01-05    06-18    19-32    33-39

Article  XIX

Of the Church.

      The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered, according to God’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

      Though the church of Christ be one and the same church both in heaven and in earth, yet it there differs much from itself as here.  There it is triumphant, not militant; here it is militant, not triumphant: there it consisteth of good only, and not of bad; here of had also as well as good.  And to name no more, there it is invisible as to us; here it is visible unto all.  We cannot see the church as crowned with glory in heaven; but any one may see it as established by grace on earth.  And the church as thus visible is the subject of this article; so much of it as I have transcribed containing nothing but a full and excellent description of this visible church; which I the unworthiest of its members, by the assistance of Him who is the Head, shall endeavour to illustrate and confirm, speaking to every particular notion in it as it stands in order.

      First therefore, the visible church is hero said to be a congregation.  And indeed though * our word church doth not imply so much, yet the Greek word used by the apostles, which we commonly translate church, doth, * not as to the etymology and notation, but howsoever as to the common use and acceptation of it; it being sometimes used to signify an * assembly or congregation in general, and sometimes for such a congregation as profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore used also, though perhaps not in scripture, yet in other writings, to denote * the place where such congregations or gatherings together of people were made.  And that the Greek word which we translate church doth in its most proper sense signify a congregation, and by consequence that the church may well be called a congregation is plain also from the * most ancient, I mean, the oriental translations, that always render it by words signifying a congregation.  And therefore also in our old English translations it was mostly if not always rendered congregation, instead of which we now read church.

      That therefore the church is a congregation we need not insist any longer in the proving of.  But howsoever, before we pass from it, we must consider how it is here said to be a congregation in the singular, not congregations in the plural number.  Whence we must observe, that though the visible church may consist of many congregations, yet it so consisteth of many, as still to be but one congregation; those many congregations being * all built upon one foundation and stone, and * all members of one and the same Head, and * all agreeing in one and the same faith.  And therefore, as the body that consisteth of many members is still but one body, so the church that consisteth of many congregations is still but one church.  So that though every one of these congregations be itself a particular church (whence we read of the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:2, the church of Thyatira, the church of Perganaus, the church of Philadelphia, the church of Ephesus, and so also sometimes in the plural number the churches of Asia, the churches of Galatia, &c., I say, though every one of these be a particular church), and all of them particular churches, yet in reference to the one Head they are governed by, and the one faith they agree in, they are all but one * catholic or universal church; they are all but the one visible church spoken of in this article.  And therefore, as the visible church is a congregation, so is it but one congregation.

      But though the visible church be a congregation, yet every congregation is not the visible church.  To distinguish therefore this from all other congregations, it is here said, in the second place, The risible church is a congregation of faithful men; it is a congregation of such men as profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, so that all that profess true faith in Christ are of the visible church, and there are none of the visible church but only such as do profess faith in Christ.  And therefore in the Creed is the church called the holy catholic church, not as if every person in it was really holy, really saints, real believers in Christ: for we know that the visible church here on earth is like to a floor in which is both wheat and chaff, Matt. 3:12; it is like a field in which there is both tares and wheat, Matt. 13:24; it is like a net that gathereth of every kind, fishes good and bad, ver. 47; it is like Noah’s ark, wherein were all sorts of beasts, both clean and unclean.  In the church indeed triumphant in heaven, there are saints only, and no sinners; but in the church militant upon earth there are sinners also as well as saints, as the * Fathers long ago taught.  But when it is said in the Creed to be a holy and catholic church, and here the church is called a congregation of faithful men, it is so to be understood, as that there are none of the visible church, but only such as profess holiness and faith, though they be not really faithful and holy.  For it is this outward profession of faith in Christ that entitles us to church membership here on earth, though it is only the inward possession of Christ by faith that entitles us to communion with the invisible church in heaven.  But that the church is a congregation of faithful men, even of such as profess faith in Christ, is plain from the constant practice of the church in all ages, never to admit any into communion with it but such as have either by themselves or sureties made such a profession.  And therefore we read also, how they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added to the church about three thousand souls, Acts 2:41.  So that they first received his word before they were baptized, and none were baptized and so brought into the church but such as had first received his word, viz. what he had taught concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore the church must needs be a congregation of faithful men: for until they be faithful men they cannot be of the church.  And as unless they be faithful men they cannot come into the church, so as long as they continue in the church they must needs be faithful men for their continuing in the church of Christ argues their faith in him in whose church they thus continue.  Did they not believe in his death, they would not remain in his church.  And therefore we cannot but conclude, that the church is a congregation of faithful men.

      But though the church be always a congregation of faithful men, yet every congregation of faithful men is not a church.  Therefore in the last place it is here said, The visible church is a congregation, of faithful men, wherein the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to God’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.  So that though there be a congregation of faithful men met together, unless the word of God be truly preached, and the sacraments of Christ duly administered in it, that congregation of faithful men is not a church.  Where what we are to understand by being duly administered, the article itself expounds to us, even that the sacraments be administered according to God’s ordinance in all things that are of necessity requisite to the same; as, that baptism be administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19; that the Lord’s supper be administered according to Christ’s institution, left on record for our imitation, Matt. 26:26, 27; 1 Cor. 11:23, 24, 25.  And that the church is such a congregation wherein the word is so preached, and the sacraments so administered, is plain, in that the word hath been so preached, and the sacraments so administered ever since it was a church.  As we may see in the Acts of the Apostles, where we can scarce meet with the church, but we shall find it either preaching the word, chap. 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, or administering the sacrament of baptism, 2:41, 8:38, or breaking of bread, 2:46, &c.

      And hence it is that the Fathers still asserted that the church cannot subsist without church officers, such whose duty it is thus to preach the word and administer the sacraments.  * “Do you,” saith Ignatius, “reverence them as Christ Jesus, whose vicegerents they are, as the bishop is also the type of the Father of all things, and the presbyters also are the assembly of God, and as the company of the apostles of Christ joined together.  Without these there is no church chosen, no assembly holy, no congregation of saints.”  And so St. Hierome, * “For it is no church that hath not priests.”  And what is the reason that there can be no church without priests, but because the word cannot be rightly preached nor the sacraments lightly administered without them?  And seeing these things cannot be done without them, there can be no church without them.  With this description of the church agrees that of Lactantius: * “But,” saith he, “because every company of heretics think themselves principally to be Christians, and that theirs is the catholic church, we must know that that is the true church wherein there is confession and repentance, which doth wholesomely cure the sins and wounds which the frailty of the flesh is subject to.”  And therefore the church must needs be a congregation of faithful men, if confession, viz. of Christ crucified and repentance, must needs be in the true church; for these are the principal things wherein that faithfulness consisteth.  And again, saith he, * “For when they are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or the like, they cease to be Christians, who, leaving the name of Christ, take up human and external words.  That is therefore the only catholic church which retains true worship.”  Now it is impossible any church should retain true worship without the word and sacraments, these being the principal parts of true worship; and therefore it is necessary that we should confess, that the visible church, is a congregation of faithful men, wherein the word is truly preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.

      As the church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also hath the church of Rome erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

      After the catholic or universal church described, here we have a particular church to be considered.  Indeed, here are several particular churches contained under the forenamed catholic church, mentioned, viz. the church of Jerusalem, the church of Alexandria, the church of Antioch, and the church of Rome but it is the church of Rome which seems to be principally aimed at in this place; that being the chief if not the only particular church that ever pretended to infallibility.  That the catholic or universal church is infallible, so as constantly and firmly to maintain and hold every particular necessary truth delivered in the gospel in one place or other, cannot be denied; but that any particular church, or the church of Rome in particular, is infallible, we have it expressly denied and opposed in this article, it being here expressly asserted, that the church of Rome hath erred, and that not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.

      Now to prove that the church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles.  For whatsoever is contained in these Articles, we have, or shall by the assistance of God prove to be consonant to scripture, reason, and Fathers; and by consequence to be a real truth.  And therefore whatsoever is any way contrary to what is here delivered must needs be an error.  And so that besides other errors which the church of Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the church of England, therein it errs.  Now to prove that the church of Rome doth hold such doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the church of England, I shall not insist upon any particular though never so eminent persons amongst them, that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours: for I know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our church that is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also among them, every thing that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of their church saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their church, if it be false, nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole church.  A church may be catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a church may be heretical though it hath many catholics in it.  And therefore, I say, to prove the doctrine of their church to be erroneous, I shall not take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and published as the doctrine of that church by the whole church itself met together in council for the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the whole church there represented.  As the doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the church of England; and so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the church of Rome.  And of all the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case is the council of Trent, both because it was the most general council they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at London.  For it was in the year of our Lord 1562 that our convocation that concluded upon these Articles was held at London; and though the council of Trent was begun in the year of our Lord 1545, yet it was not concluded and confirmed till the fifth year of pope Pius the Fourth, ann. Dom. [1564,] as appears * from the said pope Pius’s bull for the confirmation of it.  So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council was.  And so our church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed upon errors there.  Neither need we go any further to prove that they agreed upon errors, than by shewing that many things that they did then subscribe to were contrary to what our church about the same time concluded upon.

      For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to scripture, reason, and Fathers and they delivering many things quite contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary both to scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors.  And so in chewing that the doctrine of the church of Rome is in many things contrary to the church of England, I shall prove from scripture, reason, and Fathers the truth of this proposition, that the church of Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

      Now, though there be many things wherein the church of Rome did at that, and so still doth at this time, disagree with ours, yet I shall pick out but some of those propositions that do in plain terms contradict these Articles.

      As first, we say, art. VI, scripture is sufficient, &c. and the other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the church doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.  But the church of Rome thrusts them into the body of canonical scriptures, and accounts them as canonical as any of the rest; saying, * “But this synod thought good to write down to this decree an index to the holy books, lest any one should doubt which they are that are received by this council.  But they are the underwritten.  Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras I and II, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books of the Maccabees, the I and II.  Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books, with every part of them, as they use to be read in the catholic (viz. the Roman) church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the foresaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

      Secondly, we say that original sin is the fault and corruption of every man, none excepted, art. IX; but they say, * “But this synod declares it is not their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin Mary the mother of God in this decree, where it treats of original sin.”

      Thirdly, we say we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and so justified by faith only, art. XI; but they say, * “If any one say that a sinner is justified by faith only, that he so understand that nothing else is required to attain the grace of justification, and that it is noways necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will, let him be anathema.”

      Fourthly, we say that works before justification. have the nature of sin, art. XIII; but they say, * “If any one say, that all the works that are done before justification, howsoever they are done, are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of God, let him be anathema.”

      Fifthly, we say Christ was alone without sin, art. XV, they, that the Virgin Mary also was: * “If any one say, that a man being once justified can sin no more, nor lose his grace, and therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can avoid through his whole life all even venial sins, unless by a special privilege from God, as the church hold eth concerning the blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.”

      Sixthly, we say the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images as relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God, art. XXII; but they, * “seeing the catholic church taught by the Holy Ghost out of the holy scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, in holy councils, and last of all in this general synod, hath taught that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar; this holy synod commands the bishops, that they would diligently study, that the sound doctrine concerning purgatory, delivered from the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be by Christ’s faithful people believed, held, taught and preached every where.”  And again: * “This holy synod commands all bishops and others, that have the charge and care of teaching, that according to the use of the catholic and apostolic church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy Fathers, and the decrees of sacred councils, especially concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of images, they diligently instruct the faithful, teaching that the saints reigning together with Christ do offer up their prayers to God for men, and that it is good and profitable simply to invocate and pray unto them, &c.  And that the bodies of the holy martyrs and others that live with Christ are to be worshipped, &c.  And also that images of Christ, the God-bearing Virgin, and other saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due honour and veneration be given to them.”  And presently, * “But if any teach or think any thing contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”

      Seventhly, we say it is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the church, or to administer the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people, art. XXIV; but they, * “If any one say that the custom of the church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and the words of consecration are uttered with a low voice, is to be condemned, or that mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the cup, let him be anathema.”

      Eighthly, we say there are but two sacraments, art. XXV they, * “If any one say that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony, or that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”

      Ninthly, we say, transubstantiation is repugnant to the scripture, and overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, art. XXVIII; but they, * “But because Christ our Redeemer said, that that which he offered under the shape of bread was truly his body, therefore it was always believed in the church of God, and last of all this holy synod doth now declare it, that by the consecration of bread and wine is made the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood; which change is fitly and properly called by the holy catholic church transubstantiation.”

      Tenthly, we say the sacrament of our Lord’s supper is not to be worshipped, art XXVIII; but they, * “There is therefore no place of doubting left, but that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the catholic church, should give to this most holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that worship of service which is due to the true God.”

      Eleventhly, we say the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people, art. XXX; but they, * “If any one say that from the command of God and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, let him be anathema.”

      Twelfthly, we say, the sacrifices of mass are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits, art. XXXI; but they, * “If any one say that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else but for Christ to be given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

      There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the church of Rome contradicteth ours, as about the marriage of priests, &c.: but these may be enough to shew both the falseness of that calumny that ignorant people put upon our church of England, as if it was returning to popery, whereas the doctrine established by our church doth in so many and plain terms contradict the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shews the truth of this part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false.  For seeing whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our church is grounded upon scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it cannot but be true doctrine: and seeing theirs doth so frequently contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory to ours be false doctrine.  And therefore we may well conclude, that even the church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.

Article  XX

Of the Authority of the Church.

      The church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.

