth. 5.19. Wherefore there is no such power given unto men, at their pleasure to bind or loose.
Augustine saith, Non secundum arbitrium hominum tenentur, aut soluuntur peccata, sed ad arbitrium Dei, & orationes sanctorum: Sins are not loosed, or retained at the pleasure of men, but according to the will of God, and prayers of his Church.
The Papists.
[error 24] 2. THe satisfactory and meritorious works of the Saints which do abound, being communicable, and applicable to the faithful that want, are the very ground of the indulgences and pardons of the Church, and the very treasure thereof, and to be dispensed according to every man's need by the pastors of the Church, 2. Corinth. 2. sec. 5. Coloss. 1. sect. 4.
The Protestants.
HEre are many blasphemies and untruths couched together:
1 That a man's penalties may exceed and be greater then his sins, and so his abounding may supply another man's want: for thus the Rhemists say: which cannot stand with the justice of God, to punish a man more then he hath deserved. And it is contrary to the Scriptures:
2 How can the Church governors dispense the merits of one to another▪ Who made them stewards of another man's good? Ye say also the contrary yourselves, That the abounding passions of the Saints are applicable to others by the sufferers intention, Rhem. 1. Colo. 2.2. Then not by the Churches dispensation.
3 It is a great blasphemy, that one may be holpen by another man's merits, and it doth derogate from the death of Christ, whose only merits are the treasure and storehouse of the Church: The most righteous man that ever was, can but save his own soul, Ezech. 14.14. And that only by Christ.
Augustine saith:
The Papists.
3. THe dispensing of pardons and indulgences, is only committed, they say, [error 25] to the chief magistrates the Popes and Bishops: and as the Bishops in their Diocese have especial cases reserved to themselves, wherein inferior Priests are not to deal: so the Pope hath also his proper reservations, wherein other Prelates are not to meddle, Council. Trident. sess. 14. cap. 7. The cases reserved to the Pope are 51. in number, Fox. pag. 785. The Bishop of Paris, ann. 1515 reserved these cases to himself, to dispense in murder, witchcraft, sacrilege, heresy, simony, adultery, ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 9. de poeniten. err. 63. Likewise the years of their pardons are limited: Bishops may not exceed 40. days pardon: the Pope may be lavish in his hundreds and thousands, yea, and this reservation of cases, standeth not only with the external policy of the Church, but is of force even before God, Council. Trident. sess. 14. cap. 7.
The Protestants.
WE will not much contend with them about reservation of cases: for we acknowledge no such power to give pardons, or indulgences, either in superior or inferior Priests: yet we will show how this devise of theirs standeth not with their own doctrine.
Argum. 1. It is a greater power to remit the sin, then to release the punishment: but every Priest hath the greater power, as they say, to remit sins, yea as fully as hath the Pope himself: Allen in his book of pardons, cap. 2. Ergo, why have they not the less power, which is by indulgence to dispense with the punishment? And that of these two, the remission of sins is the greater, it is confessed by the Rhemist. 2. Corinth. 2. sect 6.
Argum. 2. In the point of death, the reservation of cases hath no place: but at that time every Priest may absolve from all manner sins and punishment, Council. Trident. sess. 14▪ cap. 7. But every hour is with some, and ought to be with all, the point of death: because we are uncertain when it cometh, and therefore ought always to be in a readiness. Therefore even by their own rule every Priest hath at all times authority to absolve in all cases.
Again, if those words of Christ be spoken to all ministers and preachers of the Gospel, John. 20.22. Whose sins ye retain, &c. (which cannot be denied) to them all then is committed equally that power of binding and loosing, which is exercised by the preaching of the word.
THE NINTH QUESTION, OF THE ceremonies and circumstances of penance.
The Papists.
[error 26] 1. THey enjoin their penitent Clients to poll their heads, and their women to wear a veil, to go in black, to put on sackcloth, to look sowrely: and such like presumptions they have concerning the habit of those that do penance, Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent. cap. 22.
The Protestants.
