History of the First Ten Persecutions, Treatises 5

History of the First Ten Persecutions · Treatises 5

p. 137TREATISES, Belonging to the VIII. CENTVRIE.

A TREATISE, Of Transsubstantiation.

SATHAN is a vigilant enemie, setting himselfe in most opposite manner against euerie thing that is a comfort and refreshment vntounto the sheepe-folde of God: Now, the principall comforts of the sheepe of God, are the pastures wherein they feede, Psal. 23Ps 23and the waters wherewith they are refreshed: Doubtlesse these two comforts are the preaching of the word, and the ministration of the Lordes holy Sacraments. If Sathan by any meanes can hinder the true preaching of the worde, and Gene. 26. 18Gen 26:18the right ministration of the Sacramēts, then his malice against Gods people is descried, as the malice of the Philistimes of olde against Isaac and his cattell, was manifested, when they stopped with earth the foūtaines of water, which Abraham had digged, & whereof the cattell of Isaac were accustomed to drink. It cannot bee sufficiently expressed in words, what malice Sathan hath born against the true preaching of the word of God, & the right p. 138ministration of the Sacraments. The sixt persecution of Ethnick Emperoures was so directly set against the Preachers of Gods worde, as the worlde might easily discerne, that the intention of Maximinus was to vndoe the sheepe-folde of God, for lacke of pastures, and of refreshing waters. For this cause let not our cogitations be rauished with admiration, when we heare or reade, that manie questions hauehave beene mooued concerning the holie Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If there were not plenty of spirituall consolation to bee receiued by the right participation of this holy Sacrament, Sathan had neuer busied himselfe so earnestly against it, as if the throate of his kingdome were cut, if this Sacrament be rightly ministred by the Preachers, & rightlie receiued by the people.

Let the Christian Reader remember, that of olde vnderunder the tenne persecuting Emperoures the receiuing of the holy Sacrament of the Lordes Supper was called the banquet of Thyestes: This proceeded from none other ground, but from the malice of the Deuill, hating the Lords holy banquet: Secondly, the Manichean heretiques so peruerted the Lords holy Sacrament, that Augustine (to whom their secret mysteries were not vnknowne) was compelled to call their Communion Execramentum, and not Sacramentum, that is, an execrable thing, and not a Sacrament: Thirdly, the Donatists, in ministring the Lords Sacraments, were in an opinion, That the Sacrament was onelyonly effectuall, when it was ministred by one of their owne number. But seeing the malice of Sathan is an infinite thing, and hath not a period wherein it endeth. For defacing of the right vse of the holy Sacrament, Sathan filled the heart of an hereticall Monke called Damascene, with a lewde opinion, to affirme, That the bread in the holy Sacrament was transsubstantiate into the body of Christ, and that the wine was transsubstantiate into His blood. Which opinion I may justly call a Noueltie, because it was neither in worde nor writ hearde before the seuen hundreth yeere of our Lord. But it is the custome of Papists to follow Nouelties, and in the meane time to bragge of Antiquitie. What abuses of the holy Sacrament followed after the seuen hundreth yeere of our Lord, God willing shall bee declared in its owne time, for the present thus much I say, That vponupon a time I saw the images of Cain and Abel, p. 139pictured by an vnlearned painter, with such habite as the Germanes are appareled with in our dayes: These pictures made mee not to thinke that the Germane habite was in vse in the dayes of Cain and Abel, but rather that the painter was a foolishe man, & destitute of vnderstanding: Euen so, when I reade the works of Damascene, albeit I was at that time but young in yeeres, yet I thought not that the opinion of Damascene was agreeable to Apostolicke doctrine, but rather that Damascene was a foolishe and doating Monke, and somewhat ambitious also, desiring to be coūted the author of some new opinion, which no man had maintained before him.

IN this TREATISE I shall first declare (God willing) what it is that they call Transsubstantiation: secondly, howe absurde an opinion it is: and thirdly, with what relùctation it was insinuated into the bosome of the Latine Church, but euer vntill this daye was rejected of the Grieke Church. Nowe Transsubstantiation (as they saye) is an euanishing of the substance of bread and wine after the wordes of consecration, and a substitution of the bodie & blood of Christ, in place of the euanished substance of bread and wine, the accidents of bread and wine alwayes remaining without inherence into anie subject. Albeit the worde Transsubstantiation seemeth to import a change of one substance into another, and the moste part of them define it to bee a chaunge of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes bodie: yet some of them doe forsee a great inconueniencie, if Transsubstantiation be defined to a chāge of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes bodie: namely this, that Christes bodie in heauen, cladde with a most glorious and celestiall brightnesse, and Christes bodie in earth, ouershaddowed with the accidentes of bread and wine, shall not bee counted one and the selfe same bodie, in respect that the bodie of Christ that is in heauen was formed by the holy Spirit, of the substance of the Virgine Marie, and the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament, woulde bee founde to bee made of the substance of bread. This is the cause wherefore they who are more subtile than the rest, abstaine from the grosse definition afore-saide. Howsoeuer, concerning the word Transsubstantiation, I admonish the Reader, that foreign, that is, an euanishing or disparition p. 140hath no affinitie with Damascenes foreign, which signifieth a change of one thing vntounto another thing that is better: so that there is no good agreement amongst themselues concerning the signification of the word Transsubstantiation.

Concerning consecration of the elementes, there are diuerse opinions: The Romane Church supposeth, that the wordes of Consecration are these, foreign, &c. that is, Take, eat, this is my bodie. And againe these wordes, foreign, Mat. 26. 26Matt 26:26that is, Drinke all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shedde for manie for remission of Ibid. 27. 28sinnes. But the Graecian Church thought that the blessing or consecration was not only made by the words afore-saide, but also by prayer, as Iustinus Martyr calleth the elements, foreign, that is, The foode, blessed by the Worde of Iustin. apol. 2. pro Chri.prayer. Let no man separate the thinges that CHRIST hath conjoyned together, to wit, prayer, and the wordes of the holie institution, and wee shall easilie accorde about the consecration of the elementes.

The time, in the which the elementes are thought to be consecrated, is not the time in the which these wordes, This is my bodie, &c. are begun to bee vttered, but rather when they are ended: So that the consecration is not an action fashioned by partes, but wholly in one minute, and at once perfected, when the wordes are ended. Albeit I agree to this opinion with full consent of my mind: yet I could wish, that the Romane Church, who hauehave auouched y^e same, would make no exception against their owne doctrine. But when they speake of the intention of the consecrating Priest (which is continually vnknowne to the people) the people are left in a doubt whether they are partakers of Christes bodie or not. And this is not the forme of the teaching of Christ, to leaue the people in a suspence and doubting, but to manifest clearely vntounto them the mysterie whereof they doubt, if so bee it bee necessarie to bee knowne: as Christ manifested to his Disciples the parable of the sower and the, Matth. 13.Matt 13seede, and of the husbandrie and the tares, &c.

The first word of Consecration is the principall word impugning Transsubstantiation: for the word foreign is a demonstratiue p. 141pronowne, and it pointeth out something: and Scripture conferred with Scripture, is the best Commentarie to declare what is pointed out by the worde foreign. The Apostle Paule in his first 1. Cor. 11 261 Cor 11:26Epistle to the Corinthians, expoundeth the word foreign, by foreign, that is, This bread: and the seconde foreign, hee expoundeth it, foreign, that is, This cuppe. So we see that the substance of the elementes in the Sacrament of the Supper, are neither changed nor euanished: but remaining in their former substāce, they are honoured with a great honour, to bee made Sacramentes of the Lordes blessed bodie and blood: but their substance is not changed, as saide is.

The next words of cōsecration are these, foreign, that is, is my body, The bread is the Lordes body, because it is the Sacrament of the Lords body: like as the Sacrament of faith (to wit, August. ad Bonifac. epist. 32.Baptisme, saith August. after a maner) is faith: euen so the Sacrament of the Lordes body, after a maner, is the Lordes body: the wordes, secundum quendam modum, and quodammodo, that is to say, after some maner of way, so oft repeted by August. is forget by papists: insomuch, that they remember when August. saith, ferebatur Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait, hoc est corpus meum, that is, Christ was borne vp in his owne handes, August. in Psal. 23Ps 23when as deliuering his owne bodie, hee saieth, This is my bodie: but they forgette the expositorie wordes, in the which Augustine manifesteth his owne meaning, namelie these, Accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret, hoc est corpus meu…: that is, Hee tooke into his handes, as is knowne to the belieuers, and did beare after a maner, himselfe in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body. It is better in singlenesse of hart to make a true rehearsall of the words of ancient fathers, in that same sense y^e they spake, than with deceitfull speaches to abuse the simplicitie of the Reader, who possibly will not take paines to search out in what sense Augustine said, that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands.

In like maner, Augustine, writing against Adimant, saieth, that the blood is the life, euen as Christ was the Rocke. Nowe August. contr. Adimant.the Apostle saieth not, Petra significabat Christum: but saieth, P…ra erat Christus: quae rursus ne corporaliter acciperetur, spiritual…m illam vocat, id est, spiritualiter intelligi docet: that is, the p. 142Apostle saith not, the rocke signified Christ, but hee saieth, the rocke was Christ: which againe, lest it should bee taken in a corporall sense, hee calleth it a spirituall rocke: tea…hing vsus, that wee should spiritually vnderstand it. Then if we fellow the exposition of ancient Fathers, it cannot be inferred of these wordes, this is my bodie, that the bread is transsubstantiated into the substance of Christes bodie, for such vaine conceits neuer entered into their mindes.