      After the nature of the church described, here we have the authority of the church asserted; which authority extendeth itself to two things, to the decreeing of ceremonies, and to the determining of controversies.  And truly this article is very fitly inserted amongst the rest; for had not the church this power, this convocation in particular which composed these Articles would have had no power or authority to have composed them, there being several rites decreed, and many controversies decided in them.  And therefore was it a great act of prudence in their determining of controversies, to determine this controversy in particular, that they had power to determine controversies; that this controversy being determined, that they had power to determine controversies, all the other controversies determined by them might be the better relished and received by them for whose sakes they were determined.

      But this by the bye.  What they here determine concerning the authority of the church (spoken of in the foregoing article) is, that “the church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.”  First, it hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, so that it is lawful for the church to decree and appoint what rites or ceremonies shall be used in the public worship of the great God; not as parts of that worship, * for then they would not be rites and ceremonies.  And therefore it is in vain objected by the adversaries to this truth, that herein we give the church power to add any thing to God’s worship which is not commanded in his word; as if rites and ceremonies were in themselves any part of worship; whereas what is any part of God’s worship cannot be a mere rite and ceremony; neither can that which is a mere rite or ceremony be any part of his worship.  For rites and ceremonies, in that they are nothing but rites and ceremonies, be in themselves indifferent, neither good nor bad, until determined by the church; after which determination also they still remain indifferent in themselves, and are good and bad only in reference to their decree who had power and authority to determine them, whereas every the least part of God’s worship, in that it is a part of God’s worship, can be by no means omitted without sin.  And therefore, when it is here said that the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, we must always by the words rites or ceremonies understand nothing else but the particular circumstances and customs to be observed in the service and worship of God, not as any cause or part thereof.

      Secondly, as the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, so hath it authority also in controversies of faith.  So that whensoever any controversies arise in the church of God concerning any of the articles of faith delivered in the holy scriptures, as, whether Christ be God and man in the same person, whether justification be by faith only or by works also, or the like; the church hath power and authority to decide the controversy, and to determine which side of the question is most agreeable to the word of God.  And that the church hath this power in decreeing ceremonies, and this authority in deciding controversies, is plain and manifest.

      First, from scripture, where we find St. Paul writing to the church of Corinth, to see that all things be done to edifying, 1 Cor. 14:26, and that all things be done decently and in order, ver. 40.  Now unless the church of Corinth had power and authority to decree and determine what was edifying, what was decent and orderly, St. Paul would here counsel them to what was impossible or unlawful for them to do.  It was impossible for them to see that all things were done to edifying and in order, until they had first decreed what was thus edifying and orderly; and it was unlawful for them to decree it, unless they had power and authority to do it.  As for example, whether it was more decent and edifying in their meetings for one to speak after another, or for many to speak together; whether it was more decent and edifying in their breaking of bread for every one to use a different, or for all to use one and the same posture.  In these and the like cases, unless they had power to determine what was the most orderly and edifying, St. Paul commanded what was in itself unlawful.  But seeing that is blasphemy to say, we must needs grant that the church of Corinth (and so other churches) had power and authority to determine and order these things.  Or if they had no such power before, yet St. Paul, or rather the most high God by St. Paul, did in these words grant them such a power and authority, in the decreeing these and the like circumstances and ceremonies, for the more decent and orderly worshipping of the glorious Jehovah, giving them this * one general comprehensive rule, Let all things be done to edifying and in order; out of which one general rule that and all churches whatsoever, according to the variety of times and places they live in, were to frame other particular rules and canons for the edifying and orderly performance of God’s worship; who being a God not of confusion but of order in himself, he requires such worship as is done in order, not in confusion, from us.

      But this makes only for the church’s power in decreeing ceremonies.  But now as for her authority in determining controversies of faith, I think it is plainly and clearly grounded upon and deduced from the practice of the apostles themselves; amongst whom there arising a controversy, whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles and to command them to keep the law of Moses, they presently met together to consider of the matter, Acts 15:5, 6.  And here we see, a controversy being raised, no particular person undertakes the determination of it, but several of them met together, and so made up a council, which was then, as it is now, the representative of the whole church.  Well, the church in her representatives being thus met together, they spent some time in disputing about the business, ver. 7, but at last they decide the controversy, ver. 19, 20.  From whence we may, yea must certainly conclude, that the church had then power and authority in controversies of faith; otherwise it durst not have undertaken the decision of so great a one as it did.  And if it had that power then, it cannot be denied to have the same still; for it is the same church now that it was then, governed by the same Head now as it was then, directed by the same Spirit now that it was then, enjoys the same scriptures to decide controversies by now as it did then, and therefore cannot be denied to have the same power in decision of controversies now as it had then.  Nay, for mine own part, I cannot but look upon the manner of the determination of this controversy intended for a model for the determination of all controversies in after-ages.  The apostles were all acted with an infallible spirit, and therefore, one should have thought, might have put a period to that controversy without so many disputes about it, or without calling a council, or the whole church together, for the decision of it.  But howsoever, God, to shew that it was not into the hands of private persons, but of the church in general, he had committed the determination of all controversies of faith, would not suffer his apostles themselves to end it without the consent of the whole church, or howsoever the greater part of it, which is accounted as the whole.  So that it was by the whole church that that controversy was decided, to shew that the church had power to decide controversies.

      Neither can I see in reason how this power in ceremonies and controversies should be denied the church.  For first, as for ceremonies, they cannot but be acknowledged to be indifferent, neither in themselves good nor bad, and if they be in themselves either good or bad, and not indifferent, they are not merely ceremonies; especially if they be in their own nature bad and sinful, they are not the ceremonies intended in this place.  For this same article in the following part of it doth determine that the ceremonies here intended are only such as are not against the scripture, and by consequence not unlawful.  Now such rites and ceremonies as are in themselves indifferent, it can be no sin to determine them to either part: for which part soever they are determined to, they cannot be determined into sin; I mean what is in itself indifferent, and so may be used or not used without sin; whether it be decreed to be used or not to be used, it cannot be any sinful decree; especially when after as well as before the decree they are still acknowledged to be in themselves indifferent, though not as to our use.  Which things of indifference also, as all ceremonies are, cannot be supposed to come within the command of God, for then they would not be indifferent, and seeing God hath not left any particular command, but only a general rule about all things of indifference, that they be so ordered that they be done decently and to edifying, the church cannot be thought to sin in determining them so as she thinks is the most edifying and decent, as we shall by the blessing of God see more fully in the thirty-fourth article.  And if it be no sin thus for the church to determine ceremonies, it must needs be granted that she hath power to decree them.

      But the truth of her power in decreeing ceremonies doth appear also in her authority to determine controversies for if she hath authority to determine controversies, she must needs have a power also to decree ceremonies.  For controversies of faith are of a higher nature than rites and ceremonies; and if it be lawful for her to do the greater, it cannot be unlawful to do the less, especially where the less is included in the greater, as it is in this case.  For there are few or no rites or ceremonies decreed but what are first controverted; and if it be in the power of the church to determine all controversies, it must be in her power to determine such controversies in particular as arise concerning ceremonies.

      But now that the church hath authority in controversies, is a truth which should it not be granted, it would be impossible for any controversies to be ever ended.  I know the * scripture is the rule of faith, and the supreme judge of all controversies whatsoever, so that there is no controversy of faith ought to be determined but from the scriptures.  But I know also, that as all controversies of faith are to be determined by the scripture, so there are no controversies of faith but what are grounded upon the scriptures.  What is not grounded upon the scriptures I cannot be bound to believe, and by consequence it cannot be any controversy of faith.  Hence it is, that as there is scarce an article of our Christian religion but hath been some time controverted, so there is no controversy that ever arose about it but still both parties have pretended to scripture.  As for example, that great controversy betwixt Arius and Athanasius, whether Christ was very God of the same substance with the Father.  Arius, he pretended to scripture in that controversy as well as Athanasius: and so for all other controversies, both sides still make as if the scripture was for them.  Now in such cases the question is, how the question must be decided, whether the scripture is for the one or for the other side of the controversy.  The scripture itself cannot decide the controversy, for the controversy is concerning itself: the parties engaged in the controversy cannot decide it, for either of them thinks his own opinion to be grounded upon scripture.  Now how can this question be decided better or * otherways, than by the whole church’s exposition of the scripture, which side of the controversy it is for, and which side it is against?  That it is lawful for the church thus to expound the scripture is plain; for it is lawful even for every particular person to pass his judgment upon any place of scripture: otherwise the * Bereans would not have been commended for searching the scriptures to see whether those things which the apostles preached were so or no, Acts 17.  And if the particular persons which the church consisteth of may give the exposition of the scripture, much more the church itself, that consisteth of those particular persons.  And as the exposition that any particular person passeth upon the scripture is binding to that person, so that he is bound to believe and act according to it so whatsoever exposition of scripture is made by the church in general, it is binding to the church in general: of which more elsewhere.  And if the church hath this power and authority to expound the scriptures, it hath power and authority also to determine controversies.  For the determination of all controversies depends only upon the exposition of the scriptures; according as the scripture is expounded, all controversies are determined.  So that which side soever of the controversy the scripture so expounded makes for, that is to be acknowledged as the truth, and the other to be rejected as an error.  And therefore seeing the church cannot be denied to have power to expound the scriptures, it must needs be granted to have authority in controversies of faith.

      And this is that which St. Augustine taught long ago.* “Furthermore,” saith he, “although there is no certain example can be brought out of the canonical scriptures of this thing, yet in this very thing do we hold the truth, when we do that which pleaseth the whole church, which the authority of the scriptures themselves commendeth, that seeing the holy scripture cannot deceive, whosoever fears to be deceived in the obscurity of this question (whether heretics are to be again baptized), let him consult the same church concerning it, which the scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity.”  As if he should say, In doubtful things, where the scripture is not so clear, consult the church; for though the question in hand be not clearly decided in the scriptures, yet this is clearly delivered in the scriptures, that the church hath power and authority to decide such questions.

      But if any one still doubteth about this the authority of the church, let him but consider how the church hath exercised this authority almost ever since it was a church.  What council was ever called but it either decreed ceremonies or determined controversies? and what the council doth, the whole church is said to do whence Athanasius saith, * “For the faith which the council confesseth in writing is the faith of the catholic church.”  So that I might demonstrate the truth of this article from the constant practice of the church in all ages, whensoever met together in council.  But I shall insist only upon the council of Nice: and certainly if ever the whole church of Christ met together since the apostles’ times, it was there. * “For here,” as Eusebius saith, “the principal of the ministers of God of all the churches that filled Europe, Libya, and Asia were met together.”  So that as Theodoret saith, * “There were three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled.”  Sozomen saith, * “There were about three hundred and twenty bishops, and of presbyters and deacons it seems accompanying of them no small multitude.”  Nay, Socrates saith, * “That the presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons that followed them could not be numbered.”  And therefore whatsoever this council did, it must needs be granted to be done by the church of Christ.

      But what was the reason of the church’s meeting in so glorious a manner?  Why, it is very observable, that it was for the decreeing of a ceremony, and determining of a controversy.  For Socrates saith, * “For neither were Alexander nor Arius mollified by the letters of the emperor, and there was a great strife and tumult also among the people.  And there was also another grievance in some places troubling the churches, viz. the difference about keeping the feast of Easter, which was only in the eastern parts; some striving to have the feast celebrated after the manner of the Jews, others following all Christians over the world.”  And presently, * “The emperor therefore seeing the church much troubled by both these things, he gathered together an oecumenical or general council, desiring by his letters the bishops from all places to meet at Nice, a city in Bithynia.”  And so Athanasius * “But if any one would discern betwixt the cause of the Nicene and of those other councils which were after it, he shall find that there was a reasonable cause why the Nicene council should be called, but the others were forcibly gathered together out of hatred and contention.  For the Nicene council was gathered together by reason of the Arian heresy, and the difference about Easter, because the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians differed from us, and celebrated the passover at the same time that the Jews do.”  So that it was plainly for the deciding of the controversy of Arius, and the time of the celebrating of Easter, that the church met at this time; the first of which was clearly a controversy of faith, the other a mere rite or ceremony.  And certainly if the church had not then had according to this article power to decree rites, and authority in matters of faith, they would never have travelled from all parts of the world to Nice to exercise such a power.

      But perhaps, whilst they were at home by themselves, they might think they had such a power; but did they think so when they were come all together?  Yes, certainly: for they put this their power and authority into execution.  “For,” as Eusebius saith, * “the question being made concerning the most holy feast of Easter, it seemed by common consent to be right that all should celebrate it upon one and the same day.”  Which made Athanasius say, * “But thanks be to the Lord, we are all agreed concerning the faith and holy feast.”  Nay, not content with decreeing it, they (or Eusebius for them) declare also their power and authority to do it, in these words: * “For it is lawful for us to lay aside their rite and custom, and in a truer order and institution, (which we have observed from the first day of the passion unto this present,) to propagate the celebration of this feast to future ages.”  Neither did they declare they had power to decree this ceremony only, but others also; and therefore in their sixth canon they decree, * “That ancient rites and customs should be observed.”

      Neither did they only decree the ceremony, but decide the controversy also they met about.  For the council itself sent a letter to several churches, wherein, as Socrates relates it, they say, * “First of all therefore the wicked and perverse opinions of Arius and his complices were laid open before the most holy emperor Constantine, and with one consent they saw good to anathematize or curse his wicked opinion, and his blasphemous words and names, saying, ‘The Son of God was of nothing, and there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by freedom of will capable of good or evil, and that he is a creature, and made.’  All these things did the holy synod anathematize.”  And as Sozomen saith, * “But you must know that the council determined, that the Son was of the same substance with the Father.”  As we may also see in the Creed set forth and confirmed by them.