Our Savior clean contrary biddeth his Disciples, not to look sowrely, nor to disfigure themselves, when they fast and repent, or to show any other outward token of their sorrow, but to do it secretly between themselves and God, to wash their face, to annoint themselves with oil, that it appear not to men that they fast, Matth. 6.16.17.
Augustine also answering a certain objection, that young men newly married might make: How can I shave my head or change my habit? saith thus, Vera conuersio sufficit tibi, sine vestimentorum commutatione. The true conversion of the heart may suffice thee without changing of thy vesture.
The Papists.
[error 27] 2. THey enjoined them to fast bread & water certain days in the week, to lie hard, to abstain from marriage, or to do some great alms deeds to satisfy for their sin, Bellarm. ibid. to go a pilgrimage, and such like works of penance were prescribed them.
The Protestants.
TRue repentance consisteth not in such outward exercise of the body, but is a conversion rather of the heart. It was the manner of hypocrites, idolat • rs and superstitious men, to seek to appease their God's with afflicting of their flesh, as the Gentiles did cut their hair, Deut. 14.1. Baals Priests did launch their flesh, 1. King. 18.28.
Argum. What is to be thought of such punishing of the carcass, Saint Paul showeth, Coloss. 2.23. He calleth it voluntary religion or superstition in not sparing the body: when men do not use such outward exercises of fasting and abstinence for the chastisement of the flesh, to subdue it to the spirit, but with an opinion of meriting thereby, preferring them before the faith and conversion of the heart, as the papists do.
Augustine saith,
So then true repentance is especially an inward work of faith, rather then an exercise of the body, and it ought always to continue. Wherefore it consisteth not in such laborious works, which if a man should long endure, he should end his life sooner then repentance.The Papists.
3 THey measure their penance by number of years and days: They have [error 28] their quadragenas, forty days penance: septenas, seven years penance, Ex Tileman. Heshus. loc. 9. de poenitent. Err. 83. And they lengthen or cut short the time of penance at their pleasure, to continue three, seven, or ten years, yea sometime more, Bellarmine. lib. 1. de poenitent. 22.
The Protestants.
THat true repentance is not to be measured by the time, but by the right sorrow and contrition of the offender, Saint Paul teacheth us, who writeth for the young man to be released, because of his great and sufficient heaviness for his fault, 2. Corinth. 2.7.
Augustine also saith,
THE FIFTEENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE, OF MATRIMONIE.
T He several questions belonging to this Controuersie are these.
First, whether Matrimony be a sacrament properly so called.
2 Of the causes of divorce, and whether it be lawful to marry after divorce.
3 Of the degrees in marriage: First, the manner of supputation or accounting of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Levite. 18. may be dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may be by human law prohibited.
4 Of the impediments of marriage, of two sortes. First, of those that may hinder the contract of marriage only. Secondly, of such impediments, as may both dissolve the contract and the marriage also consummate.
5 The comparison of marriage and virginity, whether either be preferred before the other before God.
Of these now in their order.
6 Of the times of marriage prohibited.
7 Of the ceremonies and rites of marriage.
THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER Matrimony be a sacrament.
The Papists.
[error 28] THat it is properly and rightly a sacrament instituted of God, and not devised of men, Council. Trid. sess. 24. can. 1.
Argum. 1. Ephes. 5.32. This is a great sacrament: Matrimony is here a sign of an holy thing, representing the conjunction of Christ, and his Church. Ergo, a sacrament.
Answ. 1. The words are thus to be read rather, This is a great mystery. Or if we read sacrament, they have no great advantage, seeing they are not ignorant, that the original word, Mystery, which they translate sacrament, is attributed to other things then sacraments: as 1. Timoth. 3.16. Mystery of godliness: Apocal. 17.5. A mystery great Babylon. Neither do they themselves much urge this argument. 2. The Apostle saith not, that Matrimony is a mystery, but I speak of Christ and his Church, verse. 32.3. Matrimony we confess to be instituted of God, and to be a sign of a holy thing: yet no sacrament: for so was the Sabbath ordained of GOD, and signified the rest in Christ, Hebr. 4.8. yet was it no sacrament. Wherefore all significative and mystical signs are not sacraments.
