Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.

THE FIFTH BOOKE. OF THE SECOND AND third controuersie, concerning Priests and Deacons. (Book 5)

CHAP. I.

Wherein the second controuersie is proposed, diuided into two questions, the former about Sacrificing, the latter about Absolution: the state of the former is set downe, and the methode of proceeding.

PHIL.

WHatsoeuer you haue as yet saide, is nothing, because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is a 1.1 essentially required, which is not to be found in the Church of England. For there are two principall functions of Priest∣hood; the first is the power of Sacrificing, the second of Absolution; but you haue neither, as I will prooue in order: to beginne with the first, it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes. b 1.2 Accipe potestatem offerre sa∣crificium deo, missas{que} celebrare, tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini. that is, Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes, nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes, as may appeare by the Booke: therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood.

ORTHOD.

If you meane no more by Priest, then the holy Ghost doeth by c 1.3 Presbyter, that is, a Minister of the new Testament, then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes, as we are called in the booke of com∣mon prayers, and the forme of ordering, because we receiue in our ordination d 1.4 authoritie to Preach the word of God, and to minister his holy Sacraments. Secondly, by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes, and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices, then as this name belongeth to all Christians, so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell. Thirdly, although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices, yet euen so we may bee called Priestes, by way of allusion. For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui, yet the ancient fathers doe cōmonly call them Leuites, alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites: so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers, because they suceed the sons of Aaron, and come in

place of Leuites: so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacri∣ficers, because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron, and come in place of sacrifi∣cers. Fourthly, for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments, and consequently the Eucharist, which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ; therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery, and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration. Is not this sufficient? if it be not, what other sacrifi∣cing is required?

PHIL.

THere is required sacrificing properly so called, which is an a 1.5 exter∣nall* 1.6 oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister, wherby some sensi∣ble and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite, for the ac∣knowledgement of humane infirmitie, and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie.

ORTHOD.

What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer?

PHIL.

It is the very body and blood of Christ.

ORTHOD.

The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture: The b 1.7 offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sinnes of the whole world, both originall, and actuall, and there is no other satisfaction for sinne, but that alone, and consequently it condem∣neth your masses for the quicke and the dead, as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

PHIL.

But the Councell of Trent teacheth, that in the masse there is of∣fered to c 1.8 God a true and proper Sacrifice d 1.9 propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead, and curseth all those that thinke otherwise.

ORTHOD.

HOw doe you prooue, that the Sacrificing Priesthood, which offereth as you say, the very body and blood of* 1.10 Christ, is the true Ministery of the Gospel?

PHIL.

That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament, fore∣told by the Prophets, instituted by Christ, and practised by the Apostles, is the true Ministery of the Gospel. But our sacrificing Priesthood, which offe∣reth the very body and blood of Christ, is such; therefore it is the true Mini∣stery of the Gospel. The proposition of it self, is plaine & euident: the parts of the assumption, shall be prooued in order.

ORTHOD.

Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed.

CHAP. II.

Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec.

PHIL.

THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec, was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper, with his owne hands, & shal offer by the hands of the Priests, vntil the end of the world. For the vnderstanding wher∣of, we must consider, that Melchisedec, was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron, inso∣much that Christ is called a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron. For betweene these two Priesthoods, there are two differences, e 1.11 the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice; For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ, vnder the forme of liuing things, that were s••aine: The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody, and did figure the body and

blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine. From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument. If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine, then seeing Christ is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, he also must offer an vn∣bloody Sacrifice, vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine: but the Sacrifice of the Crosse, was bloody: therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse: and what can this be, but the Sacrifice of the Supper? But he commaded his Apostles, and in them vs, to doe as hee did, saying, a 1.12 doe this in remembrance of me: therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner, in the formes of Bread and Wine, & consequently the Ministers of the Gospel, are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution.

ORTH.

We graunt first, that Melchisedec was a type of Christ, because the Scripture saith, b 1.13 he was likened to the sonne of God: Secondly, that Christ was a Priest, not after the order of Aaron▪ but after the order of Melchisedec, because God hath not only said it, but sworne it: c 1.14 The Lord hath sworne and will not re∣pent, thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedec: but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine, for a Sacrifice to God; wee deny that Christ euer offered any such, or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles. Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood, that it will quite ouerthrowe it.

PHIL.

THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine, is plaine* 1.15 in d 1.16 Genesis.

ORTHOD.

In Genesis? Why? there is no such thing: the wordes are these. And Melchisedec king of Salem, brought foorth Bread and Wine, and he was a Priest of the most high God; Where your owne vulgar translation rea∣deth proferens not offerens, hee brought forth Bread and Wine, and not hee offered it.

PHIL.

True he brought it forth: but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God.

ORTHOD.

That is more then you can gather out of the text. e 1.17 Iosephus sayth, that hee gaue intertainment to the Souldiers of Abraham, f 1.18 Tertullian saith, that he offered Bread and Wine to Abraham, returning from the battel. Saint g 1.19 Ambrose saith likewise, that Melchisedec did offer it vnto Abraham. Your owne h 1.20 Andradius saith▪ Ego cum illis sentiam, qui lassos Abrahae milites, & diuturna pug na fractos, Melchisedecum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt. That is, I will be of their opinion, which say that Melchisedec refreshed with Bread and Wine, the Souldiers of Abraham, being weary and tyred with a long battell. And Cardinall i 1.21 Caietan: Nihil scribitur hic de Sacrificio seu oblatione, sed de prolatione seu extractione, quam Iosephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores, that is, heere is nothing (spoken) of the oblation or Sacrifice, but of the prolation and bringing it out, which Iosephus saith, was done to refresh the Conquerers.

PHIL.

These things are subordinate, and may stand together, for first, he offered the Bread and Wine to God for a Sacrifice, And then, inuited A∣braham and his armie: so this was not Ciuill but a Sacred banquet.

ORTHO.

How prooue you that?

PHIL.

Abraham sayde to the King of Sodome; k 1.22 I haue lift

vp my hand vnto the Lord the most high God, possessor of heauen and earth, that I will not take of all that is thine, so much as a thread or shooe latchet, lest thou shouldest say, I haue made Abraham rich, saue only that which the yong men haue eaten, & the parts of the men which went with mee, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, let them take their parts. Now to vse the words of Cardinall Bellarmine, a 1.23 Quid opus erat pane & vino ijs qui spolijs abundabant & paulo ante comederant & biberant? that is, What need had they of bread and wine which did abound with spoiles, and had eaten and drunken a little before?

ORTHOD.

That Paulo ante is a tricke of a Iesuite, to make the Reader imagine that they had new dined, which is more then can be proued out of the Text. For when Abraham who dwelt in the plaine of b 1.24 Mamre heard that Lot was taken prisoner, hee pursued the 4. Kings to c 1.25 Dan, about 124. English miles: then he and his seruants diuided themselues, and pursued them vnto d 1.26 Hobah about 80. miles, where he recouered the substance, and tooke the spoiles; Thence he returned to e 1.27 Sodom, about 180. miles, where Melchisedec met him. Wherefore, for ought that doeth appeare by the Text, the yong mens eating of the spoiles, might haue bene sundry dayes before Melchisedec met them. But if they had new dined, did Melchisedec know so much? Or if he did, doe you know how long he stayed with them, or what store of victu∣als they had remayning? And if there had remained great plentie, yet, may not a King giue entertainment to such as are otherwise prouided of victuals? Surely, this is a speech that doeth little become a Cardinall: if Bellarmine be of this opinion, his Cardinalship keepeth but a miserable house, and affor∣deth but slender hospitalitie. Hitherto we haue seene how weakely you haue disproued the ciuill banquet; Now let vs see how strongly you can proue the Sacred.

PHIL.

THat this bread and wine were brought out for sacrifice, may ap∣peare* 1.28 by the Text, which saith, Melchisedec Rex Salem proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei altissimi, &c. That is, f 1.29 Melchisedec King of Salem brought foorth bread and wine: for hee was a Priest of the most high God. Why did he bring foorth bread and wine? because he was a Priest of the most high God▪ Now the proper office of a Priest is to sacrifice; therefore the very connexion doeth teach vs, that he brought foorth bread and wine to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

As it was the office of the Priest to sacrifice, so it was his of∣fice to blesse: as may appeare in the sixt of Numbers, g 1.30 Speake vnto Araon, and to his sonnes, saying, Thus shall you blesse the children of Israel, &c. Therefore the Spirit of God hauing said, that Melchisedec was a Priest of the most High God, addeth immediatly, that he blessed him.

PHIL.

The coniunction (for) doeth euidently shew the dependence. He brought foorth bread and wine, (for) he was a Priest of the most High God: there∣fore this bringing it forth, was a Priestly action, which must needs import, that it was referred to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

The Vulgar Translation which you follow, is erronious: for according to the Hebrew it is not, Erat enim Sacerdos: for he was a Priest; but & erat Sacerdos: and he was a Priest, as Arias h 1.31 Montanus translateth it; and i 1.32 Bellarmine confesseth. So the clauses are not ioyned together with a coniun∣ction

causall, but with a copulatiue: therefore your argument drawne from the causall vanisheth away.

PHIL.

The copulatiue coniunction is much vsed for a causall: as in the Prophet a 1.33 Esay, where it is according to the Hebrew, Behold thou art angry, and we haue sinned; which your selues translate, Behold thou art angry, for we haue sinned. The like is to be said of the Greeke particle, answering to the Hebrew; As for example, in the words of the Angel, it is according to the Greeke, b 1.34 Bles∣sed art thou among women, and the fruit of thy wombe is blessed. Vpon which place, c 1.35 Beza proueth very well, that the copulatiue is put for a causall: and your selues translate it accordingly, Because the fruit of thy wombe is blessed. Likewise in this present place, the copulatiue must be expounded by the causall: as may appeare euen by the Hebrew, which your selues so aduance and magnifie. d 1.36 For after these words, And he was a Priest of the most High God. There is an accent called Soph pasuk, to signifie that the period is ended. Therefore though wee should reade, And he was a Priest of the most High God: yet because there is a full point, the very words thus pointed according to the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greeke and Latine, would proclaime, that he brought forth bread and wine, as a Priest to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

In the diuision of the Chapters into verses, there was re∣spect had, not onely of Musicall harmonie, but also of some equalitie or indif∣ferencie in the length of the Verses. So it commeth to passe▪ that sometimes a long sentence extendeth it selfe, and is e 1.37 continued in diuers verses, before the sense be perfectly concluded. Wherefore though euery Verse haue his Soph pasuk, yet euery Verse is not a full period. As for example, In the 23. of Ge∣nesis, after the 17. Verse, there is the same point and accent, which is here; and yet in your owne vulgar Bibles, set out by Sixtus 5. and Clemens octauus, there is but a comma: and that no marueile, seeing sometimes there is onely a com∣ma betweene Chapter and Chapter, As for example, Betweene the 21. and 22. of the Acts, both in the Greeke and in the Latine. Now for this present place of Genesis, In Pagnins translation set out by Vatablus, as also in f 1.38 Delrio, yea in the authenticall Edition of Sixtus quintus, and Clemens octauus, the Soph pasuk you vrge, is expressed onely by a comma, and in some of the Vulgar, there is not so much as a comma. Wherefore this doeth rather argue a rela∣tion to that which followeth, then to that which went before, and conse∣quently, these words, He was a Priest of the most High God, cannot be referred to the bringing foorth of the bread and wine, but rather to the blessing. And that it is so, may appeare by the Epistle to the Hebrewes, where the Type of Melchisedec is vnfolded: and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing, but on∣ly of blessing▪ But if we should suppose, that it were to be translated by the cau∣sall, (for) and that these words, For he was a Priest of the most High God, had re∣lation to that which went before, concerning the bringing out of bread and wine, what should you gaine by it?

PHIL.

The very point in question. For the latter part shall yeeld a rea∣son of the former. Did Melchisedec bring foorth bread and wine to Abra∣ham? What moued him so to doe? The reason is rendered, because he was a Priest of the most High God; Therefore this was a Priestly action.

ORTHOD.

He gaue entertainment to Abraham, and was thereunto mo∣ued

by consideration of his owne Office, euen because hee was not onely a professour of the true Religion, but also a Priest: for as it becommeth all that imbrace Religion, to loue one another, and reioyce at their good; so this duetie especially belongeth to the Priest. And your learned Iesuite a 1.39 An∣dradius hence obserueth the great lincke of Religion, saying, Who would not wonder that a man tyed by no lincks of acquaintance with Abraham, but to those whom Abraham conquered▪ tyed by the lincke of neighbour-hood, and peraduenture of alliance also, (for I hold it very probable, that Melchisedec was a Canaanite) should prosecute Abraham with presents, and other kind offices, and for the victory gotten ouer his owne country men, should congratulate Abraham, not without procuring to himselfe great enuie from his neighbours? but seeing there are no lincks to bee compared with the linkes of religion (Moyses) saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God: that all men might vnderstand that hee was coupled with greater lincks of loue with Abraham, who excelled for singular commendation of Pietie and religion, then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country: therefore there is no necessity, to say, that he sacrificed bread and wine, for the text euen read and pointed as you would haue it, may in the iudgement of some of your learned Diuines, admit an excellent sence without any sacrifice.

BVt let vs imagine that hee did sacrifice bread and wine, what is this to* 1.40 the purpose?

PHIL.

Yes, it proueth our Priest hood directly and strongly. For must not the truth answere to the Type?

ORTHOD.

You make the type consist in this, that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine; but stay a little; did Christ sacrifice bread and wine? where find you that?

PHIL.

A Type consisteth in representation; and representation de∣pendeth rather vpon the outward accidents, then the inward substance, ther∣fore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents: that is, in the formes of bread & wine: and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himselfe in the formes of bread and wine.

ORTH.

Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance? or was it the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine? if you say the first, then our communion doth better answere to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Masse: and consequently our ministery doth better resemble his then your Priesthood: but if you say that he offered the very bo∣die and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine; that would fit your turne well, for then Melchisedec should be a Masse Priest; but it is so absurde that you dare not auouch it. For then the very bodie and blood of Christ should haue beene actually and substantially existent, before it was concei∣ued in the wombe of the Virgin Mary. Thus say what you can, you are quite ouerthrowne.

PHIL.

If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, then surely hee offred an vnbloody sacrifice; and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchi∣sedec must needs haue the essentiall properties of that Order; therefore Christ offered also an vnbloody sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

Or rather thus, seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, hee must haue all the essentiall properties belonging to that Or∣der: but his sacrifice was bloodie and not vnbloody, for, With his owne a 1.41 blood hath he entred into the most Holy, and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs: therefore to offer an vnbloody sacrifice, is no essential propertie of the Order of Melchisedec: wherfore if he did so, it followeth not that Christ should do so.

PHIL.

It was both bloody and vnbloodie, bloody vpon the Crosse, vn∣bloodie in the Eucharist.

ORTHOD.

Doe you not teach that Christ offered his owne body, and blood in the Eucharist? if hee sacrificed his owne blood, how can that sacri∣fice be vnbloodie?

PHIL.

His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an vn∣bloudie manner; that is, in the forme of bread and wine.

ORTHO.

The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered, and that with b 1.42 once offering he hath Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified: and this offe∣ring is called the blood of the c 1.43 Crosse, not the blood of the Eucharist, but the blood of the Crosse.

PHIL.

Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist?

ORTHOD.

Christ saith, d 1.44 Doe this in remembrance of mee; therefore in the Eucharist there is a memoriall of Christ, euen of his bodie and blood, which were sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse once for all, as hath been alreadie proo∣ued. Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed vpon the Crosse, pro∣perly and substantially: in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery, by way of commemoration an representation, as shall appeare more amply, when we come to the point.

PHIL.

ANother difference betweene Aaron and Melchisedec, is thus set* 1.45 down by e 1.46 Bellarmine: Estetiā alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Mel∣chisedechi & Aaronis, quòd illud fuit vnius tantū hominis qui non successit alteri, & cui non successit alter: istud autem fuit multorum, qui per mortem sibi inuicem suc∣cedebant, i. There is an other difference betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec, and of Aaron; that the former was onely of one man who succeeded not an other, and to whom no man succeeded, but the latter was of many men which succeeded one ano∣ther by death, where we may obserue two properties of the Priesthood of Mel∣chisedec, vnity and eternity.

ORTH.

The first propertie belongeth most aptly to Christ, who alone hath offered himselfe a sweete smelling sacrifice to God for vs; but to your Popish Priests it cannot agree; because they are many: for if the Priests should be many, then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priest∣hood: therefore this vnitie is directly against you: Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity.

PHIL.

If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood, then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice: for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice, or else the Priesthood should be idle: but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting, for it was but once offered, therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament, that is, the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer, and so our Priest-hood is proued.

ORTHOD.

Proued? how is it proued? the scripture saith that Christ, be∣cause

he a 1.47 indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood: he indureth for euer; he euen he, in his owne person: and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice. For Christ is a Priest for euer. First in respect of his owne Sacri∣fice vpon the Crosse. Secondly, in respect of his intercession. In respect of the Sacrifice, which though it were but once offered, yet it is an euerlasting Sa∣crifice, because the vertue of it is euerlasting, and continueth effectuall for e∣uer, for as he is the b 1.48 lambe slaine from the beginning of the world, so hee is Iesus Christ c 1.49 yesterday, to day, and the same for euer; d 1.50 neither by the blood of goates and calues, but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place, and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs.

PHIL.

As hee is a Priest properly for euer, so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice; But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person: there∣fore he must offer it by another.

ORTH.

Your owne e 1.51 Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception. Now what if one should reason thus with you? if he be a Priest, he must offer a Sacrifice: but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice, therefore then he was no Priest. Or thus; till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice, therefore all that while hee was no Priest, what would you answere?

PHIL.

I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest, in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time.

ORTHOD.

If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin, in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come; why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world, in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered? and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice, so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession. For his Priesthood hath two parts, Redemption, and Intercession. It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood, secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercessi∣on, and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn: if any man sinne, f 1.52 wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes. Who is our aduocate? euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiati∣on for our sinnes, hee is our aduocate, and g 1.53 appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. h 1.54 Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that iustifieth, who shall condemne vs? It is Christ which is dead, yea rather which is risen againe, who is also at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for vs, And seeing we haue a i 1.55 high Priest made higher then the heauens, who euer liueth to make intercession for vs, In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer, and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice. Where∣fore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec. Which may yet appeare more fully, because the A∣postle to the k 1.56 Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice, but vnfouldeth it in these branches following. First, Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse, therein being a type of Christ Iesus, who is l 1.57 the Lord our righteousnesse. Secondly, Melchisedec was King of Salem, that is, king of peace: So m 1.58 Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace: n 1.59 for he is our peace which hath made of both one, and hath broken the stop of the partition wall, in abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the lawe of commandements which

standeth in ordinances, for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe, so making peace. And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse, and slay hatred thereby, and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off, and to them that were neere. Thirdly, Melchisedec was both King and Priest: so was Christ Iesus. Fourthly, Melchisedec blessed Abraham: and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham, that is vpon all beleeuers. For we ought all to say with the Apostle, a 1.60 Blessed bee God, euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly, Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham, and consequētly, euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchi∣sedec; Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec, was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aa∣ron. Sixtly, Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without kindred, not simply, but is said to be so, in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly, making no mention at all of father, mother, or kin∣red, thereby representing Christ Iesus, who as he was man, had no father; as he was God had no mother nor kinred. Seuenthly, Melchisedec had neither be∣ginning of dayes, nor end of life: That is, the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other, that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus, who as hee is God, is from euerlasting to euerlasting. Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec, plentifully and particularly, and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing, which is an euident ar∣gument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine.

PHIL.

The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it. For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concer∣ning Melchisedec. A high Priest, according to the order of Melchisedec, b 1.61 of whom we haue great speech, and inexplicable to vtter: because you are become weake to heare? c 1.62 Among which no doubt (say the Rhemists) the mysterie of the Sacrament, & Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter; And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death, when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe.

ORTHOD.

We doe not ground vpon the silence of the Apostle onely, but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets. There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine, and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world, that Popery is the meer inuention of man, & shall wither in the root from whence it sprung. For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

PHIL.

Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist? And wherein can it consist, but in an oblation or sacrifice?

ORTHOD.

First, some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham. Secondly, those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice▪ may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice, and not a propitiatorie. Thirdly, if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice, yet it followeth not that because they make the obla∣tion of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist, that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice: for those which hold so, must make a double

oblation of this Bread and Wine, by Melchisedec: the first to God, by way of Sacrifice: the second to Abraham, and the armie in the manner of a banquet: the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse: the second to the Eu∣charist. Fourthly, your Popish massing Sacrifice, presupposeth transubstan∣tiation, which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist, as in due place shall be declared: Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist, according to Christs institution, cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice.

CHAP. III.

Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe.

PHIL.

THe Sacrifice of the Masse, and consequently the of∣fice of the Priest or Sacrificer, is proued by an argu∣ment drawne from the Paschall Lambe. And first it is cleare by the Scripture, that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice. For we read in a 1.63 Exodus. Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe, and immolate the Passeo∣uer. And againe, b 1.64 You shall slay it, it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeo∣uer. And in the 9. of Numbers, c 1.65 Certaine men were defiled by a dead man, that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day, and they came before Moses, and be∣fore Aaron the same day. And those men said vnto him, we are defiled by a dead man: Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord, in the time therunto appointed? And againe, d 1.66 But the man that is cleane, and is not in a iourney, and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer, the same person shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season. And in the Gos∣pel of S. Mark. e 1.67 The first day of the Azyms, when they sacrificed the Passeouer. And S. Paul saith, f 1.68 Our Passeouer Christ is immolated.

ORTHOD.

Admit it were a Sacrifice, what can you conclude?

PHIL.

g 1.69 The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the ce∣lebration of the Eucharist: Therefore if the Paschal Lambe, were a Sacrifice, the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice; that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure, and the thing figured.

ORTHOD.

As other ceremonies of the Law, so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ, and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ.

PHIL.

The h 1.70 ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe, was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist, then of the passion, as may appeare by foure circumstances. First, the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen, and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist: but the passion was deferred vntill the day following.

ORTHOD.

Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer, there∣fore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the cele∣bration of the passeouer. But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist, then of the passion: for what saith the Scripture? i 1.71 Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world. How doth he take away the sinnes of the world? Is it not by his death and passion, as it is written, k 1.72 wee haue redemption through his blood, euen the forgiuenes

of our sinnes, according to his rich grace: And againe, a 1.73 He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world, therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this, that hee was slaine, which was not in the Eucharist, but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn, who rendreth this reason, b 1.74 why his legges were not broken, because it is writ∣ten, there shall not a bone of him be broken.

PHIL.

Secondly, c 1.75 The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords pas∣sing ouer, and the deliuerance of the people: and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father, by his passion, and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan, by the death of Christ.

ORTHOD.

If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ, then one is not the body of the other, but the substance of both is Christ.

PHIL.

Thirdly, d 1.76 the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten, and so is the Eu∣charist: but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten, neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed.

ORTHOD.

If the Lambe were properly offered, then it was more true∣ly a Type of Christ, then of the Eucharist. For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse, but it witnesseth no such thing concer∣ning the Eucharist: onely Christ sayth, e 1.77 doe this in remembrance of me. Where∣by we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation. Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten: Christ himselfe saith, f 1.78 Verely, verely, I say vnto you, except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, ye haue no life in you▪ Whosoe∣uer eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternall life, and I will raise him vp at the last day. For my flesh is meate indeed, and my blood is drinke indeed. He that ea∣teth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. And a little be∣fore, g 1.79 The bread that I will giue, is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the world.

PHIL.

That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist.

ORTHO.

h 1.80 Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words. De men∣sa dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit. i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life, some vnto de∣struction, but the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is, is to euery one that is partaker therof vnto life, and to none vnto destruction. And so is the flesh here spoken of. ••. Christ crucified, which is meat not for the body, but for the soule, to be eaten, not with the teeth, but with the heart, by a liuely faith both in the Eucharist, and without it.