      And thus we see how the church of God, met together in the most renowned council that ever was since the apostles’ time, did exercise this power in decreeing rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.  I might shew the same thing in many other particulars in this and other councils; but this may be enough to convince any one, that doth not think himself wiser than the whole church of God was at that time, that the church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.

      And yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture, that it be repugnant to another.  Wherefore, although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to he believed for necessity of salvation.

      The authority of the church being asserted in the former part of this article, here are three excellent rules laid down to be observed in her execution of that authority in this; which being all so plain of themselves, I need but touch upon them.  And the first is, that it doth not ordain any thing contrary to God’s word written, contrary to the scriptures which are the written word of God.  Which is a necessary rule to be observed in all decrees and constitutions whatsoever.  For * though we, or an angel from heaven, saith the apostle, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.  The word of God is a constant rule for all decrees whatsoever to be framed by.  What agrees with it is a lawful decree, yea therefore lawful because it agrees with it; and so what is contrary to it is a sinful decree, yea therefore sinful because contrary to it.  For the word of God, in that it is the word of God, cannot but be true, yea truth itself.  And it being impossible that both parts of a contradiction should be true, and certain that that part which the word delivers is always true, whatsoever is contrary to the scripture cannot but be false, yea therefore false because contrary to the scriptures.  And as the word of God, in that it is the word of God, must needs be true, so the law of God, in that it is the law of God, must needs be lawful; and so whatsoever is contrary to it cannot but be unlawful; nay, therefore it cannot but be unlawful because contrary to the law of God.  So that the scriptures are always to be acknowledged to be the rule both of our faith and manners, and the supreme judge according to whose sentence all opinions must either stand or fall.  And therefore; though the church hath authority to decree rites and decide controversies of faith, yet it is not lawful, nay it is sinful for her to decree the one and decide the other contrary to the scriptures; it being a sin to decree sin, and whatsoever is contrary to the scriptures must needs be a sin, because it is contrary to the scriptures.  And therefore St. Basil saith, * “That such hearers as are instructed in the scriptures ought to examine those things that are spoken by their teachers, and to receive such things as are consonant to the scriptures, but to reject such things as are contrary to them, and by all means to turn away from those that persist in such doctrines.”  And St. Chrysostom: * “But if we say we ought to believe the scriptures, and they are simple and true, it is easy for thee to judge.  If any one agrees with them, he is a Christian; if any one contradicts them, he is far from that canon.” * “We ought therefore,” saith Origen, “for the testimony of the words we produce in doctrine, to produce the sense of the scripture, as it were confirming the sense that we expound.”  And elsewhere: * “But afterwards, as it is his custom, the apostle will confirm what he hath said from the holy scriptures, setting also before the doctors of the church an example, that in those things which they speak to the people they do not utter what is presumed upon in their own opinions, but what is strengthened by divine testimony; for if he, such and so great an apostle, did not believe that the authority of his words could be sufficient, unless he shews that what he saith is written in the Law and the Prophets, how much more we, the weakest of creatures, ought to observe this, that when we teach, we should not produce our own, but the doctrines of the Holy Spirit!”  And if in our teaching we ought constantly to follow the scriptures, and whatsoever is contrary to the scriptures ought to be abhorred, it must needs follow, that the church cannot ordain, decree, or so much as teach any thing contrary to the scriptures.

      That is the first rule.  The second is, that the church ought not to expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another; but that in all its interpretations of scripture, upon which all the determinations of controversies depend, the analogy * of faith is still to be observed, Rom. 12:6 which is a rule necessarily also to be observed; for whatsoever is repugnant to any one place of scripture cannot but be false, yea therefore false because repugnant to a place of scripture; and what is false cannot possibly be given as the exposition of any place of scripture therefore because it is false.  So that what is repugnant to one cannot be the exposition of another place of scripture, and what is the true exposition of one place of scripture cannot be repugnant to another: for, as St. Paul saith, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3:16: all scripture, one place as well as another.  And if every place of scripture be from God, it must needs be true; and therefore also whatsoever exposition of one place contradicts another must needs be false.  And therefore it cannot be lawful for the church so to expound one place of scripture as to be repugnant to another; for then it would be lawful to pass false expositions upon the scripture, which would be to belie God, saying that he said that which he never did; nay, saying that he hath said that which he hath gainsaid.

      And therefore we are not to expound one place of scripture so as to make it repugnant to another, but we are to expound one place of scripture by another, the harder by the easier, the darker by the plainer places.  * “For amongst the things” (saith St. Augustine) “that are clearly contained in scripture are all those things found which contain faith and the manner of living, viz. hope and charity; of which before.  But then, a kind of familiarity with the language of the holy scripture being attained, we must seek to open and discuss such things as are obscure; that for the illustrating of darker speeches, examples be taken from the more manifest, and some testimonies of certain sentences take away doubting about uncertain.”  And again: “But when the proper words do make the scripture doubtful, we must first have a care that we do not distinguish or pronounce wrongly.  When therefore diligence being used, it foresees it is uncertain how it should be distinguished or pronounced, let him consult the rule of faith, which he may perceive from the plainer places of the scriptures and the authority of the church.”  And so Clemens Alexandrinus: * “But truth is not found in the changing of significations, for so they overturn all true doctrine; but in the searching out what is most perfectly proper and becoming to the Lord, and the Almighty God, and in confirming whatsoever is demonstrated by the scriptures out of the like scriptures.”  And therefore we must not expound one place of scripture contrary to another, but one place by another.

      The third rule is, That nothing ought to be enforced as. necessary to salvation but what is contained in or may be proved by the scriptures.  Which is also a rule necessarily to be observed in the church’s executing her authority in the decreeing of rites or ceremonies.  Though she may ordain them as necessary to eternal order, yet not as necessary to eternal happiness, unless they be expressly contained in the scriptures,, or clearly deduced from them.  For the scripture doth bear witness for itself, that itself is able to make a man wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15, which it could not do unless it contained all things necessary to salvation. * “But all things,” as St. Chrysostom saith, “that are in the holy scriptures are clear and right; all things necessary are manifest.”  But of this we have spoken. more largely in the sixth article, and therefore need not speak any more to it here.

Article  XXI

Of the Authority of General Councils.

      General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes.

      The apostles gathering together into a council to decide the question that rose amongst them about the law of Moses, Acts 15:5, 6, the church hath still thought good in all ages to make use of the same means for the allaying all storms, and determining all controversies that were raised in it, even by gathering itself together into a council to execute that power, which in the foregoing article we have seen the great God hath committed to her.  Now if the controversy went no further than a particular church or province, * it was long ago determined that the primate or metropolitan of that place should call the bishops and clergy together for the decision of it.  But if it spread like a leprosy over the body of the universal church in all or most places, then it was always thought necessary that an universal, oecumenical, or general council, viz. a council gathered together from all or most places of the world where the church of Christ is settled, should put a period to it.  And it is these general councils which this article speaks of, determining that they may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes.  So that it is not lawful for particular churches to meet together in a general council without the consent and command of the particular kings and princes, which the most high God hath been pleased to set over them.

      And if we search the scriptures about these things, we may there find it was not to Aaron the high priest, but to Moses their governor, that the Lord said, Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, Num. 11:16.  So that it was Moses that was to call that council which was afterwards b termed the great Sanhedrin.  And thus we find the several kings, not the high priests, in after-ages gathering of councils together.  It was David that called a council to consult about bringing back the ark, 1 Chron. 13:1, 2; and afterwards he gathered another council together consisting of all the princes of Israel, with the priests and Levites, ch. 23:2.  Thus it was Hezekiah. also that gathered the priests and Levites together into a council, 2 Chron. 29:4.  And it was Solomon that assembled all the elders of Israel, and the heads of the tribes, and the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel at Jerusalem, to consult about bringing up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, 1 Kings 8:1.  And it was king Josiah that sent and gathered to him all the elders of Judah and of Hierusalem about renewing the covenant of the Lord, 2 Kings 23:1.  And so for that famous, if not most famous and renowned council that ever was gathered together before the corning of Christ, called by the Jews the great synagogue, or the great council,* which restored the law to its former glory, after it had been long eclipsed in the Babylonian captivity, Ezra could not gather it together until he had first received letters patents from king Artaxerxes for it, Ezra 7.  And after Christ was born, we find Herod gathering the chief priests and scribes together into a council, to consult where Christ should be born, Matt. 2:4.  Now if the Jews, who had a chief priest appointed by God himself, yet could not call a council without commission from their kings that God had set over them, how much more are Christians, who have no such visible high priest, bound never to meet in such general councils without the command and will of their princes!

      And indeed I cannot see in reason how general councils should be gathered together without the command of princes, seeing princes only have the command over all those who are to be gathered together in those councils.  * “The emperor,” saith Tertullian, “is greater than all, and less than none but the true God.”  And if he be over all, all must be under him; and if all be under him, certainly none can meet in any public place about any public business (as the works of general councils is) without his command and will.

      But it is the practice of the primitive church that may seem to be of the greatest force and consequence in this truth; and therefore I shall insist only upon that.  Now Socrates tells us, * “And we often,” saith he, “mention the kings or emperors in the history, because that from the time that Christianity began to be professed by them, the business of the church depended upon them, and the great councils both were and still are gathered together by their command or sentence.”  Hence is that of St. Hierome: * “Answer, I desire thee; The council by which he was excommunicated, in what city was it?  Tell the names of the bishops, produce the sentences of the subscriptions, or their diversity or consonancy.  Teach us, who were consuls that year, what emperor commanded this council to be gathered together?”  Not what pope, but what emperor.  So that it was the emperors that still commanded the councils to be gathered together.  And if we consult ecclesiastical histories, we shall find that there was never an ancient general council but what was gathered together by the command and will of emperors.  Let these following, which were the principal if not only general councils that ever were, suffice for the rest.

      The first general council ever since our Saviour’s time was the Nicene.  Now it is plain, that that was gathered together by the command and will of Constantine the Great; so Eusebius, an eyewitness, saith in the life of the said emperor: * “He,” Constantine, “after this mustering the army of God to himself, gathered together an oecumenical or general council, commanding the bishops from all places by his honourable letters to haste together.”  And so Socrates: * “The emperor therefore seeing the church troubled about these two things, he gathered together a general council, calling the bishops from all places by his letters to meet at Nice, a city of Bithynia.”  And Nicetas: * “The emperor, by his public letters, commanded that all bishops should come together at Nice, the chief city of Bithynia.”  And if these particular persons’ words will not be taken for this truth, we have the whole council itself attesting for writing a letter to the church of Alexandria, they begin it thus: * “Seeing that by the grace of God and the command of the most holy emperor, that gathered us together from several cities and provinces, this great and holy council is met at Nice,” &c.  So then it is clear the first general council was gathered together by the emperor, and that Constantine.

      The second general council met at Constantinople, and that by the command of an emperor too, even Theodosius; for so saith Socrates, speaking of the said emperor; * “But the emperor without delay called together a council of bishops of his faith, to confirm the faith established at Nice, and to ordain a bishop for Constantinople.”  And Sozomen to the same purpose * “And presently the emperor called together a council of bishops of the same judgment with himself, for the confirmation of the Nicene decrees, and for the ordination of one who should be bishop of Constantinople, or oversee the throne of Constantinople, hoping also that those which were called Macedonians might be joined to the catholic church.”

      The third general council was the Ephesine, and that was gathered together by Theodosius the younger.  So Evagrius * “He likewise desired,” saith he, “that by the command of Theodosius the younger, who then governed the East, the first council might be gathered together at Ephesus.  The king’s letters therefore were sent to Cyril, and the rulers of the holy church every where, which appointed the day of the holy Pentecost, in which the Spirit of life came down to us, to be the day of their meeting together.”  Thus much doth the council itself also acknowledge, saying to the emperors, * “The holy council, which was gathered together by the grace of God and the authority of your dominion, in the chief city of the Ephesians.”

      The fourth general council was gathered together at Chalcedon, and that by Marcianus, Theodosius’s successor.  So Leontius: * “Theodosius being dead, Marcianus was made emperor, and presently commands a general council to meet at Chalcedon.”  And in the Acts of the synod itself it is said, * “In Chalcedon, the chief city of the province of Bithynia, there was gathered together a council by the decree of the emperors Valentinianus and Marcianus.”

      The fifth general council was at Constantinople again, gathered together by the emperor Justinianus.  So Evagrius: * “And Eustochius,” saith he, “being bishop of Hierusalem, Justinian gathered together the fifth council.”  And so Nicephorus: * “The emperor Justinian gathered together the fifth holy general council, the bishops of all churches being called together.”

      The sixth general council is that which is commonly called the Trullan council, gathered together by Justinian, the son of Constantinus Pogonatus.  So Balsamon: * “The second Justinian, viz. he that was called Rinotmetus, being emperor, who was the son of Pogonatus Constantinus, 227 bishops met together by the command of the said emperor, and put forth canons for ecclesiastical constitutions.”  And the council itself, writing to the said emperor, begins thus: * “To the most holy and Christ-loving emperor Justinian, the holy and general council, by the divine will and decree of your most holy power, met together in this divinely preserved and royal city.”  And afterwards; * “Wherefore meeting together by the command of your holiness in this divinely preserved and royal city, we have written these holy canons.”

      The seventh general council was the second Nicene council, which was gathered together by the emperors Constantinus and Irene.  In the beginning whereof we read, * “The holy and general council meeting, which by the grace of God and the holy decree of these emperors piously governing the world, is gathered together in the most famous city and metropolis of Nice.”  And the letters of the emperors to the council still run thus “ Constantinus and Irene, the faithful emperors of the Romans, to the holy bishops met together by the will of God, and our grace, and the command of our holy empire, in the Nicene council.”