Papistes doe grant, that after consecration Sainct Paule calleth the elementes, bread and wine, because they hauehave the shewe and shape of bread and wine: as the brasen Serpent was called a Serpent, and Angels in Scripture are called men, because they so appeared. But this is a friuolous shift, because y^e Apostle, when he speaketh of bread and wine, after the words of consecration, he 1. Cor. 11. 261 Cor 11:26speaketh expressely of bread that is eaten, and of wine that is drunken. This cannot bee the shape and accidentes of the elementes, but their verie substance. The Angels did not appeare only in the shape of men, but also had mens bodies indeede, so that their feete were washed, and they did eate and drinke with Abraham and Lot. The brasen Serpent was not in shewe, but in Gen. 18. 19Gen 18:19substance, and altogether of brasse. These examples helpe not. An euill cause hath more neede of a true confession, than of a false defence, as August. writeth: and Chrysost. saith most truely, that albeit a bitter roote may sende foorth sweete and pleasant fruites: yet a roote of bitternesse can neuer produce sweete and Chrysost. in epist. ad Heb. cap. 12 Homil. 31Heb 12pleasant fruites: warning vsus thereby, to beware of men who disseminate and propagate erroures, and obstinately striue against the knowne trueth of God.

The last wordes of the consecration are these, Doe this in remembrance of mee. Marke the worde foreign: for albeit Christ only suffered but once, yet it is his will that wee should keepe a continuall remēbrance of his death, because the death of Christ is the fountaine of our life. Now when we offer the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing vntounto God, in the holy Supper, because hee hath saued vsus by the death of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ. This Sacrifice which wee offer, differeth from that which Christ offered vponupon the Crosse, because that Sacrifice was but onelyonly once offered, and was receiued into the most holy place, as Chrysostome p. 143speaketh, but this which we offer, is foreign, and foreign, Chrysost. In epist. ad Hebr. cap. 9 Homil. 17Heb 9sub. foreign, that is, wee offer in remembrane of his death: and this which wee offer is a type (to wit, commemoratiue) of that which he offered. But because they hing by an haire, and if any ancient Father cast out one worde (albeit it were hyperbolically spokē) they fasten their gripes vponupon it, as if it made altogether for them. Now Chrysostome saieth, This Sacrifice which we offer, is one and the selfe same Sacrifice which Christ offered. Is it not good reason hee hauehave libertie to expounde the meaning of his owne words? and so he doeth, Our Sacrifice and Christs Sacrifice is one, because we celebrate a remembrance of that Sacrifice once offered vponupon the Crosse, and of none other. But that Sacrifice which Christ offered vponupon the Crosse hath no neede to be reiterated (saith Chrysostome in that same Homilie) because it is like vntounto a medicine, which beeing once applyed, hath a perfect vertue to saue vsus from all our sinnes. Hitherto I hauehave declared that the words of Consecration, if they bee expounded as auncient Fathers expounded them, they make nothing to proue the doctrine of Transsubstantiation.

Nowe let vsus proceede further, to see howe this definition of Transsubstantiation agreeth with the doctrine of the Apostles, and of other auncient Fathers. The Scriptures of God neither acknowledge an euanishing of the substance of bread and wine: neither yet a chaunge of their substance into the substance of Christs bodie and blood. For as much as the Apostle Paul, speaking of the sacred elementes of the Lordes Supper, at that time when they seale vp our conjunction with Christ, which is not before the blessing, breaking, and distribution: but after these holy actions, the Apostle calleth the eating of the blessed bread foreign, and the drinking of the blessed Cuppe, 1. Cor. 10. 161 Cor 10:16foreign, that is, a communion of the Lords bodie and blood: not excluding the substance of the elementes, but expressely pointing out the wordes foreign, and foreign, that is, the bread and the cuppe.

The moste ancient Fathers are moste vnacquainted with this Noueltie of Transsubstantiation: for they all in one voyce for the space of 500. yeeres, doe consent, that the substance of bread and wine remaineth in the Sacrament after the wordes of Consecration, Iust. apol. 2albeit the vse of the elementes bee changed Iustinus p. 144Martyr saith, that the elementes in the Sacrament of the Supper Ioann. 1. 14are made the flesh and the blood of Iesus, in that same forme that the eternall worde of God was made flesh: but so it is, that the substance of the diuine nature, neither euanished, nor yet was changed into the substance of flesh: And in like manner, the bread is made the body of Christ, neither by the euanishing of the substance thereof, nor yet by changing the substance thereof into another substance.

In like manner, Ireneus, when he saith, that the holy Eucharist consisteth of things earthly, and of thinges celestiall: by mentioning of earthly things, hee would declare, that the substance of Iren. contra Valent. lib. 4 cap. 34the bread and wine remaineth after the consecration. And lest any man (by shifting wordes) shoulde saye, that Ireneus meaneth not by earthly thinges the substance of bread and wine, but rather the accidents, hee expresseth his owne meaning, in the 32. chap. that he is speaking of the bread and the cuppe.

Ambrose, speaking of the operatiue vertue of the Lords word Ambros. de Sacr. 1. 4. c. 4in the Sacrament, he saith, that the elementes remaine that same thing which they were, & they are changed into another thing, because the substance of the elements remaineth, and their vse is changed. Like as a regenerated man in substance both of soule and body, is that same man that hee was before, yet in qualities and conditions there is a great change. And who can interprete the words of Ambrose better than hee himselfe doeth illustrate them by the foresaide similitude?

Theodoretus, in his first Dialogue, saith, that God hath honoured Theod. dia. 1. cap. 8the elements in the Sacrament with the name of His bodie & blood: not by changing of their nature, but by adding grace vntounto nature. And in his second Dialogue he saith, that after the wordes of consecration the elementes remaine in their former Idem dial. 2 cap. 24substance, shape, and forme. The wordes of Theodoretus are not more effectual to instruct vsus in the right judgement concerning the nature of the Sacrament, than the very purpose whereat hee aimeth in those his Dialogues: They are written of purpose, to refute the heresie of Eutyches, who affirmed, that after the diuine nature assumed the humane nature, all became diuinitie, and there was not two distinct natures in Christ, but one only. Theodoretus, for refutation of this heresie, bringeth a comparison taken p. 145from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in the which the bread in substance remaining bread, assumeth a name and vse that it had not before, by diuine institution to be called the bodie of the Lord▪ Euen so the diuine nature of Christ assumed the humane nature without any change of the one natu…e into the other. Moreouer, he proueth the veritie of Christs humane nature by this, That the elements in the Sacrament of the Supper, are foreign, that is, signes, types, and figures of the bodie and blood of Christ. And incase he had not a true body, how could the elements in the Sacrament be figures of his bodie?

These speaches of Theodoretus doe import two thinges: First, that the elementes in the Sacrament of the Supper remaine still in their owne substance, and their substance is neither changed, nor euanished: Secondly, that in the holy Sacrament of the Supper, there are signes, not accidentall, but the elementes in their owne substance remaining, are signes of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And howe these two things can agree with the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, let the judicious Reader consider.

Augustine in like manner, is so farre from imagining that the substance of the bread is euanished, or turned into another substance, that he putteth a difference betwixt Sacramentum, and res August. in Ioan. cap. 6. tract. 26John 6Sacramenti, counting the elementes Sacramentum, and the bodie & blood of Christ res sacramenti. Now concerning the elements, that is, the bread and the wine, he affirmeth, that some doe eate them vntounto saluation, others doe eate them vntounto damnation: but as concerning the body and blood of Christ, which Augustine calleth res sacramenti, in expresse tearmes, he saith, No man receiueth them but onelyonly to eternall life. Of this it is euident, that Augustine calleth that Sacramentum, which is eaten, either worthily or vnworthily, either to saluation or to damnation. And he is speaking of the substance of bread and wine which can bee eaten & drunkē, and not of accidents, which no man can eat or drinke. But wherefore doe I spende time to cite testimonies of Fathers, to prooue, that after the wordes of blessing the elements in the holy Supper, neither change their substance, nor yet doeth their substance euanishe, when I hauehave brought tenne times moe testimonies than I hauehave already done, I shall receiue this answere returned vntounto mee, That whatsoeuer was the opinion p. 146of these Fathers, y^e generall Councell of Lateran, anno 1215. which was wiser than these fore-mentioned Fathers, hauehave taken a deeper consideration into this matter, than these Fathers did: and they hauehave allowed the doctrine of Transsubstantiation. Howsoeuer, let me obtaine this fauour at the hands of the Christian Reader, that he may consider, that they who brag so much of Antiquitie, are driuen backe to seeke refuge in the Noueltie of late Councels.

THE latter part of their definition, wherein they say, that after consecration the accidents of bread and wine, such as whitenesse, roundnesse, and rednesse, doe remaine in the Sacrament without inherence into any subject. In this part I blame them againe of Noueltie. No ancient Father euer spake of accidents without a subject. And albeit M. Harding impudētly citeth the testimonie of Basilius Magnus, to prooue, that accidentes may subsist without a subject because in the first dayes creation there was light, & this light had no subsistance in any subject. This citing of the authoritie of an ancient Father, expresse contrarie to his owne meaning and wordes, is an intolerable abusing of the writinges of Fathers. The words of Basilius are these, (as is well obserued by the learned Doctor IEWEL) foreign, Basil. in Hexamer. Homil. 2that is to saye, The aire was lightened, or rather, it had the whole light whollie mingled with it selfe. Hee saith not, that the light was an accident without a subject, but hee pointeth out the subject wherinto it had inherence, euen before the creation of the Sunne, to wit, the aire.

But seeing they hauehave refuge continually to the Omnipotent power of God, when they vtter pointes of new and absurde doctrine, and they saye, that God by his Omnipotent power can make that accidents shall subsist without a subject. To this I answere, That our disputation with them is not about the power of God, but about the will of God, in the matter of the Sacrament. And it is the will of God in the Sacrament of the Supper, to leade vsus vntounto Christ, as the onelyonly bread of life, by whome our soules are nourished vntounto eternall saluation. And the Lord vseth the externall signes to leade vsus to the thing signified. What are we, that wee should despise the simplest meanes of the working p. 147of God? Not only doeth the externall signes leade vsus to Christ, but also the analogie and similitude that is betwixt the bread & Christs body, leadeth vsus to a consideration of the nourishing vertue that is in Christs body, to feede vsus vntounto eternall life. But Papistes by taking awaye the substance of bread and wine, and leauing only naked accidēts, in the which there is no nourishing vertue, they vndoe the nature of a Sacrament, taking awaye the similitude betwixt the signe and the thing signified, without the which Augustine affirmeth, that a Sacrament cannot subsist: but let vsus heare Augustines owne words, Si enim sacramenta quandam August. ad Bonif. ep. 23similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt sacramenta non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent: that is, If sacramentes had not some similitude with those thinges, whereof they are sacramentes, they coulde not bee sacramentes Theod. dia. 2. cap. 24at all. And Theodoretus in like manner saith, foreign: that is, The types must needes hauehave some similitude with the veritie.