Argum. 2. Matrimony giveth grace of sanctification to the parties married. They shall be saved in bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love, 1. Timoth. 2.15. These are the graces given by matrimony. Ergo, a sacrament.
Answ. 1. We deny that any sacraments give or confer grace, they are instruments only of grace. 2. We also grant that by matrimony God giveth to the faithful this special grace to live in holiness & pureness, from the filthy pollution of the flesh: but the sacraments are seals of spiritual graces, and serve for the increase of faith: it is not sufficient to be a means of any common gift, but of the spiritual and justifying grace to make a sacrament. 3. Wherefore if by faith and love here, they understand only the fidelity and duty of wedlock, they are not those spiritual graces, whereof sacraments are seals: if we take them for the true faith and love, which are the common graces of the faithful, as the very meaning is, they are as well to be had out of wedlock, as in it.
The Protestants.
THat matrimony is no sacrament of the Gospel, speaking now properly, and understanding a sacrament, for the seal of the grace of God in the remission of our sins by Christ, it is thus proved:
Argum. 1. Matrimony was instituted by GOD, before sin, in Paradise, therefore it can be no sacrament of the Gospel.
Argum. 2. Our adversaries are contrary to themselves: for they call matrimony a profanation of Orders, Martin▪ sect. 15. cap. 11. And they say it is more tolerable for a Priest to keep many concubines then to marry, Pighius ex Tileman. Hesbus. loc. 21. Err. 2. Do these fellows mean in good sooth, that matrimony is a sacrament, which they make so vile, polluted and unclean a thing?
3 In every sacrament there ought to be an external sensible element, as the matter, and a sanctifying word, as the form: But in matrimony there is neither. Ergo, it is no sacrament.
Bellarm. The form, are the words pronounced by the parties themselves, when they contract matrimony: I do take thee, &c. They also themselves are the matter: yea and the Ministers of the sacrament too: For the Jesuit holdeth, that it is a sacrament in the very contract and giving of mutual consent, before it be solemnized in the Church, De matrim. cap. 6.
Ans. 1. The sacrament is one thing, and the receivers another: therefore the married parties cannot be the sacramental matter, being the receivers. 2. It is not every word that sanctifieth, but the word of God, 1. Tim. 4.5. but these words, I take thee, are no parte of the word: Ergo, they want also the form of a sacrament. 3. The ministers of Christ & preachers of the word are only the dispēsers of the mysteries and sacraments of the Church, 1. Cor. 4.1. Wherefore the parties themselves could not be ministers of matrimony, if it were a sacrament.
Augustine thus writeth,
THE SECOND QUESTION, OF THE CAVSES of diuorse in marriage, and whether it be lawful to marry after diuorse.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THERE MAY BE more causes of diuorse, then fornication only.
The Papists.
DIuorse, as Bellarm. defineth it, is either from the duties of marriage, as from [error 29] bed and board, as we say, which is properly called diuortium, or it is a dissolving of the knot and bond of marriage, which is called repudium.
First then, they affirm, that the very bond and knot may be dissolved in the marriage of Infidels, if one of them after marriage become a Christian: his reason is, because marriage contracted in infidelity is no sacrament, and therefore may be dissolved, Bellarmine. cap. 12.
Argum. Saint Paul saith, If the Infidel party will depart, let him depart, a brother or sister is not in subjection in such a case, 1. Corinth. 7.15.
Answ. Saint Paul giveth not liberty to the one party at their pleasure utterly to renounce the other, as though they were no longer man and wife: for Saint Paul had said before, that if the Infidel party be content to dwell with the other, he or she is not to be put away. But his meaning is, that if one party willfully depart, the other is no longer bound, nor in subjection for the performance of the mutual duties of marriage.
The Papists.