      The eighth general council was gathered together at Constantinople by the emperor Basil; for so we read in the prologue to the acts of that council; * “By the will of God administering and assisting, and by the decree of our Christ-loving and divinely governing great emperor Basil for he gathering together the general council did piously fulfill such things as seemed good to the Holy Ghost.”

      And thus we see how the eight first, if not all the general councils that were ever gathered together, were still gathered together by the princes or emperors.  And truly these eight are all the councils the Grecians, or any one else but the papists, will acknowledge to be general councils.  So that all that were ever truly general councils were still gathered together by the command and will of princes.  Whence we may well conclude, without their command and will no such general councils may be gathered together.

      And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God.  Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the holy Scripture.

      To demonstrate the truth of this latter part of the article, I need prove no more than that general councils have so erred for if they have erred, it must needs follow that they may err; and if they may err and have erred, it must needs follow also, that what they ordain as necessary to salvation can have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be proved that it is taken out of the holy scripture.  For they may ordain that which the scripture doth not say is necessary to salvation, nay, that which the scripture saith is not necessary to salvation; whereas we have seen, art. VI, that all things necessary to salvation are contained in the scriptures.  And therefore what is not contained in the scriptures, nor may be proved from them, though all the councils in the world should ordain it as necessary to salvation, their ordaining it as necessary to salvation cannot make it so.

      But now to prove that general councils have erred, I shall use the same argument whereby I proved that the church of Rome hath erred, art. XIX, even because they have decreed some things contrary to the doctrine of these Articles, all of which, being grounded upon scripture, consonant to reason, and delivered by the Fathers, cannot but be true, and by consequence, whatsoever is contrary to them cannot but be false.

      Now the first general council I think that ever decreed any thing contrary to these Articles, or so erred in matters of faith, was the second Nicene council, which, as Balsamon * saith, relatively defined that images should be worshipped and saluted and therefore they decreed also, “That * all the childish scoffings, and mad words, and all lying writings whatsoever made against venerable images ought to be given into the bishopric of Constantinople, that they may be put amongst other heretical books.”

      And several other the like decrees about images did this council make, wherein, as we shall see in the next article, the catholic church cannot but acknowledge they erred.

      The other councils that pretended to be general, and erred in contradicting any truths contained in these Articles, are of a far later date; as the Lateran council, which determined, * “That the true body and blood of Christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ by the power of God:” and the council of Constance, that decreed, * “That no presbyter administer both the kinds, viz. both bread and wine, to the people under the pain of excommunication,” contrary to art. XXX.  In the same * error also was the council of Basil: which also declared, * “That the doctrine that asserts the blessed Virgin Mary, by the singular preventing and working grace of God, did not actually lie under original sin, but was always free from both original and actual fault, holy and unspotted, is to be approved, held, and embraced as holy doctrine, and consonant to ecclesiastical worship, the catholic faith, right reason, and the holy scripture,” contrary to art. IX and the XVth.

      The council of Florence declares, * “That if any being truly penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their commissions and omissions by the worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are purged in the pains of purgatory,” contrary to art. XXII.  They declared also, * “That the sacraments of the New Testament are seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; and that * by virtue of the sacramental words the substance of the bread is changed into, the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood yet so as that Christ is wholly contained under the form of bread, and wholly under the form of wine; yea, and under every part of the consecrated host and consecrated wine, after separation, the whole Christ is contained;” both contrary to art. XXIV.

      But it would be an endless thing to reckon up the many errors of the papistical, falsely called general and oecumenical councils.  Some of the many errors of the Tridentine council I have written down, art. XIX.  Many more, both of that and other councils, I might record here: but these already rehearsed are both great and many enough, from whence to conclude, that general councils may, yea, and have erred.

Article  XXII

Of Purgatory.

      The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

      In this article we have several of the Romish inventions crowded up together.  I shall single them out one after another, that so, though I speak but briefly, I may speak clearly to them all.

      And first therefore to encounter with that which stands in the forefront of the battle, and that is Purgatory of which it is here said, that the Romish doctrine concerning it is a fond thing, repugnant to the Word.  Now to handle this aright, there are two things to be done; first, to shew what is the Romish doctrine concerning it, and secondly, to shew what a fond and false thing it is.  As for the first, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is, I think it cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who tell us in the council of Trent, * “If any one say, that after the grace of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent sinner, and the guilt of eternal punishment is so blotted out, that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be opened into heaven, let him be accursed.”  And elsewhere they say, * “There is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar.”  So that, as Bellarmine saith, * “Purgatory is a certain place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life, which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.”

      Thus we see in few words what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.  Now that this doctrine is a fond thing is plain, in that by d the confession of some of their own writers there is little or no footing for it in the scriptures; nay, if we examine it by scripture light, we shall find it so far from being grounded upon scripture, that it is directly contrary to it; for the scriptures say, The dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for she memory of than is forgotten.  Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun, Eccles. 9:5, 6: whereas this doctrine saith quite contrary, that when they are dead they have a part or portion in the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifices of the altar.  Again, the scripture makes mention but of a twofold receptacle of souls after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery, 1 Sam. 25:29, Matt. 7:13, 14; 8:11; Luke 16:22, 23: whereas this doctrine brings in a third, called Purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half happiness and half misery.  Again, the scripture saith, The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth, or purgeth us from all sin, 1 John 1:7; but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others.  To name no more, the scripture saith, He that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but pass from death to life, John 5:24; and therefore St. Paul saith, * I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, Phil. 1:23.  So that St. Paul reckoned verily upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead he should be with Christ, no sooner absent from the body but present with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5:8.  Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with Christ neither; he might pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from the body a good while before he be present with the Lord; he might go from earth yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never dreamed of.  So that this doctrine directly contradicts the scripture.  The scriptures say, we shall pass from death to life; this doctrine saith we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the scripture, that when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord; but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present with the Lord; the scripture, that when we depart we shall be with Christ; this doctrine, that when we depart we shall be in purgatory: the scriptures, that we must go directly from earth to heaven; but this doctrine, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to heaven.

      And as this doctrine herein doth contradict the scriptures, so doth it contradict the Fathers too.  For Origen saith, * “We, after the labours and strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not in purgatory.  And so St. Chrysostom: * “For those that truly follow virtue, after they are changed from this life they be truly freed from their fightings, and loosed from their bonds: for death to such as live honestly is a change from worse to better, from this transitory to an immortal and eternal life that hath no end.”  And Macarius, speaking of the faithful, * “When,” saith he, “they go out of their bodies, the quires of angels receive their souls into their proper places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the Lord.”  Whence Athanasius saith, * “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change, for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest.  And as a man would come out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to the good things prepared for them.”  Certainly these Fathers were no Purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.

      To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, * “That after the ascension of the Lord to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with Christ, and going out of the body go to Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body.”  And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us, * “According to the language of the holy scriptures, the whole life of man upon earth is a temptation or trial.  Then is the temptation to be avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers of Christ, who, being helped by God, have to the end of this present life unweariedly resisted their enemies, their wearisome travail being ended, they may reign happily in their country.”  So that they do not go from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the church militant on earth to the church triumphant in heaven.  From whence we may well conclude, that the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a fond thing, repugnant to scripture, yea, and Fathers too.  And therefore I pass from the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory to that

Concerning Pardons.

      And here (and also in the rest of the Romish doctrines spoken of in this article) I shall follow the same method as I did in Purgatory, even to shew, first, what their doctrine is, and then, how repugnant to the scriptures.  As for the first, what their doctrine concerning pardons is, it is difficult to determine; they have had so many crotchets about it, that one can scarce tell where to find them.  I shall endeavour to explain it in these following propositions:

      First, they assert, as * Bellarmine saith, “That many holy men have suffered more for God and righteousness’ sake than the guilt of the temporal punishment, which they were obnoxious to for faults committed by them, could exact.”

      Secondly, hence they say, as Johannes de Turrecremata, * “That one can satisfy for another, or one can acceptably perform satisfactory punishments for another,” viz. because they suffer more than is due to their own sins; and seeing all sufferings are satisfactory, what they undergo more than is due to their own, is satisfactory for other men’s sins.

      Thirdly, * “Seeing they who thus undergo satisfactory punishments for others do not appoint the fruit of this their satisfaction to any particular persons, it therefore,” as Roffensis saith, “becomes profitable to the whole church in common, so that it is now called the common treasury of the church, to wit, that from thence may be fetched whatsoever any one lacks of due satisfaction.”

      Fourthly, * “This common treasure,” saith Bellarmine, “is the foundation of pardons.”  So that, as he saith, * “The church hath power to apply this treasure of satisfaction, and by this to grant out pardons.”

      By this therefore we may have some sight into this great mystery, and perceive what they mean by pardons.  For, as Lamannus the Jesuit saith, * “A pardon or indulgence is the remission of a temporal punishment due to God without the sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of Christ and the saints.”  Or as Gregorius de Valentia saith, * “An ecclesiastical pardon or indulgence is a relaxation of a temporal punishment by God’s judgment due to actual sins, after the remission of the fault made without the sacrament (of penance) by the application of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ and the saints by him who hath lawful authority to do it.”  But let us hear what a pope himself saith concerning these pardons.  Leo the Xth in his Decretal, ann. 1518, saith, * “The pope of Rome may for reasonable causes grant to the same saints of Christ, who, charity uniting them, are members of Christ, whether they be in this life or in purgatory, pardons out of the superabundancy of the merits of Christ and the saints; and that he used, for the living as well as for the dead, by his apostolical power of granting pardons, to dispense or distribute the treasures of the merits of Christ and the saints, to confer the indulgence itself after the manner of an absolution, or transfer it after the manner of a suffrage.”  So that, as Durandus saith, * “The church can communicate from this treasure to any one, or several persons, for their sins in part or in whole, according as it pleaseth the church to communicate more or less from the treasure.”  And hence it is that we find it said in the books of Indulgences or Pardons, * “That Silvester and Gregory, that consecrated the Lateran church, gave so many pardons that none could number them but God, St. Boniface being witness, who said, If men knew the pardons of the Lateran church, they would not need to go by sea to the holy sepulchre.  In the chapel of the Saints are twenty-eight stairs, that stood before the house of Pilate in Hierusalem: whosoever shall ascend those stairs with devotion, hath for every sin nine years of pardons; but he that ascends them kneeling, shall free one soul out of purgatory.”  So that it seems the pope cannot only give me a pardon for sins past, but to come; yea, and not only give me a pardon for my own sins, but power too to pardon other men’s sins, else I could not redeem a soul from purgatory.

      I have been the larger in opening this great Romish mystery, because I need do no more than open it; for it being thus opened, shews itself to be a ridiculous and impious doctrine, utterly repugnant to the scriptures for this doctrine thus explained is grounded upon works of supererogation; for it is from the treasury of these good works that the Romish church fetcheth all her pardons.  Now this is but a bad foundation, contrary to scripture, reason, and Fathers, as we have seen art. XIV and if the foundation be rotten, the superstructure cannot be sound.  Again, this doctrine supposes one man may and doth satisfy for another; whereas the scripture holds forth Christ as our only propitiation, 1 John 2:2, who trod the winepress of his Father’s wrath alone, Isa. 63:3.  Lastly, This doctrine supposes that a pope, a priest, a finite creature, can pardon sins; whereas the scripture holds forth this as the prerogative only of the true God; for who is a God like unto thee, saith the Prophet Micah, that pardoneth, iniquities?  Mic. 7:18.  And therefore the scribes and Pharisees, when they said, Who can forgive sins but God alone?  Luke 5:21, what they said, though wickedly said by them, not acknowledging Christ to be God, and so not to have that power, yet it was truly said in itself; for had not Christ been God, he would have had no more power to forgive sins than the pope.

      And whatsoever the doctors of the Romish church now hold, I am sure the Fathers of old constantly affirmed that it was God only could forgive sins.  So St. Chrysostom saith: * “For none can pardon sins but only God.”  Euthymius, * “None can truly pardon sins but he alone who beholds the thoughts of men.”  St. Gregory, * “Thou who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins; for who can forgive sins but God alone?”  St. Ambrose, * “For this cannot be common to any man with Christ to forgive sins. This is his gift only who took away the sins of the world.”  Certainly the Fathers never thought of the pope’s pardons, when they let such and the like sentences slip from them.  Nay, and Athanasius was so confident that it was God only could pardon sin, that he brings this as an argument against the Arians, to prove that Christ was God, because he could pardon sin.  * “But how,” saith he, “if the Word was a creature, could he loose the sentence of God, and pardon sin?  It being written by the prophets, that this belongs to God; for who is a God like to thee; pardoning sins, and passing by transgressions?  For God said, Thou art earth, and unto earth thou shalt return.  So that men are mortal: and how then was it possible that sin should be pardoned or loosed by creatures?  Yet Christ loosed and pardoned them.”  Certainly, had the pope’s pardons been heard of in that age, this would have been but a weak argument.  For Arius might easily have answered, It doth not follow, that because Christ could pardon sin he was therefore God; for the pope is not God, and yet he can pardon sin.  But thus we see the Fathers confidently averring, it is God only can pardon sins, and therefore that the pope cannot pardon them by any means whatsoever, unless he be God (which as yet they do not assert): and so that the Romish doctrine concerning pardons is a fond thing, and repugnant to the scriptures.  And so is also their doctrine

Concerning worshipping of Images.