IN the second head of our TREATISE, the Absurdities of The first absurditie.TRANSSVBSTANTIATION are to be considered. First this opinion repugneth to the priuiledge alloted to the bles…ed bodie of Christ in holy Scripture, to wit that the body of the holy one psal. 16. 10of God should not see corruption: but this substance which is in the Sacrament after the wordes of consecration, it may putrifie and rotte: therefore, it is not the true bodie of Christ, otherwise than sacramentallie.

Secondly, this substance that remaineth in the Sacrament after The second absurditie.the words of consecration, is knowne to be capable of poyson: for Emperours Kinges and Popes, hauehave bene poysoned by the consecrated hostie, such as the Emperour Henrie the seuenth, and Pope Victor the third, was poysoned in the Challice: therefore, it cannot bee the reall body of Christ, which f…edeth the soule, & cannot empoyson the body, but it is called Christs body sacramentally.The third absurditie.

Thirdly, if Christes body after the words of consecration bee corporally present in the Sacrament, then is it at one time both in heauen and in earth: in heauen vnderunder a glorious similitude, and in earth inuisible, and ouer-couered with the accidentes of bread and wine, which aggreeth not with the nature of a true humane bodie, to bee at one time in diuerse places, whereof I p. 148shall speake at greater length hereafter, God willing. OnelyOnly at this time, I affirme, that the Papistes are vntimously serious to proue the corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament, which position if it were granted, yet are they nothing nearer to their purpose, neither are we put backe in any thing whereunto we shoot and aime: because if Christ were corporally present in the Sacrament, as they speake, yet no vertue can be drawne out Marc. 5. 34Mark 5:34of him to the comfort of our soules, but onelyonly by spirituall touching by faith, as appeareth in the woman diseased with the bloodie issue.

The doctrine of Trans substantiation not only importeth corporall presence of Christs body in the sacramēt of the Supper, but The fourth absurditie.also corporal manducation of the body of Christ which is common both to godly & vngodly men: and this they deny not, only they say, that godly men eat Christs body worthily, & vngodly mē eat Christs body vnworthily. But I affirme, that if vngodly men eat the body of Christ corporally in y^e holy Supper, then is his body receiued in the sacrament by them to whom it is not promised in the worde, which is an absurde thing: For like as a seale affixed to a charter, sealeth vp nothing to him to whome the charter promi…eth nothing: Euen so the s…crament cannot seale vp a fellowship with Christ to an vnbeleeuing mā, because Gods promises are made onelyonly to the beleeuers. They will answere, True it is, y^e vnbelecuers hauehave no fellowship with Christ, no not although they eat his body corporally, because they eat it vnworthily. But to this I answere, that this their doctrine is new, and vnknowne to antiquitie: For ancient Fathers acknowledge a worthie & vnworthie eating of the Sacrament of Christs body, but not a worthy & vnworthy eating of y^e body of Christ, in respect Augustine saith, Res veroipsa cujus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulls adexitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit: that August. in Ioan. 6. Tract. 26.John 6is to saye, But the matter of the Sacrament (to wit, CHRISTS bodie) by eueric man who is partaker thereof, is receiued to life, and by no man to destruction. And this mooueth AVGVSTINE in another place to saye, That IVDAS did eate the bread of the Lord, but not the Lord himselfe, who is the true bread.

The doctrine of Transsubstantiation importeth also accidentes without a subject, as hath beene touched in a part before in the p. 149definition of Transsubstantiation. This is admirable, that the Scholasticke Doctors, who make Aristotle to be Master Caruer The fist absurditieof this most holy banquet, & who hauehave acquainted themselues better with his Preceptes, than with the heauenlie doctrine of the Apostles: yet in this point they hauehave forgotten euen the doctrine of their Schoole-master Aristotle, who saieth, that accidentes can hauehave no subsistence, but into a subject: as if a man bee talking of blindnesse, hee must also talke of eyes that are blinded: and if hee talke of deafenesse, hee must also talke of the eare: and if hee talke of lamenesse, hee must talke of some member of the bodie that is maimed: and finallie, if hee talke of a disease, hee must also talke of some bodie, either of man or beast, that is diseased: and this hee must doe, either expressely or couertly, because accidentes hauehave no subsistence, without a subject. There can bee nothing imagined more absurde, & more repugnant to reason, than to talke of whiteness…, roundnesse and rednesse: and in the meane time to saye, there is nothing that is white, round, or redde. The recourse which they hauehave to the Omnipotent power of God, who is able to make accidents to subsist without a subject, declareth, that they neuer rightly considered the cause wherefore the Omnipotent power of GOD is mentioned in holie Scripture, to wit, to bee one of the strong pillars of our faith, which faith commeth onelyonly by hearing. Then let this order bee kept: First let GOD speake in His owne worde: Secondlie, let vsus beleeue the worde of GOD by faith: Thirdlie, let the assured pillars of the Omnipotent power and infal…ible trueth of GOD vpholde our faith, as it did the faith of ABRAHAM.Rom. 4. 21.Rom 4:21

But let vsus not grounde vponupon the Omnipotent power of GOD, in matters whereof wee hauehave no assurance in His written worde, as some of the wise men of PERSIA did, who assured both themselues, and others, that incase they woulde distribute all their goods to the poore, and throwe themselues headlonges from eminent places, then their soules shoulde bee transported immediatelie to Heauen.

This madnesse fell out about the yeere of our LORDE and Sauiour IESVS CHRIST 759.

What was this leaning of theirs to the Omnipotent power of p. 150GOD, without assurance of his word, but only the conceits of braine-sicke men. And so let Papistes talke what they please In this purpose, that God by his Omnipotent power can make accidentes to subsist without a subject. I will conclude that the Omnipotent power of God is ordained to bee a confirmation to our faith, and not to be a citie of refuge to foolish fables.

The doctrine of Transsubstantiation also importeth, that the body of Christ at one time may bee in infinite places, which repugneth vntounto the nature of a true body, which like as it is circumscribed, The sixt absurditie.and may be seene, so likewise at one time it is onelyonly in one place, as Augustine writeth to Dardanus in these wordes, August. …d Dardan. epist. 57Tolle spatia locorum corporibus, nusquam …runt, nec …runt: that is to say, Take from bodies the rowmes of places, and they shall be no where, and consequently they shall not bee at all. And Theodoretus prooueth, that the body of Christ is a true humane body, albeit it be glorified, euen in the latter daye when hee commeth to judge the quicke and the dead, because it shall bee seene, according as it is written, Matth. 26 64. Yee shall see the sonne of man comming in the cloudes of heauen: and like as it may be seene, so likewise it is circumscribed, and consequently it is in a place, and is not turned into his diuine nature, which is both foreign, and foreign: that is, it cannot be seene, and it cannot bee circumscribed, as the humane nature is. Theodoret. dial. 2. ca. 23It is well remarked by that learned Preacher Du Moulin, that in the last edition of S. Augustines workes, at Parise, anno 1571. a notable place of the foresaid epistle of Augustine to Dardanus, is vtterly left out, by aduice of the Fathers, correctors of the writings of the Auncientes, namely this, Destrai naturam humanam Christi si non detur ei certum spatium, quo more aliarum rerum corporearum contineatur: that is, The humane nature of Christ is destroyed, if a certaine place be not attributed vntounto it, wherein it is contained according to the custome of other corporall thinges. What credite is to bee giuen vntounto Popishe Doctors, when they cite testimonies of auncient Fathers, after they are deprehended, to be deceitfull deprauers of their bookes?

Ancient Fathers, a long …ime before the question of Transsubstantiation of the substance of the elementes in the holy Supper The sevēth absurditiecame in head, they were re…soning of the two natures in Christ, to wit, the diuine and humane nature, and that the one nature p. 151was not turned into the other: they could not find a fitter similitude than that which is borrowed from the Sacrament, as I hauehave alreadie declared. Alwayes, they thinke, that if any man shall imagine, that by vertue of these wordes, This is my body, the substance of bread was chaunged into the substance of Christes body (as many doe thinke euen vntill this day) then in steade of one Transsubstantiation of the substance of bread into the substance of Christs body, there should be two Transsubstantiations, and the substance of Christs body should againe be turned into bread: for like as Christ, speaking of bread, saith, This is my body: Matth. 26Matt 26euen so Christ, speaking of his body, calleth it corne of wheat, in these words, Verily, I say vntounto you, except wheat corne fall into the grounde, and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth foorth much Ioan. 12. 24John 12:24fruit. If by vertue of the former wordes bread bee changed into the substance of Christes body: then in like manner, by vertue of these words (for both are spoken out of one blessed mouth) the Theodoret. dial. 1. ca. 8body of Christ should be turned into the substance of corne of wheat. I grant there is a difference betwixt a Sacrament and a metaphore: yet in neither of them is there such vertue in the word (is) to change the substance of any thing.