PHIL.

i 1.81 Fourthly, the Paschall Lambe could not be eaten, sauing onely of the circumcised and cleane, and in Ierusalem: so the Eucharist cannot bee receiued, but onely of the baptised, and cleane, and in the Church: sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum vt in cruce immolatum fide manducare. i. But others also may and ought to eat Christ by faith, as he is offered vpon the Crosse.

ORTHOD.

Can the vncleane eate Christ by faith? This is contrary to the Scripture, which teacheth, k 1.82 That God by faith doeth purifie the heart. Againe, No vncleane thing shall enter the kingdome of Heauen: but euery beleeuer shall

haue life euerlasting; therefore no sound beleeuer is to be reputed vncleane.

PHIL.

a 1.83 Faith goeth before both Baptisme and Iustification; therefore a man may haue faith before he be cleane.

ORTHOD.

Faith goeth before iustification, onely in the order of nature, and not in the order of time: but it may goe before Baptisme euen in order of time, as the Eunuch beleeued before he was Baptized. But where∣soeuer it is found, or whensoeuer, it purifieth the heart, and maketh the party cleane. Wherefore notwithstanding all these friuolous obiections, it is most sure and certaine, that the Paschall Lambe was most expresly a Type of Christs Passion.

PHIL.

Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also?

ORTHOD.

Because they were both representations of Christ, therefore there is great similitude and correspondencie betweene them. And because the Passeouer gaue place to the Eucharist, therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ, yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist. But what then? Must it therefore follow, that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist? God commaunded not onely that the Paschall Lambe should be slaine and immolated, but also that it should be ea∣ten. Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled vpon the Crosse, where Christ our b 1.84 Passeouer was sacrificed for vs, and not in the Eucha∣rist; The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spirituall eating of Christ, both in the Sacrament and without.

CHAP. IIII.

Of their Argument, drawen from certaine places of the Prophets.

PHIL.

I Wil proue it by other testimonies of the Old Testa∣ment; And first by the Prophecie of that man of God that came to Eli, c 1.85 I will stirre mee vp a faithfull Priest that shall doe according to my heart, and according to my minde, and hee shall walke before mine Anointed for euer.

ORTHOD.

This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock: in Samuel who succeeded Eli; in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar, who was of the race of Eli: For d 1.86 Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest vnto the Lord, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo.

PHIL.

e 1.87 S. Austine answereth to this obiection, that this Prophecie was ful∣filled in Samuel or Sadock, insomuch as they did cary the figure of Christian Priests. And so the casting out of Eli, was a figure of the casting out of the Aaronicall Priesthood: and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc, was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priest∣hood; Which he proueth, because the Scripture when it saith, that Eli was to bee cast out with his fathers, speaketh plainely of Aaron. For it nameth him, who was appoin∣ted of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt.

ORTHOD.

Suppose all this were granted: what can you conclude? if the Lord promised, that he will raise himselfe vp a faithfull Priest, and thereby signified a Christian Priest, doeth it therefore follow, that he speaketh of a Popish Priest?

PHIL.

That the Lord meant a Priest properly, may appeare by the Pro∣phet Esay, who prophecying of the time of the New Testament, saith, a 1.88 In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the middest of the land of Egypt. And againe, b 1.89 The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and doe Sacrifice and oblation. And againe, c 1.90 Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord, and men shall say vnto you, the Mi∣nisters of our God.

ORTHOD.

These may be expounded by other places of the same Pro∣phet, d 1.91 They shall bring all your brethren, for an offering vnto the Lord Where it is cleare, that the Prophet speaketh of Spirituall offerings, which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel, As S. Paul e 1.92 doeth testifie, That the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God, being sanctified by the holy Chost. Which con∣uersion of the Gentiles, the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Leuiticall sacrifices, f 1.93 All the sheepe of Kedar shall be gathered vnto thee: the Rammes of Ne∣baioth shall serue thee: they shall come vp to bee accepted vpon mine Altar: and I will beautifie the house of my Glory. Likewise the Prophet Dauid; g 1.94 Then shalt thou ac∣cept the sacrifice of Righteousnes, euen the burnt offering and Oblation: then shall they offer calues vpon thine Altar. Where by calues, he vnderstandeth the calues of the lips; that is, the sacrifice of Prayer, and Thankesgiuing. The burnt offer∣ing also is to be expounded in the like maner, and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousnes. And a little before he said, h 1.95 The sacrifices of God, are a contrite spirit. And as our Spirituall sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Leuitical: so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Leuites, i 1.96 I will take of them for Priests and Leuits, saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly, for then the word Leuite should likewise be ta∣ken properly; but I hope you will not say that your Masse-priests are proper∣ly of the tribe of Leui. By these plaine places we may expound the former by you alleadged.

PHIL.

NAy, they are Priests properly in regard of an externall sacrifice* 1.97 properly so called, which they offer properly, as is euident by the Prophet Malachie, k 1.98 From the rising vp of the Sunne, to the going downe of the same, my Name is great among the Gentiles, and in euery place incense shalbe offered vp to my Name, and a pure offering, for my Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts.

ORTHOD.

The Priests here spoken of, are called the sonnes of Leui: are your Masse-priests properly the sonnes of Leui?

PHIL.

Of Leui? No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion.

ORTHOD.

Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion.

PHIL.

Not so: for here is mention of their offering, which is called A pure offering.

ORTHOD.

That is to be expounded of Spirituall offerings in the iudge∣ment of the Fathers. l 1.99 Irenaeus saith, In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi, orationes esse ait sancto∣rum; That is, In euery place incense is offered to my Name, and a pure sacrifice. But Iohn in the Apocalyps saith, Incense is the prayers of Saints. And m 1.100 Austen spea∣king of this very place of Malachy saith, Incensum quòd graecè Thymiama sicut ex∣ponit Iohannes in Apocalypsi Orationes sunt sanctorum, that is, Incense which in Greeke is Thymiama, as Iohn expoundeth it in the Apocalyps, is the praiers of the

Saints. So a 1.101 Ierome saith, Thymiama, hoc est sanctorum orationes; Incense, that is the praiers of the Saints. b 1.102 Eusebius calleth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the incense of praiers. Yea c 1.103 Malachy himselfe saith: the Lord shall purifie the sonnes of Leui as gold and sil∣uer, that they may offer an offering to the Lord in righteousnesse.

PHIL.

The words, sacrifice, oblation, and such like, when they are ta∣ken spiritually, are alwaies restrained with some addition: as the sacrifice of praier, of thanksgiuing &c. But here the Prophet saith onely a pure offering without any addition, or limitation. Now * 1.104 the word so taken by it selfe without any restraining tearmes, is alwaies in the Scripture taken properlie for the act of out∣ward sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

That rule is not generally true, for the Prophet Esay d 1.105 saith, They shall bring of their brethren for an offering to the Lord o••t of all Nations: where he vseth the very same word that Malachi here vseth, and yet it is not meant that the Gentiles shalbe offered carnally but spiritually.

PHIL.

e 1.106 This sacrifice of which the Prophet speaketh, is one: but the spirituall sacrifices are so many as are the good workes of Christianity.

ORTHO.

Though the word vsed by the Prophet, bee of the singular number, yet by that offering many offerings may bee signified, as when it is said f 1.107 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not haue.

PHIL.

g 1.108 Spirituall sacrifices are common to vs with the Iewes, but the Prophet speaketh of an oblation not common, but proper to the Gentiles, and the new law.

ORTHOD.

They might euery where pray and praise God, as well as wee, but this was not a discharge of their dutie, vnlesse to these spirituall sa∣crifices, they annexed Carnall; to be offered at the time and place appointed; so their spirituall sacrifices were mixed, but ours are merely spirituall, and these are proper to the Gospell.

PHIL.

The h 1.109 offering spoken of by Malachi, doth succeed the offerings of the Iewes, and is offered in their place: but praier, fasting and the workes of charity succeed no sacrifices, but are ioyned with all kinds and sorts of sacrifices.

ORTHO.

Though the spirituall sacrifices of the Iewes, and of the Chri∣stians were all one in substance; yet they differed in manner, because (as I said) theirs were mixtly, ours merely spirituall; and the meerely succeed the mixed.

PHIL.

Our i 1.110 good workes, how beautifull soeuer they seeme, are stained and vn∣cleane, especially in the iudgement of hereticks, but this propheticall oblation is cleane of it selfe, and so cleane in respect of other sacrifices, that it cannot be polluted by vs, nor by any Priests, how wicked soeuer they are.

ORTHOD.

Are all our spirituall offerings vncleane? then all our good workes are vnperfect: and if they be vnperfect, they cannot iustifie, they are not meritorious, nor satisfactory.

PHIL.

And if they be cleane, as they must be, if they be the pure offering mentioned in Malachi, then may they iustifie, then are they meritorious and satisfactory.

ORTHO.

Not so, for they are cleane but vnperfectly; they are cleane be∣cause they proceed from the Chrystalline fountaine of the spirit of grace; they are vnperfect, because they are wrought by the will of man, which is re∣generate

onely in part, and so the pure Water gathereth mud, because it run∣neth through a muddie channel.

PHIL.

If they bee muddie, how can they bee called the pure offering in Malachi?

ORTHOD.

Because the denomination is of the worthier part, and the graces of God in his children are like vnto the a 1.111 light which shineth more & more vnto the perfect day: & though the flesh rebelleth against the spirit, yet at length the spirit shall haue the victory, and the flesh shalbe abolished. In the meane time though our good workes be stained with the flesh, yet God looketh not vpon them as an angry Iudge, but as a louing Father crowning his owne graces in vs, and pardoning our offences. Now because they are imperfect, they cannot iustifie, merit, nor satisfie, yet because they are Gods graces, they are the pure offering in Malachi.

PHIL.

Christ himselfe may seeme to expound the Prophet Malachi, as we doe, and withall to prophesie of the sacrifice of the masse in these words to the woman of Samaria, b 1.112 The houre commeth, and now it is, when the true ado∣rers shall adore the Father in spirit and verity, for the Father also seeketh such to adore him. c 1.113 For in this place by adoration is not meant euery adoration, but solemne and pub∣like, which is by sacrifice properly so called, which may bee proued because the Sa∣maritane speaketh of adoration tyed to a certaine place; d 1.114 Our fathers wor∣shipped in this mountaine, and yee say that in Ierusalem is the place where men ought to worship, which cannot bee meant but onely of adoration by sacrifice, and therefore if Christ answere the point, he must likewise speake of adoration by sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

Christ answered her question directlie, when hee said e 1.115 You adore that you know not, wee adore that wee know, for saluation is of the Iewes, thereby teaching, that the Iewes which sacrificed at Ierusalem, did accor∣ding to knowledge, grounded vpon the word of God: but the Samari∣tanes which sacrificed in mount Garizim, had not the true knowledge of God: and when hee had thus answered her question, concerning adorati∣on by externall sacrifice, hee tooke occasion to declare the adoration which should bee in the New Testament, not by externall sacrifices, but in spi∣rit and truth: as though hee should say the place of solemne worship was Ierusalem, the manner, by sacrifice; but now approcheth the time of the New Testament, wherein true worshippers, that is, all true Christians shall worship God, both priuatelie and publikelie, not onelie at Ierusalem, but euery where, not by externall sacrifices, which were corporall and Ty∣picall, as in the time of the Law, but in spirit and truth, euery where lifting vp holy and pure hands vnto the Lord of heauen. So this place affoards smal comfort, either for the Masse or the Massmonger.

CHAP. V

Of their argument drawen from the words of the institution of the Eucharist.

PHIL.

THE words of institution yeelde inuincible proofe, that Christ at his last Supper sacrificed his very bo∣dy and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine, to God the Father, and commanded his Apostles and their successours to doe the same vnto the end of the world.

ORTHO.

First you must proue that the very body and blood of Christ were vnder the formes of bread and wine, or else you will come short of your sacrifice.

PHIL.

That is plaine by the words of Christ: This is my body; This is my blood. For he spake of those things which he had in his hands, and hee cal∣leth them his body & blood, but to outward appearance there was only bread and wine: therefore seeing the words of our Sauiour must needs be true, it fol∣loweth, that the very body and blood of Christ were vnder the appearance of bread and wine.

ORTHOD.

The words of our Sauiour are most true, in that sense where∣in he ment them: But it was his will that they should be taken Sacramental∣ly, and not Substantially; which will appeare if Scripture be expounded by Scripture, and Sacraments by Sacraments. To beginne with Circumcision, the Lord said: a 1.116 This is my Couenant which you shall keepe betweene me and you, and thy seed after thee: let euery man child be circumcised: hoc est foedus meum, this thing is my Couenant: what thing? that euery man child be circumcised: therefore Cir∣cumcision is called the Couenant. But is it the couenant properly? it is impos∣sible; therefore it is improperly and figuratiuely: for so God himselfe ex∣pounds it. b 1.117 You shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and it shalbe a signe of the Couenant betweene me and you. Therefore Circumcision is called the Coue∣nant, because it is a signe of the Couenant. But is it a bare and naked signe? not so, for the Apostle saith, c 1.118 he receiued the signe of Circumcision as the seale of righ∣teousnesse of the faith which he had when he was yet vncircumcised: so circumcisi∣on was not onely a signe to signifie, but also a seale to confirme vnto him the righ∣teousnesse of faith, that is, the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith, and imputed to all that beleeue. Neither was this seale onely promissory, but also exhibitory, deliuering vnto them Christ Iesus with all his blessings. From Circumcision let vs come to the Passeouer: d 1.119 You shall eat it in hast, for it is the Lords Passeouer. what shall they eat? was it not a Lambe? there a Lambe is the Lords Passeouer. But why is it so called? The Lord himselfe expoundeth it, saying, e 1.120 the blood shall be a token for you: so the Lambe is called a Passeouer, be∣cause it was a token, that is, a signe and a seale of the Lords passing ouer them. From the ordinary Sacraments of the Old Testament, let vs come to the extraor∣dinary. Saint Paul speaking of the Rocke, saith, f 1.121 and this Rocke was Christ;* 1.122 which Saint Austine expoundeth truely and learnedly: not in substance but in signification. From the Sacraments of the Old Testament, let vs come to

the new. In the 6. to the Romanes it is said, a 1.123 wee are buried with him by bap∣tisme into his death: vpon which Saint b 1.124 Austine saith: the Apostle saith not we signifie the buriall, but he saith flatly wee are buried together with him: so hee cal∣led the Sacrament of so great a thing, no otherwise then by the name of the thing it selfe. To which agreeth your owne Iesuite; c 1.125 Baptizati vna cum Christo sepeliun∣tur, idest, Christi sepulturam representant. That is, those that are baptized are buried together with Christ, that is, they represent the buriall of Christ From Baptisme let vs come to the Lords Supper, which consisteth of two courses; the Bread re∣presenting his Body, and the Wine representing his Blood, the former may be expounded by the latter. For Christ calleth d 1.126 This Cup The new Testament, because it is a signe and seale of the new Testament. Therefore when it is said this is my Body, and this is my Blood: the wordes must likewise bee taken, figuratiuely; and sacramentally; as though it were said: this Bread and this Wine, is a signe and a seale of my Body and Blood. Yea these very wordes, this is my Body, may bee ex∣pounded by the like wordes, signifying the same thing: e 1.127 the Bread that wee breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? which word Communion must of necessitie bee taken figuratiuely, and sacramentally, for a signe and seale of this Communion. The Apostles were well acquainted with this figure and vsed it themselues before the institution of the Sacrament; for they saide vnto Iesus, f 1.128 where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer? by Passe∣ouer meaning the Paschall Lambe, which was a signe and memoriall of the Passeouer. Thus the whole course of Scripture proclaimeth, that these words this is my body, must not bee expounded Substantially, but Sacramentally. So the meaning is: this is my body, that is, this Bread is a Signe, Seale, and Sacrament of my Body.

PHIL.

When it is said, hoc est Corpus meum; this is my body, the g 1.129 opinion of Catholickes is, that the word (this) doth not demonstrate the Bread.

ORTHOD.

Why then saith the h 1.130 Scripture, Iesus tooke bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it and gaue it to them▪ saying, take, eate, this is my Body. First, hee tooke; what tooke hee? hee tooke Bread, materiall Bread, such as was vpon the Table. After hee had taken, hee blessed; what did he blesse? be bles∣sed that which hee tooke; but that was materiall Bread, therefore hee blessed the materiall Bread. After hee had blessed, hee brake and gaue; what did hee breake and giue? the same which hee had blessed, therefore as he blessed the materiall Bread, so hee brake and gaue the materiall Bread; when hee gaue he saide, take and eate: what should they take and eate but that which he gaue? therefore seeing hee gaue materiall Bread, hee commanded them likewise to take and to eate the materiall Bread. When hee had saide take and eate, hee added imediately, this is my Body. This? what this? this that hee had taken, this that he had blessed, this that hee had broken? this that hee gaue them, this that hee commanded them to take and eate. This, and nothing but this, hee calleth his Body. But this was materiall Bread, as hath beene proued, and therefore when he said this is my Body, the Pronoune (this) did demonstrate the materiall Bread.

2. PHIL.

HE i 1.131 tooke bread, & blessed bread, but after the blessing, it was changed.

ORTHOD.

As the Paschall Lambe was changed, when of a common

Lambe, it was made a Type of the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world: or as the water of Baptisme is changed, when of com∣mon water, it is made a holy representation of the blood of Christ: So the Bread and Wine are changed in the Lords Supper, that is, in vse, not in sub∣stance, for before they bee brought to the Lords Table, they are common Bread and common Wine, for the feeding of the body, but when they are sanctified according to Christs institution, then the God of heauen setteth an∣other stampe vpon them, and maketh them a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: yet as the lambe still remained a lambe in substance: as the water euen in the action of Baptizing, still remaineth water in substance: so the Bread and Wine still retaine their former substance, euen after the bles∣sing. For Christ did breake the Bread after he had blessed it, yet still it was Bread, as the Apostle witnesseth, saying, the a 1.132 Bread that we breake. Yea the Communicants doe eate it after it is broken, and still it is Bread, euen in the mouthes of the Communicants, For S. Paul saith, b 1.133 Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread. Neither is it called Bread, because it was bread, but because it is Bread, not in name onely, but in nature and properties. For after Consecration it nourisheth the body as before, it is subiect to fall vpon the ground, to bee eaten of Mice, to bee deuoured of Beastes, to bee burned in the fire, to bee turned to ashes, and to suffer putrifaction: which cannot be affirmed of the body of Christ, because c 1.134 that holy one shall not see corruption: so the wine after Consecration, doth not onely nourish and comfort the heart, but if the Priest drinke too much of it, it will intoxicate his braine, yea and if it bee kept too long, it will bee turned to vinegar, and putrifie. All which things doe argue, that the elements doe still retaine the true na∣ture and substance of Bread and Wine, and are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, in corporall manner by vertue of the blessing. But that wee may vnderstand this the better, I pray you, tell me what is meant by the blessing.

PHIL.

THe blessing is the same with Consecration, and was per∣formed* 1.135 in these wordes, this is my Body.

ORTHOD.

The Scripture expounds blessing by thankesgiuing. For Saint d 1.136 Matthew, Saint e 1.137 Luke and Saint f 1.138 Paul say, that when Christ had giuen thankes hee brake the bread, Saint g 1.139 Marke saith, that when he had blessed, hee brake it. So Matthew, Marke, Luke and Paul, say that when Christ had giuen thankes, he gaue the Cuppe, and mention not the blessing of it: Yet Saint h 1.140 Paul elsewhere calleth it the Cuppe of blessing. Likewise whereas Saint i 1.141 Luke saith, that Christ tooke the fiue loaues and the two fishes, and looked vp to heauen, and blessed them: Saint k 1.142 Iohn saith, that Iesus tooke the bread, and gaue thankes; whereby it is euident, that the holy Ghost vseth the word blessing, and thankesgiuing indifferently. But withall we must obserue that vnder the word thankesgiuing, is comprehended prayer. As when the l 1.143 Apostle tea∣cheth vs to receiue the creature with thankesgiuing, he renders this reason, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Where it is plaine that thankesgiuing in the former place, comprehendeth prayer, and the word Prayer vsed in the latter place, comprehendeth thankesgiuing: as though the Apostle

should haue said; we on our part must receiue the creature with prayer and thankesgiuing, because it is sanctified as on Gods part, by his word and ordi∣nance, so on our part, by prayer and thankesgiuing. Secondly, we must ob∣serue that the creature may be sanctified to a double vse: That is, either cor∣porall or spirituall, and to both by prayer, and thankesgiuing. Thirdly, that the sanctifying of a creature is in the Scripture called blessing, as when it is said, the Lord blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it. Now our Lord Iesus inten∣ding to institute a Sacrament, tooke the bread and gaue thankes, not only for the bread, but especially for the redemption of the Church, and praied that these elements of Bread and Wine, might be euerlastingly sanctified to Sacra∣mentall vse, thus the Bread and Wine were blessed. And whereas you with a 1.144 Bellarmine and others say, that this blessing was performed by these wordes, this is my Body, it cannot bee; For the blessing was finished, before those words were vttered. Saint Marke saith, that b 1.145 when he had blessed the Bread, hee brake it, by which it is euident that the blessing was accomplished before the bread was broken, & it is manifest that he brake it before he gaue it, therefore the blessing was finished before the Bread was giuen. But he gaue it, saying, take eate, this is my body, therefore the blessing was finished before he said, this is my body. Now how is it possible that he should blesse by those wordes seeing the blessing was fully ended before those words were begunne? Where∣fore Cardinall * 1.146 Caietan doth rightly call it, benedictionem laudis, non Consecra∣tionis. i. the blessing of praise, and not of Consecration. But if we should imagine, that he blessed by saying, this is my body, would not this imagination inuert the order of the actions of Christ?

PHIL.

THere are many Hysterologies in holy Scripture, and there∣fore* 1.147 no maruell if there be one here. Now the words and actions of Christ, reduced to their naturall Methode, are thus to be ordered. c 1.148 Hee tooke the Bread and when he had blessed, saying, this is my body, hee brake it and gaue it saying, take and eate.

ORTHOD.

Aquinas sayth, that these wordes were vttered d 1.149 non con∣sequenter sed concomitanter: meaning that he blessed by these wordes, this is my body, yet so, that the wordes were in pronouncing all the while that he brake and gaue the Bread. But this vanisheth of it selfe, because, as hath beene proued out of the text, the blessing was finished, before the wordes were be∣gunne. Cardinall e 1.150 Bessarion ordereth them thus: hee tooke the bread, and when he had blessed, saying, take eate, this is my body, he brake it and gaue it. But this may also be confuted by the same reason: and moreouer it containeth an absur∣ditie; for so he should bid them take it before hee gaue it. And thirdly, if hee blessed, saying, take eate, this is my body, then take and eate, are wordes of bles∣sing as well as this is my body. Now you with Durantus order them thus: he tooke the bread, and when he had blessed, saying, this is my body: he brake it, and gaue it, and saide, take and eate: but this is also confuted by the same argument drawne from the blessing. Secondly, the word (saying) which is but once in the Text, by ordering them thus, is vsed twice. Thirdly, the words, Take, eate, which Christ vsed first, are put last. Fourthly, whereas Christ spake all in one continuall sentence, the sentence is dismembred, and torne into two. These inconueniences, your owne Doctors Sotus and Caietanus did

see, and auoid. For as your learned a 1.151 Archbishop affirmeth, in his Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus, Hi tenent eundem fuisse ordinem rerum, & narrationis E∣uangelicae; That is, They hold that the actions of Christ were done in the same order, wherein they are reported by the Euangelists. But let vs feigne that the words and actions are to be ordered, as you would haue them: yet notwithstanding, by the word hoc, must needs be meant the Bread: for if he tooke the bread and blessed it, saying, Thus is my body, what can be meant by the Pronoune thus, but onely this bread?

PHIL.

THe Pronoune this, cannot demonstrate the Bread: b 1.152 for Bread is* 1.153 the Masculine gender, both in Greeke and Latine. But the Pronoune, this, is the Neuter gender 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, and hoc in Latine. Which agreeth in Gen∣der with the word body, which both in Greeke and Latine, is the Newter gender.

ORTHOD.

Indeed if you take it adiectiuely, it cannot concord, and therefore it is not so to be taken, but substantiuely, and might be Englished, This thing is my body.

PHIL.