      Now what the Romish doctrine concerning images is, we have plainly set down by the council of Trent, even, * “That the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and other saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due honour and worship be given to them.”  And presently, * “Because the honour which is given to the images is referred to the prototypes which they represent; that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and fall down, we adore Christ, and worship the saints whose likeness they bear.”  But Azorius tells us, * “It is the constant opinion of their divines, that the image ought to be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith that is worshipped which it is the image of.”  And so Bellarmine saith, * “That the images of Christ and the saints are to be worshipped, not only by accident and improperly, but by themselves and properly; so that themselves terminate the worship as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they represent that which they are the image of.”  And Petrus de Cabrera to the same purpose; * “Images are truly and properly to be worshipped, and from an intention of worshipping them, and not only the samplers represented in them.”  Yea, he tells us, * “That if images are worshipped only improperly, simply and absolutely they are not worshipped at all, neither are they to be worshipped, which is a manifest heresy.”

      Now what doctrine can possibly be invented to cross and contradict the scriptures more plainly than this doth?  The scriptures expressly saying, yea, the great God in thunderings and lightnings commanding, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor worship or serve them.  Exod. 20:4, 5.  For what image can possibly be made, and yet not come within the compass of this law?  There is nothing in the world bust it is either in heaven, or on earth, or under the earth; and so nothing in the world but the image of it is here expressly forbidden to be worshipped.  I know the abettors and practicers of this Romish doctrine would persuade us, that the worshipping of heathenish idols is here only forbidden, not the adoration of images.  But I could wish such seriously to consider with themselves that it is here said, Thou shalt not make to thyself the likeness of any thing that is heaven above, or earth beneath; so that they are things which we are here forbidden to worship the image or likeness of: whereas we know an idol is nothing in the world, 1 Cor. 8:4: and therefore it is not heathenish idols only that are here forbidden, but Christian idols also; I mean all images whatsoever, unless they will find out images of things that are neither in heaven nor earth, nor under the earth, that is, images of nothing.  But we know the images they worship are the images of real things, of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of saints; all which are somewhere; and therefore their images are expressly forbidden to be worshipped here.  And howsoever the subtle doctors of the Romish church may make the ignorant people believe that it is only the heathenish idols that are here intended, I am sure the ancient * Fathers of the catholic Church looked upon all images whatsoever as here forbidden.

      Neither is this doctrine repugnant to scripture only, but even to reason itself.  For if images are to be worshipped, it is either the image itself that is to be worshipped, as some of them hold or the thing which is represented by the image is to be worshipped in it, as others dream.  But first, that the image itself, consisting of wood or stone, or any other materials, is not to be worshipped for itself, is plain; for as so, they are senseless and * inanimate creatures, and so, much inferior unto man, who is not only animate but sensitive, and not only sensitive but rational too; by whom these very images are erected, carved, preserved; who can change, adorn, or destroy them whensoever himself pleaseth.  And can it in reason be thought the superior should worship the inferior? and he that made the work, the work which himself made?  Though all honour be not worship, yet all worship is honour; and honour is a thing that is not due from superiors to inferiors, but from inferiors to superiors.  So that, as Athanasius * said of the heathenish idols, there is more reason that men their carvers should be worshipped by them, than that they should be worshipped by men.  And therefore, for mine own part, I cannot see but that the heathens might have as much to say for their worshipping of idols, as the papists can have for their worshipping of images; for the heathens’ idols were most of them images, and so are the papists’ images all idols.

      And as images are not to be worshipped simply in themselves, so neither ought they to be worshipped relatively, as they represent that which we ought to worship; for it is impossible that any thing which we ought to worship should be represented by an image: for, as we shall see presently, there is no person or thing in the world that ought to be religiously worshipped but only God: and it is impossible that God, an infinite Being, should be represented by an image, a finite creature.  And seeing he cannot be represented by an image, he ought not to be worshipped in an image; neither, as * Origen well observed, can he be worshipped in images; for they cannot represent any more than a finite being, and therefore the infinite God cannot be worshipped in them.  So that the worship that is given to God in images is so far from being worship, that it is rather dishonour; yea, practical blasphemy, making God of no higher a nature, nay, of a lower nature than ourselves; even such a one as a senseless block may represent, which it is impossible should represent so much as the soul, or better part of man.

      And if they will not stand to scripture or reason, let them consult the Fathers, and they will find Origen saying, * “We do not honour images, that as much as in us lies we might not fall into the suspicion that those images were other gods.”  Yea, Clemens Alexandrinus saith, * “Moses commanded that no image should be made by man that might represent God artificially.”  And Gregory the Great saith plainly, * “If any one will make images, do not forbid him, but to worship images by all means avoid.”  Nay, Lactantius saith, * “Wherefore there is no doubt but there is no religion wheresoever there is an image. For if religion be of divine things, and yet there is nothing divine but [in] heavenly things; therefore images want religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that thing which is made of the earth.”

      Or if they will not stand to the determination of the Fathers, let them refer it to councils, and they will find the Elibertine council determining, * “That pictures or images ought not to be in the church, lest that which is worshipped and adored should be painted upon the walls.”  And a council held at Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, anno Dom. 754 determined unanimously, * “That every image, made of what matter soever by the wicked art of the painter, be thrown out of Christian churches as strange and abominable.”  But there being another council held at Nice not many years after, it did as much extol images as the other had destroyed them, as we saw in the foregoing article.  But not long after, Charles the Great gathered together the bishops. of France, Germany, and Italy, into a council at Franckford, where, as Regino saith, * “the false synod of the Grecians, which they made for the worshipping of images, was rejected.”  I know this synod did condemn the Constantinopolitan council too before spoken of because they stretched it too far, not only commanding that images should not be worshipped, but that they should not be used so much as for the ornament of the church.  But as they condemned the Constantinopolitan council for throwing them quite out of the church, so did they condemn too the second council of Nice, for commanding them to be worshipped in the church.  For not only Regino, before quoted, but Hincmarus Remensis expressly saith, * “Wherefore in the time of the emperor Charles the Great, by the command of the apostolical seat, a general council was celebrated in France, the said emperor gathering it together; and according to the way of the scriptures, and the tradition of the ancients, the false synod of the Grecians was destroyed and utterly cast off.”  To which we may add the book, attested by sufficient witnesses to be written by the said Charles the Great against the Nicene council, and worshipping of images; wherein he calls * “the religious worship of images a most insolent, or rather most superstitious and accursed adoration.”  And not only so, but the same renowned emperor sent the determinations of the said council into * Britain, to keep them from that gross idolatry too.  And the worshipping of images was condemned again in another council at Constantinople, an. 814 and in another council, held at Paris, an. 824, under Lodovicus, the son and immediate successor of Charles the Great, it was again determined, as in the council of Franckford, that it was lawful to have images, but unlawful to worship them.  So that it is no new thing that our reverend convocation did, when they determined that the worshipping of images is a fond thing, and repugnant to the Word of God. And what is said concerning worshipping of images is said also

Concerning the worshipping of Relics.

      What we are to understand by relics in this place Stapleton tells us, * “Even not only every part or particular of a saint’s body, but even his garments, or any thing else which he used.”  And Bellarmine tells us, * “The very cross upon which the Lord hung, by reason of its touching his sacred body and blood, is to be reckoned amongst the most precious relics; and not only the whole, but every piece of it.”  And what the Romish doctrine concerning these relics is, we may see in several of their writers.  Jodocus Coccius tells us, “The relics of the saints are to be religiously preserved and worshipped.”  Johannes de Turrecremata, * “That the relics of the cross, nails, spear, garments, and the image of Christ crucified, are to be worshipped with latria,” or the same worship that is proper to the true God.  To name no more, the council of Trent declares, * “That the holy bodies of the holy martyrs, and others that live with Christ, which were the living members of Christ, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, to be raised up by him to eternal life and glorified, are to be worshipped by the faithful, by which many benefits are performed to men.  So that all such as affirm that honour and worship ought not to be given to the relics of the saints, or that they and other monuments are unprofitably honoured by the faithful, and that for the obtaining of their help the memories of the saints are vainly frequented, are to be altogether condemned.”

      Now, what need we to retort to the upholders of these doctrines more than what our Saviour did to the Devil, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?  Matt. 4:10.  If God be alone to be served and worshipped, what worship can be due to these so venerable relics?  What is it less than sacrilege, to give that glory to the creature which is due only to the Creator?  St.. Paul reproves the Romish heathens for worshipping the creature more than the Creator, Rom. 1:25.  Certainly the same reproof may reach to the Romish Christians too.  For what is due only to the Creator, they are not ashamed nor afraid to give it to the creature, and so either making God a creature, or the creature a god, by giving no more to God than they give to the creatures, nor less to the creatures than they give to God.  They can give no more than religious worship to God, and that they give to the creatures, and so must needs bring either the glory of God down, so as to be no higher than the glory of a creature, or the glory of the creature up, so as to be no lower than the glory of God, by making God and the creature to be sharers in the same honour.

      Let them therefore tell me, are these relies creatures or no?  If they will assert and prove them to be no creatures, they may well be worshipped; and if they worship them, they do in that assert them to be no creatures: for certainly * none but God ought to be worshipped; and whatsoever may be truly worshipped is God.  If they may be worshipped, they are not creatures; and if they be not creatures, they ought to be worshipped.  I say therefore, are these relics creatures or no?  Are they creatures, did I say?  Certainly if they were not, our adversaries would never contend so much that they ought to be worshipped; for we can scarce find any of them spending so much time in proving that Jehovah, the Creator, should be worshipped, as they do in proving that images and relics, and almost any thing besides God, ought to be worshipped.  But let them at the length bethink themselves, whether in reason their bodies should be worshipped, whose souls, for ought they know, may be in hell? or whether in reason any part of that cross should be worshipped upon which Christ was crucified?  The cross was the wicked instrument which the Jews used to put our Saviour to death; what? and must that be now worshipped by such as profess faith in him that was crucified upon it?  And are the nails that fastened his hands and feet to the cross, and the spear pierced his sides, such honourable things that they must be worshipped too?  How comes such honour to be conferred upon these nails and this spear?  What? because they were the instruments of our Saviour’s death and greater torments?  Oh most horrid impiety and unparalleled idolatry, that Christians should worship that which tormented and destroyed Christ that we should worship that in our life, that brought our Saviour himself to death!

      And if they will not believe us, that no relics, but God only is to be worshipped, let them consult the Fathers, and see their opinion in it.  And if they will not take the pains to look themselves into the Fathers, I hope they will not be angry if I tell them that Justin Martyr saith, * “We worship God only; but as to other things we joyfully obey you,” viz. emperors.  And Theophilus Antiochenus: * “The divine law doth not only forbid us to worship idols, but the elements also, sun, moon, and the other stars.  So that we must not worship heaven, nor earth, nor the sea, nor fountains, nor rivers; but we ought to worship the true God only, and Maker of all things, in simplicity of heart, and sincerity of mind.”  And therefore saith Tatianus also, * “I will never worship the workmanship that was made for our sakes.”  And presently, * “I will never be persuaded myself, nor persuade another, to worship the substance of the elements.”

      Origen also saith plainly, * “If we may speak briefly, and all at once, it is the fault of impiety, or it is very wickedness, to worship any one whomsoever, besides Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”  And so Theodoret: * “Of men,” saith he, “such as excel in virtue we honour as the best of men; but we worship only the God of all, the Father, and his Son, and the All-holy Ghost.”  And so Lactantius saith, * “There is no religion or veneration to be had of any but of the one God.”  I might produce many more, but these witnesses may be enough to prove that it is God only that ought to be worshipped, and no creature whatsoever; and if no creature, much less ought the relics of creatures to be worshipped, as * Gregory Nazianzen saith:

An impure sacrifice is sin, much more

The relics of a dead man to adore.

It is a sin to worship the best of creatures instead of God: and shall it be thought no sin to worship the relics of creatures instead of him?  Certainly if there be any doctrines in the world repugnant to the word of God, this and the former are to be reckoned as the principal of them all; whereby not only creatures, but the very images and relics of creatures, are held to have the worship of the true God due unto them.  And so we pass from these to the last of the Romish doctrines here spoken of, and that is

Concerning the invocation of saints.

      And to know what the Romish doctrine concerning the invocation of saints is, we need go no further than the council of Trent; who there teach plainly, and command all their bishops to teach, * “That the saints reigning with Christ do offer up their prayers for men; that it is good and useful to invocate or pray unto them, and for the obtaining benefits from God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Mediator and Saviour, to fly to their prayers, help, and assistance.  But such as deny that those that enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be called upon, or that assert either that they do not pray for men, or that to call upon them to pray for every one of us is idolatry, or to be repugnant to the word of God, and to derogate from the honour of the one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, or that it is a foolish thing to pray to such as reign in heaven with our voice or minds, do think impiously.”  Now though we do not here say, that this their doctrine concerning the saints praying for us is so; yet we say, that this their doctrine concerning our praying to the saints is a fond thing, and repugnant to the scriptures.

      And certainly it is so; for what else means that place of scripture, How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  Rom. 10:14.  That none is to be believed in but God, though others may be believed besides God, I suppose they will not deny; or if they do, I would wish them to cast their eye a little upon the margin, and * there they will see several of the Fathers making this distinction betwixt believing in a person, and believing of a person, that the first is proper and peculiar to God only, the other common also unto men.  So that I may believe a man, but I am to believe in none but God.  And if so, then from this place it clearly follows, that seeing the saints in heaven are not to be believed in, they are not to be called upon; but that we are to call upon none but God, because we are to believe in none but God.  And hence it is, that when the disciples came to our Saviour to direct and instruct them how to pray, he bade them say daily, Our Father which art in heaven, Matt. 6:9, Luke 11:2: wherein he directs them not only what they should pray for, but whom to pray to; not to this, or that, or the other saint, but to God, Our Father which art in heaven.