IN the last head, let vsus consider with what strife and reluctation this erronious doctrine was intruced vponupon the Church. I holde the Monke Damascene to bee the first author thereof, who perceiuing that his opinion was repugnant to the doctrine Damase. de orthod. fide, lib. 4, ca. 14of ancient Fathers, namely, to the doctrine of Basilius Magnus, who calleth the bread and the wine foreign that is, figures of the body and blood of Christ. He forgeth a friuolous shift to excuse his contradiction to Basilius, because (saieth hee) Basilius calleth them foreign, before the wordes of the blessing, but after the pronouncing of the wordes of the blessing, they are no longer figures, but the very body and blood of Christ. It is hard to bee a prolocutor for an euill cause, for it is like vntounto a bulge in a wall, which falleth, and bruiseth him who woulde sustaine it, which cannot sustaine it selfe. It is certaine that the bread and wine are not types and figures of Christs body before the words of consecration: for it is after the words of blessing that the elements receiue this great honour, to be called Christs bodie and blood, that is, signes externall, wherewith Christes bodie and p. 152blood is spiritually exhibited vntounto vsus. And therefore Sainct Ambros. de Sacram. li. 4 cap. 4.Ambrose calleth the bread before the wordes of consecration panis usitatus, that is, common bread: but it is after the wordes of consecration that they receiue this honour to beare the names of things represented by them, as Theodoreius in expresse words writeth, foreign: that is, …ee hath honoured the visible signes with the appellation of his Theodoret. dialog. 1. cap. 8bodie and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature. Which place clearly prooueth, that the elementes obtaine not that great honour to bee called Christes body, or types of his blessed body, vntill the time that by diuine grace they bee consecrated to that holy vse.

Mailrosius Scotus, liued vnderunder the reigne of Charles the Great, about the yeere of our Lord 800. and likewise RABANVS, Bishop of Mentz: these two had so acquainted themselues with the doctrine of Augustine, that they could in no manner of way giuegive allowance to the doctrine of Transsubstantiation. And about the yeere of our Lord 840. Carolus the second, the sonne of Ludouicus Pius, and brother to Lotharius, and Ludouicus Germanicus, he writ to Bertramus, a Presbyter, to hauehave his resolution concerning the mysterie of the Sacrament, and after what manner of way the body and blood of Christ was present in the Sacrament. To whome hee returned this answere, That in the Sacrament of Bertram. de corpore & sanguine Domini.the holy Supper there were some thinges that were perceiued with bodily senses, other thinges were taken holde of onelie by faith: And the bread and the wine were to vsus the body & blood of Christ, as MANNA, and the waters of the spirituall rock were Christs body and blood to the people of the Iewes in the wildernesse. This opinion aggreeth well with the doctrine of Paul, that the Fathers in the wildernesse ate that same spirituall food which 1. Cor. 10. 3. 41 Cor 10:31 Cor 10:4we eat: which they could not doe by corporall manducation of Christs flesh, because as yet the word was not made flesh. So this opinion of Transsubstantiation did no sooner put out its head, but assoone also contradiction was made vntounto it.

About the yeere of our Lord 1020. Berengarius maintained the opinion of Augustine, and other auncient Fathers: hee was a presbyter of Angiers in Fraunce, and denied the doctrine of p. 153Transsubstantiation, and the Romane Bishops were cōmooued with great indignation, as appeareth by the number of Councels assembled against one poore man, who durst presume to speake against the opinion once embraced by the Romane Church. Leo the ninth gathered a Councel at Rome, in the which he condemned the opinion of Berengarius, and excommunicated him, euen before he was warned to be present at the Councell, and before hee was heard. Hee assembled also another Councell in Vercellis, about the yeere of our Lord 1051. in the which Borengarius was not present: but Messengers who came to pleade his cause, were imprisoned, and casten into bands, and the booke of Ioannes Scotus Mailrosius, De Eucharistia, was condemned. By the way, if any equitie had beene kept in these Councels, looke by what reason they condemned Ioannes Scotus, whose opinion Berengarius followed: by the like reason they shoulde hauehave condemned Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, whose opinion Ioannes Mailrosius followed. But the Romane Church cannot erre. 'Another Councell was assembled by Pope Victor, the successor of Leo the ninth, in the which the Decree of the Coūcell of Vercellis was allowed. Yet all this coulde worke no contentment in their he…rtes, because the people of Angiers and Towrs, in Fraunce, liked the doctrine of Augustine, Mailrosius, and Berengarius, about the Sacrament of the Supper. Therefore, another Councell was assembled at Rome, by Pope Nicolaus the seconde, anno 1058. in the which Berengarius yeelded to the opinion of the Pope and his Councell: and his weaknesse strengthened the errour already receiued in the Romane Church mightily.

But the number of them who abhorred this newe found out doctrine, was exceeding great: therefore the Romane Church, after the yeere of our Lord 1079, and after the dayes of pope Gregorie B…lling. de Concil. li. 2the seuenth, put hand to worke: And being now mightie & strong, they stirred vp Kings and Princes, to persecute with fire and sword, and all kind of hostilitie, as heretiques, all those that spake against worshipping of Images, & corporall presence and manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the holy Supper.

So it is manifest, that this doctrine of Transsubstantiation was mightily contradicted, vntill the dayes of pope Innocentius the p. 154third, who in the Councell of Laterane, anno 1215. gaue full allowance thereunto. But when all this is done, r…member that the vniuersall & Catholicke Church dwelleth not in one countrey or city. When y^e Romane Church was miserably infected with this miserable scabbe of pestilent errour, what consent gaue the Churches of Asia, and all the Grieke Churches? They euer dis…ssented from this doctrine, vntill this daye, as appeareth by the last Sessions of the Councell of Florence, anno 1439. Therefore, let the Romane Church bragge of Antiquitie as they please, the doctrine of Transsubstantiation shall neuer be found an ancient doctrine, but a doctrine newe, false, absurd, and borne out more by might of the preuailing authoritie of men, than power of argumentes grounded vponupon holy Scripture. God teach them to returne to the ancient trueth, from which they hauehave sliden: To whom be praise and glory for euer,

Amen.

A TREATISE, Of the Sacrament of Pennance.

IN this CENTVRIE it was a receiued custome to men to confesse their sinnes secretly to Presbyters, and to receiue from them such forme of injunctions as they counted satisfactions for their faultes, as appeareth clearly by the Councell gathered in Fraunce, anno 742. in the which Bonifacius, bishop of Mentz was Moderator. In the first Canon of that Councell it was statuted and ordained, That no man of the Clergie should put on armour, and goe to warre-fare, except one or two bishops, with their presbyters and chaplens, to prescribe pennance vntounto them who should happen to confesse their sinnes. By this it is euident, that the custome of secret confession of sinnes to presbyter poenitentiarius, which was excluded p. 155out of the Church in the dayes of Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople: yet it returned againe, and it was in vse in the VIII. CENTVRIE.

Now in the inseription of this TREATISE, I call it a Sacramēt (as y^e Romane church in our dayes call it) not as though I were in the opinion that in this age the number of seuen Sacramentes was receiued, for that is a Noueltie, not hearde of before the 1200, yeere of our Lord: at which time the Scholasticke Doctors, who peruerted all Theologie, woulde needes forge Sacramentes in number agreeing with the number of seuen principall vertues, to wit, FAITH, HOPE, CHARITIE, IVSTICE, PERSEVERANCE, PRVDENCIE, and TEMPERANCE: So that Baptisme should answere to Faith, Confirmation to Hope, the holy Supper to Charitie, the Sacrament of Pennance to Iustice, extreame Unction. to Perseuerance, the Sacrament of Ordor to Prudencie, and the Sacrament of Marriage to Temperancie: These were the idle speculations of Scholasticke Doctors, whereof the Romane Church in our dayes are almoste ashamed: because if the number of Sacraments be numbered according to the number of principall vertues, who seeth not that the number of Sacramentes in the olde and newe Testament must bee equall, and neither moe nor August. de doctrina Christ. li. 3. cap. 9fewer, to the ende they may proportionally agree with the number of principall vertues? But Augustino saieth, that our Sacraments are fewer in number, more easie to bee done, and more significatiuely expressing the grace of God, than the Sacramēts of the olde Testament.

Seeing the principall purpose of my TREATISES is to manifest the Noueltie of Popish Religion, therefore in this TREATISE I affirme, that the number of seuen Sacramentes was not mentioned by any Father preceeding this time. Therefore the Councell of Trent, in the prodigalitie of their Anathems and Cursings against all them who will acknowledge either moe or fewer Conc. Trident. sess. 7. can. 1.Sacraments of the new Testament than seuen hath pronounced very vnaduisedly, like as Aedipus slewe his father Laius king of Thebans, in time of a sedition, hauing no intention to slaye him: Euen so, the Councell of Trent, willing to deliuer vsus vntounto the Deuill, they are not aware, that they hauehave deliuered Iustinus Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, Ambrose Augustine, and many other p. 156auncient Fathers, to the Deuill, who neuer acknowledged the number of 7. Sacraments, as the Councell of Trent hath done.

Nowe a good ord…r required, that a definition of the Sacrament of P…nnance should be set downe, & that we should search and inquire when it had a beginning: and finally, inquire what are the parts thereof and what things are necessarily required in it. First, concerning the definition of the Sacrament of Pennance, all learned writers, whome I hauehave read, hauehave justly blamed the Scholasticke Doctors, for this, that they hauehave confidently affirmed, that the Sacramentes are seuen in number, yet hauehave not set foorth a definition, which did agree with euerie one of the Sacramentes, which they hauehave added to Baptisme and to the Lords Supper.