[error 30] SEcondly, separation from bed and boorde may be admitted, they say, for diverse causes, Council. Trident. sess. 24. can. 8. Bellarmine nameth three: Fornication, according to Christ's rule, Math. 5. Heresy, Tit. 3. An heretic must be avoided. Thirdly, when one is a continual offense to another & a provocation to sin: If thine eye offend thee, pull it out, Math. 5.29. Bellarmine. cap. 14.
Answ. Fornication we admit is a just cause of separation and divorce, but not heresy: for Saint Paul would not have a woman to forsake an Infidel, 1. Corinth. 7.13. therefore not an heretic. We must avoid such, that is, take heed of their poisoned opinions, and shun their company also, where we are not otherwise bound: Neither is the eye to be cut off, where there is any hope: but who knoweth whether the offensive party may return to grace? And this place proveth as well a final • utting off of marriage, as a separation or disjunction.
The Protestants.
FIrst, that there is no cause of utter dissolution of marriage by way of divorce, but only adultery and fornication: it is plain by our Savior Christ's words, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. where neither infidelity nor any cause beside is excepted, but only fornication.
Secondly, Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion, that the wife might be dismissed for infidelity: but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion, Lib. retract. 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus: A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere: that it is not lawful for a woman at all to leave her husband, if he committee not fornication, De adulter. coniug. 1.7.
And yet further, to make this matter more plain, we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in marriage but that only, which is prescribed in the Gospel, namely, for adultery or fornication, Math. 5.32. & 19.9. There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the marriage knot may be dissolved, though not for fornication: as when one of the parties doth willfully renounce, leave and forsake the other upon no just cause, but either of lightness or for diverse religion, as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian, a Papist a Protestant, an heretic a true professor, or upon any other unlawful or unjust cause: for the Apostle saith plainly, A brother or sister is not in subjection in such things, 1. Corinth. 7.15. that is, is freed from the yoke or bond of marriage.
First, it is plain that the Apostle is so to be understood in this place: for the word, which he useth is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is no longer a servant, or in subjection: which is to be taken in the same sense, as if he should say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he or she is no longer bound or tied: which word the Apostle useth, verse. 39. And again the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse, where he saith the wife, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hath no power of her own body, & the husband likewise: But now, saith he, the infidel party having willfully separated himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the innocent party is no longer in subjection, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hath now power over his own body: and is now become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , free, exempt from the marriage knot or bond, in which sense the Apostle useth the word, verse 39.
Secondly we must know what kind of desertion it is, that causeth a dissolution of marriage, and in what manner. First, it must be malitiosa desertio, a malicious departure without any just cause: But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affairs, as the Merchant beyond the seas: or is employed in some weighty business, as in warfare, in ambassage, or such like: or is violently detained in prison or captivity, amongst the Turks or elsewhere: In these & the like cases the wife is bound to wait & expect the return of her husband, unless she be otherwise advertised of his death. Secondly, the innocent party must use all means to reconcile, reclaim, and bring home again the willful and obstinate party so departing, if it be possible. Thirdly, if he continue in his obstinacy, and depart, having no purpose to return, the matter must be brought before the judge or Magistrate in such cases: who after public citation of the obstinate party, and certain knowledge that he refuseth willfully to appear being cited, and is not otherwise letted to come, may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent party free and at liberty to marry, according to Saint Paul's rule, A brother, or sister is not bound in such things.
Thirdly, neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Savior Christ, who alloweth no divorce but only for fornication: for that is a diverse case from this, whereof Saint Paul treateth: And there is great difference between lawful diuorse, and unlawful and willful desertion: for there the innocent party first claymeth the privilege of separation: here the guilty party first separateth himself: there diuorse is sued, and required: here the innocent party seeketh no diuorse, but seeketh all means of reconciliation: So that properly the setting free the innocent party in this case, cannot be called a diuorse. Christ therefore speaketh of lawful divorce, not of every dissolution of marriage: for then mention should have been made in that place of natural death and departure, which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of marriage.
Thus have I shown mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thi • point: Herein further as in all the rest referring myself to the determination of our Church, and the judgment of our learned brethren, Beza. 1. Corinth. 7. verse. 15. Amand. Polan. Hemingius. T • leman. Heshus.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marry after diuorsement for adultery.