      But I need not insist any longer upon this, having proved before that it is God that is the only person in the world that ought to be religiously worshipped for from thence it plainly follows, that God is only to be prayed to: for invocation is the principal part of religious worship, insomuch that it is sometimes put for the whole: as when the place of God’s worship is called a house of prayer, Isa. 56:7; viz. because it is prayer that is the chief worship that is performed in it.  And therefore * Origen saith, “That to call upon the name of the Lord or to worship him, is one and the same thing.”  So that he alone may be worshipped that is to be called upon; and he alone may be called upon who may be worshipped.  And so he that may not be worshipped ought not to be called upon; and therefore seeing it is not lawful to worship the saints, it cannot be lawful to call upon them.

      And whatsoever our adversaries may boast, yet certainly the Fathers did not hold that the saints departed should be prayed to, as appears from the descriptions which they give of prayer. St. Basil saith, * “Prayer is the desire of something that is good, made by holy persons to God;” not to the saints, but to God immediately.  And so Damascene saith, * “Prayer is the ascension of the mind to God, or the desire of convenient things from God.”  And therefore saith St. Chrysostom, * “Every one that prays discourseth with God.” * “When thou readest,” saith Gilbertus, “thou art taught by Christ, but when thou prayest thou talkest familiarly with him.”  So that it seems they did not think we should go to any of the courtiers of heaven to speak to the King for us, but that we should speak to him ourselves.

      Nay, and Origen saith expressly, * “For we must pray only to the most high God, and we must pray to his only begotten and the firstborn of every creature, even the Word of God, and beseech him as our High Priest to present our prayer, that comes to him, to his God and our God, to his Father and the Father of all those that live according to the word of God.”  And elsewhere: * “Every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and giving of thanks, is to be sent up to the God that is above all, by him that is above all angels, even our High Priest, the living Word and God; and let us pray the Word himself, and beseech him, and give thanks to him.”  So that it is Christ, not the saints, that is to present our prayers to God.  To which we may add that of Gregorius Thaumaturgus: * “He that rightly calls upon God calls upon him by his Son, and he that comes near to him comes by Christ; but none can come to the Son but by the Holy Spirit.”  Hitherto we may refer that also of Tertullian: * “These things,” saith he, “I can pray for of none else but him from whom I know I shall obtain them, and it is he that alone performeth for me, and I am such a one to whom it belongs to pray, his servant who observe him alone, who am killed for his discipline.”  And this is the argument whereby Athanasius proves against Arius that Christ is God, because he is prayed to: * “For none,” saith he, “would pray to receive any thing from the Father and the angels, or any other creatures:” so that we are to join no creatures with God in our daily prayers.  And truly if we are to pray to any creatures in heaven, why not to the angels as well as saints? yet the council of Laodicea determined long ago, * “That it is not lawful for Christians to leave the church of God, and name angels, and make congregations, which [things] are forbidden; and if any one therefore be found to follow this secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he hath left the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone to idolatry.”  The occasion of which canon Balsamon saith was, * “Because that the devil suggested sometimes to some, that Christ was not to be called upon for help, but the angels.”  So that it is calling upon angels that is here accursed; and therefore Theodoret saith, * “The synod which met at Laodicea, which is the metropolis of Phrygia, forbad by a law, that none should pray to the angels.”  So that praying to angels was so long ago forbidden as idolatry, as cursed idolatry.  And what shall we then say to that doctrine that saith we must pray to saints?  Certainly we can do no less than conclude it to be a fond thing, and repugnant to the word of God, and say with the ancient council at Franckford, * “That no saints should be either worshipped or invocated or prayed to by us.”

Article  XXIII

Of Ministering in the Congregation.

      It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.  And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

      The church of God, as we have seen, art: XIX, is a congregation of faithful men, wherein the word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.  In this article therefore we have it determined who are those who are to preach the word and administer the sacraments in the church; not every one that hath a mind to it, not every one that fancies himself fit for it; no, only such as are lawfully called thereunto.  Now though there be but one God men are called to this office by, yet there be two ways which he is pleased to call them in.  Some he calls immediately from himself without men; others mediately from himself by men.  The first manner of calling to this sacred office the prophets and apostles had, who were all, as St. Paul saith of himself, called not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Gal. 1:1.  The prophets had this immediate call from God under the law, and the apostles from Christ under the gospel.  And as they were called immediately by Christ, so were others called immediately by them.  So that Christ called the apostles, * the apostles by the appointment of the same Christ called others to succeed them, they again others; and so hath there been a succession of lawful ministers ever since, which though they were not all called immediately by Christ, yet they were all called by him, yea and all others are their successors who had this immediate call from him.  So that none are now lawful ministers but such as are thus called by him, and all that are thus called by him are lawful ministers; I mean all such as are called by such as succeed them in the ministry, who were called immediately from Christ himself: for these are they which certainly we are to understand by those mentioned in this article, who have public authority given unto them in the congregation or church, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.  But of this we shall speak more by the blessing of God in the XXXVIth article, where we shall treat of the consecration of bishops and ministers.

      But the principal thing to be demonstrated here is, that without some such call from God it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering, or in general the office of a ministry.  And for the proof of this, we might go no further than that remarkable passage in St. Paul, How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?  Rom. 10:14, 15.  Where we may observe how the apostle links several precious truths together, every one of which is as much a truth as any of them; and therefore, as it is certain that a man cannot call on him in whom he hath not believed, nor believe in him of whom he hath not heard, nor hear unless there be a preacher, so certain is it, that a man cannot lawfully preach unless he be sent: for this is an honour that no man taketh to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Heb. 5:4.  And therefore God complains of such prophets as run before they be sent, and preach his word to others before they have received power from him: I have not sent these prophets, saith he, and yet they ran: I have not spoken unto them, yet they have prophesied.  Jer. 23:21.  And therefore he commands his people, saying, Hearken not to the words of the prophets that speak unto you, 27:14, for I sent them not, ver. 15.  So that such as God doth not send, man is not bound to hear.  Did I say, man is not bound to hear?  Nay, man is bound not to hear.  And if man is bound not to hear those whom God hath not sent, certainly those that he doth not send are bound not to preach.

      And he that further considers the several titles that are given to the ministers of God in the holy scripture, may have good ground to subscribe to this truth; for they are called stewards, Tit. 1:7.  Now it doth not belong to every man that will to be a steward, unless he be appointed by him whose steward he is to be, Luke 12:42.  Again, they are called ambassadors, 2 Cor. 5:20.  And who dare undertake an embassage to a foreign prince or people without a commission from his own king?  Yea, the very words used by the Holy Ghost to express them by, do all imply office; as, bishops, ministers, deacons.  Now there is no office that lies open in common to all, but a man must be particularly appointed and commissionated by him that hath power to do it, before he can be put into it, or invested with it.  And hence it is also, that we find in scripture several rules laid down for the choosing of men into this office, 1 Tim. 3:2, 3, 4; 4:14, Tit. 1:5. 9.  Whereas, if any one might take upon him this office, these rules and directions would be altogether superfluous.  To all which we might also consider, what confusion and disorder the church would fall into, should any one, that thought himself a man gifted for it, undertake this sacred office?  And truly of this we have had too many years of sad and woeful experience, when ministers turned laymen, and laymen turned ministers, till at length we were likely to have all ministers and no laymen, or rather all laymen and no ministers: and the only way to keep us from returning to that disorder is by adhering to this truth, * that every man should look to his own business, and follow his own calling; he that is called to the clergy, to preach like one that is called to the clergy; and he that is one of the laity, to hear like one of the laity; every man keeping within the bounds which the great God hath placed him in, not undertaking the office of the ministry, unless he be lawfully called unto it.

      The Fathers do offer themselves also to be witnesses in this case, but I shall trouble but these few for the present.  As for the sacraments, St. Basil saith, * “But they, being far from us (and laymen), have no power to baptize or ordain.” * “For that,” saith Athanasius, “is the office only of those that are over the catholic church: for it belongs to you, and to you only, and to none else, to give to drink of the blood of Christ.”  St. Chrysostom joins both sacraments together; * “But,” saith he, “if none can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he be born again of water and the Spirit, and he that eateth not the flesh of the Lord and drinketh his blood is cast out of eternal life, but all these things cannot be performed by any one else, but only by those holy hands, I mean the priest’s, how can any one without them either shun the fire of hell, or be made partaker of the crowns that are set before us?”  So that it is the priests or ministers only, and none else, that can administer either of the sacraments.  And therefore * Athanasius pleads it was no sacramental cup that Ischyras consecrated, he being not lawfully ordained; and * Socrates, that this Ischyras committed a crime worthy of many deaths, in presuming to do the work of a minister, not being ordained.

      And as for preaching the word, Cyril of Alexandria saith, * “God distributeth the use of the trumpets in preaching of the word only to such as are consecrated.”  But to this we have above two hundred Fathers met together in the Trullan council subscribing for they there determined, * “That it is not lawful for a layman to dispute or to teach publicly, taking there to himself the power or dignity of preaching, but to remain in the order which the Lord hath set him in, and to open his ear to such as have received the grace of teaching, and to learn divine things from them.  For in one church God hath made divers or different members, according to the words of the apostle, &c.  But if any one shall be taken weakening or transgressing this canon, let him be separated forty days.”  Many more of the like testimonies from the ancients I might produce, but these are enough from whence to conclude, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of the ministry, unless he be lawfully called thereunto.

Article  XXIV

Of Speaking in the Congregation in Such a Tongue as the People Understandeth.

      It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the church, and to administer the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people.

      It was determined in the council of Trent, that * “Though the mass” (so they call both their public prayers, and the sacrament of the Lord’s supper too, called often by the * ancients the eucharist) “contains a great instruction of the faithful people, yet it doth not seem expedient to the Fathers that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.”  And as if they had not said enough there, they add presently, * “If any one say that the rite or custom of the church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and words of the consecration are uttered with a low voice, is to be condemned; or that mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine in the cup that is to be offered up, because it is contrary to Christ’s institution; let him be accursed.”  In which words they first * transgress the ancient law of Justinian the emperor, that public prayers and offerings should be performed with a loud voice, so as to be heard of the people; and then they add sin unto sin, and command that they be not made in any tongue but an unknown tongue.  First, they decree it should be so performed, that the people might not hear it; and then, that it should be so performed, that if they did hear it, they might not understand it.

      Now against this vain and sinful custom and practice of the church of Rome, our church doth here set down this article, that those public services should be administered in a language understood by the people; and that the contrary is repugnant to the word of God and the practice of the primitive church.

      First, that it is repugnant to the word of God is plain; for that commands that all things be clone to edifying, 1 Cor. 14:26: and * what edifying can there be when the people know not what is said?  Nay, the apostle, as if he foreknew what wild practices and opinions would arise in the church, spends almost a whole chapter in chewing that public duties should not be performed in an unknown tongue; For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not to men, but God; for no man understandeth him, 1 Cor. 14:2.  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful, ver. 14.  Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth, not what thou sayest? ver. 16.  I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all; yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, ver. 18, 19.  Certainly our adversaries are not of Paul’s mind, who had rather speak ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (as to the people) than five words in a known.

      And again, If the church come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned and unbelievers, will not they say that ye are mad? ver. 23.  Yes, certainly, any one that comes to the popish masses, and hears a sound, but understandeth not a word of what is said, will surely think them to be mad, mad people that go to pray to the eternal God, and yet know not what is said.  And this doth not only make for public prayers, but for all public services whatsoever; and the sacraments amongst the rest, which our Saviour, and his apostles after him, administered in a known tongue.  But we have a generation now sprung up that think themselves wiser than their Maker and Redeemer, and know better what language his sacraments are to be administered in than himself did.

      But I wish they would at the length consider, whether all such services as are performed in an unknown tongue are not blind performances.  The apostle said, I will pray with my spirit, and I will pray with my understanding also, 1 Cor. 14:15.  And God’s service should be a reasonable service, Rom. 12:1.  And therefore there is no * language scarce in the world but the scriptures are translated into it, that so all that profess the Christian religion, be they of what language they will, may know the mind and will of God, and understand the duties he requireth of them; and so perform a reasonable service to him.  But, if there be no necessity of understanding what the priests say or do in their public services, surely the time spent in such translations was but vainly spent.  But I would know further, how, if I understand not what is said, I shall know whether the priest prays for me or against me?  Yea, how shall I know whether he prays or swears?  Or whether he blesseth the bread or curseth it?  Whether he desires God to pardon or to punish me? to save or to damn me?  Certainly, he may do the one as well as the other, for aught that I know, unless I understand the language he speaks in.

      Neither is this vain practice only repugnant to the holy scriptures and right reason, but to the primitive church also.  Justin Martyr saith in his time, * “After this we rise all unanimously, and send up our prayers; and as we said before, our prayers being finished, the bread, and water, and wine is offered, and the president pours out prayers and thanksgivings as he is able, and then the people cry out, saying Amen.”  Now, if the people did not understand what was said, how, as the apostle saith, could they say Amen?  And therefore Aventinus records of Methodius Illyricus, * “That he forced the Dalmatians and other Illyrians, that the Latin tongue being abolished, they should use the vulgar tongue in the celebration of the holy mysteries.”  And hence it was also, that in the primitive church their liturgies or common prayer books were still made in the language that was understood by them that were to use it; as St. Chrysostom, being himself a Grecian, composed his liturgy in the Greek language, and so St. Basil too.  To which we may also add, besides that ascribed to St. James, the liturgies of St. Mark and St. Peter; all which were composed in a known language understood of the people.  And in all of them there are still some things to be said by the people, which it would be impossible they should know when to say, unless they understood what went before: nay, and what is observable also, there are many things in these liturgies which the priest is expressly commanded to say * with a loud voice; and why so, but that the people might be sure to hear and understand them?  And thus Origen saith, * “The Greeks pray to God in the Greek, the Romans in the Roman, and every one in his own tongue.”