Concerning the time, whereinto it had its beginning, they …. Trident. sub Iulio 3. sess. 4. cap. 1 Ioh. 20. 23are more particular: namely, that it had a beginning after that Christ arose from death, and breathed vponupon his Disciples, and said, R…ceiue the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Before this time (say they) there was no sacrament of Pennance, neither in the olde Testament, nor in the Baptisme of IHON, nor in the Preaching of CHRIST. when Hee preached the doctrine of Repentance. And when the cause is demaunded, wherefore there was no Sacrament of Pennance, when men confessed their sinnes with a contrite heart, and were baptized Matth. 3Matt 3by IHON, and brought foorth the fruits of amendement of life? Wee can heare no answere, except this, that men confessed their sinnes in generall before they were baptized of IHON: But in the Sacrament of Pennance a particular confession of sinnes is required. And in this they discouer their owne weaknesse: for in the action of repentance, instituted by GOD, it is enough that all things be present, which God requireth: But in the Sacrament of Pennance, instituted by man, & not by God, if any thing be inlaking which humane cogitation hath founde out, the doctrine of Ihon Baptist, the contrition, consession, and satisfaction of the people, together with Ihon Baptists absolution all is nothing. There is yee one new piece inlacking, which the Romane Church hath sowed to an olde garment: and when that new clout is absent. which they hauehave imagined themselues, all is naught.

p. 157Now seeing that in the olde Testament there are found m… nie testimonies of true repentance, the heart, the mouth, and conuersation, all witnessing, that the penitent sinner was vn…ainedly conuerted vntounto God. How commeth it to passe, that the Romane Church ouer-giueth the old Testamēt, as a time whereinto the Sacrament of Pennance had no place, because it was not as yet instituted by Christ? But they count it a Sacrament of the new Testamēt, instituted by Christ, after his resurrection. The Apostle Paul is not so vncouth in his speaches, who attributeth Baptisme to the Iewes, and Circumcision to vsus (1. Cor. 10. & Phil. 3.) in regarde their Sacramentes differed from our Sacramentes, rather in the signe, than in the thing signified. But the Romane Church is so disgusted of the olde Testament, that they cannot admit, that the Sacrament of Pennance had place at that time. Notwithstanding, whatsoeuer can bee spoken of the repentance of Marie Magdalene and Zaccheus in the newe Testament, the like may be spoken of the repentance of Dauid in the olde Testament (2. Sam. 12. 13.) God mollified his heart, and it was pearced with a deepe sense of his sinne: God lowsed his tongue, and he confessed his iniquitie against himselfe (Psal. 32. 5.) hee patiently endured the fatherly chastisementes of GOD inflicted vponupon him for his sinne: and the Prophet NATHAN pronounced forgiuenesse from GOD. Heere no man can deny, but true repentance is founde in DAVID, consisting in contrition of the heart, confession of the mouth, satisfaction in his deedes, and absolution by the mouth of the Prophet: And what more is requisite in Popishe Pennance? Yet because DAVID consessed his sinnes vntounto GOD, and not to the Priest, and hee patientlie sustained the chastisementes of GOD, but not the pennance injoyned to him by the Priest. All that DAVID did appertaineth nothing to the holy Sacramēt of Pennance, which now is in vse in the Romane Church.

The Romane Church, in this case, is not vnlike vntounto an herde of cattell, possessed a long time into a folde: if any vncouth beast enter in amongst them, they will rudely putte at it, because it Similitudeis vncouth & none of their fellowship: Euen so, when we speake of y^e repentance of Dauid, which hath allowance in the holy Scripture of God, & of the repentance of Miriam, whose satisfaction p. 158(I meane, to remooue the slander shee gaue to Gods people) it was prescribed by Gods owne mouth, and the repehtance of Ionas sealed vp by a miraculous worke of his deliuerance from the Whales belly. All this is nothing to them: for albeit here be founde repentance and absolution, yet (saye they) not such as is founde in the Sacrament of Pennance in the Romane Church. For in the olde Testament, there is but a prediction, that GOD will forgiue their sinnes, prouiding that they repēt. But in their Sacrament, there is an actuall conferring of remission of sinnes, ex opere operato, to such as obeye the injunctions of the Priest. What hauehave we to doe with such foolish and babbling speaches, which are not grounded in Scripture? For the Apostles, who preached repentance and remission of sinnes, after Christes ascention to heauen, they ledde the people expressely to the promises Act. 3. 25 26Acts 3:25made to the Patriarches and Prophets, concerning the comming of Christ, and of remission of sinnes in him: heereby acknowledging no difference in substance betwixt repentance vnderunder the olde Testament and vnderunder the new Testamēt, because both they and wee are ledde to one fountaine of the house of Dauid, there to be washen, and to be cleansed from all spotte of Zach. 13. 1Zech 13:1sinne.

Truely the doctrine of repentance, taught in holy Scripture, declareth, that it is a worke wrought in vsus by the Lord himself, according as Christ our Lord witnesseth, saying, No man commeth Ioan. 6. 44John 6:44vntounto mee, except my Father, who sent me, draw him. The meanes whereby this worke is wrought in vsus, is by the fearefull trumpet of the law, and by the sweet promises of the Gospell. The instrumentes, which GOD vseth in this worke, are the Prophets, Apostles, their successors. None of these things can be denied: for the Apostle saieth, God was in Christ, and reconciled the Worlde 2. Cor. 5. 19. 202 Cor 5:192 Cor 5:20vntounto himselfe, not imputing their sinnes vntounto them: and hath committed vntounto vsus the worde of reconciliation: no we then are wee Ambassadours for Christ, as though God did beseech you, through vsus: we pray you in Christs sleade, to beereconciled vntounto God. In these fore-mentioned places of Scripture three thinges are set downe: First, God is counted the efficient worker of repentance: Secondly, the promises of the Gospell (whereunto the terroures of the lawe prepare an open doore) are the meanes, alluring vsus to repentance: Thirdly, the p. 159Ministers of the Worde, are the instrumentes to carrie the message of reconciliation vntounto vsus. The very law it selfe, and the Gospell, cannot hauehave the honour due to God, who is the efficient worker of repentance, because both law and Gospell was preached to reprobate Iewes: but they were not conuerted by repentance to the trueth of God, in regarde the Lord, who is the efficient worker of repentance, wrought not inwardly in their hearts. As concerning the Preachers of the doctrine of reconciliation, they receiue their honour from their Ambassadrie, and they giuegive no honour vntounto it, except by accident, in respect of the people, who carry the greater reuerēce to an holy message, when they see the Ambassadour who carrietith, to bee an holy man. But now let vsus consider God in the worke of repentance as the Isai. 43. 12Isa 43:12head, the message of reconciliation as the stomacke, the preachers of the word, who carrieth this message, as the feete: whose feete, albeit they bee called beautifull, in regarde of the sweete message which they carry, yet the feete must neither hauehave the honour of the head, nor of the stomack. But the Romane church, by giuing this honour to a priest, that hee conferreth, exopere operato, remission of sinnes to the person who confesseth in particular all his faults vntounto him, they giuegive the honour of the head to the feete. Like as in all their Religion their principall drift seemeth to bee this, to leade the people from the Creator, who is blessed for euer, to an excessiue confidence in the creatures of God.

The grounde of the Sacrament of Pennance is a conceite of satisfaction, which men can make for their own sinnes committed after Baptisme: as if the promise of remission of sinnes made in Baptisme did extende onelyonly to sinnes preceeding Baptisme. What is this else, but directly to contradict the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles. Hee who beleeueth, and is baptized, shall bee Mar. 16. 16Mark 16:16saued. Can any man be saued, by an absolution from a part of his sinnes, and not from all his sinnes? This doctrine of the Romane Church, bringeth in Christ as a Sauiour, and not a Sauiour, deliuering vsus from the debt of by-past sinnes, and setting vsus once without the prison doore, but knowing assuredly that wee shall be thrust into the prison againe, there to remaine, vntill wee satisfie for our own sins cōmitted after Baptisme. And they make p. 160vsus to be our owne sauiours, rather than Christ: for he who deliuereth a man from his last and greatest trouble, is rather to bee counted his deliuerer, than he who deliuered him from his first trouble.

The particular thinges required in the Sacrament of Pennance, they say, are foure, to wit, Contrition in the heart, Confession in the mouth, Satisfaction in the deede, and Absolution of Contritionthe Priest. If these things were rightly conceiued, in repentance, all these thinges are necessarily required. But as they are in the Romane Church, all are meere abominations, and displeasing vntounto God.

First, concerning the Contrition of the heart, the Psalmist speaketh, The sacrifices of God are a contrit… spirit: a contrite, and a broken heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. But in the Romane Church, psal. 5 1. 17when a Poenitentiare commeth to his father Confessor, and discouereth a sinne, not such as he hath already committed, and for the which he is pearced with sore displeasure, as Dauid was: but rather hee discouereth to his father Confessor, a treasonable attempt, which he is minded to practise, with obstinate purpose, of an incorrigible heart: shall such a man bee counted to hauehave a contrite and a broken heart? Yet, in our dayes, no man is more welcome to a father Confessor, than such a man as discouereth to him horrible treasons, plotted against Noble Princes: Yea, and no confessions are more secretly buried in the mindes of father Confessors, than those confessions are. Is this a contrite spirite, and a broken heart, wherein the Lord delighteth? Or can there bee a greater abuse of the doctrine of Contrition, than to count them contrite in heart, who are bent obstinately to runne forward in the course of vngodlinesse?

Popish Contrition is not vnlike vntounto the fighting of Marcus Crassus, both father and sonne against the Parthians. Crassus the elder, in his Oration made to encourage his army to fight valiantly, his voyce failed him: Marcus Crassus, his sonne, in his Plutarch. in vita Crass.first out-going out of the house he stumbled: Both these things were counted euill presages of the vnprosperous successe of the battell, which after followed. And what esperance can wee hauehave of this new found out Sacrament of Popish Pennance, when as they judge so boldly of the first point thereof, that is, of Contrition, p. 161counting traitors to bee men of a contrite spirit, whome God hath appointed for the flames of euerlasting burning, except they repent.

The forme of Confession vsed in the Romane Church, hath neither warrand nor example in the Scripture of God, that anie Confession.person should bee bound in particulare to confesse all his secret sinnes to the Priest. The place of Scripture vildly abused, Acknowledge Epist. Iam. cap. 5. vers. 16.Jas 5:16your faultes one to another, and praye one for another, that yee may be healed, &c. it should bee expounded by another place of Scripture, wherein a man, who hath offended his neighbour, is commanded to confesse his faults to his neighbour, whome hee hath offended (Luke 17. 4) And it belongeth nothing to auricular confession, except Popish Priestes would confesse in particular all their sinnes to the people, like as the people confesseth all their secret sinnes in particular to the Priestes, And our Lord and Master Iesus Christ, when hee receiued a particular confession of secret sinnes from the Samaritan woman, hee sent away his Disciples to Samaria, to the ende the weakenesse of a poore Ihon, 5. 8penitent sinner should not bee troubled by a particular confession of secret sinnes before them who knewe not thinges which were done in secret. But let vsus confesse secret sinnes to God, who knoweth things that are done in secret. But sinnes whereby the Church of God is openly slandered, let them also bee openlie confessed.