If you take it so, you make an absurd Proposition: For a c 1.154 thing that is seene and openly knowne, cannot be termed this thing, vnlesse that thing be of the Neuter gender: for no man when hee demonstrateth his brother, will say, this thing is my brother, or demonstrating the Image of Caesar, will say, This thing is Caesar: therefore neither could it be rightly said of the Bread, which the disciples did see, This thing is my body. The reason is, because the subiectum of the Proposition should be better knowne then the praedicatum, therefore when the subiectum is knowne to the hearers in particular, it ought not to bee vttered by a name that is generall, but then onely it ought to be vttered by a name that is generall, when it is not knowne, but onely in generall. As for example; Certaine men see a thing afarre of, but yet they discerne not what it is, whether a tree, a stone, or a man, but I see that it is a man; Wherefore I will say to the rest, that thing is a man, and not he is a man; But if they see him to be a man, yet doe not discerne who it is, Peter or Paul, or some other, I will not say, that thing is Peter, because they know it already to be a man; But I will say he is Peter. Therefore seeing the disciples did see the Bread, and were not ignorant that it was Bread, it had bene a most absurd speech, if of that Bread the Lord had said, This thing is my body, when he should haue said, This Bread is my body: therefore it cannot bee that the word hoc, should demonstrate the Bread as the subiect of the Proposition.

ORTHO.

A thing that is seene and openly knowne, may be expressed by a Pronoune of the Neuter gender, without absurditie, although the thing it selfe bee not of the Neuter gender. As for example; When the Lord brought the woman vnto the man, he said, d 1.155 Hoc nunc est os ex ossibus meis, i. Now this is bone of my bones. For what thinke you is meant by hoc?

PHIL.

By hoc vndoubtedly is meant the woman; and it is as much as though he should say (to vse the words of e 1.156 Pererius,) Domine Deus, quae prius ad me adduxisti animalia, non erant mihi similia; haec autem mulier quam nunc ad me adduxisti, est planè similis mei; That is, O Lord God, The beasts which before thou broughtest vnto me, were not like vnto me; but this woman which thou hast brought vnto me, is very like vnto me.

ORTHOD.

If hoc in the words of Adam, may and must be taken for haec mulier, without any absurditie, Why may not the same hoc in the words

of Christ be taken for hic panis, without any absurditie? For in such cases we must not so much respect the subtilties of Logick, as the vse of Grammer.

PHIL.

I a 1.157 Adde a most strong Argument out of the Scripture: for if when it is said,* 1.158 This is my body, the Pronoune this, demonstrate the Bread; Then when it is said, this is my blood, the Pronoune this, should demonstrate the Wine. But b 1.159 S. Luke denieth that, when hee saith, This is the Chalice, the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you; Where these words (which is shed) are not ioyned in con∣struction with these wordes (in my Blood,) but with these (this Chalice,) as it ap∣peareth out of the Greeke: therefore S. Luke saith, that the Chalice was shed for vs. Now the vessell or Wine was not shed for vs, but the true blood: therefore the Cha∣lice signifieth not a Chalice of Wine, but a Chalice of Blood.

ORTHOD.

This Argument, for all the imagined strength, is but a rot∣ten reede, whereupon if you leane, you will lye in the ditch, and the trun∣chion of it wil runne into your hands. For the better demonstration where∣of, let me first aske you when, and how the bread is changed into the Body, and the wine into the Blood?

PHIL.

The Councell of Trent saith, c 1.160 First of all the holy Synode teacheth, and professeth openly, That in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the Consecra∣tion of the Bread and Wine, our Lord Iesus Christ very God and man, is contained vnder the formes of these sensible things, truely, really, and substantially. By which we learne, that the change is made after the words of Consecration.

ORTHOD.

Is it made successiuely, or in an instant?

PHIL.

d 1.161 Cardinall Bellarmine saith, That it is, In vltimo instantitermina∣tiuo illius prolationis, i. In the last instant which closeth vp the pronuntiation of the wordes.

ORTHOD.

If it be in the last instant, then it is not before the last syl∣lable; and therefore all the while the Priest is saying, Hoc est corpus me - there is no change, till hee come to the ende of - um. And so long as there is no change, it remaineth bread in substance, and consequently according to your owne doctrine at the pronouncing of hoc, there is bread in substance, and not the Body of Christ. Wherefore the Pronoune this, must of necessitie demon∣strate bread, and not the Body of Christ; So when it is said, This is my blood, the Pronoune this, doeth demonstrate the wine, and not the blood of Christ.

PHIL.

That which was shed for vs, was the true Blood of Christ, but this Chalice is said to be shed for vs, as may appeare by the Greeke in that place of Luke; therefore this Chalice, (that is, that which is contained in the Chalice) was the true blood of Christ. Now, where S. Luke saith, This Cha∣lice is the New Testament in my Blood, S. Matthew, and S. Marke haue, This is my Blood, vnderstanding by the Pronoune this, the same thing that S. Luke doeth by this Chalice; but he meant, as I declared, not a Chalice of Wine, but of Blood: therefore the Pronoune this, doeth not demonstrate the Wine, but the Blood.

ORTHOD.

The foundation of your Argument is, that this Chalice in S. Luke is said to be shed for vs; but this I deny.

PHIL.

It appeareth by the Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be referred to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it is to be construed, that the Chalice was shed.

ORTHOD.

It pleaseth the spirit of God in the Greeke Testament, some∣times to depart from that phrase and Analogie of speech, which is vsual in o∣ther Greeke Authors, either to expresse some Hebraisme, or for some other reason best knowne to his heauenly wisdome: therefore though a participle with an article praepositiue, should regularly be gouerned of somewhat go∣ing before of the same case number and gender: yet there are sundry exam∣ples in Scripture where it is otherwise, the Article supplying the place of a relatiue: as for example,a 1.162 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where according to the ordinary Greeke, it should bee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: ab ente, but it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where the Article praepositiue: standeth for a relatiue, as though he should say in Latine Ab eo qui est: likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should be according to the vsuall Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which concord∣eth not with any thing going before, but the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 standeth for a relatiue as though it were said in Latin, ab eo qui venturus, the like is to bee said of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By which it is euident, that the spirit of God de∣parteth from the Analogie of the Greeke tongue, and vseth sometimes the Article for a relatiue, and so it may be vsed in this place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and may bee translated thus, in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effusus est. Therefore though in another Authour which tied himselfe to the vsuall Greeke, it were requisite to referre 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ yet in the New Testament there is no such necessitie. Wherefore seeing according to the speech of the holy Ghost, the words stand indifferently to bee referred to both constructions, let vs now consider the thing it selfe, that so wee may finde the true construction of the words. The holy Ghost in these words of Saint Luke declareth, what Christ said when hee deliuered the cuppe: the same thing is expressed both in Saint Matthew and Saint Marke, and both of them vse the same participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and referre it cleerely and emdently to blood, both in the Greeke and your vulgar Latin, and not vnto the Cuppe. Whereby wee are taught that though in Saint Luke the construction stand indifferently betweene the blood and the cuppe, yet by conference of Scrip∣ture, it is restrained vnto the blood, and not vnto the cup: so the sence of the place is, this cup, (that is the wine in this cup) is the New Testament, that is (a signe and seale of the New Testament) in my blood, which blood is shed for you. And that it must needs bee meant of the cuppe of wine, may appeare by Saint Matthew, saying, And when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes, he gaue it them saying, Drink yee all of this. For by your owne confession before the words of Consecration it was wine, but Christ said this before the wordes of Conse∣cration, and therefore hee spake of wine: but hee addeth immediately, for this (which I giue you to drinke) is my blood: therefore hee calleth the wine his blood; so the pronoune (this) demonstrateth the wine. For how can it be otherwise? You confesse that it was wine, till the words of Consecration were ended: but when hee said (this) the words were not ended: and there∣fore then, according to your owne principles it was wine, which is agreeable to the Fathers. b 1.163 Tertullian: why (saith he) doth Christ call Bread his body? c 1.164 Cy∣prian: Our Lord at his table gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands, on the Crosse he yeelded his bodie to the souldiers hands to be wounded, that his Apostles might teach Nations, how Bread and VVine was his flesh and blood. d 1.165 Irenaeus: the Lord ta∣king

bread of this quality and condition, which is vsuall among vs, confessed it to bee his bodie? a 1.166 Hierome: Let vs heare that the bread which the Lord brake, and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body, himselfe saying, Take eate, this is my bodie: b 1.167 A∣thanasius: VVhat is the bread? the bodie of Christ. c 1.168 Cyrill: Christ thus auouch∣eth and saith of the bread, this is my bodie: d 1.169 Theodoret: In the very giuing of the mysteries hee calleth bread his bodie. All these Testimonies and sun∣dry others from time to time haue beene set before you by learned Di∣uines sufficient to perswade any reasonable man, that when Christ sayd, this is my bodie, this is my blood, the pronoune (this) did demonstrate the breade and the wine: and for mine owne part I see no reason, why you should denie it, for your Church teacheth a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine, into the bodie and blood of Christ. Now if the pro∣noune (this) doe not demonstrate the bread and the wine, then there is no bread and wine signified in the words of Christ, and if Christ speake not in those words of bread and wine, then it is impossible to proue out of these words any transubstantiation of the bread and wine, and so you haue made shipwracke vpon this rocke.

NOw if the pronoune (this) doe not demonstrate the bread, what else* 1.170 shall it demonstrate? The e 1.171 Glosse of the Canon law saith, The word (hoc) is taken materially and signifieth nothing. How say you? haue you not spunne a Faire thread, so to tosse and tumble the words of Christ, that you haue brought all to nothing? if you will say that it must needes signifie some thing, then let vs consider what this some thing shalbe. f 1.172 Stephen Gar∣diner did make it a kind of indiuiduum vagum, as though hee should say some∣what it is, but I know not what, but this cannot stand; because the pronoune (hoc) beeing a demonstratiue must of necessitie demonstrate some certaine and sensible thing: what shalbe this be? g 1.173 Occam saith, Hoc refertur ad corpus Chri∣sti: the pronoune (this) is referred to the body of Christ, but then it is an Identicall proposition, signifying that the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ, which were an idle speech and to no purpose. Yet it would cleane ouerthrow your transubstantiation. Therefore others thinke that by (hoc) should bee meant, Hoc ens, as Scotus, or haec substantia, as h 1.174 Caietan; well, what can this ens, or this substantia, bee, but onelie the Bread, and therefore why should they thus walke in Mistes and Cloudes, and not rather cleerely confesse the truth? But i 1.175 Iohannes de Burgo will make all cocke sure: for hee saith, Hoc sub hac specie praesens vel de propinquo futurum est corpus meum: that is, That which is present vnder this show, or shortlie shalbe, is my bodie. Hee durst not say simplie (that which is present) for then hee must either say the Bread, or the Bodie, but if hee said Bread hee should haue saide as wee say which had beene daungerous, and to expound it of the bodie, had beene against his owne conscience, because the wordes of Consecration were not yet finished. Therefore beeing in a quandary; what to say, hee thought hee would speake safely, though thereby hee shewed himselfe but slender∣ly resolued. Behold what it is for men to leaue the written word, and to wander in the wildernesse of their owne imaginations. But I hope you haue hammerd this point better, and therefore I pray you let vs heare your iudge∣ment.

PHIL.

THe opinion of Catholickes is that (Hoc) doth not demonstrate* 1.176 the bread, but the thing contained vnder the formes of Bread, which although it were formerly Bread, tamen tunc iam erat Christi Corpus, (as a 1.177 Bellarmine saith) that is, notwithstanding euen then it was the body of Christ.

ORTHOD.

What meaneth Bellarmine by tunc iam?

PHIL.

His meaning may appeare by that which hee saith of the Wine, by occasion of these wordes, Bibite ex hoc omnes: Drinke you all of this. For that clause (of this) doth not b 1.178 (saith he) signifie of this Wine, but of that which is contai∣ned in the Cup vnder the formes of Wine, which verely although it was VVine before Consecration, yet the wordes of Consecration being ended, it was not VVine but Blood: so though there were bread before Consecration, yet tunc iam, then pre∣sently, it was the Body of Christ.

ORTHOD.

If there were not the Body and Blood till after Consecrati∣on, then hee must confesse out of his principles, that the pronoune this doth distinctly demonstrate the Bread and Wine. Therefore hee spake against his owne conscience before when hee denied it. But why should you so dally and goe about to delude vs with doubtfull tearmes? why doe you stagger and stammer in this manner? you say it is not Bread, but that which is contained vnder the formes of Bread: as though that which is contained vnder the formes of Bread, were not the substance of Bread. For it must of necessitie either be the substance of Bread, or the substance of Christs Body, as witnesseth your owne Archbishop. c 1.179 Cum scriptura duarum tantum substantiarum quae demonstra∣ri hic queant, meminerit, viz. panis & Corporis, nescio cur fingant tertiam aliquam, quae nec panis sit nec Corpus, quae tamen per pronomen demonstretur, in quo mag∣nam Scripturae vim faciunt, infarcientes illi ex suo cerebro tertiam istam rem cuius nullam habet mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio falsa esset: si autem nullam tertiam rem ponere se dicunt, quae sit alia a Christi Corpore, cur tot verba effutiunt ad docen∣dum quod Corpus non demonstretur? cur nudam nobis rem non proponunt? cur tot il∣lam verborum inuolucris contegunt? in Dei verbo duarum tantum Substantiarum mentio habetur, & reuera nulla substantia fuit in Christi manibus post acceptum pa∣nem, praeter panem & Corpus, quae per pronomen demonstrari possit, & tamen solam illam substantiam singularem demonstrabat, quae erat in suis manibus sub speciebus panis. Tertiam ergo quaerere a pane & Corpore discretam, vanissimus labor est & ab∣surditate plenus. i. VVhen the Scripture maketh mention onely of two substances which can here bee demonstrated, that is of the Bread and the body, I knowe not why they should faigne any third, which is neither Bread nor Body, and yet is demonstrated by the pronoune; Wherein they offer great violence to the Scripture, stuffing into it out of their owne braine this third thing whereof they haue no mention, which being gran∣ted, the proposition should bee false. But if they say they put no third thing which is diuerse from the Body of Christ, why doe they spend so many wordes to teach that the Body is not demonstrated? Why doe they not propose to vs the naked matter? why doe they hide it with so many folds of wordes? In the word of God there is onely men∣tion of two Substances, and verely there was no substance in Christes handes beside Bread and his Body which can possibly bee demonstrated by the Pronoune, and yet hee did demonstrate onely that singular substance which was in his hands vnder the formes of Bread: therefore to seeke a third distinct from the Bread and the Body is a labour most vaine and full of absurditie. For what shall this third thing bee? you say

it is a 1.180 that which is contained vnder the shapes of Bread and Wine, but what is that? your owne b 1.181 Archbishop saith, quic quid dixerint, semper eo cogendi sunt vt dicant an Corpus an panis ostendatur in singulari, quia pronomen vice nominis proprij posi∣tum pro solo singulari sumipossit, That is, what soeuer they shall say, they are still to bee vrged to this issue that they tell vs whether the Body or Bread bee demonstrated in particular, because a pronoune put in place of a proper noune, must needes bee taken for a particular or singular. One of these two it must needes bee, vnlesse you will speake vainely and absurdly. Now the Body of Christ it cannot bee, for then it should bee there before Consecration, and without Consecration; and consequently it should bee the Body of Christ, before it were the body; and there should be blood in the Chalice before Cōsecration, & without Con∣secration; and consequently it should bee blood before it were blood, and blood without blood: which are intollerable absurdities. Thus you haue for∣saken the fountaine of liuing water, & digged vnto your selues broken ceast∣erns which will hold no water. You haue left the Scripture and the Fathers, you wander in the wildernesse of your owne conceites, and loose your selues in the laberynth of your owne imaginations. How much better were it to con∣fesse the truth with the Scripture and the Fathers, and giue the glory to God? your owne Cardinall c 1.182 Petrus de Aliaco did see euen in the darkenesse of Pope∣ry, that the Bread remained after Consecration; Patet quod iste modus est possibi∣lis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati biblicae, imo est facilior ad intelligendum & rationabilior. i. It is apparent that this maner is possible, neither is it repugnant to rea∣son, nor to the authoritie of the Bible, yea it is more easie to vnderstand, and more rea∣sonable. Now the Bread in substance cannot bee the Body of Christ in sub∣stance, but in signification. And consequently, the proposition cannot bee vnderstood substantially, but sacramentally.

PHIL.

Christ did not say, this signifieth my Body, or this is a Sacrament of my Body, or this is my Body sacramentally, but hee said absolutely, this is my Body.

ORTHOD.

Hee spake the wordes of wisedome, and that in the most excellent manner, for which manner of speech two reasons may bee ren∣dered. The first because hee was desirous to speake most emphatically: when wee see a childe like vnto his father, wee vse to say this childe hath his fathers face, and yet wee meane onely that hee is very like vnto his fa∣ther, yet wee say not hee is like vnto his father, but hee hath his fathers face, to expresse a most wonderfull similitude in a most emphaticall manner. So if one should haue seene the image of Alexander made by Phidias, hee might haue saide this is Alexander himselfe, not meaning that his wordes should bee taken properly, but to expresse the similitude most emphatically. E∣uen so our Lord Iesus willing to expresse in how liuely manner the Bread and Wine doe represent his Body and Blood, doth not say that they signi∣fie his Body and Blood, or that they are signes and Sacraments of his Bo∣dy and Blood, but speaking most significantly hee saith this (Bread) is my Body, this (Wine) is my Blood. Another reason is because our sweete Sa∣uiour would seale all his comfortable blessings vnto the soule of the wor∣thie receiuer, as if a King bestowing a Castle vpon one of his subiects, and reaching vnto him the sealed writing containing the graunt, should say vnto

him, behold here, take what I giue thee, it is such a Castle. For though hee might haue said, this writing doth signifie the gift of such a Castle, yet it is more significant and more comfortable to say, it is such a Castle. For so the king doth cheere vp his heart, and by that writing doth put him into actuall possession of the Castle. Euen so our Lord Iesus, though he might haue said, this is a sacrament of my body, yet to giue vs more cordiall comfort, he saith, this is my body, assuring vs thereby, that in giuing vs that Bread, hee giueth vs himselfe, and putteth vs in actuall possession of his graces and blessings, pur∣chased vnto vs by his body and blood.

PHIL.

Suppose we should grant that the pronoune (this) did signifie the bread, what could you conclude?

ORTHOD.

a 1.183 Bellarmine may teach you, who declareth out of the wri∣tings of Luther, that the words of the Euangelist, this is my body, according to Luther, do cary this sence, this bread is my body. Which sentence, saith Bellarmine, must eyther be taken tropically, that the bread may be the body of Christ, by way of sig∣nification, or it is plainely absurde and impossible. For it cannot be, that bread should be the body of Christ (properly:) wherefore the schollers of Luther, had rather runne backe to a trope, then admit a manifest absurditie. Here is a cleere confession that if by (this) be meant this bread, then the proposition must needs be taken tropi∣cally, that is, as we take it, or otherwise, it is absurde and impossible. But it were blasphemy to say that Christ spake absurdities, and impossibilities, ther∣fore if the pronoune (this) doe demonstrate the bread, the proposition must needes carry that sence which we make of it, and then the Protestants haue gotten the victory by the confession of your most learned Cardinall. For great is the trueth and preuaileth. So your carnall presence, and consequently both your sacrifice and Priesthood doe fall to the ground.

ANd if for disputations sake wee should faine, (though indeed it bee a* 1.184 meere fiction) that the body of Christ were corporally and carnally in the Sacrament, yet for all this, you are neuer able to proue your Sacrifice, vpon which your Priesthood dependeth, because the Scripture acknowled∣geth no other, then that vpon the Crosse. For b 1.185 neither by the blood of goates, and calues, but by his owne blood, (which the Scripture elsewhere calleth the c 1.186 blood of the Crosse) entred he in once into the holy place and obtained eternall re∣demption for vs. d 1.187 Hee is entred into the very heauen, to appeare now in the sight of God for vs, Not that he should offer himselfe often as the high Priest entred into the ho∣ly place, euery yeare with other blood, (for then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world) but now in the end of the world, he hath appeared once, to put away sinne by the Sacrifice of himselfe. e 1.188 And as it is appointed vnto men that they shall once die, and after that commeth the iudgement, so Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many, and vnto them that looke for him, shall he appeare the se∣cond time without sinne vnto saluation. f 1.189 This man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sinnes, sitteth for euer at the right hand of God, and from henceforth tarieth till his enemies be made his footestoole. For with one offering hath he Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified. If Christ haue shed, offered, and sacrificed his blood not often but once, and that vpon the Crosse, then can it not bee really shed, offered, and sacrificed in the Eucharist. If by one oblation, he hath obtained an eternall redemption, put away sinne, and Consecrated for euer those that

are sanctified; then your sacrificing of him is vaine and vnprofitable, contra∣ry to the Scripture, and iniurious to the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ.

PHIL.

He was sacrificed once, and not often, in that manner as he was vpon the Crosse; yet hee was sacrificed in the Eucharist also, as I will prooue both by the words of Christ, and by his actions. First, by his wordes, for hee said, this is my body which is giuen for you: or as it is in Saint Paul, which is bro∣ken for you: And againe, this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you. a 1.190 Is shed, is broken is giuen, not to you, but to God for you. Doe not these words argue a reall, actuall, and proper sacrifice?

ORTHOD.

They argue a sacrifice to God, not in the Supper, but on the Crosse.

PHIL.

You must consider that it is not said, which shall bee giuen, shall bee broken, shall be shed, but which is giuen, is broken, is shed, which argues that the place is not to be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse, that was to come, but of a sacrifice in the Eucharist, which was present.

ORTHOD.

The present tense, is vsed for the future, funditur for fundetur: for proofe wherof, I wil produce two witnesses, which with you are most au∣thentical, the vulgar translation, and the Canon of the Masse, in both which it is not funditur, is shed, but fundetur shall be shed. Whereby you may learne* 1.191 that the present tense vsed in the Greeke, is to be expounded by the future vsed in the Latin, and consequently it is to bee vnderstood of the sacrifice of the Crosse, which was to come.

PHIL.

c 1.192 Both are true, and neither of the readings ought to be denyed, and espe∣cially that of the present tense, because the Euangelists and S. Paul, did write in the present tense.

ORTHOD.

Ex ore tuo serue nequam: Is funditur in the present tense, lesse to be denyed, because the Euangelists, and S. Paul did write in the present tense? is it so indeede, albeit the Canon of the Masse, and your vulgar translati∣on which may not be reiected vnder any pretence, haue fundetur in the future tense? then it seemeth that the blessed originalls are to be preferred before a translation, whatsoeuer the Counsell of Trent haue said to the contrary. O the force of trueth, which breaketh out like lightning, and shineth in darke∣nesse, though the darkenes comprehendeth it not! but this by the way. Now for the present point, though the vulgar hath not expressed the letter of the text, yet it hath wel expressed the sence. For Cardinal d 1.193 Caietan confesseth that the Euangelists did vse the present tense, in saying the blood is shed: and S. Paul in say∣ing, the body is broken, and signified the future shedding and breaking vpon the Crosse: and the Iesuite e 1.194 Salmeron saith, Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae, vt ea di∣cantur fieri de praesenti, quae confestim esse aut mox fieri debent: that is, it is not to be denied, that it is the maner of the Scripture, that those things should be said to be pre∣sently done, which ought to be immediatly, or to be done by and by. Yea Cardinall f 1.195 Caietan goeth further, and saith, Tempus effus••onis & fractionis erat tum presens, quoniam inchoatum erat tempus passionis: that is, the time of shedding and breaking was then present, because the time of his Passion was begunne. Thus you see that this shedding and breaking which the Spirit of God expressed in the present tense, may aptly be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse, and that accor∣ding to the custome of the Scripture, euen in the iudgement of your owne

men. Therefore you cannot hence conclude any sacrifice in the Eucharist.

PHIL.

YEs, it may be proued by the words of Christ, as they are related by* 1.196 S. Paul, This is my body which is broken for you. For seeing the Euangelists doe say, (Giuen for you,) meaning to God as a sacrifice: therefore this breaking also must be expounded of a sacrifice. Now, breaking agreeth not to the Body of Christ, but onely as it is in the forme of bread: therefore S. Paul speaketh of Christ, as he was sacrificed in the Eucharist vnder the forme of bread.

ORTHOD.

