Canterburys Doom, Branch 1 · Evidence 2 · Section 66 – Section 72
66. Paſſages deleted, that the Euchariſt and Maſſe are no Propitiatory Sacrifice. (See Maſſe before.)
IN Maſter Ward's Comentary on Matthew written copy page 324. this diſcourſe is deleted: Quest. Is the bread in the Lords Supper, when it is conſecrated, to be offered up as a Propitiatory ſacrifice unto God?
Anſw. No: our ſacrifices now are Thankſgiving and Almes, Hoſea 14. 3. Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 15, 16.
Object. But this Sacrament is frequently by the Fathers called a ſacrifice, and therefore the Maſſe is no Idoll; yea the Papiſts urge Heb. 13. 10, &c. and from thence of ſet up the Bread, Chriſt, unto God for a propitiatory ſacrifice.
Anſw. Firſt, it is not certaine that the Apoſtle in that place ſpeaks of the Euchariſt, yea rather contrarily, it is certaine, that he ſpeaks not of the Euchariſt, for verſe 15. it is ſaid, Per illum, by him, therefore let us offer. &c. and therefore if we offer ſacrifice unto God (per illum, ergo non illum) by Chriſt, then we doe not offer up Chriſt himſelf unto God.
Secondly, our ſacrifices now are ſpirituall, viz. prayers, praiſes and almes; as was ſhewed before in the anſwer to the Queſtion: And hence collections were wont to be made in the Church, 1 Cor. 16. at the time when the Euchariſt was celebrated; and thus the Fathers doe alwayes explaine themſelves when they ſpeak of ſacrifice: for there is a double ſacrifice, to wit, firſt, one which the Prieſt offers up, and this the Papiſts ſpeak of, but not the Fathers; ſecondly, a ſacrifice which every Communicant offers, and of this the Fathers ſpeak; Tu ſine oblatione venis, participas quod pauper offert, Chryſoſt. When thou commeſt to the Lords Supper, thou muſt not come without an offering.
Ibid. page 365. The Papiſts object, Chriſt in the inſtitution of his ſupper ſpeaking of his ſacrifice, doth not utter the words in the future tenſe: This is my body, which trad…tur, ſhall hereafter be given for you; and my blood, which effundetur, ſhall be ſhed for you: but in the preſent tenſe, pro vobis traditur & effunditur, which is given for you, and ſhed for you; therefore Chriſt did not onelyonly ſacrifice his body and blood upon the Croſſe, but alſo in the Lords ſupper.
Anſw. Firſt, if theſe words (this is my body which is given, and my blood which is ſhed) be the ſubſtantiall words of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, then there is a groſſe and impious errour in the Canon of the Maſſe; for in the firſt part of the inſtitution, the Canon wholly omits theſe word, quod pro vobis traditur, which is given for you; and in the other part of the inſtitution, the Canon hath not the preſent tenſe, but the future effundteur, this is my blood which hereafter ſhall be ſhed for you; and thus the very nerves and ſinewes of this argument are quite cut a ſunder by the Canon of the Maſſe it ſelfe.
Secondly, how can the ſacrifice of the Maſſe be called Jucruentum, an unbloody ſacrifice, if there were in effuſion of blood even at that inſtant when Chriſt celebrated his ſupper? yea if the Wine be ſubſtantially changed into the blood of Chriſt, and the Bread into his body, and that there be blood not onelyonly in the Cup, but alſo with the fleſh, as they teach, then it muſt needs be a bloody ſacrifice.
Thirdly, it is not unknowne to the Chriſtian Faith of Proteſtants, when and where the body of Chriſt was given for the redemption of our ſoules and the blood of Chriſt ſhed for waſhing away of our ſinnes; for the Scripture in many places declares, that this was done in the death and ſuffering of Chriſt, and not in the celebration or inſtitution of the Euchariſt.
Fourthly, neither doth the uſe of the preſent tenſe prove that which they would have, for it is uſuall and well known, that there is an Enallage oft times in Scripture, and that not onelyonly the preſent tenſe, but alſo ſometimes the preter tenſe is put for the future for the certainty of things affirmed: as for example; paer natus eſt nobis, unto us a child is given or borne; Agnus occiſus, the Lamb was ſlaine from the beginning of the world; behold the Lambe of God, qui tollet, which taketh away the ſinnes of the world, Ego pono, I lay downe my life for my ſheep &c. Chem. Exam. part 2. fol. 166. 6.