Seeing that auricular confession hath no testimonie in Scripture, it followeth to search out by diligent examination, whether or no it had place after the dayes of the Apostles in the first three hundreth yeeres of our Lord. Wee reade of the first Christned Emperour Philippus, who slewe Gordianus, and was slaine by the Emperour Decius, anno 250, that hee was desirous about Easter time, to bee admitted vntounto the participation of the holy Euseb. li. 6. cap. 34Sacrament: but this benefit was refused vntounto him, vntill the time that he made his publicke repentance, and vntill hee stood in the place where foreign were accustomed to stand. They were so called, because they were demaunded concerning the sinnes which they had committed, and the sense and feeling of griefe that God had wrought in their heartes for their preceeding offences. This was not a secret and auricular confession, but an open confession of publike sins in sight & open audience of the people. So we see, that for the space of two hundreth and fiftie yeeres after the Lords ascension, auricular and secret confession of sinnes, to the Bishop or Presbyter, was vnknowne in the Church.

Nowe if at any time open confession of sinnes shoulde hauehave ceassed, and giuen place to secrete and auricular confession, it was in time of the tenne Persecutions, because that Christians were drawne continually before the judgement seates of vnbeleeuing Iudges, from whom the weaknesse and faultes of Christians might hauehave beene obscured, if auricular confession had beene in vse at that time. But the Fathers who liued in that age, were so carefull to purge the Church from slander, that they preferred the puritie of the Church vntounto their owne liues.

True it is, that euen before the ten Persecutions had an ende, some good Christians woulde consult with their Pastors, w…ether it was expedient to confesse their sinnes openly before the people, to the edification and good of the Church, or secretly onelyonly to God? But this secrete consulting with the Pastor, what was most needfull to bee done, was not an auricular confession to him of all secret sinnes, but rather an aduisement concerning some sinnes, whether the sinner himselfe and the Church might receiue greater benefite by open confession before the people, or by secret confession to God onelyonly?

The wordes of Origen very pertinently cited by Chemnisius are these, Consider circumspectly to whom thou shouldest confesse thy sinne. Origen. in Psal. 37.Ps 37Trie first thy Physition: if hee vnderstand and fore-see thy disease to bee such as should bee confessed in the Congregation of the whole Church, and so be cured whereby possibly others may be edified, and thou thy selfe may bee easily healed: then (saieth hee) make haste to vse the counsell of thy Phisition.

If the custome of the Primitiue Church were proponed in simplicitie and sinceritie, it shoulde bee founde, that the newe toye of auricular confession cannot bee shrowded vnderunder the vaile of great Antiquitie.

Whatsoeuer a fewe men, wounded more deepely with a sense of sinne, than others, they did voluntarily in powring out their sinnes in the bosome of their Pastors, albeit they had neither sacrificed p. 163vntounto Idoles, nor yet giuen vp their names in the Romane deputies rolles, promising conformitie: but only they confessed other faults of lesse moment to their Pastors, with dejected and humbled mindes, seeking comfort to their afflicted soules. This Cypr. Serm 5. de Lapsi…is a matter rarely contingent, wherewith wee are acquainted in our dayes, as familiarly as Cyprian was in his time. Yet was there no mandate and Church commandement, ordaining people so to doe in Cyprians dayes. And people likewise, who powreth out the dolour of their wounded cōsciences for secret sinnes in our bosome, they doe it voluntarily, and vncoacted, hoping for some mitigation of their griefe through vnburthening of their heart by confession, as Nazianzenus writeth, foreign Nazianzen. Cygn, carmin. ad Epise.: that is, It is some medicinall cure of heart griefe to powre out our words into the verie aire.

After the three hundreth yeere of our Lord, and after the tenne Persecutions ceassed, the discipline of making open repentance for open sinnes, continued in the Church, as is euident by the Act of the Councell of Nice, in the 11. Canon, in the which a forme of Publicke satisfaction is prescribed vntounto them who in time of the Persecution of Licinius had sacrificed to Idoles. But concerning a particulare confession of secrete sinnes to the Pastor, there is no mention in the Councell of Nice.

The Historie hath declared, that auricular confession had place in the East Churches, in the dayes of Nectarius bishop of Constantinople, whose Ministerie was vnderunder the reigne of the Emperour Theodosius. Here two thinges are to bee noted: First that the discipline of the East and West Churches was different: and in the West Church there remained a publicke confession of notorious and publicke sinnes: in so much, that the Emperour Ruffin. lib. 2. cap. 18Theodosius himselfe confessed his fault openly, and in sight of the people at Millane, for the slaughter of the innocent people of Thessalonica. Secondly, it is to bee marked, that Nectarius in abolishing the custome of auticular confession, he acknowledged it to bee but an humane, and not a diuine constitution: for who dare abolishe, either in doctrine, or discipline, the constitutions and ordinances of God?

Lindanus, a man in the Latine Language more eloquent than godly, cannot suffer that it shall be thought, that Nectarius abolished p. 164auriculare confession, but rather, that hee abolished the custome (then in vse) that one shoulde onelyonly bee Presbyter Poenitentiarius, to whome secrete sinnes shoulde bee confessed: and that in time to come, a man should make choise of any presbyter, whom he pleased, to be his father Confessor, But let the historie bee judge. Socrates saith, that Eudaemon gaue councell to Nectarius, Socrat. lib. 5 cap. 19to abrogate presbyter poenitentiarius, & to remit eueryevery man to the triall of his owne conscience, when he approached to the participation of holy mysteries.

Satisfaction in the Romane Church, is an obedience to the injunctions of the Priest: by performance wherof, they are in hope Satisfactiōto obtaine forgiuenesse at the handes of God, for sinnes committed after Baptisme. But besides the Nouel…y that is in Popish Satisfaction, it is also a blasphemous opinion. It is a Nouelty because that ancient Fathers, whē they spake of Satisfaction, meaned not of a satisfactiō made to God, but of a satisfaction made to the Church: Yea, and S. Augustine calleth it, Satesfactio, quiasatis Augustin. Enchyri. ad Laurent.fiebat Ecclesiae: that is because the Church was satisfied. It is also a blasphemous opinion, because the honour only due to the merites of Christes suffering, is attributed to the worthinesse of mens satisfactions, such as Fasting, Praying, distribution of Almes, going in Pilgrimage to holie places, and such like offices. But the vsurpation of the least of the honoures belonging onelie to CHRIST, is hornbletreason in the sight of God, CHRIST is a propitiation for our sinnes, saieth the Apostle, 1. Ihon, chap. 2. vers. 2. If anie man doe imagine, that hee can make a satisfaction for his owne sinnes, hee is blasphemous against the sonne of God. And like as Iulian the Apostate, when hee suffered himselfe tò bee saluted by the Armie foreign, that is, Emperour: CONSTANTIVS the Emperour, by that one worde, vnderstoode the treasonable attemptes of his aspiring minde. And let vsus bee perswaded in our owne Similitudeheartes, That incase anie man imagine, that hee can sati…fie for his owne sinnes, hee is but a Traitor against the SONNE of GOD.

THe last head of Popishe Pennance, is Absolution, wherein three things doe concurre, to wit, blasphemie, vncertaintie Absolutiōand foolishnesse. It is blasphemie to saye, that any man can forgiue p. 165finnes, who is not Eternall GOD, (Marke 2. 7.) except in forme of a Messenger, executing GODS commaundement in such manner as GOD hath prescribed in his holie worde. It is great vncertaintie to absolue men from the guiltinesse of their faults, but not from their punishment: insomuch, that if they bee preuented by death, before they hauehave fulfilled the pennance enjoyned by the Priest, then their soules must bee tormented in Purgatorie, vntill they hauehave made full satisfaction for their offences. Then Popishe Absolution, depending vponupon the vncertaintie of a mans life, cannot bee a certaine thing, but a miserable excrutiation of poore soules, put in vaine hope of absolution, and yet vncertaine whether they be absolued or not.

Nowe because they will needes referre the institution of the Sacrament of Pennance vntounto CHRIST, as the Author thereof, when Hee breathed vponupon His Disciples, and saide, Whose sinnes yee remitte, they are remitted, &c. (Ihon, chapt. 20. verse 23.) Necessitie constraineth them to prooue two thinges out of the wordes of CHRIST, which they count essentiall in the Sacrament of Pennance; First, that CHRIST commaunded a penitent sinner to make a particulare rehearsall of his secrete sinnes in the eare of the Priest: which thing CHRIST neuer commaunded. Secondlie, that in the absolution of a penitent sinner, CHRIST commaunded to enjoyne vntounto him a satisfaction, whereby hee might merite at the handes of GOD forgiuenesse for sinnes committed after Baptisme: which thing CHRIST neuer commaunded: yea, repugneth manifestlie to the Holie Scriptures of GOD, in the which it is saide, With one offering hath Hee consecrated for euer them that are sanctified, Hebr. chapt. 10. vers. 14. This is not a single and vpright dealing to referre the institution of the Sacrament of Pennance vntounto CHRIST, when as they cannot prooue, that thinges moste essentiallie requisite in their Sacrament, hath allowance from the mouth of CHRIST.

I compare the Romanists in their doctrine of Pennance to king Hezekias, not in time of his zeale & vprightnes, but in time of his reproueable weaknes: for hee shewed vntounto the Ambassadours of p. 166Isai. 39. 2Isa 39:2the King of BABEL, the house of his treasures, his Siluer, Golde, Spices, and Precious Ointmentes, and all the house of his Armour. The Messengers of the King of BABEL had no such commission from their Master, to viewe the Treasures, Riches, and Armour of King HEZEKIAS: but onelyonly to present letters of congratulation for the miraculous restitution of HEZEKIAS to health, and to bring vntounto him a present from MERODACH BALADEN, King of BABEL. But HEZEKIAS, King of IVDA, in his reprooueable weakenesse (as I hauehave alreadie spoken) let the Ambassadoures see maine chinges, which they had no commission to see, to the great harme and disaduantadge of his posteritie: Euen so, CHRIST sent out His Apostles, and their true Successours, to preach the doctrine of repentance, and remission of sinnes. But the ROMANE Church will let the Ambassadoures of GOD see such thinges, as are not contained in their commission, to wit, a particular confession of all secrete sinnes, together with a satisfaction to GOD for sinnes committed after Baptisme, of which thinges no mention is made in the written worde of GOD.

