Part 26 (2/2)
_Sect._ 1. The third consequence which we infer upon our former rule of following the example of Christ is, that it is not a thing indifferent to omit the repet.i.tion of those words, ”This is my body,” enunciatively and demonstratively in the act of distributing the eucharistical bread; and far less is it indifferent so to omit this demonstrative speech in the distribution, as in place of it to surrogate a prayer to preserve the soul and body of the communicant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because Christ (whose example herein we ought to follow) used no prayer in the distribution, but that demonstrative enunciation, ”This is my body.” But we go forward.
_Sect._ 2. The fourth position we draw from the same rule is, that it is not indifferent for a minister to omit the breaking of the bread at the Lord's table after the consecration and in the distribution of it, because he ought to follow the example of Christ, who, after he had blessed the bread, and when he was distributing it to them who were at table, brake it,(1257) _manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes_, but had it not carved in small pieces before it was brought to the table. Hence G. J.
Vossius(1258) doth rightly condemn those who, though they break the bread _in multas minutias_, yet they break it not _in actu sacramentali_. Such a breaking as this (he saith well) is not _mystica_, but _coquinaria_.
_Sect._ 3. The fifth position, drawn from the very same ground is, that it is not indifferent for a minister, in the act of distribution, to speak in the singular number, _Take thou, eat thou, drink thou_; because he should follow the example of Christ, who, in the distribution, spake in the plural number, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_; and he who followeth not Christ's example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh that to be a private action betwixt himself and the communicant, which Christ made public and common by his speaking to all at one time.
_Sect._ 4. How idly Bishop Lindsey(1259) answereth to these things, it cannot but appear to every one who considereth that we do not challenge them for not breaking the bread at all,-for not p.r.o.nouncing at all these words, ”This is my body,” or for never p.r.o.nouncing at all these speeches in the plural, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_,-but for not breaking the bread in the very act of distribution,-for not p.r.o.nouncing demonstratively those words, ”This is my body,” in the very act of distribution,-for not speaking in the plural number, ”Take ye,” &c.-in the very act of distribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him than such as concern us. Why, then, did not the Bishop say something to the point which we press him with? or shall we excuse him because he had nothing to say to it?
_Sect._ 5. Now, last of all, we find yet another point, whereby the Bishop(1260) departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith that, by the sacramental word, ”This is my body,” the bread is made the sacrament, &c.; and that without this word, &c., all our prayers and wishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the bread to be otherwise consecrated by us than it was consecrated by Christ; for that Christ did not consecrate the bread to be the sacrament of his body by those words, ”This is my body,” it is manifest, because the bread was consecrated before his p.r.o.nouncing of those words; or else what meaneth the blessing of it before he brake it? It was both blessed and broken, and he was also distributing it to the disciples, before ever he said, ”This is my body.” Beza saith, _Benedictionem expresse ad panis consecrationem et quidem singularem, refert; et omnes nostri referunt, consecrationem intelligentes, &c._ Pareus saith,(1261) _Qua ex communi cibo, in spiritualis alimoniae sacramentum trans.m.u.tetur._ Wherefore we must not think to sanctify the bread by this prescript word, ”This is my body,” but by prayer and thanksgiving, as Christ did. Our divines hold against the Papists,(1262) _Verba illa quoe in sacramento sunt consecrata, non esse paucula quoedam proscripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quoe non sunt proescripta_; and that, ”through use of the prayers of the church, there is a change in the elements.”(1263) Dr Fulk objecteth(1264) against Gregory Martin, ”Your popish church doth not either as the Greek liturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose and Augustine's time, for they hold that the elements are consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving.” I know none who will speak with Bishop Lindsey in this point except Papists: yet Cornelius a Lapide could also say, _Eucharistia conficitur et conditur sacris precibus_.(1265)
_Sect._ 6. I say not that these words, ”This is my body,” have no use at all in making the bread to be a sacrament; but that which giveth us dislike is,
1. That the Bishop maketh not the word and prayer together, but the word alone, to sanctify the bread and wine. Now, if both the word and prayer be necessary to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, 1 Tim. iv.
5, much more are they necessary to sanctify them for the food of our souls. _Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio sit, sed etiam precibus._(1266) The fathers, saith Trelcatius,(1267) had not only respect to those five words, ”For this is my body,” _dum eucharistiam fieri dixerunt mystica precc, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione, gratiarum actione._ 2. That he makes not the whole word of the inst.i.tution to sanctify the bread, but only that one sentence, ”This is my body;”
whereas Christ's will is declared, and, consequently, the elements sanctified by the whole words of the inst.i.tution,(1268) ”Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me,”
&c.