      But this is so plain, “that,” as Lyra saith, * “in the primitive church, the blessings, and other common prayers were made in the vulgar tongue,” that the papists themselves, who are now the only persons that are against it, cannot but acknowledge it.  For Aquinas himself saith, * “In the primitive church it was a madness for any one to say prayers in an unknown tongue, because then they were ignorant of the ecclesiastical rites, and knew not what was done there.”  So Harding too; * “In the time of the primitive church,” says he, “the people celebrated holy things in the vulgar tongue.”  So that by their own confession, it is a thing repugnant to the custom of the primitive church to have public prayers or the sacraments administered in an unknown tongue.

Article  XXV

Of the Sacraments.

      Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.

      Having seen what language it is that the sacraments are to be administered in, we have here determined what be those sacraments which are to be administered in such a language.  That they are signs, it is here acknowledged; but that they are no more than signs, is the thing that is here denied.  They be indeed such signs whereby a Christian is distinguished from a heathen; but that is not all they are; for besides that, they be also sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace and God’s will toward us, by which he works invisibly in us, and confirms our faith graciously in himself, as we read how circumcision was the seal of the righteousness by faith, Rom. 4:11.  And what circumcision was to the Jews, other sacraments are to the Christians; not bare signs, but sure seals of the righteousness by faith, whereby God doth not only signify his grace to us, but confirms our faith in it; and our faith being confirmed in the sacraments, the sacraments do thereby prove so advantageous to our souls.  So that the apostle saith, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27.  Such as apply to themselves by faith what is sealed in the sacraments by God, are made partakers of Christ, and all the benefits of his death and passion; and the sacraments being themselves a means whereby this our faith is confirmed in God, and God’s love is confirmed to us, they must needs be more than bare tokens, and marks of distinction betwixt Christians and other men; yea, no less than sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, whereby God is pleased to work grace in us, and to enable us better to act faith in him.

      And that the sacraments are not mere tokens or badges, but effectual signs and means of grace, we may read it frequently asserted by the Fathers: * “The baptism of Christians,” saith Optatus, “made in the name of the Trinity, conferreth grace.” * “Afterwards,” saith Justin Martyr, “they are brought to the place where water is, and they are regenerated after the same manner of regeneration that we are regenerated withal.” * “And we in the water are made partakers of the forgiveness of our sins before committed.”  And in the Constantinopolitan Creed itself it is said, * “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”  Nay St. Gregory saith, * “He that saith that sins in baptism are not wholly forgiven, may as well say that the Egyptians were not truly dead in the Red Sea.”  And St. Augustine also cried out, * “Whence comes there so much virtue into the water that it should touch the body and wash the heart?”  “Why,” as Gregory Nyssen saith, “the water itself doth not afford that virtue, for of itself it is the weakest of all creatures; but the institution of God and the coming of the Holy Ghost, mystically working our liberty: but the water serves for the signification of that purging.”  But the principal thing to be considered in this article is what follows.

      There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as are grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

      Lombard * saying, that Baptism, Confirmation, the Blessing of Bread, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony, are sacraments of the New Testament, the papists have thence gathered, and ever since held, that there are seven sacraments instituted by Christ, truly and properly so called insomuch that in the council of Trent they determined * that whosoever said there were more or less should be accursed.  Now our church, not much fearing their curse, hath here declared, that only two of them, to wit, Baptism and the Eucharist, are properly sacraments of the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so not but that, as the word sacrament was anciently used for any * sacred sign or ceremony, it may in some sense be applied to these also; but, as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  They may call them sacraments if they please, but they are not such sacraments as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so called.  For that these two are sacraments properly so called is acknowledged on both sides; and therefore whatsoever is a sacrament properly so called must have the like nature with them, so as to agree with them in all those things wherein their sacramental nature consisteth, that is, in such things wherein they two most nearly agree with one another for that wherein the species do most nearly agree with one another must needs be their generic nature.  Now there are several things wherein these two do so agree: for they are both instituted by Christ; they have both external signs and symbols determined in the gospel, which represent Inward and spiritual grace unto us; yea, and they have both promises annexed to them.  Whereas the other five agree with these in none of these things, or howsoever, none of them agree in all of them, and by consequence cannot be sacraments properly so called.

      First, they do not agree with them in their institution from Christ.  That Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted by Christ, they cannot deny; but that the other were, we do.  As, first, for Confirmation, which we confess was a custom anciently used in the Church of Christ, and still ought to be retained, even for children after Baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they might receive the Holy Ghost by prayers, and the laying on of hands.  But * some of the papists themselves acknowledge, that this was never instituted and ordained by Christ as the other sacraments were; neither did the Fathers use this as any distinct sacrament, but as the * perfection and consummation of the sacrament of baptism; and the * chrism or ointment which they used was only a ceremony annexed to baptism also, as the cross and other ceremonies were.

      And as for penance, which they define to be a sacrament of the remission of sins which are committed after baptism, I would willingly know where or when Christ ever instituted such a sacrament.  What though he commanded all men to repent, is every command of Christ an institution of a sacrament?  Or is it outward penance that is here commanded? or rather, is it not inward and true repentance?  And what though Christ said, Those sins that you forgive they are forgiven; what matter, what form, what signs of a sacrament were appointed and instituted in those words?  And so for orders, or the ordination of ministers, I know it is a thing instituted by Christ; must it needs be therefore a sacrament? or instituted as a sacrament?  Because Christ ordained that bishops, priests, and deacons should be ordained, doth it therefore follow that he intended and instituted their ordination as a sacrament?  And as for matrimony, I know their corrupt translation hath it, And this is a great sacrament, Eph. 5:32, instead of This is a great mystery or secret, * as the Syriac and Arabic read it; and shall their false translation of the scripture be a sufficient [ground] for Christ’s institution of a sacrament?  And lastly, for extreme unction, which Bellarmine tells us * “is truly and properly a sacrament, wherein the organs of the senses, the eyes, nostrils, lips, hands, feet, and reins in those that are about to die, are anointed with exorcised oil;” what institution have we for this sacrament in the gospel?  Yes, say they, the apostles anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them, Mark 6:13.  It is very good; it seems the apostles’ practice and example was the institution of a sacrament.  By this rule, whatsoever the apostles did must be a sacrament; and so plucking of the ears of corn must be a sacrament too at length.  But certainly if examples may be the ground of institution, anointing the eyes of the blind with clay and spittle must be much more a sacrament than the anointing of the sick with oil; for it was the apostles only that did this, but it was our Saviour himself that did that, John 9:6.  But the apostle saith, If any one be sick amongst you, let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, James 5:14.  It is true; but what analogy is there betwixt this anointing of the apostle and the extreme unction of the papists?  This was to be applied to any that were sick, Is any one sick amongst you? but theirs only to such as are past * all hope of recovery; the apostles’ was to be done by several elders, the papists’ only by one priest; the apostles’ was to be performed with simple oil, the papists’ with consecrated and exorcised oil.  So that the papists’ extreme unction cannot possibly lay claim to any institution from that place, as Cajetan * himself acknowledged.

      And as for external signs and symbols analogically representing inward spiritual grace, which constitute the very form indeed of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it is in vain to look for the like in the other sacraments, falsely so called, as is observed in the article.  For as for example, what is the sign in penance?  Or if there be a sign, what is the grace that is analogically represented by it?  I know they cannot agree among themselves what is the form or sign in this sacrament.  Some say the words of absolution, others absolution itself, others imposition of hands; but whichsoever of these we take, they cannot be such signs and symbols as are in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  For there is water, and bread, and wine, all substances; whereas these are all actions and accidents.  The like may be said also of confirmation and orders, which have no such visible sign, howsoever not appointed by Christ.  And so for matrimony too.  There is no such sign of any invisible grace can possibly be fastened upon it.  To say that the priest’s words, or the party’s mutual consent, is the form or sign, is a mere evasion; for the party’s consent is an invisible thing, and therefore cannot be a visible sign; the words of the priest are mere words, which may be heard indeed, but cannot be seen, and so cannot be any visible sign.  Neither are words significative elements, as bread and wine are, and therefore cannot be the signs of such sacraments as they be.  And as for extreme unction, there is, I confess, an external sign in it, even unction; * but what analogy hath this external sign to any internal grace?  Two things, they say, is (are?) represented by it, bodily health, and forgiveness of sins.  But is bodily health an inward grace I or, suppose it was, what similitude is there betwixt that and oil, or unction?  Forgiveness of sins, I know, is a spiritual grace; but none of them durst ever yet undertake to shew the analogy betwixt the visible sign and this invisible grace.  And seeing there is no analogy betwixt the oil and remission of sins, that cannot be looked upon as any sacramental sign or symbol, as water and wine is (are?) in the other sacraments, exactly representing the inward spiritual grace that it signified by them.  To all which we might add also, that it is of the nature of a sacrament to have promises annexed to them, promises of spiritual things.  And what promises do we find in scripture made to matrimony, confirmation, to orders, and the rest?

      But whatsoever other things the papists would obtrude upon us as sacraments, it is certain that we find our Saviour solemnly instituting two and but two sacraments in the New Testament, to wit, those here mentioned, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  And therefore, when the apostle compares the law with the gospel, he instanceth in these two sacraments only, and none else; And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 1 Cor. 10:3.  And he again joins these two together, saying, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit, chap. 12:13.  And thus do the Fathers observe, how when one of the soldiers pierced oar Saviour’s side, and there came out blood and water, John 19:34, * the two sacraments of the New Testament are thereby intimated to us.

      And if we look into the Fathers, we shall find them, when speaking of the sacraments of the New Testament, still mentioning neither fewer nor more than two, even Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  As St. Augustine: * “At this time, after that the judgment of our liberty was made most manifest by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither were we burdened with the heavy performance of those signs which we now understand; but the Lord himself and the apostolical doctrine delivered instead of many but some few things, and those most easy to be performed, most noble to be understood, and most chaste in their observation, such as are the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.”  And so St. Chrysostom * “If,” saith he, “no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he be born again of water and the Spirit; and he that doth not eat the flesh of the Lord, nor drink his blood, is cast out of eternal life, &c.”  Where we see they mention these two sacraments, but not a word of penance, not a word of orders, not a word of any of the rest.  So Fulbertus Carnotensis: * “There are three things requisite to the proficiency of Christian religion of which the first is to understand and firmly to hold the mystery of the Trinity, and the verity of one Deity: the second, to know the reason or cause of the saving baptism: the third is, in what the two sacraments of life, the body and blood of the Lord, are contained.”  And Algerus, * “Christ conforms one body of Christ and the church by a double sacrament,” not a sevenfold.  And Paschasius saith, * “The sacraments of Christ in the church are baptism and chrism, as also the body and blood of the Lord.”  Where by chrism we must understand that ceremony, which, as we saw before, was used in the church at the administration of baptism.  Thus do we see the ancients in their enumeration of sacraments still reckon upon no more than two.  So that Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis propounds the question; * “What,” saith he, “and how many are the principal sacraments of our salvation?”  And he answers, “Holy baptism, and the holy eucharist of his body and blood, the double gift of his Holy Spirit.”  As if he should have said in the words of this article, There are two sacraments ordained of Christ in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

      The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.  And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome eject or operation; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as the apostle St. Paul saith.

      In this the latter part of this article are contained three things; first, that the sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or carried about, which, concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper especially, is repeated again in the 28th article.  The second is, that such as worthily receive the sacraments, the sacraments have a wholesome effect or operation in them, of which I shall have occasion to speak when treating upon the sacraments particularly.  The third is the words of the apostle Paul, They that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, 1 Cor. 11:29.  But of this I shall speak also particularly, art. XXIX and therefore need not insist upon any of them here.

Article  XXVI

Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, Which

Hinders Not the Effect of the Sacraments.

      Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministering, both in hearing the word of God, and in the receiving of the sacraments.  Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

      The visible church, as we have seen before, is a congregation of faithful men; yet all are not truly faithful men that are of this congregation; but the church whilst floating in the world is like Noah’s ark, wherein there are both clean and unclean beasts; and like the floor our Saviour speaks of, wherein there is both wheat and chaff.  So that though in the triumphant church above all are good and none bad, all saints and no sinners; yet the militant church below hath bad as well as good, sinners as well as saints in it.  Neither are the people only, but the priests also, oftentimes tainted with sin, and rebels against that God whose ambassadors they are: not only such as the sacraments are administered to, but also such as administer the sacraments, are often defiled with sin, though consecrated unto Christ.  Their office indeed is holy, but their persons are often sinful: their work is always a good and godly work; but their hearts are frequently evil and wicked hearts.  But howsoever, as their persons are not the better for their office, so neither is their office any whit the worse for their persons.  If their persons be sinful, it is not their office that can make them truly holy; and * seeing their office is truly holy, it is not their persons can make it sinful.  So that the sacraments are still holy sacraments, though administered by unholy priests; as, though the sun shines upon dirt, yet the sun is not thereby dirty; so, though the sacraments be administered by sinners, the sacraments are not therefore sinful.  And as the sacraments are not sinful in themselves, because administered by sinful persons, so neither are they ineffectual as to those they are administered to, by reason of their sin they are administered by; or, as the title of this article fitly words it, The unworthiness of the ministers hinders not the effect of the sacraments.  It * is better indeed to have the sacraments administered by worthy than by unworthy ministers; but howsoever, the sacraments may be as effectual when administered by unworthy as by worthy ministers.  So that the effect of the office is not at all diminished by the defects of the officers neither is God’s grace hindered from being conveyed to such as worthily receive the sacraments, because of the sinfulness of those persons they receive them from.  But a man may receive the sacraments effectually from an unworthy as well as from a worthy minister: he may be profited by the word preached and the sacraments administered, though the one be administered and the other preached by wicked and unworthy persons: I mean, if they be rightly called to the work, if it be their office to preach the word and administer the sacraments, we may hear the one and receive the other effectually at their hands, notwithstanding any personal infirmities they may lie under, or be guilty of.