Heere I leaue them, delighting in their Nouelties, which hauehave no grounde from the mouth of CHRIST, nor from the doctrine of His Apostles.

Yea, they are like vntounto the frogges of the Ile of SERIPHVS, one of the Iles called CYCLADES, in the which the Frogges sette vp their heads in the Monethes of March and Aprill, but they vtter no sounding voyce. as the Frogges in Similitudeother places doe: Euen so, the ROMANE Church holdeth vp their heads, as if they would prooue, that CHRIST instituted this Sacrament, but they faint in the probation.

p. 167A TREATISE, Of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

IN the Sacrament of Confirmation, there is a glorious shewe of a signe, and a spirituall thing signified. The outward signe is Chrisme, that is, Oyle, mixed with some mixture of Baulme, which beeing signated with the signe of the Crosse, vponupon the fore-head of him who is confirmed, in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost: they saye, that with this outwarde signe is conferred the seuen-folde grace of the holy Spirit. And this Sacrament they extoll aboue the Sacrament of Baptisme, because the grace of God which is begunne in vsus by Baptisme, is perfected by the Sacrament of Confirmation: Yea, and a Priest, or Deacon of the Church, may baptize: but the Sacrament of Confirmation must only bee ministrated by a Bishop.

Verie early did Popish bishops prouide, that they shoulde not be altogether idle: for they beganne to loath the office of preaching and baptizing: and lest they should seeme to bee idle bellies, they reserued some easie exercise to themselues, to wit, the making of Chrisme, and anointing the people therewith.

To all this is added a Rhetoricall discourse, That the people of Israell, after they had passed thorow the redde Sea, they entered into a Wildernesse, in the which they had a great combate with many troubles, before they could enter into their rest. And in like manner, after that we are baptized, we hauehave a great fight with many aduersaries & troubles, before we can enter into the rest of God. All this is true, but what is inferred vpō this? If the Apostle Paul were our instructor, hee woulde bid vsus put on the p. 168complete armour of God, to the ende that we might withstand Ephes. 6Eph 6spirituall wickednesse, and eate the blessed bread, and drinke the cuppe of blessing, to the ende that beeing corroborated by 1. Cor. 101 Cor 10the strength of the Sacramentes ordained by God, wee might fight a good fight, and finishe our journey with joye. This is the Apostolicke doctrine. But Papistes will correct the Apostolicke doctrine in all points, & they wil hauehave a Christiā to be corroborated by Chrisme & y^e sacrament of confirmation, to the end he may passe ouer the stormie tentations of this world in peace.

Let mee now demand of them two thinges: One concerning the signe, Another concerning the thing signified. Concerning the signe, I demand who gaue commandement to vse it? Concerning the thing signified, I demaunde who hath promised to conferre the seuen-folde grace of the holy Spirite to them who are signated vponupon the fore-head by the bishops thombe with the signe of the Crosse? These two thinges, to wit, the commandement and the promise are inlacking in Popish Sacramentes: and so their newe found out Sacramentes are like vntounto a bodie that is not quickened with a soule. The Scholasticke Doctors, the first inuentors of this pluralitie of Sacraments, they confesse roundly, that the Sacrament of Confirmation hath no authoritie in holy Scripture, such as Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas, who after much fatigation of himselfe and others also, hee cannot finde, that euer Christ, or yet His Apostles, conferred this Sacrament to any person. Whatsoeuer they can cite out of Tertullian, or Basilius, or any ancient Councell, for the confirmation of Chrisme, it is certaine, that they confesse, that this custome hath no authoritie of the written worde of God. And this is the principall marke whereat I aime in all my writinges, to prooue, that there is no Antiquitie where foreign, that is, the written word of God, doeth not confirme the antiquitie of that which is alleadged.

The Romane Church waketh great businesse to proue that in holy Scripture many promises of confirmation and corroboration of the worke of God begunne in vsus are contained: But they bestirre themselues in vaine, in proouing that thing, which no man denieth. But incase they would prooue, that the Sacrament of Confirmation is a Sacramēt in a proper sense, then it became p. 169them to proue, that God in His word hath promised the grace of confirmation, to such as are signated vponupon the fore-head and annointed with Chrisme, and buffeted vponupon the chieke with the bishops hand. Seeing none of these thinges can bee prooued by Scripture, it is a friuolous thing for them to alleadge a promise made by God, when as they inuent the element whereunto this promise shall bee annexed. If this bee a forme, according to the which Sacraments should be fashioned: then I dare affirme, that the number of Sacraments may be multiplied, according to the number of the promises contained in the word of God: So that God shall make a promise, and man shall inuent, without anie warrand of Gods commandement, an external element, wherevnto the promise shall bee annexed. By this forme of doing not onelyonly may they make vp seuen Sacramentes, but also seuentie times seuen Sacraments.

True it is, that the holy Apostles, by imposition of handes, conferred the gift of the holy Spirit (that is, the gift of Languages) Act. 8.Acts 8to many professors of the true Faith: and this gift conferred vntounto them, confirmed them in the faith of Christ. But what belongeth this vntounto the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation, in the which the externall signe of imposition of handes is inlacking, and the promise of a spirituall grace annexed to the signe is also inlacking: and finally, that thing which was extraordinarie and appertaining to a few, is brought in as the ground of an ordinarie Sacrament, which shoulde appertaine to all them who beleeue.

I will not insist long to speake of this new Sacrament of Confirmation. OnelyOnly this I say, that whatsoeuer is brought in into the Church of God, with derogation of the dignitie of Baptisme, an holy Sacrament instituted by Christ himselfe, it should Matth. 28Matt 28be abhorred. But so it is, that the Sacrament of Confirmation is brought in with a derogation to the dignitie of Baptisme, ergo, &c. The seconde part of the argument is prooued by their slender and derogatiue speaches of Baptisme, together with their superlatiue aduancements of the eminencie of the Sacrament of Confirmation. In Baptisme they say that wee receiue not the vpholding, defending, gouerning, and strengthening Spirite of God: but all these graces are conferred in the Sacrament of p. 170Confirmation. Likewise, in Baptisme is prepared an habitation to God: but the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost enter not into this habitation before wee receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation. What can be more directly repugnant to H. Scripture? Marke 16Mark 16wherein it is expressely said, He who beleeueth, and is baptized, shall be saued. Can any man be saued, befor his soule be an habitation and Temple in the which God is content to dwell? So that the doctrine of the Romane Church is like vntounto the nauigation of men who dare presume to saile in deepe and dangerous Seas without a Compasse: Euen so, they talke of matters of great importance without the warrande of holy Scripture: whereby it commeth to passe, that their doctrine in many pointes is flatte repugnant to holy Scripture.

Concerning the testimonies of Fathers, whereby they endeuour to proue the Sacrament of Confirmation, I might answere compendiously with S. Augustine, Quicquid attulerint, & undecunque attulerint, audiamus potius, si oues sumus vocem pastoris nostri: non ergo audiamus, haec ego dico, haec tu duis: sed haec dicit Dominus: August. de unitate Eccles, cap. 3that is, Whatsoeuer they bring in, and from whence soeuer they hauehave brought it in, if we be the Lords sheepe, let vsus rather bearken to the voyce of our shephearde: therefore, let vsus not hearken to them who saye, This I saye, or this thou sayest, but this saieth the Lord. Neuerthelesse, seeing they glorie so much of ancient Fathers, let the judicious Reader beware of supposititious writings, and he shall not find this Chrisme in ancient writers. The Sermon of Cyprian, De Chrismate, is knowne to be supposititious. The opinion of Tertullian, who writeth, that they who are baptized with water, hauehave not receiued the Holy Spirit, but are prepared to receiue it by anointing Tertull. de Baptism.with oyle, and imposition of handes, after baptisme: doeth not eueryevery man, who is versed in the reading of Fathers, smell, that Tertullian writte this when hee made defection from the trueth, and was intangled with the errour of the Montanistes? And Cyprian, in the bookes of his epistles, when he attributeth too much to Vnction with Oyle and imposition of hands, after baptisme, Cypr. lib. 1 epist. 12it is easie to perceiue, that he borrowed this errour from Tertullian, whom he acknowledged as his Master. But neither Tertullian Idem, lib. 2 epist. 1nor Cyprian are speaking of the Popishe Sacrament of Confirmation, but of annointing with oyle and imposition of handes p. 171immediately after baptisme. Marke the words of Cyprian, where he saith, Non posse esse filios Dei, si non utroque sacramento nascantur, lauacro scilicet aquae in verbo, & unctione Chrismatis: that is, They cannot bee the sonnes of God, except they bee borne againe by both the Sacraments to wit, by the lauacre of water in the word, and the anointment of Chrisme. True it is, that Cyprian calleth the anointment of oyle after baptisme, a Sacrament different from the dipping in water: but his meaning is, that the anointing with oyle is an element different from the element of water, and Augustine long after Cyprian, calleth the externall signe of the Sacrament, a Sacrament, August. in Euangel. Ioan. cap. 6 tract. 26John 6and the thing represented by it, res sacramenti.

Nowe what vantadge hath the Romane Church, when they take holde of the wordes, utroque Sacramento, that is, both the Sacraments? and in the meane time they neither take heede to the sandie grounde, whereupon Cyprian leaneth, to wit, the opinion of Tertullian, neither yet take they heede in what sense Cyprian calleth anointing with oyle a Sacrament, to wit, because it is one of the elementes, whereby our spirituall birth is represented.