The word breaking may properly be applied to Christ vpon the Crosse. For the Prophet Esay speaking of the Passion, saith, a 1.197 He was broken for our iniquitie. And againe, b 1.198 The Lord would breake him, and make him subiect to infirmities; And though it be most true, that there was not a bone of him bro∣ken, yet when he was nailed vpon the Crosse, his skinne, his flesh, his sinewes, his vaines were properly broken. Therefore this doeth not euince any sacri∣fice in the Eucharist, but onely vpon the Crosse.

CHAP. VI.

Of their Argument drawen from the Actions of Christ.

PHIL.

IT shall be euinced by the Actions of Christ.

ORTHOD.

By which of his Actions?

PHIL.

By his Consecrating and eating.

ORTHOD.

Indeed c 1.199 Bellarmine hauing anato∣mized your Masse, and searched euery ioynt and veine of it to finde your sacrifice, pronounceth per∣emptorily, That if the sacrifice consist not in Consecrating and consuming, then Christ did not sacrifice at all. Let vs therefore ponder these two points, begin∣ning with Consecration.

PHIL.

d 1.200 The Consecration of the Eucharist belongeth to the essence of a sacri∣fice, as Bellarmine hath proued by fiue Arguments.

ORTHOD.

Hee hath produced certaine idle Arguments, in reading whereof one may seeke Bellarmine in Bellarmine, and not finde him. But let vs heare them.

PHIL.

First, e 1.201 The sacrifice of the Masse is offered in the person of Christ: But the Priest performeth nothing so euidently in the person of Christ, as Consecration, in which he saith, This is my Body: Therefore the sacrifice consisteth in Conse∣cration, as in an essentiall part thereof.

ORTHOD.

By what authoritie doe you offer this Sacrifice? we haue weighed Christs words, and can finde no such warrant. Therefore looke you to it, lest you be found sacrilegious vsurpers of Christs Office. And what if the Priest Consecrate in the person of Christ? This doeth not argue a sacri∣fice, much lesse that the Consecration is any essentiall part of a sacrifice. And if it be, then it must either be the matter, or forme: The matter it cannot be; because it is not a thing f 1.202 permanent, but a transient action. And g 1.203 Bellarmine him∣selfe, when hee went disguised in the habit of Tortus, affirmed, That the words of Consecration doe not concurre formally, but efficiently to the oblation.

PHIL.

Secondly, ^h There is no other action of Christ, which can be called a

sacrifice, either before or after Consecration: therefore it must needs consist in these two proposed.

ORTHOD.

Yes, his Oblation vpon the Crosse was a proper Propitia∣torie sacrifice: but in the Eucharist there is no such sacrifice at all.

PHIL.

Thirdly, a 1.204 If the Apostles in the beginning added nothing to the words of Consecration, but the Lords Prayer, then it must needs be they did sacrifice by Conse∣crating: for the Lords Prayer cannot be called a sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

You presume there was a sacrifice, Which is to begge the question.

PHIL.

Fourthly, b 1.205 The representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse, consisteth in Consecration, as S. Thomas teacheth, but the Reall and representatiue should be both together.

ORTHOD.

And why so? The representatiue was in the Sacrament, the Reall vpon the Crosse. In the first institution the representatiue was be∣fore the Reall: In all other celebrations of it, the Reall is before the represen∣tatiue. Neither can you conclude that there is a Reall sacrifice properly in the Sacrament, because there is a representatiue.

PHIL.

Fifthly, c 1.206 This is the iudgement▪ of the Fathers. d 1.207 Irenaeus saith, that Christ did then teach the Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church through∣out all the world doeth vse, when hee saith, This is my body. e 1.208 Cyprian, When the bread is blessed with the words of Consecration, then the Eucharist is made both a medicine, and a burnt offering. f 1.209 Chrysostome, The words of the Lord, This is my Bo∣die, giue strength to the Sacrifice, vntill the end of the world. g 1.210 Gregory saith, That in the very houre of the immolation at the voice of the Priest, the Quiers of Angels are present, the Heauens are opened, high and low are ••oyned together of visible and inui∣sible things is made one; Hee teacheth euidently, that the Immolation is perfected by the Consecration.

ORTHOD.

One place of your master of the Sentences, shall expound them all. h 1.211 Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: & an Christus quotidie immoletur, aut semel tantum immolatus sit. Ad hoc breuiter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur, vocari sacrificium & oblationem: quia memoria est & representatio veri Sacrificij, & sanct••e immolationis factae in ara cru∣cis. Et semel Christus mortuus in Cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso: quotidie autem immolatur in sacramēto, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. That is, There is a question, whether that which the Priest doeth, bee properly called a sacrifice or an immolation; And whether Christ be dayly offered, or were of∣fered onely once. To this may be briefly said, That that which is offered and Conse∣crated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memoriall and re∣presentation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation made vpon the altar of the Crosse. And Christ dyed once vpon the Crosse, and there was offered in himselfe, and he is dai∣ly offered in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is a memoriall made of that which was done once.

PHIL.

ONely a memoriall? Nay I will prooue that there is truely* 1.212 and properly a sacrifice, for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and reall sacrifice cōsisteth. First, of i 1.213 common it must be made holy. Secondly, being made holy, it must be k 1.214 offered to God. Thirdly, That which is l 1.215 offered, must be ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction.

ORTHOD.

Then let vs consider whether these three things bee found in the Eucharist, and first it is euident, that Bread and Wine of common are made holy, euen the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally: but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice, then earthly elements are offered for the redemp∣tion of the Church, which once to imagine were horrible impiety.

PHIL.

a 1.216 That which of common is so made holy, that it remaineth, (and that onely) without doubt is properly sacrificed; but the substance of the Bread and Wine doe not remaine, and therefore they are not the sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

That they doe remaine, hath beene alreadie proued, and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy, that it re∣maineth, then a piece of bread shalbe the sacrifice for the sinnes of the world. But if we should faigne that the substance of the elements were taken away, and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally vnder the formes of Bread and Wine, yet you could not proue your sacrifice, for where doe you find the second point, that is, oblation?

PHIL.

b 1.217 Deo offertur, dum in altari dei collocatur. Nam victimam in altari ponere, est reipsa illam deo offerre; & quia vi consecrationis fit, vt corpus Christi & sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare, mediante manu Sacerdotis, ideo verbis conse∣crationis vera & solennis oblatio celebratur; that is, It is offered to God, while it is placed vpon the Altar of God. For to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar, is in very deed to offer it vnto God; and because it commeth to passe by the force of Consecration, that the bodie and blood of Christ beginne to bee reallie vpon the Altar, by the meanes of the Priests hand, therefore a true and solemne oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration.

ORTHOD.

First, if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ, beginne to bee really vpon the Altar, then it is by meanes of the Priests tongue, and not of the Priests hand. Secondly, it is one thing to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar, and an other thing really to offer it, as may ap∣peare by the wordes of the Scripture, c 1.218 And when they came to the place which God had shewed him, Abraham builded an Altar there, and couched the wood, and bound Izhak his sonne, and laied him on the Altar vpon the wood: Here the sacri∣fice was really laide vpon the Altar, but it cannot bee said that hee was real∣ly sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering, but onely in Abrahams intenti∣on, and Gods acceptation. Thirdly, if the sacrifice bee the body and blood, then seeing by your owne doctrine the bodie and bloud are not vpon the Altar, til the words of Consecration be finished, it followeth, that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished, and consequently there is no obla∣tion of the sacrifice begunne before the Consecration bee finished. Now if the oblation beginne after the Consecration is ended, then is it not ce∣lebrated by the wordes of Consecration, vnlesse you will say that an ob∣lation may bee celebrated before it bee, and that a thing is ended before it beginne. But let vs faigne, that the body and blood of Christ, were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration, yet you cannot thence con∣clude a sacrifice. For you required a third condition in a sacrifice, that is, the destruction of the thing sacrificed.

PHIL.

d 1.219 The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true, reall, and externall mutation and destruction, which is necessary to the beeing of a Sacri∣fice.

a 1.220 For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice, bee plainely destroied, (that is) So changed that it ceaseth to bee that which it was before.

ORTHOD.

How were the sacrifices to be destroied?

PHIL.

b 1.221 If they bee liuing things, by killing; if without life, and solid, as meale, salt and frankincense, they were to be destroied by burning; if liquid as blood, wine and water, they were to be destroied by effusion or pouring out.

ORTHOD.

Then it will follow from your owne positions, that if Christ bee aliue in the Eucharist, either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him, or else he killeth him before hee sacrifice him, and consequently either there are no sacrifising Priests in the New Testament, except Christ onely, or if there bee any, they are all murtherers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist, and yet not aliue, how can this bee? Is not Christ in the Eucharist now, as hee was at the first institution? When Christ said, this is my bodie, his bodie was then aliue, and now also is liuing in Heauen.

PHIL.

c 1.222 The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Coun∣cell of d 1.223 Trent, that not onely the Body and blood, but also the soule and diuinity, yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist, but it is certaine, that the soule and diuinity, are not in the Eucharist, by vertue of the Consecration, but onely by naturall concomitance, because where the one is, there the other must needs be vnited with it.

ORTHOD.

If the soule bee vnited with it, then it is aliue, and then it is either no Sacrifice, or else the former absurdities follow; and if the bo∣die should bee without life in the Eucharist, then according to your po∣sitions seeing it is a thing solid, it cannot bee a Sacrifice, vnlesse it bee plainelie destroied by burning; if it bee capable of burning or destroying, it is not corporallie the bodie of Christ, * 1.224 For the holie one shall not see corrup∣tion, and if it bee not destroyed, then you confesse that it is no Sacri∣fice: so euery way you are intangled. But seeing you hold this to bee a Sa∣crifice, and that euery Sacrifice must be consumed, therefore you must tell vs how this is consumed.

PHIL.

It is consumed and destroied by eating.

ORTHOD.

The people doe eate it as well as the Priests, shall they also be sacrificers?

PHIL.

c 1.225 As it is performed by the people, it is no part of the Sacrifice, but as it is performed by the Priest, it is an essentiall part.

ORTHOD.

Doe your Priestes eate Christ properly, or improperlie? if improperlie, then how is the sacrifice consumed? For if it bee consumed onely by eating, and you doe not eate it but improperly, then it is not con∣sumed but onely improperly; and seeing you hold this consuming to bee of the essence of the sacrifice, therefore there is no sacrifice but improperly, and consequently you are no Priests but improperly.

PHILO.

f 1.226 The bodie of Christ is eaten properlie and truely, euen with the mouth in the Eucharist: for to the essence of eating attrition is not necessarie, but it is sufficient, If it bee taken and conueied from the mouth to the stomacke by humane and naturall instruments, that is the tongue and the pallat.

ORTHOD.

If your Priests eate Christ properly with their bodie, then are you not men, but monsters of mankinde. For is not this to make the Priest a Cyclops, or a Caniball, or rather worse then a Caniball? for a Caniball deuours the flesh onely of a meere man, but this is to deuoure and consume the flesh and blood of the Sonne of God.

PHIL.

The Canibals doe it in bloody manner, so doe not wee.

ORTHOD.

But a 1.227 Saint Austin thinketh that to eate the flesh, and drinke the blood of Christ properly, is a wicked deede, and therefore concludeth that when Christ willeth vs to eate his flesh, and drinke his blood, the words must bee taken figuratiuely, and not properly: whereby it is euident that hee con∣demneth all eating of Christ properly, whether it bee in a bloody manner, or an vnbloody. But to proceede, how can the body of Christ bee consumed with eating? if it cannot, then by your confession there is no Sacrifice.

PHIL.

b 1.228 Wee must consider in the body of Christ a double being, a naturall, and a sacramentall. When it is eaten, it looseth not the naturall, but the sacramentall.

ORTHOD.

The destruction required in a sacrifice must bee reall, for it must cease really to bee that which it was; as for example the lambes which were daily offered, first they were slaine, and so ceased formally to be lambes; then the flesh was burned, so it ceased materially to bee flesh; and when any part of the sacrifice was eaten, and by eating turned into the substance of man, then it ceased to bee that flesh, which it was before. Now if in the Eu∣charist the body of Christ bee not really consumed, then according to your positions it is not really sacrified; and yet for mine owne part I doe not see, but that it followeth according to your principles, that the very natu∣rall essence and being of Christ is properly destroyed: which is horrible blasphemie.

PHIL.

How can you conclude any such things from our principles?

ORTHOD.

You teach that the very naturall body and blood of Christ, and that onely is contained vnder the formes of Bread and Wine: but I will proue inuincibly, out of your principles, that the thing which is contained vn∣der the formes of Bread and Wine is substantially destroyed, and loseth the natural essence that it had before▪ But first let me aske you a question; Doe not the consecrated elements nourish after Consecration?

PHIL.

c 1.229 Nourish? yes.

ORTHO.

If you doubt of it, it may be prooued by experience, for there is no question but the Priest or any man else may liue a long time, though he haue no other sustenance but such Bread and Wine. And therefore it is cer∣taine that it nourisheth. But nourishment is, when the substance of the meate is changed into the substance of the nourished; & therefore if the consecrated elements doe nourish, they must needes haue a substance which must bee changed into the substance of the nourished. What substance is this? Bread you say it is not; for that is vanished by Consecration. And therefore it can bee nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ; whereupon it wil follow, that the naturall Body and Blood of Christ are substantially changed into the substance of the nourished, be it man, bird, or beast, which is out ragious blas∣phemie. And if it bee so changed, then it hath lost the naturall being and es∣sence

which it had before, and consequently the Body and Blood of Christ is substantially consumed and destroyed. If you bee ashamed of this, then bee ashamed of the fountaine from whence it floweth.

PHIL.

It is not the Body and Blood of Christ that nourisheth, but the a 1.230 species.

ORTH.

The species are accidents: can accidents nourish? then a sub∣stance shall bee made of accidents, and then wee shall haue a world of ab∣surdities.

PHIL.

They nourish by diuine miracle.

ORTHOD.

When yee haue nothing to answere, then yee flie to mira∣cles. So if the Priest drinke too much of the wine, hee shall be drunke by a mi∣racle, & if the mouse find the way into the box, it shall growe fat by a miracle, Surely this is a miraculous answere. For are not all miracles immediately from God? therefore if your answere be true, God should prouide miracles for fat∣ting of mice, and concurre with a miracle to make the Priest druncke. If these things be absurde, then your carnall presence, your sacrifice and your Priest∣hood are all absurde.

CHAP. VII.

Of their argument drawn from the practise of the Church in the time of the Apostles.

PHIL.

THE practise of the Church doth shewe the con∣trary, for it is saide, b 1.231 as they were ministring to our Lord, and fasting, the holy Ghost, &c. In which place c 1.232 for ministring, we might haue translated sacrificing, for so the Greeke doth signifie; and so Erasmus translated. Yea we might haue translated, saying Masse, for so they did: and the Greeke Fathers hereof had the name Liturgie, which Erasmus translateth Masse, saying, Missa Chrysostomi.

ORTH.

This ministring will not prooue your Massing. For the Greeke word is applied to the d 1.233 Angels which I hope you will not call Masse Priestes. It is likewise applied to the ciuil e 1.234 magistrate, and shall their ministring also be Massing? and though Erasmus translate it sacrificing, yet there is no necessi∣tie to expound it of your Massing sacrifice. Neither doth the word Masse in∣ferre any such thing, for it is not from an Hebrew or Chaldee originall, as f 1.235 Ba∣ronius would haue it, that thereupon hee might ground an oblation; but it is deriued from the latin as g 1.236 Binius prooueth, calling the defendours of the con∣trary opinion, Nouellistes; and h 1.237 Bellarmine confesseth that the word Missa is not mentioned of the Grecians, which vse in stead thereof the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which hee interpreteth munus seu ministerium publicum: a publicke office or mi∣nistry. So the meaning of the place is that they were publickely perfor∣ming their ministeriall function, which is plainely set downe by Saint i 1.238 Chry∣sostome: what is ministring? preaching.

PHIL.

This cannot bee, for the text saith, they did minister to the Lord, but you cannot say they preached to the Lord, or ministred Sacra∣ments to the Lord.

ORTHOD.

Very true. But in performing these things to the Church,

they did minister to the Lord, because they did them to the honour of God.

PHIL.

This word when it is applied to sacred things, and put absolutely, is euery where taken for the ministery of Sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

The contrary may appeare, because the same word put ab∣solutely without any addition, is applied in holy * 1.239 Scripture vnto the ministring of almes vnto the Saints.

PHIL.

THe sacrifice of the Masse, may be strongly prooued out of* 1.240 the first to the Corinthians: a 1.241 Flee from the seruing of idoles, I speake as to wise men. Your selues iudge what I say, the chalice of benediction, which we doe blesse, is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? For being many, wee are one bread, one body, all that participate of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: they that eate the hostes, are they not partakers of the Altar? what then? doe I say that that which is immolated vnto idoles, is any thing? or that the idol is any thing? But the things that the heathen doe immolate, to diuels they do immolate, and not to God. And I will not haue you become fellows of the diuels. You cannot drinke the chalice of our Lord, and the chalice of diuels: you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord, and of the Table of diuels. b 1.242 Out of these words, are gathered three argu∣ments, the first from the comparison of the Lords Table, with the altar of the Gentiles, where they offered to idoles, and with the altar of the Iewes, where they offered carnall sacrifice to the true God. For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar; now an altar is erected to sacrifice, and there is no sacrifice without a Priest. The like reason may be drawne from the comparison of the Eucharist, with their sacrifice, and from the partaking the one and the other.

ORTHOD.

The point of the comparison consisteth in this, that as those which receiue the Sacraments of Christians, doe therein declare themselues to be partakers of the Christian religion: so those which vse the sacrifices and ceremonies of Iewes or Gentiles, doe thereby signifie that they are par∣takers of their religion; and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to re∣fraine from the tables and feasts of idoles, least thereby they should haue fel∣lowshipwith the diuels. Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar.

PHIL.

THe altar is plainely mentioned to the Hebrewes, c 1.243 Wee haue an al∣tar:* 1.244 whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle, by which altar is meant Christs body in the Eucharist.

ORTHOD.

The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist, but of the suffe∣ring of Christ without the gate: and of the sacrifice of praier and thanksgiuing: therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well: d 1.245 Istud altare, &c. that is, This altar is either the Crosse of Christ, on which Christ was offered for vs, or else Christ himselfe in whom and by whom, wee offer vp our prayers. And this is the golden altar, of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they haue not power to eate, that is, to receiue the fruit of Christs passion, and to bee incorporated into him as to the head, which serue the tabernacle of legall things, for e 1.246 if ye be circumcised, Christ profi∣teth you nothing: or they serue the tabernacle of the body, which follow carnall delights, for to such he profiteth nothing. Hitherto Thomas, whose authoritie with others perswadeth f 1.247 Bellarmine to dismisse this argument out of the field, because saith he, there are some Catholickes which vnderstand by the altar, the Crosse or Christ him∣selfe:

I doe not vrge that place. Thus haue you searched the Scriptures, and can∣not find your sacrifice, much lesse can you find that it is properly propitiato∣ry. For that honour belongeth onely to the sacrifice of the Crosse.

PHIL.

Did not a 1.248 Iob who liued vnder the law of nature, offer burnt offerings. daily for his children? Did not God himselfe b 1.249 commaund that the friends of Iob should sacrifice for their sinnes? Are there not many sacrifices for sins ap∣pointed in Leuiticus? Wherefore, if the sacrifice of the Crosse did not hinder that these should be propitiatory, why should it hinder our sacrifice from be∣ing propitiatorie?

ORTHOD.

Though Iob and others did offer sacrifice vnder the law of nature, yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature, but by the direction of Gods spirit; and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commaunded in the law: and all of them were Types of Iesus Christ, and are said to take away sinnes; not properly but Typically: for as the Apostle sayth, c 1.250 It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinnes.

CHAP. VIII.

Of their argument drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers.

PHIL.

THe meaning of the Scriptures was well knowen to the ancient Fathers, who al with one voice acknow∣ledge both Priest, Altar, oblation, and sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

They doe so, but not such as you meane. For the oblation & sacrifice which they de∣fend in the Eucharist, is not properly propitiatory, nor properly a sacrifice, but only a commemoration, and a representation of the soueraigne sacrifice.

PHIL.

d 1.251 If the Fathers had meant so, then there was no cause why they should speake otherwise of the Eucharist, then of Baptisme. But they neuer called Baptisme a sacrifice, or said, that to Baptise, is to sacrifice. Therefore, it is a signe that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice, they name it so properly.

ORTHO.

Doe the Fathers neuer call Baptisme a sacrifice? Your lear∣ned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary, saying: e 1.252 Sedquaeris, quid causae pleris∣que antiquorum fuerit, vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint, ideoque dixerint non su∣peresse hostiam pro peccato, quia Baptismus repeti non potest. Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur, & per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis, ad ple∣nam peccati remissionem, hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt: that is, But you demaund what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Bap∣tisme a sacrifice, and therefore said, that there remained no sacrifice for sinne, because Baptisme cannot be repeated▪ Truly because in Baptisme we die together with Christ, & by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Crosse is applied vnto vs, to the full remission of sinne, hence they call Baptisme metaphorically a sacrifice. Here is a cleare confession that many Fathers call Baptisme a sacrifice, and among these many, S. Austin is one, f 1.253 Quod (holocaustum dominicae passionis) eo tempore offert quisque pro pec∣catis suis, quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur & Christianorum fidelium nomine Bap∣tizatus imbuitur, that is, which burnt offering of the Lords passion, euery one offereth

for his owne sinnes at such time as hee is dedicated (to GOD) by faith in the Passion of Christ, and beeing baptised is indued with the Name of faithfull Christians. And no maruaile if the Fathers doe call it a Sacrifice, see∣ing they call it the Passion of Christ. Wee are dipped in the Passion of Christ, saith a 1.254 Tertullian. Baptisme is Christs Passion, saith b 1.255 Chrysostome; mea∣ning that it is the representation of it. So concerning the Eucharist, though Christ (saith c 1.256 S. Gregorie) liuing immortally, now dieth not, yet hee dieth in this mysterie, and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people; That is, saith the d 1.257 Glosse, his death and Passion is represented. And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences, that, that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And e 1.258 Bellarmine granteth, that Thomas, and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere, that it is called an oblation, because it is a representation of the oblation.

PHIL.

f 1.259 Peter Lombard, when he asketh the question, whether that which the Priest doth, be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation, taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing, as though he had asked, Whether that which the Priest doth, be a killing of Christ: and answereth most rightly, that Christ was truely offered, that is, slaine, but once, and that now he is not properly offered, that is, slaine, but only in a Sacrament and representation.

ORTHOD.

First, I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whe∣ther this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill. Secondly, nei∣ther will this shift serue his turne: for if the Priest doe not so, he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him: because in a sacrifice there must be the destru∣ction of the thing sacrificed, as is before declared out of Bellarmine.

PHIL.

THe Councell of g 1.260 Trent, pronounceth a curse against all those which* 1.261 deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse; And they haue reason: for as the Apostles, so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, were Masse-Priests. For h 1.262 S. Ambrose testifieth, That imposition of hands, is certaine mysticall words, whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed, receiuing authoritie, his conscience bearing him witnesse, that he may bee bold to offer sacri∣fice to God in the Lords stead.

ORTHOD.

S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe, saying, i 1.263 Quid ergo nos? nonne per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed recordationem facientes mortis eius; That is, What therefore doe we? doe we not offer dayly? true∣ly wee offer, but so, that wee make a remembrance of his death▪ And againe, k 1.264 Ipsum semper offerimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur; That is, Wee offer him alwayes, or rather, we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice.

PHIL.

S. Chrysostome saith, l 1.265 In many places there is offered not many Christs, but one Christ, euery where being full and perfect, both here and there.

ORTHOD.

S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place, Wee offer him, (saith he) or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That is, We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice. Where, by the way you may see, that S. Ambrose did bor∣row his former speech from this place of Chrysostome.

PHIL.

S. Augustine saith, That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sa∣crifice according to the Law of Moses, m 1.266 Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrifi∣cium, sanctum sanctorum, quod corpus eius est; That is, Because this Sacrifice the Ho∣ly

of holies, which is his body, was not yet instituted. And elsewhere, a 1.267 Quid gratius offerri, aut suscipi posset, quàm caro sacrificij nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri; That is, What can be offered or accepted more gratefully, then the body of our Priest, being made the flesh of our Sacrifice? And Cyrill, Leo, Fulgentius, and other Fa∣thers haue commonly the like.