That he acknowledged not the bread, though sanctified by prayer, to be the sacrament, except that very word be p.r.o.nounced, ”This is my body.” Now, when a minister hath, from Christ's will and inst.i.tution, declared that he hath appointed bread and wine to be the elements of his body and blood, when he hath also declared the essential rites of this sacrament.
And, lastly, when, by the prayer of consecration, he hath sanctified the bread and wine which are present, put the case, that all this while those prescript sentences, ”This is my body,” ”This cup is the New Testament in my blood,” have not been p.r.o.nounced, yet what hindereth the bread and wine from being the sacramental elements of the Lord's body and blood? It is sounder divinity to say, that the consecration of a sacrament doth not depend _ex certa aliqua formula verborum_.(1269) For it is evident that, in baptism, there is not a certain form of words prescribed, as Bellarmine also proveth;(1270) because Christ saith not, ”Say, I baptise thee in the name,” &c.: so that he prescribeth not what should be done. Aquinas likewise holdeth,(1271) that the consecration of a sacrament is not absolutely tied to a certain form of words. And so saith Conradus Vorstius,(1272) speaking of the eucharist. Wherefore Vossius(1273) doth rightly condemn the Papists, _quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri putant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, et hic est sanguis meus_.
CHAPTER VIII.
THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL OATH.
_Sect._ 1. Having spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and showed which things be such; also of the rule whereby to try the indifferency of things: which rule we have applied to certain particular cases;-it remaineth to say somewhat of the main and general purpose, which is princ.i.p.ally questioned in this last part of our dispute, viz., whether cross, kneeling, holidays, bishopping, and the other controverted ceremonies wherewith our church is pressed this day, be such things as we may use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly confirmed by those arguments which, in the third part of this our dispute, we have put in order against the lawfulness of those ceremonies.
Notwithstanding we have thought fit to add somewhat more in this place.
And, first, we say, whatsoever be the condition of the ceremonies in their own nature, they cannot be indifferently embraced and used by the church of Scotland, which hath not only once cast them forth, but also given her great oath solemnly to the G.o.d of heaven, both witnessing her detestation of the Roman Antichrist's ”five b.a.s.t.a.r.d sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the word of G.o.d; all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the kirk, without or against the word of G.o.d;” and likewise ”promising, and swearing to continue,” as well ”in the discipline and use of the holy sacraments,” as ”in the doctrine,” of this reformed church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used after she was truly reformed from Popery and popish abuses. And this which I say may be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by his Majesty's father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several parochines in the land, at his Majesty's strait command; which also was renewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General a.s.sembly, by provincial a.s.semblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches.
_Sect._ 2. No reformed church in Europe is so strictly tied by the bond of an oath and subscription, to hold fast her first discipline and use of the sacraments, and to hold out popish rites, as is the church of Scotland.
And who knoweth not that an oath doth always oblige and bind, _quando est factum de rebus certis et possibilibus, vere ac sine dolo praemeditate, ac c.u.m judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, et bonum proximi_?(1274) What one of all those conditions was here wanting? Can we then say any less than a pope said before us:(1275) _Non est tutum quemlibet contra juramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis aeternae_?
O d.a.m.nable impiety, which maketh so small account of the violation of the aforesaid oath, which hath as great power to bind us as that oath of the princes of Israel made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2; for it was made by the whole incorporation of this land, and hath no term at which it may cease to bind. Nay (in some respects) it bindeth more straitly than that oath of the princes of Israel. For, 1.
That was made by the princes only; this by prince, pastors, and people: 2.
That was made rashly (for the text showeth that they asked not counsel from the mouth of the Lord); this with most religious and due deliberation: 3. That was made to men; this to the great G.o.d: 4. That sworn but once; this once and again.
_Sect._ 3. Some of our opposites go about to derogate somewhat from the binding power of that oath of the princes of Israel. They are so nettled therewith that they fitch hither and thither. Dr Forbesse(1276) speaketh to the purpose thus: _Juramentum Gibeonitis praest.i.tum contra ipsius Dei mandatum, et inconsulta Deo, non potuissent Josuae et Israelitae opere perficere nisi Deus, extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensa.s.set, compa.s.sione poenitentis illius populi Gibeonitei, et propter honorem sui nominis, ut neque foedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium paenitentium aspernator esse videretur._
_Ans._ 1. If the oath was against the commandment of G.o.d, what dishonour had come to the name of G.o.d though he had not patronised the swearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their oath? If a Christian swear to kill a pagan, and hereafter repent of his oath, and not perform it, can there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The Doctor, forsooth, must say so.
<script>