The reuerence that was carried toward the ceremonies of signification in the law of Moses, hath made a patent doore vnderunder the Gospell, to receiue many legall ceremonies, such as consecration by oyle, the linnen Ephod, the lightes shining all the night long, and many other ceremonies, which are the more easily embraced, because in Poprie the substance of godlinesse is vtterly forsaken, and vaine ceremonies are adhered vntounto, euen such as are ceassed, because they had their performance in SimilitudeChrist. And like as it is a follie to take the huskes of the wine grapes, after the liquor is pressed out of them, and to cast them into the wine-presse againe: Euen so, it is a foolishe conceite to returne the ceremonies of signification, which hauehave had their performance in Christ, and are abolished, to hauehave place againe in the Church of God.

Therefore, let the Romane Church bragge of Antiquitie as much as they please, in their Sacrament of Confirmation, no antiquitie shall bee founde, and that for three causes: First▪ because the anointing with oyle, whereof the Fathers doe speake, is not a different sacrament from baptisme, but a ceremonie Preceeding and following Baptisme. Secondly, the oyle wherewith persons baptized were anointed, was not mixed with Balsome. And thirdly, after baptisme, anointing with oyle, and imposition of hands followed immediately: but in the Sacrament of Confirmation, when it began to take place in the Church of God, anointing with oyle mixed with Balsome followed not immediately vpō the necke of baptisme, as a continuate action: but it was ministred 12. or 15. yeere after baptisme: so that it is a deluding of the world, and a peruerting of those who are weak in vnderstanding, to proue that the Sacrament of Confirmation is an auncient Sacrament in the Church, because it was an auncient custome to anoint with oyle those who were baptized, as if Baptisme and Confirmation were both one thing, which they vtterly denie.

Let the judicious Reader vnderstand, that the purpose of the Romane Church to aduaunce their Sacrament of Confirmation with impairing of the dignitie of Baptisme, is but a new Popish inuention: For the writers, after the dayes of the Apostles, the more auncient they are, the more they magnifie the holy Sacrament of Baptisme: by which (saieth Clemens Alexandrinus) foreign: that is, Wee Clemens Alexa. paed. lib. 1. cap. 6are enlightened, wee receiue the adoption of children, wee are made perfect, wee are made immortall. What affinitie hath the doctrine of the Romane Church with Antiquitie, who counteth the Sacrament of Baptisme onelie a preparation to the Sacrament of Confirmation? Whereas auncient Writers hauehave attributed to Baptisme receiued truelie, and with singlenesse of heart, such perfection as leadeth vsus vntounto immortallitie and eternall life.

Lindanus pineth himselfe much, as a woman trauelling in birth, to bring foorth her childe: so doeth hee endeuour with Lindan. panopl. lib 4 cap. 29all his might, to prooue, that CHRIST instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation, and that the Chrisme shoulde bee renewed from yeere to yeere, and that this custome hath beene continuallie in vse since the dayes of the Apostles, not onelie in the Church of ROME, but also in the Churches of ANTIOCHIA, HIERVSALEM, and EPHESVS. This is a verie confident assertion, if hee coulde make it good. And for proofe of all this geare, is brought foorth asupposititious letter of Fabian, bishop of Rome. The cause is weake that is founded vponupon such sandie grounde as Decretall Epistles doe falselie attribute to a great number of the bishops of Rome. The olde prouerbe hath place in Lindanus, as much as in anie Writer, Parturiunt Montes, nascetur ridiculus Mus: that is, The Mountaines are trauailing in birth, and aridiculous Mouse shall bee brought foorth. Fabianus testimonie, written in a Legende of lies, that is, in Decretall Epistles, vnknown to Antiquitie, is no sure ground to any man to leane his Faith vponupon it.

Moreouer, he fetcheth a compasse to draw this Sacrament of Confirmation out of Scripture one way or other, and hee saith, that Christ commaunded his Apostles, who were already baptized, to remain at Ierusalē, vntill they were endewed with strēgth from aboue (Act. 1) & in the day of Penticost, the H. Ghost descē ded vponupon them in the similitude of fiery & clouen tongs (Act. 2) & again, the disciples at Samaria, who were already baptized, yet by imposition of the handes of the Apostles, they receiued the gift of the H. Spirit (Act, 8. 17) What can Lindanus inferre vponupon these groundes? Christ bestowed vponupon Christians, who were already baptized, a more ample grace than they had at the beginning: whē they were baptized, & Christ added a signe in time of Confirmation, somtimes fiery tongues, & somtimes imposition of hands: ergo, Confirmation is a Sacrament of y^e new Testamēt: it followeth not: for God in ordinary sacraments, like as he maketh promises appertaining to al y^e beleeuers: euen so in like maner he sealeth vp these promises by signes appertaining to all y^e members of the Church of God: but promises belonging to a small number, & sealed vp with signs cōferred vntounto a few, cānot bee the ground of a sacrament, which is a seale of the couenant of God, belonging to all true professors and beleeuers. And when Lindanus hath troubled himselfe with much businesse, in end he granteth that Chrisming is an vnwritten tradition, and hath no authoritie in the written word of God, citing the testimonie of Basilius Magnus to this effect: God confirmeth and Basil. aduer. sus Eunom.strengtheneth them who are baptized in his name, to bring his owne worke begunne in them to a perfection, but not to institute a newe SACRAMENT. And like as the GENTILES of olde, who worshipped the SVNNE, they worshipped it not onelyonly for the glory and splendor that was in it, but also for the benefite that it did communicate vntounto the earth, by warming it, and making it fruitfull. Euen so, wee doe magnifie God our Creator and maker, not onelyonly for his owne most excellent and incomprehensible glorie, but also because he daylie refresheth our soules with his goodnesse, & strengtheneth our weaknesse with the power of his sauing grace. These are points whereof no man doubteth: and a large and fruitfull discourse vponupon this subject is a commendation of the superabundant goodnesse of God: but it belongeth nothing to prooue that Chrisming is a Sacrament distinct from Baptisme.

The African Councell, called Mileuitanum, pronounced an Anatheme against all those who saye, that the grace of God in Canon 3Baptisme conferreth only remission of sinnes already cōmitted, & that in it there is no support promised to preserue men from sinnes in time to come that they bee not committed. Whereby wee may euidently perceiue, that the spirituall graces, which the Romane Church referreth to the Sacrament of Confirmation, were of olde referred to the Sacrament of Baptisme.

Likewise, Antididagma Coloniensis (as Themnisius declareth) demandeth, for what cause doth the Presbyter anoint him, who is baptized, with Chrisme, seeing that he is to be anointed of new againe, with Chrisme, in the Sacrament of Confirmation? And out of the booke, De Gestis Pontificum, he recordeth a constitution of Syluester, That for the perill of vnexpected death, it is meete, that the Presbyter shall anoint with Chrisme him who is to bee baptized, lest through absence of the Bishop the person baptized should depart this life without Confirmation: but if the bishop be present, let him be anointed by the bishop. This declareth. that of olde Chrisming was annexed to Baptisme. But afterwards, to multiplie the number of the Sacraments, they separated it from the action of Baptisme, and made it a peculiar Sacrament, to bee ministred some space of time after Baptisme, at the least seuen dayes, for reuerence toward the seuen-folde graces of God conferred in the Sacrament of Confirmation, as Durandus citeth out of RABANVS: vsually twelue or fifteene yeeres interuene betwixt Baptisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Romane Church. OnelyOnly this I request of the judicious p. 175Reader, that when hee readeth of Chrisming in the ancient Church, hee would not take it for the Sacrament of Confirmation, but for anointing with oyle in Baptisme. And this custome also had no allowance in the written worde of GOD, as Basilius expressely graunteth, in these wordes, foreign, that is, What Scripture Basil. aduer. sus Eunom. Lindan. panopl. lib. 4 cap. 32hath taught vsus anointing with Oyle? Doeth not this proceede from secret and mysticke tradition?

Finally, let vsus search out this matter to the very grounde, whereby it may bee euidently knowne, howe this Sacrament of Confirmation crept in into the Church. It was a custome of auncient time, that children were presented to Baptisme by their Christian parentes: and albeit their infancie coulde not comprehende the summe of Christian Faith, yet neuer thelesse they were instructed and catechised when they came to yeeres of discretion: and when they had sufficiently comprehended the summe of Christian Faith, their parentes of newe againe presented them to the Bishop, who after hee had receiued in audience of the people, a cleare confession of their Faith, hee blessed them, and with the ceremonie of imposition of handes, prayed to God, that these persons, who had giuen out of their owne mouth a confession of that same Faith, which their parentes had professed in their name in Baptisme, might continue in that same true Faith constantly vntounto their liues ende. This imposition of handes was vsed to imprint into the heartes of the persons, who had made a confession of their faith, a deeper reuerence of God, and a greater care to continue constant. But in doing of this, there was no purpose to institute a newe Sacrament of Confirmation in the Church.

Moreouer, persons who were baptized by Heretiques, when they forsooke their heresie, they were not rebaptized, but they were receiued into the Church by the ceremonie of imposition of handes, as hath beene declared in the life of Stephanus, bisshop of Rome, CENT. III. CHAP. II. And this imposition of handes was joyned with prayer, That it woulde please God to vouchsafe vponupon him who was receiued into the bosome of the Church by imposition of handes, the gift of the holy Spirit, p. 176which was offered vntounto him in Baptisme, but it was not receiued, because hee professed not the true Faith. Neither can there bee founde in this seconde sort of imposition of handes anie grounde for the Sacrament of Confirmation.

To conclude, this Sacrament of Confirmation is either of God or man. If it bee of God, let the warrande of His commaundement bee brought foorth, in the which Hee commaundeth to anoint with Chrisme those who are alreadie baptized. And is it not a disficill thing, to these who are content to sacrifice their life for Christes sake to offer their children also to bee signated with Chrisme when they are twelue or fifteene yeeres of age. But if no diuine commaundement can bee founde out, commanding vsus so to doe, but it is a plaine humane inuention, Then let the Romane Church bragge lesse of Antiquitie than they doe, seeing there is nothing in humane inuentions, but Antiquitie of Errour.

FINIS.