The Papists.
FOr adultery one may dismiss another, but neither party can marry again [error 31] for any cause during life, Rhemist. Math. 19. sect. 4. no not the innocent party may marry again: for the marriage knotte is not dissolved because of adultery, Council. Trident. sess. 24. can. 7.
Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2. The woman is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth: nothing but death dissolveth the bond between man and wife: therefore not lawful to marry again after diuorse, Rhemist. ibid.
Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Savior Christ, who maketh exception of fornication, Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul deny, that marriage may be dissolved, while they live, without breaking of wedlock: but that, although the knot hold during their life, yet by death it is dissolved. Again, Saint Paul having no occasion to entreat of diuorse, speaketh of marriage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God, that if a woman join her self to another man, her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolved, she is a wedlock breaker.
Arg. 2. 1. Corinth. 7.11. If she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled: Ergo, the parties separated for fornication may not marry again, Rhemist.
Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations, which are caused by dissensions in marriage, and not of diuorse for adultery: for he saith, If she depart: not If she be put away: neither was it so usual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemn diuorse. Again, he saith, Let not the woman depart, as being in her choice, whether she would depart or not: but in the case of fornication, she was to depart, or rather be put away, whether she would or not.
The Protestants.
FOr no other cause in the world, but only for fornication may there be either a final separation, or clean dissolution of marriage, by way of diuorse: But for that cause our Savior hath granted liberty, both to dissolve matrimony, and to marry again.
Argum.
Math. 5.32. Whosoever putteth away his wife (except it be for fornication) committeth adultery:
Argum. 2. Saint Paul saith, Let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband, for avoiding of fornication, and it is better to marry, then to burn. Wherefore it is lawful, the first marriage according to the word of God being broken, both for men and women to use the remedy against incontinency, and to be married again: for he speaketh generally of all.
Augustine saith, that he which putteth away his wife for adultery and marrieth another,
I end this point, better allowing Pollentius judgment for this matter, then Augustine's, between whom there is much discoursed of both sides:
Ad Pollent. lib. 1. cap. 6.
THE THIRD QUESTION, OF THE degrees in marriage prohibited.
FIrst of the supputation of degrees. Secondly, whether the degrees forbidden, Levite. 18. may be dispensed with. Thirdly, whether any other degrees may by human law be prohibited beside those.
THE FIRST PART, OF THE SVPPVtation and account of degrees.
THe degrees are either of consanguinity, which is of diverse persons coming of the same stock and blood: or of affinity, which ariseth of marriage, as when the kinsmen of either party that is married, are by marriage allied to the other, though not of his blood, as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by marriage, as also by blood unto Isaac, though not so nearly.
In both these kinds of kindred there is a right line both upward and ascending: as in consanguinity, the Father or Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, and so forth: in affinity, the Father in law, and mother in law, the stepfather, or stepmother: as also descending, as the son, the sons son, the son in law, or daughter in law, and their sons and daughters. There is also a collateral line in consanguinity, as brother and sister, brother and sisters children, uncle or aunt: in affinity, the brothers wife, sisters husband, the uncles wife, or aunts husband. Now our adversaries set down these rules to know the degrees by.
The Papists.
[error 32] 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons,
-
Abraham.
- Isaac. 1.
- Jacob. 2.
Answer. We see no reason, why the first should be left out: for look how many generations, so many degrees: But every person is a generation: And this is the manner of account in scripture: as Math. 1. there are 14. generations reckoned from Abraham, whereof Abraham maketh one, Judge. 14. Enoch the seventh from Adam, Adam being the first himself in that number: Thus the scripture numbereth inclusiue, not exclusive, inclusively comprehending also the number, from whom the account beginneth: And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree, and Jacob, not in the second but the third from him.
The Papists.
[error 33] 2 IN the collateral line, if the parties be equally distant from the root or stock of the generation, look how many degrees distant they are from the stock, so is the distance between themselves:
-
Bathuel.
- Rebecca.
- Jacob.
- Laban.
- Rachel.