ORTHOD.

Then the answering of Austine, will be the answering of all. Now what his meaning was, let himselfe declare. b 1.268 Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe? And yet he is offered in a sacrament, not onely at all the solem∣nities at Easter, but euery day to the people; Neither doth he lye, that being asked, doth answere that he is offered: For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And for this resemblance, they take the names commonly of the things themselues: therefore, as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ, is the Body of Christ, the sacrament of the Blood of Christ, is the Blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith. And elsewhere, c 1.269 The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came, was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered, is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he asc••nded.

PHIL.

YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church, For, d 1.270 the* 1.271 Nicen Councell in that Canon, which Caluine and all other receiue, saith plainely, That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily, is layde vpon the holy Table.

ORTHOD.

The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world, is layd vpon the holy Table, not substantially, but Sacramentally.

PHIL.

But the Councell meaneth substantially: for they say, e 1.272 It is come (by relation) to the holy Councell, that in certaine places and Cities, the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests. Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliue∣red this, That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice, should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it. Where you may see, that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ, but they plainely describe a Priest, by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it; and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power.

ORTHOD.

Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel, then those which were present, and subscribed vnto it? One whereof was Eusebius.

PHIL.

Very true, and hee telleth, how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem, f 1.273 some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacri∣fices, and mysticall Consecrations. Who were these but Masse-priests? and what were the vnbloody sacrifices, but the sacrifice of the Masse? for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily.

ORTHOD.

Let Eusebius expound Eusebius: g 1.274 Christ hauing offered him∣selfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father, ordained that we should offer a remem∣brance thereof vnto God, in stead of a sacrifice. Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius, there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called, but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice? And this remembrance hee thus describeth; h 1.275 VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table. He calleth it not a sacrifice, but a re∣membrance, celebrated, not by the substance of his Body and Blood, but by the signes, and that not vpon an Altar, but vpon a Table; and this he calleth

an vnbloodie sacrifice, as appeareth by his owne words; And pleasing God well, wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices, and reasonable and acceptable to him. So it is as cleere as the noone day, that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacri∣fice, but expoundeth the matter of the Sacrament in all respects, as wee doe, and he being a part of the Nicen councell, and one that helped to make the Canons and subscribed vnto them, must needs be holden for a sufficient and faithfull interpreter of his owne, and their meaning. So in him wee haue 318. Bishops, the most reuerent sages and Senate of the Christian world after the Apostles daies, al denying your sacrifice, & maintayning a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice. Wherefore when they describe a Priest by offering of sacrifice, they doe not meane a sacrifice in substance, but in signification and repre∣sentation. Neither can it bee proued that euer any of the ancient Fathers thought otherwise, nor that any one of them was a Masse Priest, as may fur∣ther appeare by a 1.276 our learned diuines, which haue handled this point, to whom I referre you. Wherefore seeing your sacrifising neither can be pro∣ued by the scriptures, nor by the Fathers rightly vnderstood, but is contrary to both: we detest it to the bottome of hell, as a most blasphemous abhomi∣nation, derogating from the soueraigne, and all sufficient sacrifice offered once for all by that one Priest, which with one oblation entred the holy place, and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs. Hitherto of the first function of Po∣pish Priesthood: Now let vs come to the second.

CHAP. IX.

Of the second question which concerneth the power of absolution.

PHIL.

THe second function of Priest-hood, is the power of absolution which God hath giuen neither to King nor Emperour, to Angell nor Archangell, but onely to the Priest: and in this also a 1.277 you are de∣fectiue in the Church of England.

ORT.

What absolution doe you meane, and in what manner is it giuen?

PHIL.

There is an absolution in the Consistory, and an absolution in the Court of Conscience; the former is from excommunication, and other spirituall censures: the latter (which we meane) is from sinne, and is giuen in Priestly ordination, euen by the words of Christ himselfe. For b 1.278 the Bishop imposeth hands, saying, whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen, and whose sinnes you retaine they are retained. &c.

ORTHOD.

The very same words are vsed in the Church of England as may appeare by the booke: c 1.279 The Bishop with the Priests present shall lay there hands seuerally vpon the head of euery one that receiueth Orders: The receiuers hum∣bly kneeling vpon their knees, and the Bishop saying, Receiue the holy ghost, whose sinnes thou dost forgiue they are forgiuen, and whose sinnes thou dost retaine they are retained, and therefore if the power of absolution bee giuen by these words, then it is giuen and receiued in the Church of England.

PHIL.

Not so, for though you haue the words, yet you haue not the true sence of the words: and therefore neither doe your Bishops giue it, nor you receiue it.

ORTHOD.

Then let vs without all partiallity, examine the true sence & meaning of them. For as much therefore as our Sauiour did represent a reall donation both by breathing, and saying, receiue; without all controuersie somewhat was really giuen, & actually received; but what was that? vndoub∣tedly the holy Ghost; for he said, receiue the holy Ghost. But what is meant by the holy Ghost? It cannot be denied, that they receiued the presence of the spirit for their direction, support and assistance, and the Lord hath promised the same spirit to all faithfull ministers, when he said, a 1.280 Behold I am with you (that is with you and your successors) vntill the end of the world. To this purpose it is well spoken of Leo, b 1.281 Qui mihioneris est author, ipse fiet administrationis adiutor. that is, He that is author of my burthen, will be the helper in my administration: and a∣gaine, c 1.282 Dabit virtutem qui contulit dignitatem, i. Hee that gaue me the dignity, will giue me strength to performe it. But seeing it is euident, that in the booke of God, the holy Ghost doth many times signifie the gifts of the holy Ghost, to point out the fountaine and welspring of those heauenly graces; the interpretation of Saint d 1.283 Ierome may seeme most consonant to reason, who by the holy Ghost vnderstandeth in this place, a grace of the holy Ghost, in these words, acceperunt spiritus sancti gratiam, that is, they receiued a grace of the holy Ghost. It remaineth therefore that we consider what grace that was. It was not the grace of adop∣tion or regeneration, because they had receiued that already, as appeared by the fruits thereof e 1.284 We beleeue & know that thou art the Christ, the son of the liuing God: nor the grace of miracles, because they receiued not that till afterward, f 1.285 Behold I wil send the promise of my Father vpon you, but tarry in the city of Ierusalem vntil you be induced with power from aboue, which promise was fulfilled in the fiery tongues; it seemeth therefore to be some ordinary grace which should con∣tinue with them, & their successors in the Church for euer, as is confessed on both sides: what can this be but that which Christ himself doth mētion in the words following, as it were of set purpose to take away al ambiguous constru∣ction, whose sins you remit they are remitted &c. And this is expressed likewise by S. g 1.286 Ierome, who calleth it gratiam qua peccata remitterent. i. a grace whereby they might forgiue sins. This is also the iudgement of S. h 1.287 Chrysostome, saying, a man should not erre, if hee should say that they then receiued a certaine power and spirituall grace, not that they should raise againe the dead, or worke miracles, but that they might forgiue sinnes. To these we may ioyne Saint i 1.288 Ambrose, who saith, Hee that hath re∣ceiued the holy Ghost, hath receiued power both to loose sinne and to bind it: and a little after, Munus spiritus sancti est officium Sacerdotis, that is, the guift of the holy Ghost is the Priests office. Wherefore by (holy Ghost) is meant a ghostly mi∣nisteriall grace or power to forgiue sinnes.

PHIL.

Thus far we agree as may appeare by our learned writers: Car∣dinal k 1.289 Bellarmine, l 1.290 Palacius and others, but all the question is in what manner the Minister forgiueth sinnes.

ORTHOD.

Saint Paul saith, m 1.291 All things are of God, which hath reconciled vs vnto himselfe by Iesus Christ, and hath giuen vnto vs the Ministery of reconciliation. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world vnto himselfe, not imputing their sinnes vnto them, and hath committed vnto vs the word of reconciliation. Whereby it appeareth that God reconcileth the world properlie, by not im∣puting their sinnes, the Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospell, ministe∣rially

as Embassadours of Christ, to whom is committed the word and mi∣nistery of reconciliation. For what other thing is our forgiuenesse of sinnes then a reconciling of men to God? but we reconcile men to God by preaching and declaring the word of the Gospell, therefore by preaching and declaring the word of the Gospell we forgiue sinnes.

PHIL.

a 1.292 There is not onely required to remission of sinnes the Preaching of the Gospell but also baptisme and penance. As it is written, b 1.293 Doe penance and be euery one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes.

ORTHOD.

When wee say that the Minister forgiueth sinnes by prea∣ching, wee doe not exclude the Sacraments but include them. As when wee referre a pardon to the Kings letters patents, wee doe not exclude the seale, but meane the letters patents with the seale annexed. For (as the Apostle saith) to vs is committed the ministerie of reconciliation. Which is not a ministe∣rie of the word onely but without all controuersie of the Sacraments also. Therefore Christ in giuing vs authoritie to forgiue sinnes, hath withall giuen vs authoritie to vse the meanes thereof, that is, the ministery of the word and Sacraments, and because wee apply these meanes whereby God forgiueth sinnes, therefore we are said to forgiue sinnes. This is well expressed by Ferus one of your own Fryers saying, c 1.294 Quamuis Dei propriū opus sit remittere peccata, dicuntur tamen etiam Apostoli remittere, non simpliciter, sed quia adhibent media per quae Deus remittit peccata: haec autem media sunt, verbum Dei & Sacramenta. i. al∣though it be the proper worke of God to forgiue sinnes, yet notwithstanding the Apo∣stles are saide to forgiue sinnes, not simply but because they vse the meanes by the which God doth forgiue sinnes and these meanes are the word of God and the Sacraments. Moreouer it is a cleare case that to this remission there is required faith and repentance, after which followeth ministeriall absolution, by preaching and applying publickly and priuately the sweete promises of grace to the penitent beleeuer, and sealing them by the Sacraments to the soule and conscience. This absolution in the court of conscience is agreeable to the Scripture, and is not onely practised in the Church of England by Sermons and Sacra∣ments, but also solemnly proclaimed in our liturgy, and applied both pub∣lickly in open penance, and priuately in the visitation of the sicke, as also to particular penitents, whose wounded consciences require the same.

PHIL.

The Councell of d 1.295 Trent pronounceth a curse vpon such as wrest the words of Christ to the authoritie of preaching the Gospell.

ORTHOD.

To apply them to preaching in such sence as hath beene de∣clared is no wresting, but the true meaning of the Scripture, as you heard out of Saint Paul, and therefore in cursing vs, they curse Saint Paul: wherefore I will say with the Prophet, e 1.296 they doe curse, but thou (o Lord doest blesse. But for your better satisfaction in this point, you shal heare the iudgement of sundry principall men in your owne Church expounding this absolution in court of conscience as wee doe. The f 1.297 maister of the sentences hauing long sifted this point to and fro, at last groweth to this resolution: In hac tanta varieta∣te quid ••••nendum? hoc san••, &c. In this great varietie what should we hold? truely 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may say and thinke this; That God onely forgiueth and retaineth sinnes, and yet he hath giuen the power of binding and loosing vnto the Church: but he bindeth and loo∣••••th one way, & the Church another. For he forgiueth sin by himselfe alone, who both

cleanseth the soule from inward blot, and looseth it from th•• debt of eternall death, but he hath not granted this vnto the Priest, to whom notwithstanding he hath giuen pote∣statem soluendi & ligandi. i. Ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos. i. the power of binding and loosing, that is of declaring men to be bound or loosed. Wherupon the Lord did first by himselfe restore health vnto the leper, and then he sent him to the Priestes, quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus. i. by whose iudgement he might be declared to be cleansed: so likewise when he had restored Lazarus to life againe, he offered him to his Disciples that they might vnbind him. And this he prooueth by a place of a 1.298 Ie∣rome which he onely pointeth at, but we will set it downe more largely. In Le∣uitico, &c In the booke of Leuiticus we read of the lepers where they are commanded to shew themselues to the Priests, and if they shall haue the leprosie, that then they shall bee made vncleane by the Priestes: not that the Priestes should make them lepers and vn∣cleane, but that they should haue the knowledge of the leprous, and not leprous: and that they may discerne who is cleane, or vncleane. Therefore as there the Priests doe make the lepers cleane or vncleane: so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind and loose, &c. Hi∣therto Saint b 1.299 Ierome. Now the master hauing said that in remitting or retaining sins, the Euangelicall Priests haue that authoritie and office, which in olde times the legall Priests had vnder the law, in curing of lepers, addeth these words; Hi ergo peccata di∣mittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta indicant & ostendunt i. therfore these doe forgiue sinnes, or retaine them whiles they shew and declare that they are for∣giuen or retained of God. Hunc modum ligandi & soluendi Hieron. supra notauit. i. this way of binding and loosing Ierom hath obserued aboue. Thus farre the master: who is followed verbatim by Petrus Parisius, as is to be seene in Sixtus c 1.300 Senen∣sis. And * 1.301 Occam saith, I answere according to the master, that Priests bind and loose, because they declare men to be bound or loosed. Alexander Hales. d 1.302 Nunquam sacer∣dos absolueret quenquam de quo non presumeret quod esset absolutus à deo. i the Priest would neuer absolue any man of whom he did not presume that he were already absolued of God. If the Priest absolue none but whom God hath first absolued, thē what can his absolution be else but a certificate that the party is already absolued of God? And againe, Item Augustinus & Hugo de sancto victore, &c. Moreouer Au∣stin and Hugo de sancto victore say, that in the raising of Lazarus was signified the raising againe of a sinner. But Lazarus was raised of the Lord before he was deliuered to the Disciples to bee loosed, ergo absolutio sacerdotis nihil valet antequam homo sit iu∣stificatus per gratiam & suscitatus a morte culpae. 1. Therefore the absolution of the Priest is of no value before a man be iustified by grace, & raised from the death of sinne. And this he proueth by strong reasons, as followeth, 1. It is a matter of equall power to baptize inwardly, and to absolue from deadly sinne: but it was not requisite that God should communicate to any man) the power of baptizing inwardly, least our hope should be reposed in man: therfore by the same reason it was not fit that God should communicate (to any man) the power of absoluing from actuall sinne. And againe, Nul∣la fit remissio culpae nisi per gratiam, sed gratiam dare est potentiae infinitae. i. There is no remission of sinne (properly except onely by grace: but to giue grace proceedeth from an infinite power (whereof man is not capable) and therefore no man can forgiue sins properly. And if you be not yet perswaded, how generally this is receiued I will let you see it by the words of Suarez the Iesuite. e 1.303 Fuit grauium doctorum opinio per ••anc potestatem non posse remitti peccatorum culpas, sed solum declarari remissas, & remitti paenas: & in hoc vltimo est quaedam diuer sitas. Nam quidam dixerunt hanc

potestatem solùm esse ad ••••••••ttendam paenam temporalem, alij vero ad aeternam. i. It was the opinion of graue Doctours, that by this power the sinners offences are not re∣mitted, but onely declared to be remitted, and that the punishments are remitted; and in this last point there is some diuersitie, for some said that this power is onely for the remis∣sion of temporall punishment, others for eternall. And he saith, that the former o∣pinion is maintained by the master, Altisiodorensis, Alex. de Hales, Bonauenture, Gabriel, Maior, Thomas de Argent. Occam, Abulensis, and others.

MOreouer, a 1.304 Bonauenture writing of the miracles which were done* 1.305 by the intercession of Saint Francis after his death, telleth of a cer∣taine woman, which when she was ready to be put into the graue, was by vertue of his prayers restored from death to life, to that end shee might re∣ueale in confession a certaine sinne which she neuer had confessed before. Which b 1.306 Bellarmine relateth as an argument to prooue that auricular confes∣sion is approued by God himselfe. If you beleeue this lying Legend, that the woman was shriuen after her death, then you may like wise beleeue that the Priest absolued her. For by what reason could he denie her absolution, if God raised her by miracle to make confession? Now I would demaund whe∣ther this woman dyed in the state of damnation or saluation: if in state of damnation, then the priest could neither iustifie her, nor declare her to be iu∣stified; because they which die in their sinnes, shall perish in their sinnes: but if she dyed in the state of saluation, and yet was raised by miracle to confesse some sinne for the clearing of others, or for some other reason we know not, then the Priest did not properly forgiue her sinnes, but onely pronounce that they were forgiuen. I will close vp this point, with a memorable saying of c 1.307 Ferus, vpon these wordes, Whose sinnes you forgiue, &c. Non quod homo pro∣priè remittit peccatum sed quod ostendat ac certificet a deo remissum: ne{que} enim aliud est absolutio quam ab homine accipis, quam si dicat, En filt certifico te tibi remissa esse peccata; annuncio tibi te habere propitium deum, & quaecun{que} Christus in Baptis∣mo & Euangelio nobis promisit tibi nunc per me annunciat & promittit. i. Not that man doth properly forgiue sinne, but that he sheweth and certifieth that it is forgiuen of God: for the absolution which thou receiuest from man, is nothing else, then if hee should say, Behold my son, I certifie thee that thy sins are forgiuen, I declare vnto thee that thou hast God fauourable, and what thing soeuer Christ hath promised vs in bap∣tisme, and in the Gospel, he now declareth and promiseth to thee by me.

WHerefore seing we haue in our ordination these words, receiue the* 1.308 holy Ghost, and take them in the true sence according to the Scrip∣ture, the consciences of our aduersaries bearing vs witnesse; we conclude that the Church of England hath such an absolution, as Christ hath left vnto his spouse, consisting in the publike and priuate vse of the word and Sacra∣ments.

CHAP. X.

An answere to the arguments of Bellarmine, by which he goeth about to prooue absolution to be iudiciall and not declaratory.

PHIL.

THat Christ gaue vnto his Church a true iudiciall power, to absolue with authority, and consequent∣ly, that Priests are not onely as heraulds to pro∣claime and declare, but also as iudges in the Court of conscience, truely and really to forgiue sinnes, Cardinall a 1.309 Bellarmine hath proued by seuen argu∣ments; fiue wherof are collected out of the Scripture, the sixt is drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers, and the seuenth from reason, all which I will prosecute in order. The first is b 1.310 collected from the Metaphor of the keyes; of which it is said, * 1.311 I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen For a key vseth not to be made or giuen, to signifie that the doore is open or shut, but to open and shut it indeed. Now that which was promised by the keyes, was performed in that place of Iohn, and therefore here he gaue them power, not onely to declare vn∣to men that their sinnes are forgiuen, but also to forgiue them indeed.

ORTHOD.

As Adam for his sinne was shut out of Paradise, so all his posterity, proceeding from him by carnall generation, considered in their na∣turall corruption, are shut and locked out of heauen, into which no vncleane thing can enter. For as the Prophet saith, c 1.312 Your iniquities haue made a separa∣tion betweene you and your God. Neither is there any hope of saluation, vnlesse the kingdome of heauen bee vnlocked againe. But what is the key to open this locke? There is a threefold key; the first of authoritie, the second of ex∣cellency, and the third of Ministery. The key of authoritie belongeth onely to God. For seeing euery sinne is a transgression of Diuine law, he only hath soueraigne authoritie to remit it, against whom it is committed, and when he doth remit it, then he setteth open the gates of heauen. The key of excellency belongeth onely to Christ, God and man, who by his most soueraigne sacri∣fice hath made satis faction to God the Father, purchased an eternall redemp∣tion for vs, and meritoriously opened the kingdome of heauen to all belee∣uers. The key of Ministery was giuen to the Apostles, aud their successours, to whom was committed the Ministery of reconciliation: Which is well ex∣pressed by S. d 1.313 Ambrose, saying, Homines in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, ne{que} enim in suo, sed in patris & fi∣lij & spiritus sanctinomine peccata dimittunt: isti rogant, diuinitas donat, humanum enim obsequium, sed munificentia supernae est potestatis i. Men doe performe a seruice or Ministery, for the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but they doe not exercise the authoritie of any power for they doe not forgiue sins in their owne name, but in the name of the Fa∣ther, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. They make request, the dietie bestoweth the gift: An office or seruice is performed by man, but the bountiful gift is from supernal power. This supernall power is the key of authoritie: this humane office, is the key of Ministery. For as a key is made and giuen to open the doore indeed: So God gaue the key of Ministery vnto his stewards to open the doore of hea∣uen indeed. But how? not by authority as God the Father, nor by excellen∣cie, as God the Son, but by a ministeriall forgiuenes of sins, which is not to be restrained onely to the hearing of priuate confessions, as though in that

one point lay all the vertue and vse of the Keyes, but consisteth in reuealing and applying the merits of Christ, publikely and priuately to the soule and conscience, and in assuring those that beleeue and repent of their eternall sal∣uation. Now whereas you say, that a Key is not giuen to signifie or declare that the doore is open; it is true. Yet you may know that similitudes must not be extended to euery circumstance; it is sufficient if there be a correspon∣dencie in the maine point. What though a Key cannot declare that the doore is open? Yet it is the Ministers duety to declare, that heauen is opened to all that beleeue and repent; and this very declaring is an effectuall meanes of opening it indeed. For as when Christ vnfolded the Scriptures, the a 1.314 hearts of the two Disciples did burne within them: so when the Ministers declare the glad tidings of the Gospel, God kindleth faith and repentance in the hearts of his chosen; and when they doe beleeue and repent, then the Minister may safely pronounce the forgiuenesse of their sinnes, by the Blood of Iesus Christ. Thus he is Gods effectuall instrument to accomplish it, and his Herald to proclaime it.

PHIL.

b 1.315 Keyes vse to be giuen to Magistrates, to signifie that they haue power to locke and vnlocke the gates of the Citie.

ORTHOD.

And Christ gaue the Keyes to his Ministers, to signifie that they haue a Ministeriall power to locke and vnlock the kingdome of heauen.

PHIL.

c 1.316 VVhen it is said of Christ, he hath the Key of Dauid, he openeth and no man shutteth, he shutteth and no man openeth; all men vnderstand by the Key a true power, and properly so called, by which Christ may absolue and binde by iudiciall authoritie, and not signifie or declare who is bound or loosed. Wherefore seeing Christ doth communicate his Keyes with the Apostles and their successours, they also shall haue true power to bind and loose by iu∣diciall authoritie.

ORTHOD.

First, your d 1.317 owne men distinguish betweene the Key of ex∣cellencie, and the Key of Ministerie. Secondly, euen those things which are most proper vnto Christ, are ascribed to his Ministers; as for example the sal∣uation of mens soules. For S. Paul saith to Timothy, e 1.318 In doing this, thou shalt saue both thy selfe, and them that heare thee. In like maner they may be said to for∣giue sinnes, and open the Kingdome of heauen. But this is spoken by a figure, whereby that which belongeth to the principall agent, is ascribed to the in∣strument. And that no marueile, seeing a man by turning from wickednes, and doing that which is right, is said to f 1.319 saue his owne soule.

PHIL.

g 1.320 A second Argument may be collected from the Metaphor of bin∣ding and loosing, which doth not signifie to declare that one is bound or loosed, but to lay on or take off bonds and fetters indeed.

ORTHOD.

This is in effect the same with the former: therefore I re∣ferre you to the former answere.

PHIL.

h 1.321 A third Argument may be drawne from this very place of S. Iohn: For Christ expresly giueth them power not only to forgiue sinnes, but al∣so to retaine; Retinere autem quid est nisi nolle remittere? i. What is it to retaine, but to be vnwilling to forgiue? therefore remission is denied to them, whom the Priest will not forgiue.

ORTHOD.

True, if the will of the Priest be guided by the rules of true

Religion. For he should be vnwilling to forgiue none, but onely those that are vnbeleeuing, and vnrepentant; from absoluing of whom he should be so farre, that it is his duety to denounce Gods wrath and iudgment against them if they continue obstinate.

PHIL.

a 1.322 The Lord saith not, Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they were for∣giuen, which he would haue said, if by remission he had meant declaration: but he saith, They are forgiuen, because Christ doeth ratifie the sentence, which the Priest pronounceth in his Name.

ORTHOD.