Many Paſſages of this nature are expunged out of Doctor Iones his Comentary on the Hebrews, others altered by the Licenſer, which we pretermit.
67. Clauſes deleted againſt Popiſh Satisfaction.
IN Maſter Ward's Comentary on Matthew written copy page 17. this is deleted: Queſt. Which are the parts of Repentance?
Firſt, the Papihs anſwer hereunto, that the parts of repentance are three, to wit, Firſt contrition, or (as ſome of them ſay) Attrition: Secondly, auricular confeſſion; Thirdly, Satisfaction of merit.
Object. We may ſatisfie the wrath of God for the puniſhment due unto ſinne.
Anſw. Neither will this evaſion ſerve, that by grace our works ſatisfie, for grace and works are ſo divers, that they cannot herein concurre together; grace taking away works, and works grace, if they ſhould be joyned as working cauſes together.
Ibidem page 383 this is purged out: I read (ſaith Ambroſe) of Peter's penitent tears, but not of his Satisfaction; the which words of the Father, being urged againſt popiſh Satisfaction, Peter Lombard anſwered, Multa facta ſunt quae ſcripta non ſunt, many things have been done which are not written or mentioned in the Scriptures.
Anſw. This anſwer is a ſufficient ſatisfaction (with the Papiſts) being an eſſentiall point of pennance, and pertaineth to doctrine, and therefore it ſhould have an expreſſe warrant or proofe out of the Scripture; for in matters of faith or points of doctrine, an argument may be drawne negatively from the Scriptures (though not ſo in matter of fact) as for example; This doctrine is not found in Scripture, therefore it ought not to be received, is a good conſequence; wherefore the Fathers (viz. Ambroſe) argument is good, and the Maſters (viz. of the ſentences) ſolution looſeth not the knot.
And fol. 207. written copy: Thy ſinnes be forgiven thee.
We ſee Chriſt here neither requires confeſſion, nor demands or reſerves Satisfaction of this ſick man, but wholly takes away his ſinnes, to teach us that Chriſt pardons our ſinnes truly, Heb. 8. 12. Ior. 31. 21. &c. Iſa. 43. 25. Heb. 10. 17.
68. Scripture Texts themſelves and their very words alone deleted.
NOt to trouble you with any already mentioned in the Premiſes take theſe enſuing inſtances inſtead of many more that might be added. In Maſter Ward's Comentary on Matth. p. 201. Chriſt indeed is never abſent from his children; for, he loves them unto the end, Ioh. 13. 1. yea, promiſeth to be with them unto the end, Mat. 28. 20. yea, he dwelleth with them by his ſpirit, 1 Cor. 3. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16. But yet he ſeemeth ſometimes abſent. Ibid. p. 202. There is a fear of God, which is a godly fear; wherein two things are obſervable. viz. Firſt, that he is to be feared, Pſ. 2. 11. Pro. 1. 7. Eccle. 12. 11. And ſecondly, that he is not to be feared doubtingly, but beleeved confidently, Ioh. 4. 18. & Rom. 8. 38. Ibid. p. 84. All Chriſtians are called light: Thus Saint Paul taxed the Jewes, Thou art confident that thou thy ſelfe art a guide of the blinde, a light to them that ſit in darkneſſe, Rom. 2. 19. whence he intimates that every Chriſtian is or ought to be a light. Ibid. p. 194. Queſt. Why doth the Lord principally reſpect our Faith? Anſw. Firſt, becauſe Faith only ſaveth us, Rom. 3. 12. 27. &c. and 4. 5. Acts 13. 48. Ioh. 8. 24. Eph. 2. 8. Secondly, becauſe works ſerve onelyonly to prove our Faith, Gal. 5. 8. Iam. 2. 18. Ibid. p. 207. Thy ſinnes be forgiven thee. We ſee Chriſt here, neither requires Confeſſion, nor demands or reſerves Satisfaction of this ſick man, but wholly takes away his ſinnes: to teach us, That Chriſt pardons our ſinnes truly, Heb. 8. 12. Ier. 31, 32. &c. Iſay 43. 25. Heb. 10. 17. Ibid. p. 403. Secondly, it appeares the Holy Ghoſt is God, becauſe he begat Chriſt the Sonne of God, Luk. 1. 35. where he is called, The power of the moſt High; and therefore he is God. Ibid. p. 187. the Lord is immutable and immoveable in his Law and Decrees of mercy, Iohn 13. 1. Rom. 11. 29. Ibid. page 221. All power comes from God; we neither have power to eſchew evill, nor to do good, Rom. 7. 15. 19. 23. Were not theſe Licenſers as bad or worſe then Papiſts, thus to obliterate theſe very Texts of ſacred Scriptures as heterodox, and unfit to paſſe the Preſſe? No doubt they would have raſed them out of the Bible it ſelf in time, as well as out of this Authors writings, who did but barely cite them in their genuine ſenſe, againſt Popiſh and Arminian errours.
