A defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England viz. the surplice, crosse after baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. Diuided into two parts: in the former whereof the generall arguments vrged by the non-conformists; and, in the second part, their particular accusations, against these III. ceremonies seuerally, are answered, and refuted. Published by authoritie.

SECT. XXXIX. Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, and iustifica∣tion of Our selues, is from the confession of Bellarmine arrow_forward , excu∣sing Protestants from the suspition of Adorati∣on; euen because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remaine Bread.

This our Iustification, I confesse, is against their will, for it issueth out of an obiection, which the Non-con∣formists haue made to accuse, and condemne our Church.

The Non-conformists Obiection.

And arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward hauing said that we,* 1.1 (whom he calleth Cal∣uinists, and Sacramentaries) do not adore the Sacrament; neither, saith he, should any man maruell at that, seeing they do not beleeue that Christ is really present, but that the b••ead in the Eucharist is indeed nothing else but the bread that came out of the Ouen.

Our Answer.

Do you not remember Iosephs Cloke, which his Mi∣stresse caught hold of, to draw him to her lustfull bed? who notwithstanding afterwards, in a complaint vnto her husband, turned the same Cloke as a witnesse a∣gainst

Ioseph, to conuince him of folly; notwithstanding it was, indeed, and in truth, a full demonstration of her owne filthinesse, and dishonesty. And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Iosephs Mistris, by ob∣iecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellar∣mine, which in true construction may be a sound and e∣uident Argument for her iustification: Seeing, that Bel∣larmine, so great an Aduersary, confessing that Prote∣stants do not adore the bread, euen because they beleeue it to be bread; doth consequently acknowledge, that they, by their receiuing of this Sacrament, cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish maner of Adoration of the out∣ward Elements. What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the eares of simple people, to the slander of the true Church of Christ, by associating her, as afterwards ye do, with the Synagogue of Antichrist, in an Idola∣trous reuerence?

I alwayes expected, that, as often as you take from the mouth of arrow_back Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this, obiecting that we thinke the Sacrament to bee nothing else but bread, that came out of the Ouen; you should haue shewne your selues zealous Aduocats for the common cause, by controlling the Iesuits impudencie: according as M. Iewell might haue instructed you, in his Answer a∣gainst the like scoffe of M. Harding, in vilifying of our Sacrament.* 1.2 Whereas M. Harding (saith he) vniustly de∣fameth vs as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens, let him vnderstand that we both thinke and speake reuerently of Christ his Sacraments, as knowing them to be the Testimonies of Gods promises, and instruments of the holy Ghost: and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptis∣me bare water, notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still; so we make not the Sacra∣ment

of Christ his body and blood, bare bread and wine: for, as Saint Augustine saith, [Videndum est, non quid sint, sed quid significent] We must not regard so much what they are, (namely in substance) as what they signifie, to wit, ac∣cording to the new nature that they haue of a Diuine Sa∣crament.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Abridg. Linc. p. 31. quoting Bellar. l. 4. d•• Euch. c. 29. art. 2.
• * 1.2

  Iewell art. 4. of Adoration. p. 282.