But the Priest must absolue no man, sauing those whom God hath first absolued, as you heard before, and is plainely deliuered by Pope Gregorie, b 1.323 Quos omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam visitat, illos pa∣storis sententia absoluat. Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidētis, cum aeterni arbitrium sequitur iudicis: i. Let the sentence of the Pastour absolue them whom Almighty God doth visit with the grace of compunction; for then is the absolution of the Spirituall ruler a true absolution, when hee followeth the will of the Eternall Iudge. And againe, c 1.324 Nos debemus per Pastoralem authoritatem soluere, quos authorem nostrum cognoscimus per suscitantem gratiam viuificare, i. Wee ought absolue those by our Pastorall authority, whom we know that our Authour Christ Iesus hath reuiued with his quickening grace. Otherwise his absolution is vaine. For as the Legall Priest did not properly cleanse the Leper, yet he is said to d 1.325 cleanse him, because hee declared him cleane whom the Lord had cleansed: so the Euangelicall Priest, though hee doe not properly absolue from sinnes, yet hee is said to ab∣solue, because he declareth him absolued, whom the Lord hath absolued. Wherefore the meaning of Christs words is this, Whose sinnes you forgiue, that is, whose sinnes, according to the rules of my Gospel you shal pronounce to be forgiuen, they are forgiuen; That is, they are so certainly forgiuen, that the sentence you pronounce in earth, shall be ratified in Heauen, as it is writ∣ten, Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, shall be bound in Heauen: and whatso∣euer thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heauen. So here are three things: First, God the Father for Christs sake forgiueth sinnes: Secondly the Minister declareth that God hath forgiuen them: Thirdly, this declaratory sentence is ratified in Heauen.

PHIL.

e 1.326 A fourth Argument may be drawne from this word Quorum, in this maner; The Gospel is preached indefinitely to all men, But it is not the will of God that this absolution should be giuen to all men, but to cer∣taine persons only, whom the Priest iudgeth fit: as appeareth by these words, Quorum peccata, &c. Whose sinnes you forgiue, &c.

ORTHOD.

The Gospel is preached generally and indefinitely, to all men, Whosoeuer beleeueth and repenteth shall be saued; yet so, that in the generall is included this particular, If thou beleeue and repent, thou shall be saued. Now a mans conscience sanctified by the Holy Ghost, doth say, I beleeue and repent: Therefore to him the generall promise of the Gospel is made particular, by particular application, and to such onely making a sincere profession of their faith and repentance, the Minister ought to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes.

PHIL.

f 1.327 A fift Argument may be drawne from Christs breathing: For as in the second of the Acts, hee gaue the Spirit in the forme of tongues, Because then hee gaue them the gift of preaching, so here he gaue it by breathing, because hee gaue them

the gift of forgiuing of sinnes, not by preaching as you dreame, but plainely by quench∣ing and dissoluing them. For as the winde doth quench the fire, and scater the clouds: so the absolution of the Priest doth scatter sinnes, and maketh them to vanish: according to which Metaphor we read in Esay, a 1.328 I haue blotted out thy sinnes as a cloud.

ORTHOD.

Christ did breath, to signifie, that this heauenly gift procee∣ded from himselfe, and therefore our Bishops when they vtter these words doe not breath, because they are not Authors of this spiritual power, but only Gods delegates and assignes to giue men possession of his graces. Moreouer Christ by breathing did signifie, that none was fit for this heauenly function but such as he enabled with his spirit, and also that this holy spirit should as∣sist his ministers in the dispelling of sins. Neither is the place of Esay for your purpose: when the sky is darkned with clouds and mists, the Lord sendeth a wind out of his treasure house, whereby they are scattered, the skie cleared, and the golden beames of the sunne restored: euen so, when the poore soule and conscience is ouercast with clouds of sin, and mists of sorrow, God by his holy spirit concurring with his blessed word, bringeth men to faith and re∣pentance, and so forgiueth their sins, that he will neuer remember them any more. But what is this to your Popish absolution?

PHIL.

THe b 1.329 sixth argument is drawne from the authority of the Fa∣thers,* 1.330 and first of Chrysostome, out of whose third booke of Priesthood, our learned Cardinall produceth sixe places, the first, where it is said that God hath giuen such power to those that are in earth, as it was not his will to giue either to Angels or Archangels, for it was not said vnto them, what soeuer you bind in earth shal bee bound in heauen: but surely the Angels may declare vnto men, that if they beleeue, their sins are forgiuen: therfore in the iudgement of Chrysostome, power is giuen vnto the Priest, truely to bind and loose and not by way of declaration.

ORTHOD.

c 1.331 Though the Angels being ministring spirits, may when it pleaseth the Lord declare vnto men, that if they beleeue their sins are forgi∣uen; aswel as the Angel said to Cornelius ^b Thy prayers & thy almes are come vp in∣to remembrance before God: yet this is rare and extraordinary; but the Priest doth it by his ordinary office: in which regard Chrysostome hath reason to say, that such power is giuen to Priests, as is neither giuen to Angels nor Archangels.

PHIL.

d 1.332 Chrysostome proceedeth, and telleth how earthly Princes haue power, To bind the body only, but the Priests bond toucheth the soule, and reacheth vn∣to heauen. Now earthly Princes doe not declare who is bound or loosed, but bind or loose their bodies indeed, and therefore the Priests in binding and loosing of soules doe not declare who are bound or loosed, but by authority in the roome of Christ doe bind or loose them indeed; if the comparison of Chrysostome be of any value.

ORTHO.

He compareth them in respect of the obiects, not in respect of the manner: the obiect of the Princes bond is the body, the obiect of the Priest, is the soule: but doth follow because the Prince doth bind or loose the body properly, that therfore binding or loosing of the soule is attributed in the like propriety of speech vnto the Priest?

PHIL.

e 1.333 Chrysostome vpon these words whose sins you retaine they are re∣tained, saith, What power I pray you can be greater then this? but it is no great mat∣ter

to declare that sins are forgiuen to the beleeuers, and retained to the vn∣beleeuers. For any man may perfourme it which can read the Gospell, neither Priests onely but the layity also, neither Catholikes onely but Heretikes also, yea and the diuells themselues.

ORTHOD.

It is no great matter to pronounce the words, but the excel∣lency of the Ministery consisteth in this, that they doe it ex officio, and that according to Gods owne ordinance, therefore in the reuerend performance ther∣of they may expect a comfortable blessing.

PHIL.

a 1.334 Chrysostome saith, The Father hath giuen al maner of power to his sonne, and I see the same power in all variety giuen to them by the sonne, but the Father did not giue to the sonne a bare ability to declare the Gospell, but by autho∣rity to forgiue sinnes, therefore the like is giuen to the Priests?

ORTHOD.

The power which the Father gaue to Christ conteineth all power in heauen and in earth, but I hope you will not say that Christ gaue all power in heauen and earth to his disciples, therefore the words of Chrysostome need a gentle interpretation, and must not bee taken litterally as they sound, but for a rhetoricall amplification. Againe, the power to forgiue sins is giuen to Christ, and to his Disciples, but not in the same manner, for God the Fa∣ther forgiueth sinnes, by not imputing them, Christ, God and Man merito∣riously, the Ministers onely Ministerially as you heard before.

PHIL.

b 1.335 Chrysostome compareth a Priest not with the kings Herald, which on∣ly declareth what is done, but with one who hath power to east into prison, and deliuer out of prison: how could he more openly declare that the Priests power is truly iudiciall?

ORTH.

The Herald only proclaimeth the kings pardon, and is no in∣strument to effect it; but the minister so proclaimeth saluation by Iesus Christ that he is Gods instrument to worke it, so the ministeriall declaration is not a bare, but an effectuall declaration that mens sinnes are forgiuen. For first the Law must bee effectually preached, to humble the soule, then the Gospell must bee effectually applied to kindle true faith. And as the Minister is Gods effectuall instrument in working: so he is his Ambassadour effectually to minister comfort to the penitent soule. Yet for all this he doth not forgiue sinnes properlie, but onely ministerially. The like is to bee said of his deliue∣ring the soules of men out of prison. For that it cannot bee meant properly may appeare by the other branch, because the Minister doth not properly cast a∣ny man into the spirituall prison, but the wicked being already imprisoned and ••ettered with the chaine of their owne sins, and refusing the light of the Gospel when it shines vnto them & the sweet mercies of God in Iesus Christ are said to bee bound by a Priest, because hee retaineth, that is, pronounceth that they are tied and bound with the chaines of darkenesse, and denounceth the iudgements of God against them so long as they remaine impenitent.

PHIL.

c 1.336 Chrysostome makes an other comparison betweene the legall Priests and the Euangelicall; for the Legall did purge the leprosie of the body, or rather not purge it, but examine those that were purged: But it is granted to our Priests not to purge the leprosie of the body, but the spots of the soule, I doe not say to examine them being purged, but altogether to purge them. In this place to vse the words of Car∣dinall Bellarmine, Saint Chrysostome doth so plainely condemne the opinion of our aduersaries, that nothing at all can be answered for them.

ORTHOD.

Doth the Priest altogether purge the spots of the soule? then it seemeth when the penitent is presented before the Priest, his soule is spotted, but by vertue of the Priestes absolution the spots are present∣ly washed away; but I pray you tel me, whom doth the Priest forgiue and ab∣solue? him whom the Lord hath absolued? or him whom the Lord hath not absolued? if the Priest absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued, then hee doth not altogether purge the spot of the soule, no nor properly purge them at all, but onely declare that the Lord hath purged them. If you say that the Priest absolueth him whom the Lord hath not absolued, then hee shall bee forgiuen, whom the Lord hath not forgiuen: which is most absurd. Againe, doeth the Priest before hee pronounce absolution see any tokens of faith and repentance: If hee see none, then how dare he pronounce absolution? and if hee see any then the party is already purged. Whereby it appeareth that the absolution of the ministerie is onely declaratorie. Therefore the speech of Chrysostome cannot bee taken properly, but his meaning must bee this, that the Priest seeing him brought by the ministery of the Gospell to faith and repen∣tance, and consequently purged, certifieth his conscience, that he is altoge∣ther purged, and his sinnes washed away by the blood of Iesus Christ.

PHIL.

a 1.337 GRegorie b 1.338 Nazianzen saith that the law of Christ hath subiected* 1.339 temporall gouernours to his authoritie and throne, and that his power is more ample and perfect then theirs.

ORTHOD.

The Prince as supreame gouernour may by his royall autho∣ritie establish true religion, command both Priest and people to doe their du∣tie, and punish those which doe otherwise by temporall punishments: but the ministration of the Word & Sacraments, and the exercising of spirituall cen∣sures belong to the Bishop: and as the prelate ought to bee subiect to the sword in the hand of the Prince, so a vertuous Prince submitteth himselfe to the word of God in the mouth of the prelate. But doth this prooue that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly?

PHIL.

c 1.340 SAint Ambrose proueth d 1.341 that Christ gaue to the Priests, power to forgiue* 1.342 sinnes; and it is plaine that he speaketh of true power and not of the mi∣nisterie of preaching, both because the Nouatians did not denie that the Gospell might be preached to all men, but they denied that the Priest might forgiue sinnes by authori∣tie: and also because Saint e 1.343 Ambrose saith, that Christ hath communicated to the Priests that power which he himselfe hath.

ORTHOD.

The Nouatians did thinke that the Church had authoritie to bind, but not to loose, as may appeare by S. Ambrose in the same place. And S. f 1.344 Cyprian being requested by Antonianus to vnfould the heresie of Nouatian sheweth, that hee denied that such as were fallen should be admitted any more into the Church. g 1.345 Baronius saith, that he grew to such rashnesse as to deny that the remis∣sion of sinnes (which is in the Apostles Creed) was to be found in the Church. Therfore as they denied that Priests might forgiue sinnes by authoritie: so they denied that they might forgiue sinnes by way of declaration, for they denied that there was any forgiuenesse of sinnes in the Church. Wherefore Saint Am∣brose in confuting the Nouatians, hath no more confuted our opinion, then hee hath confuted yours.

PHIL.

a 1.346 SAint Ierom speaking of Priests saith, b 1.347 Claues regni caelorum haben∣tes,* 1.348 quodam modo ante diem iudicij iudicant. i. hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement. S. c 1.349 Austin expounding these wordes, I saw seates, and them that sate vpon them, and iudge∣ment was giuen them, saith thus. Wee must not thinke that this is spoken of the last iudgement, but the seates of prelates, and prelates themselues, by whom the Church is now gouerned are to be vnderstood, neither can we better apply it to any iudgement gi∣uen, then to that of which it is said, whatsoeuer you bind in earth, shall be bound in hea∣uen. Whereupon the Apostle saith, what is it to me to iudge of them that are without? doe not you iudge of them that are within?

ORTHOD.

According to Saint Ierom the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose as the Leuitical Priests did make the lepers cleane and vncleane. Which in his iudgement was not properly, but because they had the knowledge of leprous, and not leprous: and should discerne who was cleane and vn∣cleane. This is that which Saint Ierom meaneth, when hee saith they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement: which kind of iudgement wee acknowledge.

PHIL.

In iudgement there are two things, causae cognitio, & sententiae di∣ctio: the knowledge of the cause, and the pronouncing of the sentence. Haue you these two?

ORTHOD.

Wee haue: for first the partie maketh a profession of his faith and repentance vnto the Minister; here is causae cognitio: and then the Minister by the authoritie which Christ hath committed vnto him, pro∣nounceth forgiuenesse of his sinnes; here is sententiae dictio. This is the practise of the Church of England agreeable to the law of God, and the ancient Fa∣thers. But if by causae cognitio, you meane a particular enumeration of all their sinnes, as a matter necessarie to saluation, and by sententiae dictio, vnderstand such a sentence as imposeth workes of penance satisfactorie to God; when you can proue them out of the Scripture we will embrace them▪ in the meane time wee knowe them not. Hitherto of Saint Ierom. The same answere also may serue for the place of Saint Austin, if he meane the same iudgement.

PHIL.

POpe d 1.350 Innocent the first saith, e 1.351 De pondere aestimando delictorum, sa∣cerdotis* 1.352 est iudicare, &c. 1. It is the office of the Priest to iudge what sinnes are to be esteemed heauiest.

ORTHOD.

He must discerne the deepenesse of the wound before hee can apply the medicine. But how doth this prooue the point in question, to wit, that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly?

PHIL.

SAint f 1.353 Gregorie saith, g 1.354 principatum superni iudicij sortiuntur, vt vice* 1.355 Dei quibusdam peccata retineant, quibusdam relaxent. i. the Disciples obtaine a principalitie of iudgement from aboue, that they may in Gods stead retaine the sinnes of some, and release the sinnes of others.

ORTHOD.

They are iudges to discerne sinne, that so they may applie the medicine according to the qualitie of the offenders; yea wee doe not de∣ny but the Church may enioyne an outward penance for the further morti∣fying of sinne, testifying their inward remorse, and for the more ample satis∣faction both of the parties offended, and the whole Church of God; and after the performance of all these things, there may follow a ministeriall absoluti∣on

pronounced by the Embassadors of God, but this is only declaratorie, as may appeare by Gregory himselfe in the same homilie, in the places before al∣leadged.

PHIL.

THe a 1.356 seuenth argument is drawne from reasons: and first, if* 1.357 the Priest absolue not as a iudge but onely by way of declaration, then no man should perish for want of a Priest to reconcile him, because if he be∣leeue, his sinnes are already forgiuen although there be none to declare it. But b 1.358 Austin writeth plainely that some desiring to be reconciled, and there∣fore beleeuing in Christ do perish euerlastingly, because they die before they could be absolued by a Priest. An non cogitamus, &c. i. Do we not consider when men are come to the extremitie of such dangers, and haue no meanes to fly from them, what a running together there vseth to be in the Church of both sexes of all ages, some carnestly desiring Baptisme, others reconciliation, others the action of penaunce it selfe, all desiring comfort, and the making and deliuering of the Sacraments; where if Mi∣nisters bee wanting, how great destruction doth follow them which depart out of this world, either not regenerate or bound? And moreouer how great mourning there is of their faithfull friends, which shall not haue them with them, in the rest of life e∣ternall? And Leo writeth the like to Theodorus. Out of which places we vnder∣stand that sacramentall reconciliation hath power to iustifie, and is not onely a declaration of iustification alreadie receiued or hereafter to be receiued.

ORTHOD.

Austin doth not say, that some desiring to be reconciled and therefore beleeuing in Christ, doe perish euerlastingly. For he knew very well that this is contrary to the Scripture, which saith, * 1.359 He that beleeueth shall neuer perish, but haue life euerlasting. Therefore it is most certaine that the true beleeuer cannot perish for want of a Priest. If you ground vpon these words, some desiring Baptisme, others reconciliation, they are not referred to the parties themselues which were in danger of death being as yet vnbaptised & vnre∣conciled, but to their friends, which flocked together in respect of their dan∣ger: therefore it doth not appeare that Austin speaketh of such as desired re∣conciliation; but rather the contrary, for ligati are such as stand bound with the chaines of their sinnes. You will say, how doe they perish for want of a Priest? I answere that if one were present which by commission from Christ might display the riches of Gods mercy vnto them, who can tell whether their hearts might be opened to beleeue and repent vnto saluation, and so their chaines might be loosed? but when there is none present, that can mini∣ster a word of comfort vnto them, they being knowen to be notorious sin∣ners may be thought to perish for want of a Priest, not for want of a Popish but for want of a preaching Priest. Which may yet appeare more plainely by the other branch of the vnbaptised. For these wordes (desiring Baptisme) must be either referred to the parties or to their friends. If the parties desire Baptisme, then they doe not perish for want of Baptisme, for the Baptisme of the spirit doth supplie the want of the Baptisme of water. c 1.360 Bellarmine himselfe saith, Sine dubio credendum est veram conuersionē supplere baptismum aquae, cum non ex contemptu sed ex necessitate sine baptismo aquae aliqui decedunt. i. Wee must be∣leeue without doubt that true conuersion doth supply the Baptisme of water, when as any depart this life, without the Baptisme of water, not of contempt, but by reason of necessity. And this he prooueth first by the Prophet d 1.361 Ezekiel, saying, If the wic∣ked

repent him of his sinnes, I will remember his iniquitie no more. Secondly, by S. a 1.362 Ambrose, who saith of Valentinian the Emperour. Quem eram regeneraturus amisi, sed ille gratiam quam sperauerat non amisit. i. I haue lost him whom I was a∣bout to regenerate (by Baptisme) but he hath not lost the grace which hee hoped for. Moreouer by b 1.363 Austin, c 1.364 Bernard, Pope d 1.365 Innocent the third, yea by the Coun∣cell of e 1.366 Trent, which expoundeth the necessitie of baptisme to bee inre, or in voto. i. either in acte or in desire. And f 1.367 Lorinus the Iesuite doth likewise proue out of S. g 1.368 Austin, that the inuisible sanctification is to some both present and profita∣ble without the visible Sacraments. Wherefore, if the parties desire Baptisme, they cannot perish for want of a Priest. And if you referre this desire of bap∣tisme not to the parties, but to their friends, then you must likewise referre the desire of reconciliation; & so you confirme my former speach, & cōfute your owne; thus much for answere to your first reason, let vs heare the second.

PHIL.

h 1.369 Secondly, if the Priest did forgiue sinnes onely by declaration, then it is vaine and ridiculous, to absolue those that are deafe, and voide of sences. But in the old Church, not onely the deafe, but such also as by reason of sickenesse were beside themselues, were sometimes reconciled as appeares by i 1.370 Austin, k 1.371 Leo, the fourth Councell of l 1.372 Carthage, and the Councell of m 1.373 Orenge.

ORTHOD.

They reconciled not all, that were deafe and dumbe, and be∣reft of sences, but onely those that either before by their words and deeds, or then presently by their signes did testifie their repentance, as may appeare by the places alleadged. For Austin saith, Si desperati & intra se penitentes iacuerint, nec pro se respondere potuerint, baptizandos puto. i. If they shall lie without all hope of recouering their bodily health, hauing repentance within themselues, and not able to answere for thēselues, in my opinion they ought to be baptised. And a little after, Quae autem baptismatis, eadem reconciliationis est causa: i. that cause which moueth vs to confer baptisme, may moue vs to giue recōciliatiō. And Leo saith, if by any force of sick∣nes they shallbe so oppressed, that they are not able to signifie in the presence of the Priest, that thing which a little before they desired, the testimonies of the faithfull, which are about them, shouldbe profitable vnto them, that they may obtaine the benefit both of penitence and of reconciliation. And the 4. Councel of Carthage saith, He that de∣sireth penitence in his sicknes, if by chance (while the Priest cōmeth vnto him) he shall become dumbe, or fall into a frenzy, let those which heard him giue testimony, and let him receiue penitēce. And the Councel of Orenge saith, he which is sodenly dumb, may be baptised and receiue penitence, if he haue testimony of others, that hee was for∣merly willing, or do manifest his present will by his signes. Now to reconcile men in these cases, is neither vaine nor ridiculous, although it be done only by way of declaratiō. For if they vnderstād what is done, it bringeth vnto thē a singu∣lar comfort: if they be past sence, yet if God shal restore them, whē they heare what was done it will reioyce them: and if they doe not recouer, yet it shall bring this benefit to all that shall heare it, that Gods messenger vpon due ex∣amination, hath pronounced that they dyed in faith and repentance.

PHIL.

n 1.374 If absolution be only declaratory, then this declaration is either absolute or conditionall. If it be absolute, then it is either rash or superfluous. For if the Priest know not whether the party hath faith and repentance, and yet pronounce absolutely that his sinnes are forgiuen, then hee cannot bee excused from rashnesse: and if hee know it in some sort, yet because

the party knoweth it better then hee, his declaration shall be superfluous. And if the declaration be onely conditionall, then it cannot comfort the conscience; and consequently it is to no end, and therefore both rash and superfluous.

ORTHOD.

The declaration is conditionall. For though vpon due and speciall consideration, wee may say priuately and particularly to this or that man; i pronounce that thy sinnes are forgiuen thee: yet this is alwayes to be vn∣derstood with a secret condition; and the condition is this, If thou beleeue and repent: Neither may wee pronounce it otherwise, then vpon a chari∣table perswasion proceeding vpon probable grounds, that this condition is fulfilled.

PHIL.

But how can it comfort the conscience, seeing the condition is vncertaine?

ORTHOD.

It is certaine to the conscience of the party himselfe?

PHIL.

What need is there then of the Ministers absolution?

ORTHOD.

Yes, for the party knowing in his owne soule that he made a sincere confession, is comforted by the messenger of the Lord of Hostes, declaring ex officio, the sweet promises of the Gospel, according to Christs ap∣pointment.

PHIL.

a 1.375 If it be onely declaratory, then it may be performed by a Lay-man, by a woman, a childe, an infidel, yea by the diuell himselfe, yea by a Parret if he be taught to speake, as well as by a Priest.

ORTHOD.