69. Paſſages expunged, that the Scriptures are light, not hard to be underſtood, and to be read by the common people.
IN Maſter Ward upon Matthew 14. 15. page 27. 90. theſe clauſes are deleted. Ye are the light of the World.
The Papiſts affirme, the Scriptures to be hard, and difficult and obſcure, that the common people or Laity cannot understand them, and therefore it is to no purpoſe for them to read them. Now againſt this we produce this place, arguing briefly thus; the Apoſtles are the light of the world, therefore their doctrine (i. e. the Scripture) is perſpicuous, and facile, and may be underſtood by a diligent and obſervant Reader &c.
To this of Bellarmine we anſwer, firſt, the Major propoſition is falſe, that every light is alwayes viſible, for theſe two cauſes, viz. Firſt, becauſe the Sunne and Moone were ordered to be great lights (Gen. 1. 16. and Pſal. 136. 8.) for the governing of day and night, and yet we ſee them often darkned, and ſuffer ſtrange eclipſes: ſo the Church, though it be ordained to enlighten the world by miniſtring the doctrine of the Scriptures, yet ſometimes it may faile out of mens ſight, as hath been ſhewed elſewhere, viz. upon Matth. 5. 14. Secondly, though the Church be a light, yet ſuch as walke in darkeneſſe, loving that better then the light, doe not alwayes ſee it, but want either will or eyes thereto: Thus the King of Arams Souldiers neither ſaw the horſes and Chariots of fire that were round about Eliſha, nor knew that they were in the midſt of Samaria, untill their eyes were opened.
Neither do men light a candle and put it under a Buſhell.
The Papiſts ſay, that the Scriptures are ſo hard and obſcure, that although people were permitted to read them in their mother tongue, yet they could not poſſibly underſtand them, and therfore it boots not at all to do ſo: Now againſt this Tenet of theirs we enforce this place, arguing thus; Chriſt in the former verſes affirmed his Apoſtles to be, not only the ſale of the earth, but alſo the light of the world; and in this verſe ſhewes how abſurd a thing it is to light a candle, and then to put it under a Buſhell, and how uſefull it is to put it into a candleſtick, becauſe ſo it gives light to all that are in the houſe. But if the writings of the Apoſtles be obſcure, then we muſt of neceſſity confeſſe, that the light is hid under a buſhell, and is not ſeen by thoſe in the roome: Now if this be abſurd, then let the Paſtiſts acknowledge it an abſurd opinion to think the Scriptures obſcure, and rather affirme them to be perſpicuous and plain; yea, not only perſpicuous and clear to the underſtanding of ſome, but to all who are in the houſe, that is, to all the faithfull: Briefly, if the Goſpell be like a lighted candle which is put into a candleſtick, and gives light to all who are in the houſe, then it is perſpicuous and clear to the whole houſhold; but the former is true from this verſe; therefore alſo the latter, &c.
Were not our Prelates wholly Popiſh, and Romes ſworne Vaſſals, who could not endure to have ſuch paſſages as theſe paſſe freely through our Preſſes without a Romiſh purgation? and do not theſe bad fruits diſcover how rotten their hearts, how corrupt their judgements were?
70. Paſſages blotted out againſt Tranſubſtantiation; and Christs Corporall preſence in the Euchariſt.
IN Dr. Clerk's Sermons page 229. l. 21. after theſe words, not dye at all, ſhould follow this deleted cauſe; God is the creator; 'tis hee (John ſayes) made all things; the Popiſh Prieſt ſayeth, he can, by certaine words ſaid in the Sacrament, make his maker, create Chriſt, incarnate him again, turne bread into Chriſts body.
And in Maſter Ward's Comentary on Matthew, p. 380. Wine and bread cannot be both in the Sacrament corporally and ſubſtantially, as the Papiſts teach; But of this ſubject you have heard much before; we ſhall not therefore here enlarge our ſelves any further.