Who taught this Parret thus to speake, let wise men iudge. But to the point; A man may be said to pronounce and declare remission of sinnes two wayes. First, by a narratiue and historicall rehearsall out of the ge∣nerall duetie of charitie; and so may euery Christian. Secondly, by a Mini∣steriall power giuen by a speciall commission from God, adorned and esta∣blished with a speciall promise, and so may euery lawfull Minister. The com∣mission is giuen vs in our Ordination, Whose sinnes you forgiue, they are forgiuen. The promise was made in these words, Behold, I am with you vntill the end of the world. Both are expressed in these words of b 1.376 Iob, If there be an Angel with him, (that is with the man whose soule draweth neere vnto the graue) or an in∣terpreter, one of a thousand to declare vnto man his righteousnes, then will hee haue mercy vpon him, and will say deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit, for I haue receiued a reconciliation. Here are two persons to be considered. First, a man lying at the point of death, distressed and groning vnder the burthen of his sinnes; Secondly, the man of God appointed to comfort those that mourne in Sion. The latter is described foure wayes: by his Titles, Office, Commis∣sion, and Gods promise vnto him. His Titles are an Angel or interpreter: his Office, to declare vnto man his righteousnes; that is, the righteousnes of Iesus Christ imputed to all beleeuers, according to the couenant of grace: his Com∣mission, Deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit: The promise, Then will God haue mercie vpon him, and say, I haue receiued a reconciliation. Such Titles, such Office, by such speciall Commission and promise, are not giuen to any Lay man in the Booke of God. Wherefore, though they are bound by their generall calling, to edifie and comfort one another, yet this belongeth to the Minister in a speciall maner. Neither is there any doubt but God will giue

a speciall blessing to his owne Ordinance. Thus haue we examined all Bel∣larmines arguments, and find them to be nothing els but smoke: He hath sowne the winde, and reaped the whirlewinde. Hitherto of Absolution, as it belon∣geth to the Minister. Now the parts of penance which you require in the pe∣nitent, as Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction, may bee passed ouer, be∣cause wee speake of the Priest, and not of the penitent. Yet giue me leaue to tell you, that Auricular confession, as it is vsed in the Church of Rome, is a pollicie to diue into the secrets of men, not so much to apply salues vnto their sores, or to yeeld true comfort to the wounded conscience, as to worke for your owne aduantage, and to turne all things to your owne pleasure and pro∣fit. If you say, that this may be the fault of some particular men, and not of the Church: yet to vrge it as you doe, as a thing a 1.377 necessary to saluation by Law diuine, is the fault of your Church. Surely this doctrine was not knowne to b 1.378 S. Austine, when he said, Quid mihi cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos? i. What haue I to doe with men that they should heare my Confessions, as though they should heale all my diseases? Nor to c 1.379 Chrysostome, who saith, Art thou ashamed to confesse thy sinnes? rehearse them dayly in thy prayers: for I doe not say that thou shouldest disclose them to thy fellow ser∣uant, who may mocke thee, but to God who healeth them. And as for your Popish Satisfaction it is a most blasphemous derogation from the all sufficient Satis∣faction of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. For you doe not meane thereby a satisfa∣ction to the party offended, nor Canonicall satisfaction to the Congregation for the taking away of publique scandall, (both which we willingly embrace) but you teach that after the Priest hath forgiuen the penitent his sinnes, there still remaineth the very same d 1.380 punishment which the sinner should haue suffered in hell fire, excepting onely eternitie; for which you enioyne him to make satis∣faction to God by workes of Popish penance. Moreouer, you teach workes of supererogation, and that e 1.381 many holy men haue suffered more for God and righ∣teousnes sake, then the guilt of their temporall punishments, to which they were subiect by reason of their sinnes required; and that this superfluitie remaineth as a treasure in the Church, to be dispensed by the Prelates in their indulgences, especially by the Pope in the yeere of Iubile: which shamelesse practise, what is it else, but a deuise to get money? Thus you haue turned repentance into a Sacra∣ment of penance, and penance into Mines of siluer and gold. Hitherto of our Presbyters. Now let vs come to the Deacons.

CHAP. XI.

Of the third controuersie concerning Deacons.

PHIL.

THere are no Deacons in the Church of England, and therefore you cannot be lawfull Presbyters.

ORTHOD.

f 1.382 Bellarmine confesseth, that the or∣der of a Deacon, is not essentiall to the order of Priesthood: and therefore though wee had bene ordained per saltum, yet you could not deny vs the true order of Priesthood. But we are not ordained per saltum; Our Church hath decreed, that there g 1.383 may be euer some time of triall of their behauiour in the office of Dea∣cons, before they be admitted to the order of Priesthood. And for the Ordination,

after due knowledge of the vertuous conuersation and examination of the sufficien∣cie of the person, it is performed with religious praier by a a 1.384 Bishop, vpon a Sun∣day or holy day in the face of the Church, in these words, b 1.385 Take thou authority to ex∣ecute the office of a Deacon &c.

PHIL.

The c 1.386 office of a Deacon is, to assist the Priest in saying of Masse. Do your Deacons so?

ORTHOD.

That the Deacon should assist the Priest in the admi∣nistration of holy things concerning his office, is graunted on both sides; but for your Popish massing and sacrifising, we haue proued, that it is a profaning of Christs ordinance, and that it is neither lawfull for you to do it, nor for the Deacons to assist you: wherefore seeing wee haue already iustified both our Bishops which ordaine, & the office or function of our Presbyters or Priests, wee conclude, that as our Bishops and Presbyters, so our Deacons also are lawfull in the Church of England. Thus haue we examined your ob∣iections against the ministery of the Church of England, and find them to be meere cauilles. Neither can you proue that our calling is in any thing, con∣trarie to the Scripture, or to the practise of reuerend antiquity, but your sa∣crifising Priesthood appeareth not onely to bee the inuention of man, but also sacrilegious, and abominable in the sight of God. Wherefore I beseech you repent of your sinnes, renounce your Antichristian practise, re∣turne to your deare Country, cease to bee Philodox, and become an Or∣thodox.

CHAP. XII.

Wherein is declared that though wee deriue our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, yet our calling is lawfull, and theirs vnlawfull.

PHIL.

WEll, I perceiue one thing that howsoeuer you speake against Popish Priests, calling them sacrilegious and abominable, yet when your owne calling is put to the trial, you are glad to deriue it from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, which you so disdainefully call sacrilegious and abominable.

ORTHOD.

And I perceiue another thing, that howsoeuer you exclai∣med against Cranmer as a Schismaticke, and burned him for an Heriticke: yet when the glorious succession of your Bishops in Queene Maries time, is put to the trial, you are forced to deriue it from him whom you so scornefully call a Schismatike and an Hereticke. But if our forefathers deriued their or∣ders from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, what inconuenience will follow?

PHIL.

Then either confesse your calling to bee vnlawfull, or accknow∣ledge ours to be lawfull, from whence you deriue it: You cannot gather figges of thornes, nor grapes of thistles, neither is it possible for a rose to spring out of a nettle.

ORTHOD.

But a garden of Roses may be ouergrowne with nettles. For the Ministery planted by Christ, was a sweete rose without any nettle; and so

it continued in the Church for certaine ages: but when Antichrist began to reueale himselfe in the Temple of God as though hee were God, the Romish Priesthood became a monstrous birth, strangely compounded, halfe rose, halfe nettle: the Church of England in the beginning of reformation did borrow from the Church of Rome the rose, but left the nettle.

PHIL.

What will you make of vs? are we Ministers or lay men? if we bee Ministers, then so acknowledge vs. If wee be lay men, then I pray you what was Cranmer, who had no Cousecration but in our Church? what were all the Bishops in Kings Edwards time which were Consecrated by Cranmer? what was Mathew Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horne, which were all ordained a 1.387 Priests in our Church? were they all lay men? what are all the Ministers of England at this day, which deriue their orders from the former? are they all lay-men?

ORTHOD.

Your Popish Priests are neither the true ministers of the Gos∣pel, nor merely lay-men. For your ordination consisteth of two parts; the for∣mer in these words, take thou power to offer sacrifice, and to celebrate masse for the quick and the dead, which you account the principall function of Christian Priesthood, but in truth it maketh you not the Ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist: the latter in these words, receiue the holy ghost, whose sins thou forgiuest, they are forgiuen, & whose thou retainest, they are retained, in which Euangelicall words, there is deliuered a ghostly ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes, which according to the true meaning of Christ is perfor∣med by the ministery of reconciliation, therefore whosoeuer hath receiued this power, hath withall receiued the ministery of reconcilation, consisting as was before declared in the due administration of the word and sacraments.

PHIL.

If it be so, then you must confesse that the Priesthood of the Church of Rome hath the ministeriall function, because these words are vsed in our ordination.

ORTHOD.

Though these words as they were spoken by Christ, practi∣sed in the primitiue Church, and are vsed at this day in the Church of Eng∣land, imply the substance of this holy function, yet as you abuse them in the Church of Rome, to maintaine Popish shrift, the gold is couered with drosse, and the sweet flower ouershadowed with noysome weeds. Wherefore if we consider your Priesthood, as it is a totum aggregatum, consisting of sacrifising and absoluing, it is vnlawfull and contrary to the Scripture: If wee come to the parts thereof, your massing and sacrifising is simply abominable: the o∣ther part so farre as it relieth vpon the words of Christ, taken in their true sense and meaning, is holy, and implieth a ministerial power, which notwith∣standing, by your construction and practise is greatly depraued.

PHIL.

I will proue our Priesthood to be lawfull by the b 1.388 practise of your owne Church, which against you is as good as a thousand witnesses. For when any of our Priests forsake the Catholike Church, & ioyne themselues with you, you do not giue thē new orders, but presently receiue thē into the bosome of your Church, suffering them to execute the ministeriall function, by vertue of those orders which they receiued in the Church of Rome.

ORTH.

None can bee admitted with vs to execute the office of a mini∣ster, before he subscribe to the articles of religion, as may appeare by this act

of Parliament. a 1.389 That the Churches of the Queens Maiesties dominions may be serued with pastours of soūd religion, be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that euery person vnder the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shal pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy word and Sacraments, by reason of any other forme of insti∣tution, Consecration, or ordering, then the forme set foorth by Parliament, in the time of the late King of most worthy memorie King Edward the sixth, or now vsed in the raigne of our most gracious soueraigne Lady, before the feast of the Natiuitie of Christ next following shall in the presence of the Bishop or Gardian of the spiritualties of some one Diocesse where hee hath or shall haue Ecclesiasticall liuing, declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion, which onely concerne the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments comprised in a Booke imprinted, in∣tituled Articles, &c. Among which Articles this is one, b 1.390 The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world, both originall and actuall: and there is no other satisfaction for sinne, but that alone. Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quicke and the dead, to haue remission of paine or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits. By this you may plainely perceiue, that no popish Priest can possibly be admitted in the Church of En∣gland, vnlesse he vtterly disclaime and renounce the first function of your Priesthood, which consisteth in Massing and Sacrifising, and the latter also so farre as it is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. But what∣soeuer is in it from God, and according to the true sence of the Scripture, as for example, the power of forgiuing sinnes by the ministery of reconciliati∣on that we embrace and acknowledge. It is a Rose which is found in the Ro∣mish wildernes, but the plants thereof were deriued from the garden of God: It is a riuer which runneth in Egypt, but the fountaine and spring of it is in Paradise: it is a beame which is seene in Babylon, but the original of it is from the sphere of heauen. Wherefore when your Priestes returne to vs. Our Church paring away their pollutions, suffereth them to execute their mini∣steriall function, according to the true meaning of Christs words.

THe like moderation is vsed in other reformed Churches, as witnesseth* 1.391 Prince c 1.392 Anhalt. Hac vtimur moderatione vt ad parochialia munera euo∣catos, si verbum posthac purè docere & Sacramenta iuxta Christi institutionem ad∣ministrare se velle permittant, recipiamus: horumque contenti vocatione & muneris demandati commissione ordinationem & manus impositionem non iteremus. i. We vse this moderation, that we receiue such as are called to the charge of particular Parishes, if they promise that they will henceforth teach the word purely, and administer the Sacraments according to the institution of Christ: and we being content with their calling, and commission of their function already committed vnto them, doe not reite∣rate their ordination and imposition of hands. This is agreeable to the iudgement of the learned Authors of the Articuli Smalcaldici; si d 1.393 Episcopi suo officio recte fun∣gerentur & curam Ecclesiae & Euangelij gererent, posset illis nomine charitatis & tranquillitatis, non ex necessitate permitti, vt nos & nostros concionatores ordinarent & confirmarent, hac tamen conditione vt seponerentur omnes laruae, prestigiae, delira∣menta & spectra pompae Ethnicae. i. If the Bishops would rightly performe their office, and carie a care of the Church and Gospell, it might bee permitted vnto them in re∣gard of loue and peace, though not of necessitie, that they should ordaine and confirme

vs and our Preachers, yet vpon this condition that all visards, deceits, all dotages and shewes of heathenish pompe should bee set aside. This and the rest of the Articles were subscribed vnto by Martin Luther, Iustus Ionas, Philip Melancthon, vrba∣nus Regius, Osiander, Brentius, and many moe. To these wee may ioyne the iudgment of Caluin, a 1.394 vbi sese ipsi offerunt ad munus illud deinceps praestandum, non mole illis ab Ecclesia conceditur quod ab ipsis ante minus legitimè vsurpatum e∣rat. Duo sunt in illo statu summa vitia, vnum quod non recta ratione instituti sunt ••d munus Ecclesiasticum, alterum quod de illo grad•• sese deiecerunt dum nihil eius praesti••erunt quod ad rem pertineret. Sed illud non facit quo minus agnoscantur pro ministris ordinariis, vbi sese Ecclesiae coniungere paratos ostendunt: atque ita de nouo confirmentur demum ad corrigendum praecedentem defectum. When such as haue bene popish Priests doe offer themselues from henceforth to performe the ministeriall functi∣on, that which before was vsurped of them vnlawfully, is now not amisse granted vnto them by the Church. For there are two great faults in that state; one that they are not rightly instituted to the Ecclesiasticall office: another that they haue depriued them∣selues from that degeee by doing nothing belonging to the matter. But this doth not hin∣der that they may be acknowledged for ordinarie ministers when they shew themselues ready to ioyne themselues to the Church, & so may be confirmed againe a new, to correct their former default. And b 1.395 againe, Constat non posse haberi pro Christianis pastori∣bus▪ nisi prius abrenuncient sacerdotio papali ad quod prouecti erant vt Christum sacri∣ficarēt, quodest blasphemiae genus omnibus modis detestandum. Praeterea etiam requi∣ritur vt aperte profiteāturse abstinere omnino velle ab omnibus illis superstitionibus & faeditatibus, quae simplicitati Euangelij repugnant. i. It is euident that they cannot bee esteemed for Christian pastours, vnlesse first they renounce the Popish Priesthood to which they were promoted that they might sacrifice Christ which is a kind of blasphe∣mie by all meanes to bee detested. Moreouer there is required, that they make an open profession, that they will altogether refraine from all those superstitions and impurities which are repugnant to the simplicitie of the Gospell.

PHIL.

BVt one of your Ministers cannot so easily be metamorphised* 1.396 into a Catholicke Priest; first the diuell must bee coniured out of him in this manner. c 1.397 Exorcizo te immunde spiritus, &c. I coniure thee, thou foule spirit by God the Father almighty, and by Iesus Christ his Sonne, and by the holy Spirit, that thou depart out of this seruant of God, whom God and our Lord vouch∣safeth to deliuer, from errours and from thy deceits, and to call backe to the Catholicke and Apostolicke holy Mother Church. Thou cursed and damned spirit, he commandeth thee, who hauing suffered, and being dead and buried for the saluation of men, hath conquered thee and all thy forces, and rising againe is ascended into heauen whence he will come to iudge both the quicke and the dead, and the world by fire. This is the forme of the Church in recōciling all Apostataes, Hereticks & Schismaticks.

ORTHOD.

Who so duely considereth your positions and practises, may very well thinke that you are more likely to coniure the deuill into a man, then out of him. Woe to you Seminaries and Iesuites, Hypocrites, you compasse sea and land to make one proselite, and when hee is become one, you make him two fould more the childe of Hell, then yee your selues are. But when he is reconciled what is then to be done.

PHIL.

Though now hee bee a Catholicke when the Diuell is coniu∣red out of him, yet before he can be Priest, hee must be cast wholy in a newe

mould. For as I told you we account your Ministers but meerly lay men with∣out orders.

ORTHOD.

The more to blame you; and therein you degenerate from your forefathers, as may appeare by the articles sent by Queene Mary to Bi∣shop Bonner, one whereof was this.

a 1.398 Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders: considering they were not ordered in very deede: the bishop of the Diocesse, finding otherwise sufficiency and abilitie in these men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then ac∣cording to his discretion, admit them to minister.

Heere you see that they did not ordaine them a new, but onely supply that which they thought to be wanting, and therefore they misliked not our or∣ders in whole but in part.

PHIL.

Yes they wholly misliked them, as you may see by the words: considering they were not ordered in very deed. If they were not ordered in very deed, then howsoeuer they pretended orders, yet they had no orders at all, but were meerely lay men, and so are you. For that which they call the new sort and fashion of orders, was according to the booke established by King Edward, which is vsed in England to this very day.

ORTHO.

Doth not a Bishop ordaine when he imposeth handes, and saith, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes you forgiue, &c.

PHIL.

b 1.399 I answere that Priests are ordained when it is said vnto them, take thou power to offer sacrifice, but they are also ordained afterward, when it is said vnto them, Receiue the holy Ghost. For by the former wordes they are ordained to the function of sacrificing, by the latter to the function of absoluing, by both ioyntly to the full and perfect order of Priesthood.

ORTHOD.

But these words; Receiue the holy Ghost, were vsed in king Edwards time, and are to this day in the Church of England, in making of Mi∣nisters. And therefore those that are promoted to orders after the new sort and fashion as you call it, are ordered in very deed, neither did the Penners of the article meane otherwise.

PHIL.

Are not their words plaine that they were not ordered in very deed?

ORTHOD.

They meant that they were not ordered fully and perfectly, & therfore aduised the Bishops to supply that which wanted, Which they could not say with reason, if they had thought them to be meerely lay men; there∣fore they iudged them to bee Priests in part, and yet part of the office to bee wanting, which needed supply. That which they had, was the power receiued by these wordes, Receiue the holy Ghost. That which they supposed to be wan∣ting, was the power of sacrificing. Therefore their meaning was not to re∣iterate that which they had, but to supply that which was wanting in their cō∣ceit, euen as we on the contrary side cause such as come from Popery to vs to renounce the power of sacrificing which we hold sacrilegious, but doe not re∣iterate those Euangelicall words, wherin we agree. And this you must needes grant vnlesse you will allow of reordination.

PHIL.

Reordination? God forbid. No sir we will neuer allow of that. For order imprinteth a Character, and therefore can neuer be reiterated.

ORTHOD.

But you granted before that a Priest is ordained when the

Bishop saith vnto him, Receiue the holy Ghost. And therefore if the power of remitting sinnes giuen in these words, were reiterated either in Queene Ma∣ries time, or among you at this day in ordaining your proselytes, then you cannot possibly defend your Church from Reordination. If you abhorre Re∣ordination, then you must confesse that when any Minister reuolteth from vs to you, yet in making him Priest you must not repeat those words, Receiue the holy Ghost, which proueth inuincibly, that vnlesse you will be contrary vnto your selues, you cannot esteeme vs to bee meerely lay men. Or if you will needs aduance your owne orders, and make a nullitie in ours, and order our fugitiue Ministers accordingly, then you must runne (there is no remedy) vp∣on the rocke of Reordination by repeating the words wherein we agree.

PHIL.

Though we agree in the wordes, yet we differ in the sense.

ORTHOD.

That is no barre to Reordination; for if a child bee Baptised in the true forme of words, & an Heretick shall Baptise the same child in the same wordes, though in another sense, yet all good Christians will iudge it to be Rebaptisation; and there is the same reason of Reordination. Therefore thus I reason. When you Metamorphise an English Minister, into a Popish Priest, either you repeat the words, Receiue the holy Ghost, or you doe not: if you doe repeat them, then I haue made it manifest, that you vse Reordination. If you doe not, then you iustifie not onely our practise, but also our orders. For you hold these words necessary in ordination, to the conferring of one of the principall functions of Priesthood, and therfore in not repeating them you acknowledge that they had receiued that function before, in the Church of England, & consequently that the ministers of England are not lay men. So your owne practise, doth either condemne your selues, or iustifie vs, but our practise condemneth altogether the first part of your Priesthood, that is, your carnall sacrificing as simply abhominable: and the latter part so farre as it is polluted with your popish constructions.

PHIL.

If the first part of our Priesthood bee simply abhominable, and the latter as it is vsed by vs bee polluted, then Cranmer, Ridley, Parker, Grindall, and the rest of your Coronels, had no other Priesthood, but that which was partly abhominable and partly polluted.

ORTHO.

When God opened their eyes, they did vtterly renounce your carnall sacrificing, as derogating from the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ; the other part, that is, the power of forgiuing sinnes which they re∣ceiued corruptly in the Church of Rome, they practised purely in the Church of England, renouncing the Pope and all Popish pollutions.

PHIL.

But when the question is concerning the validity of orders, wee must not so much respect the practise as the power receiued in ordination, how Cranmer, Parker, and such like receiued both parts of their Priesthood in the Church of Rome. And as the Church gaue them so they receiued them, in that very sense which the Church of Rome holdeth at this day. Where∣fore seeing you condemned both parts, as we vse them for nettles, I cannot but maruell how you can be Roses.

ORTHOD.

Let me aske you a question; If one Baptize a Conuert in the Element of water, according to the true forme of the Church, yet so, that both the Baptizer and the baptized haue some pernicious errour: as for ex∣ample,

If they deny the Godhead of the Sonne, or of the holy Ghost, shall this hinder the validitie of the Baptisme?

PHIL.

No: for you must consider that there is a visible Priest, and an inuisible. It is required to the substance of Baptisme, that the visible Priest ap∣ply water to the baptized, In the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. If he faile in any of these points, the Baptisme is frustrate. And therefore it was decreed in the great Councell of a 1.400 Nice, that the Paulianists should be rebaptized; where they take the word rebaptised improperly, meaning that the former was not performed in the true wordes, and therefore was in deed no Baptisme. But if it were duely performed in water with such words as Christ hath appointed, their priuate opinions and misconstruction, cannot hinder the validitie of the Baptisme. Satis ostendimus (saith b 1.401 S. Austin) ad Baptismum qui verbis Euangelicis consecratur, non pertinere cuiusquam vel dantis, vel accipientis errorem siue de Patre, siue de Filio, siue de Spiritu sancto, aliter sentiat quam coelesiis doctrina insinuat. i. We haue sufficiently declared, that to the Baptisme which is consecrated with Euangelicall words, pertaineth not the errour of any man, ei∣ther of the giuer, or of the receiuer, whether he thinke otherwise, then the heauenly do∣ctrine teacheth of the Father, or of the Sonne, or of the holy Ghost. For whosoeuer be the Minister, Christ the inuisible Priest is the principall Baptizer, and there∣fore if the right Element and forme of words be vsed, we regard not the erro∣nious sense of the seruant, but the true sense of the Lord and Master.

ORTHOD.

So I say to you, there is a visible Bishop, and an inuisible; if the visible shall impose hands vpon a capable person, vsing those Euangelicall words which Christ hath sanctified, his owne priuate opinions cannot hinder the validitie of the Ordination: for so that right and sufficient words be vsed, we will not respect the erronious construction of the seruant, but the true sense and meaning of the Lord and Master. Therefore though Cranmer and Parker were ordained in the rite of the Church of Rome, though both the or∣dainers gaue the power, and the ordained receiued it in the erronious sense of the Church of Rome; yet neither the error of the ordainers, nor of the ordai∣ned, pertaineth to the Ordination. As Christ is the chiefe Baptizer, so he is the chiefe Ordainer: for c 1.402 hee giueth Pastours and teachers, for the consumma∣tion of the Saints. Wherefore, when God vouchsafed to take away the scales of ignorance from the eyes of his blessed instruments which he vsed in the reformation of Religion, it was their duetie not to follow the erronious sense of the visible Bishop, but the true meaning of the inuisible Bishop, who was the authour of these holy and admirable words, Receiue the holy Ghost, &c. In which words of Christ, that was accomplished, which was promised by the keyes, which keyes the d 1.403 Fathers call the knowledge of the Scripture, the interpretation of the Law, the word of God: And Pope e 1.404 Adrian, the key of ministery: so whosoeuer is ordained by these words, receiueth the keyes, and may open the kingdome of heauen, by the Word and Sacraments. Wherfore see∣ing these words were retained in the Ordination of Priests, euen in the darke∣nesse of Poperie, it followeth that the Church of Rome had power by these words, rightly vnderstood according to the Scripture, to minister the word and Sacraments. But that which in it selfe was lawfull, to them was made vn∣lawfull, by adding the abhomination of sacrifising, and by wresting the

words of Christ to their Popish shrift. Thus though the Church of Rome gaue her Priests authority to preach the truth, yet she did not reueale the truth vnto them but plunged them in ignorance and errors. Therefore whereas those words of Christ (in themselues a Rose) by corruption of time were ouer∣growne with nettles, those heroicall spirits which reformed religion, did weede away the Romane nettles, and so there remained onely the sweet Rose of Iesus Christ. Thus it came to passe that that which was practised in the Church of Rome vnlawfully, as beeing polluted with wicked humane inuen∣tions, was by the goodnesse of God purged and restored to the orient co∣lour, and natiue purity. To conclude, in the primitiue Church, the ministe∣riall power was receiued purely, and deliuered purely; In the beginning of Popery, it was receiued purely, and deliuered corruptly: During the sway of Popery it was receiued corruptly and deliuered corruptly: In the beginning of the reformation it was receiued corruptly, and deliuered purely: Now in the sun shine of the Gospell, it is receiued purely and deliuered purely. Thus it appeareth that although we receiued our Orders from such as were Popish Priests, yet our calling is lawfull, which was to be declared. Now the Lord of his mercy so blesse his owne ordinance, that we may vse this holy functi∣on to his glory, and the winning of many thousand soules. Amen.

LAVS DEO.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Ex Bel. de sacr. ord. c. 5.
• b 1.2

  Pontificale in ordinat. Pres∣byteri.
• c 1.3

  T••t. 1. 5.
• d 1.4

  The forme of ordering of Priests.
• a 1.5

  Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 2. his ••rgo.
• * 1.6

  2▪
• b 1.7

  Articles of religion▪ 1562 art. 31.
• c 1.8

  Concil. ••rid. sess. 22. Canone 1.
• d 1.9

  Ibid. Can. 3.
• * 1.10

  3.
• e 1.11

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Missa ••. ••. c. ••. Porro.
• a 1.12

  Luke. 22. 19.
• b 1.13

  Heb. 7. 3.
• c 1.14

  Psal. 110 4.
• * 1.15

  2
• d 1.16

  Gen. 14. 18.
• e 1.17

  Antiq l. 1. cap 11.
• f 1.18

  Tertul. con. Iud. 14.
• g 1.19

  Am••. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3.
• h 1.20

  And de vulg: lat. Edit. l. 4. Defens. p. 636.
• i 1.21

  In Genes▪ c. 14.
• k 1.22

  Gen. 14. 22
• a 1.23

  Bell. de Missa ••. ••. c. 6.
• b 1.24

  Gene. 14. 13.
• c 1.25

  Verse 14.
• d 1.26

  Verse 15.
• e 1.27

  Verse 17.
• * 1.28

  3.
• f 1.29

  Verse 18.
• g 1.30

  Verse 23.
• h 1.31

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in∣ter. line▪ ••ribus.
• i 1.32

  Bell. de Missa. l. 1. c. 6.
• a 1.33

  Esay 64. 2.
• b 1.34

  Luke 1. 42.
• c 1.35

  In annotat. in vers. suam.
• d 1.36

  Bel. quo supr.
• e 1.37

  Buxtorf. thesaur gram. l. 2. c. 23.
• f 1.38

  Gloss. liter. in Genes.
• a 1.39

  And▪ desens▪ de vulg. Edit. p. 637. Colon. 1580.
• * 1.40

  5
• a 1.41

  Heb. 9. 12.
• b 1.42

  Heb. 10. 14
• c 1.43

  Colos. 1. 20
• d 1.44

  Luk. 22. 19
• * 1.45

  6
• e 1.46

  Bell▪ quo supra.
• a 1.47

  Heb. 7. 24.
• b 1.48

  Reuel. 13. 8.
• c 1.49

  Heb. 13. 8.
• d 1.50

  Heb. 9. 12.
• e 1.51

  Anglor. in Heb. 5. 6.
• f 1.52

  1. Ioh. 2. 1. 2.
• g 1.53

  Heb. 9. 24.
• h 1.54

  Rom. 8. 33.
• i 1.55

  Heb. 7. 26.
• k 1.56

  Chap. 7.
• l 1.57

  Ierem. 23. 6.
• m 1.58

  Isa 9 6.
• n 1.59

  Ephes. 2. 14.
• a 1.60

  Ephes. 1. 3.
• b 1.61

  Heb. 5. 11.
• c 1.62

  Anglor. in Heb. 5. 11.
• a 1.63

  Exod 12. 21.
• b 1.64

  Exod. 12. 27.
• c 1.65

  Num. 9. 6.
• d 1.66

  Ibid. ••. 13.
• e 1.67

  Mar. 14. 12
• f 1.68

  1. Cor. 5. 7.
• g 1.69

  Ex Bell. de miss. l. 1. cap. 7.
• h 1.70

  Ibidem.
• i 1.71

  Ioh. ••. ••9.
• k 1.72

  Ephe. 1. 7.
• a 1.73

  Reu. 13. 8.
• b 1.74

  Ioh. 19. 36.
• c 1.75

  Bell. ibid de∣inde.
• d 1.76

  Ex Bell. ibid.
• e 1.77

  Luc. 22. 19.
• f 1.78

  Iohn 6. 53.
• g 1.79

  Iohn 6. 51▪
• h 1.80

  In Ioh. tract. 26.
• i 1.81

  Ex Bell. ibid.
• k 1.82

  Act. 15. 9.
• a 1.83

  Ex Bell. ibid. illud autem.
• b 1.84

  2. Cor. 5. 7.
• c 1.85

  1. Sam. 2. 35.
• d 1.86

  1 King. 2. 27.
• e 1.87

  Ex Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 9. De ciuitate Dei. l. 17. c. 3.
• a 1.88

  Esay 19. 19.
• b 1.89

  Verse 21.
• c 1.90

  Esay 61. 6.
• d 1.91

  Esay 66. 20.
• e 1.92

  Rom. 15. 16.
• f 1.93

  Esay 60. 7.
• g 1.94

  Psal. 51. 19.
• h 1.95

  Verse 17.
• i 1.96

  Esay 66. 21.
• * 1.97

  2
• k 1.98

  Mala. 1. 11.
• l 1.99

  Iren. aduers. haeres. l. 4. c. 33.
• m 1.100

  August. contr. aduers. Leg. & Proph. l. 1. c. 20.
• a 1.101

  H••er in Mal. cap. 1.
• b 1.102

  Demonst. Euang. l. 1. p. 14. Lutetiae. per. R. Step. 1548.
• c 1.103

  Mal. 3. 3.
• * 1.104

  Alan. de Euch. sacrif. l. 2. c. 5.
• d 1.105

  Esay 66. 20
• e 1.106

  Alan. ibid.
• f 1.107

  Heb. 10. 8.
• g 1.108

  Ex Alano, quo supra.
• h 1.109

  Alanus quo supra.
• i 1.110

  Alanus quo supra.
• a 1.111

  Pro. 4. 18.
• b 1.112

  Ioh. 4. 23.
• c 1.113

  Bel. de miss. l. 1. c. 11.
• d 1.114

  Ioh. 4. 20.
• e 1.115

  Vers. 22.
• a 1.116

  Genes. 17. 10
• b 1.117

  Vers. 11.
• c 1.118

  Rom. 4. 11.
• d 1.119

  Exod. 12. 11.
• e 1.120

  Vers. 13.
• f 1.121

  1. Cor. 10. ••
• * 1.122

  g Petra Chri∣stus ••n signo▪ tract. in Iohn. 26▪
• a 1.123

  Rom. 6. 4.
• b 1.124

  Aug. ep. 23.
• c 1.125

  Tollet. in Rom. c. 6.
• d 1.126

  Luk. 20. 22.
• e 1.127

  1. Cor. 10. 16.
• f 1.128

  Mat. 26. 17.
• g 1.129

  Bel. de Eu∣char. l. 1. c. 10.
• h 1.130

  Marke 14. 12.
• i 1.131

  Respondes, dominum acce∣pisse ac benedix∣••sse panem, sed dedisse panē, non vulgar••m, vt acceperat, sed benedictum, & benedictione mutatum. Bel. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11.
• a 1.132

  1. Cor. 10. 16.
• b 1.133

  1. Cor. 11. 28.
• c 1.134

  Psal. 16. 10. Act. 2. 27.
• * 1.135

  4
• d 1.136

  Mat. 26. 26.
• e 1.137

  Luk. 22. 19
• f 1.138

  1. Cor. 11. 24.
• g 1.139

  Mar. 14. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.140

  1. Cor. 10. 16.
• i 1.141

  Luk. 12. 16.
• k 1.142

  Ioh. 6. 11.
• l 1.143

  1. Tim. 4. 5.
• a 1.144

  Bell. de Sacr. Euchar. l. 4. c. 13
• b 1.145

  Mark. 14. 22.
• * 1.146

  In Mat. c. 26
• * 1.147

  5
• c 1.148

  Durantus de rit. Eccle. Cath. l. 2. c. 38. n. 19.
• d 1.149

  Aquin. in Ep. 1. ad cor. c. 11. Lect. 5.
• e 1.150

  Bessar. de Euchar.
• a 1.151

  Christof. Archiep. Caesa∣riensis de cap. fontium in va∣rijs tra••l.
• b 1.152

  Bell. de sa∣cram. Euch••••. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.153

  6
• c 1.154

  Bell. ibid.
• d 1.155

  Gene. 2. 22.
• e 1.156

  Comment. in Gene. l. 4.
• a 1.157

  Bell. quo supra.
• * 1.158

  7.
• b 1.159

  Luke 22. 20.
• c 1.160

  Sess. 13. c. 1. Bin. ••. 4 p. 824.
• d 1.161

  Bell. de Eu∣charist. l. 3. c. 24.
• a 1.162

  Reuel. 1. 4. 5.
• b 1.163

  Tertul. l. 4. cont. Marcio∣nem. p. 879.
• c 1.164

  De ••nctione Chris. 7. if it be Cyprians as some of our aduer ••ries vrge 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• d 1.165

  Huius con∣ditioins quae est secu••••lum not, acc••piens panem suum corpus confitebatur. l. 5. c. 57.
• a 1.166

  Epist. 150. ad Hibid. q. x.
• b 1.167

  In 1. cor. c. 11.
• c 1.168

  Cyril▪ Hieros. Catechis. myst. 4. initio quum igitur Christus ipsesic affirmet, at{que} dicat de pane, hoc est corpus meum &c.
• d 1.169

  Dial. 1.
• * 1.170

  8
• e 1.171

  Gloss••. in dist. 2. de Con∣secrat. Timorē▪ dico quod per hane dictionem (hoc) nihil de∣monstratur: nam ipsa mate∣rial••ter ponitur.
• f 1.172

  In Marco Anton. cited by Bishop Iuel. repl. art. 24.
• g 1.173

  In 4. sent. distinct. 13.
• h 1.174

  Pronomen (hoc) nōdemon∣strat panem neque corpus Christi sed hanc substantiam. Ca••etan. in cap. 26. Math.
• i 1.175

  De forma verb▪ requisita. c. 4. cited by Bishop Iewel. reply. art. 24.
• * 1.176

  9.
• a 1.177

  De sacram. ••••ch. l. 1. c. 10.
• b 1.178

  Cap. 11.
• c 1.179

  Arch. Caesari∣••ns. tract. par. disp. de necess. cor rect. Theol. s••ho∣last. l. 1. f. 17. B.
• a 1.180

  Bel. de sacram. euchar. c. 10.
• b 1.181

  Quo supra.
• c 1.182

  Petrus de A∣liaco in 4. s. q. 6. art. 2.
• a 1.183

  De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.184

  11.
• b 1.185

  Heb. 9. 12.
• c 1.186

  Col. 1. 20.
• d 1.187

  Ver. 9. 24.
• e 1.188

  Ver. 27. 28.
• f 1.189

  Heb. 10. 12.
• a 1.190

  Ex Bell. l. 1. de Missa. c. 12. preter illa.
• * 1.191

  b Missale Ro∣manum.
• c 1.192

  Bell. quo supra.
• d 1.193

  Caietan 1. Cor. 11.
• e 1.194

  Salmeron in 1. Cor. 11. disp. 19. p. 154.
• f 1.195

  Caiet. ibid.
• * 1.196

  12.
• a 1.197

  Esay 53. 5.
• b 1.198

  Verse 1••.
• c 1.199

  De Miss•• 1. c. 27. Secun•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• d 1.200

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 8.
• e 1.201

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ex∣〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ ••. ••.
• f 1.202

  ••••de Bell. de Missd. ••. c. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g 1.203

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. c. 27. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.204

  Ibid. tertio.
• b 1.205

  Ibid quarto.
• c 1.206

  Bell. ibid. 5.
• d 1.207

  Lib. 4. c. 32.
• e 1.208

  In serm. de caena Dom.
• f 1.209

  Homil. de prodit. ••ude.
• g 1.210

  Lib. 4. dial. c. 58.
• h 1.211

  Lib. 4. dist. 12 g.
• * 1.212

  2.
• i 1.213

  Ibid de miss. l. 1. c. 27. his igitur.
• k 1.214

  Ibid. secund•• in consecratione.
• l 1.215

  Ibid. 3. per consecrationent.
• a 1.216

  Bel. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. re∣spondeo.
• b 1.217

  Ibid. secundo.
• c 1.218

  Gen. 2••. 9
• d 1.219

  De Missa▪ l. 1. c▪ 27. Tertio.
• a 1.220

  De Miss. l. 1. c. 2. 8.
• b 1.221

  De Missa. l▪ 1. c. 2.
• c 1.222

  De sacra. Euchar. l. 3. c. 5.
• d 1.223

  Ses. 13. Can. 1
• * 1.224

  Psal. 16. 10.
• c 1.225

  De Missa. l. 1 c. 27. prop. 7.
• f 1.226

  Bellar. de sacra. Eu∣charist. l. 1. c. 7.
• a 1.227

  Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.
• b 1.228

  Ex Bellar▪ de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Tertio. Per.
• c 1.229

  Add•• v••timo, quod etiam spo∣••••••s sacraments ••utr••rent, si in magna copia sumerentur. Bell. de sacram. euchar. l 3. c. 23. ed secundam▪
• a 1.230

  Sicut enim diuino miracu∣lo ma••ent sine subiecto, it a eti∣am nutriunt, vt Theologi docent Bell. ibid.
• b 1.231

  Acts 13. 2▪
• c 1.232

  Anglor. in hunc locum.
• d 1.233

  Hebr. 1. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.234

  Rom. 13. 6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• f 1.235

  Bar. an. 34. n. 59.
• g 1.236

  Bin. t. 3. p. 1. pag. 110. latinum non he••raeum est, vt neoterici studiose exco∣gitant.
• h 1.237

  Bell. de Mis. l. 1 c. 1. sed. non.
• i 1.238

  Chrys. in Act. homil. 27.
• * 1.239

  2. Cor. 9. 12
• * 1.240

  3
• a 1.241

  1. Cor. 10. 14.
• b 1.242

  Ex Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 14. ex his verbis.
• c 1.243

  Heb. 13. 10.
• * 1.244

  4
• d 1.245

  Thom. in E∣pist. ad hebraeos. c. 13. ••ect. 2.
• e 1.246

  Gal. 5. 2.
• f 1.247

  De Missa. ••. 1. c. 14. ex ••••s.
• a 1.248

  Iob 1. 5.
• b 1.249

  Iob 42. 8.
• c 1.250

  Heb. 10. 4.
• d 1.251

  Ex Bell. de Missa. l. 1. c. 15. hic igitur.
• e 1.252

  Canus loc. Theol. l. 12. sol. 424. b.
• f 1.253

  Aust. in ex∣posit. Epist. ad Rom. p. 365. Paris. 1586.
• a 1.254

  Pass••o D••m. 〈…〉〈…〉 Baptism.
• b 1.255

  Chr〈…〉〈…〉. 16.
• c 1.256

  In hom. Pas∣••hal. apud Grat. de••••••s••l••st. 2. quid ••it ••ang.
• d 1.257

  Gloss. ••••••d.
• e 1.258

  Be••••de M••••sa. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• f 1.259

  Be••••••. ibid. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• g 1.260

  S••••••. 22. 〈…〉〈…〉. 4••. 844
• * 1.261

  2.
• h 1.262

  Am••r•••• ••. ••im. c 4.
• i 1.263

  Am〈…〉〈…〉.
• k 1.264

  Ibid••••.
• l 1.265

  In E••••st. ad H••b. Hom••l. 17.
• m 1.266

  A〈…〉〈…〉.
• a 1.267

  Lib. 4. de Trinit. c. 14.
• b 1.268

  Epist. 23.
• c 1.269

  Contra Faust. lib. 20. c. 21.
• d 1.270

  Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. ••5.
• * 1.271

  3.
• e 1.272

  Can. 14. Bin. t. 1. c. 1. p. 308.
• f 1.273

  De vita Con∣stant. l. 4. c. 45.
• g 1.274

  Demonst. Euang. l. 1. p. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.275

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 27.
• a 1.276

  Iewell. reply. art. 1. Bi••so true difference. part. 4. Reinold. conf••c. 8. diu••s. 4. Morton. appeale. l. 2. c. 7.
• a 1.277

  Rhem in Ioh. 20. vers. 13.
• b 1.278

  Pontif. in or∣dinat. Pr••sb. Catechism. Rom. de ord. sacram.
• c 1.279

  The forme of ordering of Priests.
• a 1.280

  Mat. 28. 20.
• b 1.281

  Leo Serm. •• in An••••••ers. di••. A.
• c 1.282

  Ibid.
• d 1.283

  Hieronym. E••. 150 ••d Hedibiam. q. 9.
• e 1.284

  Ioh. 6. 69.
• f 1.285

  Luk. 24. 49.
• g 1.286

  Quo supra.
• h 1.287

  Chris. in Ioh. homil. 85.
• i 1.288

  Ambr. d•• paenit. l. 1. •• 2.
• k 1.289

  Bell. de sacra. in gen. l. 1. c. 26. respondeo.
• l 1.290

  Michael. de palacio in Ioh. c 20.
• m 1.291

  2. Cor. 5. 10.
• a 1.292

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• b 1.293

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• c 1.294

  〈…〉〈…〉
• d 1.295

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• e 1.296

  〈…〉〈…〉
• f 1.297

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• a 1.298

  Hiero••. •• Mat. ••. 16.
• b 1.299

  Quo supra.
• c 1.300

  Sixt. Senen∣sis bibl. ••. l 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 71. Petrus
• * 1.301

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. s. q. 8 & 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. arg. ••coti.
• d 1.302

  Alex. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part. 4. q. 21. m••••b. ••. ••. 339
• e 1.303

  〈…〉〈…〉 ••. disp. 16. ••. 2.
• a 1.304

  Bon••••••. de vi∣ta B. Franc.
• * 1.305

  5.
• b 1.306

  Bell. de pae∣••it. l. 3 c. 12. idem. auctor.
• c 1.307

  Fetus in Mat. c. 9. Editio Mogunt. 1559.
• * 1.308

  6.
• a 1.309

  Bell. de paenit. l. 3. c. 2.
• b 1.310

  Ibid. pri∣mum igitur.
• * 1.311

  Mat. 16. 19.
• c 1.312

  Esai. 59. 2.
• d 1.313

  Amb. de spi••. sanct. l. 3. c. 19.
• a 1.314

  Luke 24. 32.
• b 1.315

  Bell. quo su∣pra.
• c 1.316

  Bell. Ibidem.
• d 1.317

  Fab. Incar••. serut. sacerdot. pag. 76.
• e 1.318

  1. Tim. 4. 16.
• f 1.319

  Ezech. 18. 27.
• g 1.320

  Bell. de pae∣nit. lib. 3. c. 2.
• h 1.321

  Ibidem.
• a 1.322

  Ibidem.
• b 1.323

  Greg. Hom. 26. in Euang.
• c 1.324

  Ibidem.
• d 1.325

  Leuit. 14. 11.
• e 1.326

  Bell ibidem. Qua••t••.
• f 1.327

  Ibidem. Quinto.
• a 1.328

  Esay 44. 22.
• b 1.329

  Bellarm. Ibide••▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.330

  6
• c 1.331

  Act 10. 4.
• d 1.332

  Bell. Ibidem. pergit.
• e 1.333

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.334

  Ibidem per∣git Pater.
• b 1.335

  Ibidem per∣git Chrys.
• c 1.336

  Ibidem Ad∣dit v••tim••.
• a 1.337

  Bel. ••bid. Sed a••••liamus.
• b 1.338

  Naz. In ora∣•••••••• ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perc••ls••s
• * 1.339

  7
• c 1.340

  Bel. Ibidem Sanct▪ Ambr.
• d 1.341

  Ambr. l. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pen. cap. 2.
• * 1.342

  8
• e 1.343

  Ambr. ••. 7.
• f 1.344

  Cyp. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 52.
• g 1.345

  Baron. anno 254. n. 107.
• a 1.346

  Bel. ibid. S. Hieron.
• b 1.347

  Ep. ad He∣liodorum.
• * 1.348

  9
• c 1.349

  August. de C••uit. Dei lib. 20. c. 9.
• d 1.350

  Bel▪ abidem S. Inno••ent.
• e 1.351

  Innoc. 1 ••n Epist. 1. ad Decentium. c. 7.
• * 1.352

  10
• f 1.353

  Bel. ibid. S. Gregory.
• g 1.354

  Hom. 26. in Euangelia.
• * 1.355

  11
• a 1.356

  Bellar••inus Ib••dem. Sep••i∣••o.
• * 1.357

  12.
• b 1.358

  August. Ep. 180. ad Ho••∣ra••um.
• * 1.359

  Ioh. 3. 15.
• c 1.360

  Bell. de sacr. bapt. cap. 6. At sint.
• d 1.361

  Eze. 18.
• a 1.362

  Amb. in ora∣tione de obit•• Valentiniani.
• b 1.363

  Aug. l. 4. de Bap. c. 22.
• c 1.364

  Bern. Epistola 77.
• d 1.365

  Cap. Aposto∣licam, de presb. non Bapt.
• e 1.366

  Sessione. 6. c. 4.
• f 1.367

  Lorin. Ies. Comm. in act. 2.
• g 1.368

  Aug. Quest. super Leu. l. 3. que. 84.
• h 1.369

  Bell. ibidem Deinde.
• i 1.370

  Aug. l. 1. de adulter. Coniug. ••••lt.
• k 1.371

  Leo in Epi∣stola ad Theo∣derum.
• l 1.372

  Can. 76.
• m 1.373

  Can. 12.
• n 1.374

  Ex bell. ibi∣dem. Yertio.
• a 1.375

  Bellar. ibid. Quarto.
• b 1.376

  Iob 33. 23.
• a 1.377

  Conc. Trid. sess. 4. Can. 7.
• b 1.378

  Confess. lib. 10. c. 3.
• c 1.379

  Chrysost. in Psalm. 50. Hom. 2.
• d 1.380

  Poena illa quae luenda re∣stat, post culpae remissionem, est illa ipsa poena sensus, quam in g••henna pati debuisset pecca∣tor, remota so∣lum aetern tate. Bell▪ de poenit. l. 4. c. 1. Quod si.
• e 1.381

  Bellar. de in∣dulg l. 1. c. 2. propos. 4.
• f 1.382

  Bellar. de sa∣cram. Ord. c. 5. Presbyteratus non includit essentialiter Diaconatum.
• g 1.383

  Constituti∣ons and Ca∣nons Eccl••s. Anno 1603. Canon. 32.
• a 1.384

  The forme of making Bishops &c. in the preface.
• b 1.385

  In the or∣dering of Deacons.
• c 1.386

  Ex Bell. de cleric. c 13.
• a 1.387

  Exempla ha∣bemus in Anglia quam pluri••••, vt Parkeri, Grindalli, Sandesij Hor∣ni & aliorum qui secundum Catholicum ri∣••um olim Pres∣byteri ordinati essent. Brist. Antih. motiu. ••. 2. pag. 266.
• b 1.388

  Vrged by Brist. Mot. 21. and by Christ. a sacro Bo••co de inuest. Chri∣sti Eccles. ••. ••.
• a 1.389

  13. Elis. ••. 12.
• b 1.390

  Artic. 31.
• * 1.391

  2.
• c 1.392

  Greg. princ. An••. f. 66. B.
• d 1.393

  Artic. Smal∣cald. part. 3. Artic. 10.
• a 1.394

  Epist. 37 3.
• b 1.395

  Ibidem.
• * 1.396

  3
• c 1.397

  Pontif. in ord. ad reconci∣••iand. Apost. Schis. vel Hae∣reticum. p. 649.
• a 1.398

  Act•• an•• Monumen••••. vol. 2. p. 1295.
• b 1.399

  Bell. de Sa∣cram. ord. l. 1. c. 9. ad tertiam respondeo.
• a 1.400

  Can. 19.
• b 1.401

  Aug. de Bap∣tismo Contra D••natistas. l. 4. cap. 15.
• c 1.402

  Ephes. 4. 11. 12.
• d 1.403

  See Bishop Iewel def. par. 2. c. 7. di••. 1.
• e 1.404

  In 4. sent. s••e Tortura Torti. p. 62.