71. A notable clauſe deleted concerning the Toleration of Popiſh Prieſts, and Divines preaching againſt it.
IN D. Featlie's Clavis Myſtica, p. 175. this notable paſſage is purged out by the Archbiſhops Chaplaine: Now though toleration of different Religions falleth in ſome reſpects, within the compaſſe of the myſteries of ſtate, which cannot be determined in the Schools but are fitteſt to be debated at the Councel Table; yet conſidering the preheminence the Law of God hath above the law of men, and the dangerous conſequence of an ill reſolution of the ſtate in this point, which may tend to the ruine of many thouſand ſoules; certainly the Stateſ-man is not to begin but where the Divine ends in a deliberation of this nature; For firſt, it is to be enquired, Whether bearing with a falſe Religion, be a thing juſtifiable by the rules of true Religion? whether the God of Heaven permit any permiſſion of blaſphemy againſt himſelfe, or hereſie againſt his true worſhip? And in caſe that God diſpence with ſome kind of toleration of errours and abuſes for ſome time, to prevent a greater miſchiefe, the Councell of ſtate is to enquire, whether the condition of the preſent ſtate be ſuch, that the onelyonly meanes to ſuppreſſe hereſie, is for a while to let it grow? as alſo, whether the cockle can be cleane weeded out without the ſpoile of much good corne? If the Grecians never undertook any matter of great conſequence, before they received anſwers from their Oracles; neither the Jews before they conſulted with God by the Ephod; nor the Romans, priuſquam de coelo ſervatum eſſet, before they had the approbation of their ſouth-ſayers; doubtleſſe all Chriſtian eſtates are to expect either a command, or at leaſt a warrant from Scripture, before they proceed in matters ſo neerly concerning God and his ſervice; otherwiſe, they goe about to ſet the ſunne by the dyall, not the dyall by the ſunne; alter the houſe to the hangings; whereas all good Governours ſhould be like good Pylots, qui manum ad clavum, oculos habent ad aſtra, who have their eye upon the ſtarres or C…rd and hand upon their helme; that is, they ought according to the direction from heaven to ſteere their courſe.
72. Paſſages expunged againſt Veniall ſinnes.
IN Doctor Clerk's Sermons page 295. l. 16. after Lotteries, the Licenſer hath deleated theſe words; All ſinnes ventall; ventall (I would ſay) there; yea (as a Romiſh Riball ſhamed not once to ſay) though a man had layen with our Lady.
And page 333. l. 22. after theſe words. A petty ſunne, ſhould follow; nor ever heard I of vice in a Diminutine, but onelyonly in a Papiſt; Lindan hath Levicula vitiola, ſubſtantive and adjective abated both,
In Maſter Ward's Comentary on Matth. 5. ver. 19. page 105. One of the leaſt Commandements, this diſcourſe is raſed out.
Are all ſinnes mortall, are not ſome Veniall?
Firſt, ſome ſinnes are called veniall, poſſibilitate, becauſe there is a poſſibility that they may be pardoned; and they are thus called, in oppoſition to thoſe mortall ſinnes which cannot poſſibly be forgiven, as finall impenitency, totall apoſtacy, and the ſinne againſt the Holy ghoſt, Heb. 64. & 10. 26.
Secondly, ſome ſinnes are called veniall, facilitate, becauſe they are more eaſily and uſually forgiven; and they are thus called, in oppoſition to thoſe ſins which are ſcarcely or ſeldome pardoned; as ſwearing, and the idolatry of covetous men, which are ſeldome truly repented of.
Thirdly, ſome ſinnes are called veniall, promiſſione, becauſe they have a promiſe of pardon; and thus all the ſinnes of the righteous children of God are called veniall.
Fourthly, ſome ſinnes are called veniall, vera eſtimatione, becauſe they deſerve not death nor condemnation: And in this ſenſe we deny any ſinnes to be veniall, becauſe every tranſgreſſion of the Law is mortall; yea, hence Bellarmine confeſſeth, that they are not properly ſinnes, becauſe they are preter legem non contra, beſides the Law, not contrary to the Law; and therefore we ſhould not preſume becauſe our ſinnes are ſmall, but feare becauſe they are many; the ſmalneſſe of them having been a meanes to hinder us from turning from them, or repentig of them, and alſo to multiply and encreaſe the number of them.
Ibidem written copy page 334. Object. Therefore ſome ſinnes are veniall, ſome mortall.
Anſw. Firſt, neither an Eagle nor an Elephant will catch at flyes, and therefore it becomes not ſo great and learned a Scholler as Bellarmine is to catch and ſnatch at theſe flyes and moats.