      And the truth of this we have notably discovered in our Saviour’s words to the Jews: * The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not.  Matt. 23:2, 3.  That the Scribes and Pharisees were unworthy ministers of God’s word is clear, in that they said and did not; yet for all that they said and did not, the Jews were bound to do as they said: yea, our Saviour commands them to be attentive in hearing the word, though they were unworthy that delivered it. * He doth not immediately command that they should be deposed from preaching the word to the people, but that the people should be diligent in hearing the word from them; which is a plain demonstration that the word was not hindered by their ministry, but that for all the unworthiness of those that it was administered by, yet it might be effectual to those it was administered to.  And thus we see in the Old Testament, God did not pick out only holy persons to administer his sacraments, and offer up the sacrifices, but he appointed a certain tribe, the tribe of Levi, to do it.  Though otherwise they might be unworthy for so holy and great a work, yet if they were of the tribe of Levi, if it was their office to do it, the work itself was not made ineffectual by their personal infirmities.  Nay, it is observable, that our Saviour also had one amongst his disciples that administered the sacrament of baptism, John 4:2; I say even amongst them he had one that was unworthy to do it, even a very * Judas; yet, for all that, he suffered his sacrament to be administered by him, as well as by any of the rest, yea, though he knew him to be what he was.

      And if we look for the reason of this, we have it expressed in the article itself, Even because they do it not in their own names, but Christ’s.  It is not their own word they preach, but Christ’s; nor their own sacraments they administer, but Christ’s; and therefore, be their own sins what they will, the ordinance is still Christ’s ordinance; the institution of it is from Christ; the promises annexed to it are made by Christ; and we cannot think that Christ’s grace should be hindered by man’s sin; or that because ministers are not faithful to Christ, Christ should not therefore be faithful to his people in performing his promises made to them; which promises were not made to the administration of the ordinance by faithful persons, but to the ordinances in general, as duly administered even by such as are truly and rightly called to it.  So that the ordinance itself is never the better for being administered by worthy, nor is it the worse for being administered by unworthy persons.  Whether the ministers be worthy or unworthy, it is still by the grace of Christ his ordinances are made effectual.  If Christ be pleased to withhold his grace, be the minister never so worthy, it cannot be obtained; and if Christ be pleased to convey his grace, be the minister never so unworthy, it cannot be hindered.  So that he that receives grace from an ordinance must not thank the minister for his worthiness, but Christ for his goodness; and he that receives no grace must not blame the unworthiness of the minister, but the faithlessness of his own heart.  For be the minister worthy or unworthy, if I come with faith to an ordinance, I am sure to go with grace from it.

      And this is the doctrine which St. Augustine doth frequently inculcate, and stiffly maintain against the Donatists, and others of old.  * “Remember,” saith he, “that the manners of evil men do not hinder the sacraments of God, so as to make them either not to be at all, or less holy.”  And elsewhere: * “But the baptism of Christ consecrated with the words of the gospel is itself holy by adulterers and in adulterers, although they be immodest and unclean; for its holiness cannot be polluted, and the virtue of God is still present in the sacrament, either to the salvation of them that use it g well, or the destruction of such as use it g ill.”  And again: * “But if God be present at his sacrament and word by whomsoever they are administered, the sacraments of God are always right, and wicked men which are not profited by them are always perverse.”  And again: * “For it is no doubt but homicides may have baptism, which is the sacrament of the remission of sins, which are yet in the dark, &c.  And whether it be delivered or received by such, it is not violated by their perverseness either within or without.”  And therefore saith he, * “Or who can say that baptism, because such have or give it, is polluted by their iniquities?”  And again: * “But it matters not as to the integrity of baptism, how much the worse he is that delivers it; for there is not so much difference betwixt bad and worse, as there is betwixt good and bad; yet when a bad man baptizeth, he doth not give any other thing than a good one.”

      I shall add no more but that excellent passage in St. Chrysostom that speaks so fully to the purpose; * “But,” saith he, “neither baptism, nor the body of Christ, nor the offering ought to be administered by such, if grace looked for worthiness everywhere.  But now God is wont to work even by such as are unworthy, and the grace of baptism is not at all hindered by the life of the priest;” which is the sum and substance of this part of the Article, that the effect of the sacraments is not hindered by the unworthiness of the minister.

      Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the church, that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by judgment, be deposed.

      It being determined in the former part of the Article, that the unworthiness of the minister doth not hinder the effect of the sacraments, it is very opportunely added in this, that such unworthy ministers be inquired out, yea and proceeded against according to the discipline of the church.  Though whilst unworthy they may administer the sacraments effectually, it doth not follow but that they should endeavour to be worthy ministers of them, and to practice that in themselves which they preach to others; yea, and if guilty of notorious and scandalous crimes, deposed from the ministry too.  For a bishop, as the apostle saith, and so every other minister, should be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, 1 Tim. 3:2, 3.  Yea, he must be a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, Tit. 1:8.  Thus it is that a minister of God ought to behave himself.  And truly there is all the reason in the world, that ministers of all the people in the earth, whose office it is to beat down sin in others, should not keep it up in their own hearts.  For how can I reprove that sin in another which I allow in myself?  Thou, saith the apostle, which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?  Rom. 2:21, 22.  To which I may add, Thou that callest upon others to love God as the best of goods, and to hate sin as the worst of evils, what, wilt thou hate God as if he was the worst of evils, and love sin as if it was the best of goods? thou that preachest to others to leave the world and follow Christ, wilt thou leave Christ to follow the world? thou that preachest a man should desire God above all things, wilt thou desire all things before God? thou that criest to others Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die? what, thou rather die than turn? thou that sayest covetousness is idolatry, and drunkenness bestiality, wilt thou fall down to the one, and be-beast thyself with the other? thou that shewest to others the way that leads from hell to heaven, wilt thou thyself go the way that leads from heaven to hell? thou that warnest others to beware of misery, and to labour after glory, wilt thou neglect that glory, and cast thyself headlong into misery? thou that holdest open the door to others, wilt thou shut it upon thyself?  Certainly it is the greatest aggravation in the world that any sin can be invested withal, even to have it committed by one whose office and work it is to destroy it. * This is that which makes the least sin in ministers appear and be bigger than the greatest in the people.  Their moats are beams in comparison of others’; and others’ beams are but moats in comparison of theirs.  Others may sin themselves, and only themselves sin; but if a minister sins, others commonly sin with him; * he cannot fall but he draws many after him.  For when the people see one lying in sin himself, that tells men they must not sin, they presently think he is not in earnest when he speaks of God, or grace, or sin, or glory; for did he really believe all he saith concerning these and the like things, he could not but walk more answerably to them than he doth: and thus his lying in one sin is the occasion of others falling into many.

      And hence it is that the church of God hath in all ages inquired after evil ministers, and hath deposed such from the ministry that have not walked worthy of it.  It would be an endless thing to recite the many canons that have been made both by oecumenical and provincial councils, for the suspending, excommunicating, and deposing of sinful and loose ministers.  I shall instance but in some few.  The Elibertine council decreed, * “That bishops, priests, and deacons, if, being placed in the ministry, they be discovered that they have committed adultery, for the scandalous and atrocious crime, even to the end, they ought not to receive communion.”  Nay, the fifth council at Carthage was so severe against the scandalous sins of ministers, that they determined, * “That if a clergyman of what degree soever is condemned for any crime by the judgment of the bishops, it may not be lawful for him to be defended, either by the church he was placed over, or by any man whatsoever, the punishment of the loss of money and honour being interposed, from which we command that neither age nor sex be excused.”

      The fourth council at Carthage made many canons also against evil ministers; amongst the rest, * “Every clergyman that is a slanderer or reviler, especially amongst the priests, let him be forced to beg pardon; if he will not, let him be degraded, neither let him be ever called again to his office without satisfaction”: and, “That * a scurrilous clergyman, and one that jesteth with obscene words, should be deposed from his office”: and, “A clergyman * that swears by the creatures must be sharply reproved, and if he still continue in his sin, excommunicated.”

      At a council at Agatha it was also decreed, that * “before all things drunkenness should be avoided by the clergy, which is the fomenter and nurse of all vices; therefore any one that appears to have been drunk (as order suffers), we appoint that he be either removed from communion for the space of thirty days, or else undergo bodily punishment.”  And it was one of the canons of the third council at Orleance, * “If any clergyman commits any theft or falsity, because they also are capital crimes, communion being granted him, let him be deposed or degraded from his degree.  But concerning perjury, we thought good it should be observed, that if any clergyman in such causes that are to be ended by an oath, shall swear, and afterwards by evident testimony shall be discovered to have sworn falsely, let him be driven from communion for the space of two years.”  I shall conclude with that comprehensive canon of the first council of Orleance; * “If a deacon or a presbyter shall commit a capital crime, let him be driven both from his office and communion.”  So then our church was not the first that determined that evil ministers should be deposed, it being no more than what others before have done.

Article  XXVII

Of Baptism.

      Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

      As it was by circumcision that the Jews were distinguished from all other people in the world, so is it by baptism that Christians are distinguished both from Jews and others: for all that are baptized are Christians, and none are Christians but such as be baptized.  And so baptism is a mark of difference whereby Christians are discerned from such as are not christened.  But though this be one effect of baptism, it is not all.  For it is not only a sign of our profession, but also of our regeneration, and therefore it is called the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3:5.  So that by it we are grafted into the church, and made members of that body whereof Christ is the head for we are baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12:13, and have a promise from God of the forgiveness of those sins we have committed against him.  And therefore Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38; that so, being justified by his grace, we should be made (not only sons but) heirs according to the hope of eternal life, Tit. 3:5.  And so in baptism our faith is confirmed, and grace increased; not by virtue of the water itself, but by virtue of prayer, whereby God is prevailed with to purify our souls by his Spirit, as our bodies are washed with the water that as the water washeth of the pollutions of our bodies, so his Spirit purgeth away the corruptions of our souls.

      But all these things will be made more clear and firm by the testimonies of the Fathers; and therefore I shall immediately pass on to them.

      And truly, if we consult the Fathers in this case, they will unanimously tell us, that we are not only distinguished from others, but regenerated by God in baptism; yea, that in baptism our sins are pardoned to us, and our corruptions subdued under us.  Thus Origen; * “Thou descendedst into the water dead in sin; thou ascendedst quickened in righteousness.”  And presently: “And * because by the sacrament of baptism the filth of our nativity is purged away.”  St. Chrysostom saith, * “But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, hath cure without pain, and brings us innumerable good things, and fills us with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and hath not a set time as it was there under the law; but it is lawful for any man in his infancy, middle age, or old age, to receive this circumcision made without hands, wherein we do not undergo labour, but lay aside the burden of our sins, and find the forgiveness of our faults committed at all times.”  For, as the same Father elsewhere, * “As the body of Christ being buried in the earth brought forth the * fruit, even the salvation of the world, so also our body being buried in baptism brought forth fruit, even righteousness, sanctification, adoption, and innumerable other good things.”  St. Augustine saith, * “That renovation in baptism is made in a moment, by the forgiveness of sins; for there is not so much as one, be it never so small, that remains, but may be pardoned.”  Yea, St. Gregory saith, * “He that saith sins are not quite forgiven in baptism, may as well say the Egyptians were not truly dead. in the Red sea.”  And St. Augustine again, * “That in the baptismal washing, not only the pardon of such sins as are committed, but of such as shall be afterwards committed, is granted to such as believe in Christ.”  And presently, * “is so, I say, to be taken, that by the same washing of regeneration, and the word of sanctification, all the sins of regenerate men are cleansed and healed, not only the sins which are now pardoned in baptism already, but also those which afterwards by human ignorance or frailty shall be contracted.”  And the council of Nice, * “He that is baptized descends indeed obnoxious to sins, and held with the corruption of slavery, but he ascends free from that slavery and sins, the son of God, heir, yea, co-heir with Christ, having put on Christ, as it is written, If ye be baptized into Christ, ye have put on Christ.”

      But because it is here said that baptism is the sign of regeneration, and the word regenerated is so much carped at in our order for the administration of baptism, I shall next shew how the primitive church did long ago not only hold the same assertion, but also use the same expression.  So saith St. Chrysostom, * “By water we are regenerated, by blood and flesh we are nourished.”  Athanasius, * “He that is baptized puts off the old man, and is renewed, as being regenerated by the grace of the Spirit.” * “And so,” saith St. Basil, “being baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, we are regenerated.”  The second council at Milevi or Milenum, * “Infants, who cannot commit any sin as yet of themselves, are therefore truly baptized into the remission of sins, that what they contracted by generation might be cleansed in them by regeneration.”  To name no more, Justin Martyr himself, long before any of these, said expressly; * “Afterwards they be brought by us to a place where there is water, and after the same manner of regeneration that we are regenerated by, are they also regenerated.”  And therefore let such as carp at that word in our liturgy hereafter know, it is the primitive church itself, and the most ancient and renowned Fathers they carp at.

      But we must know withal, that though the ancient Fathers do give so much as we do to baptism, yet not so much as the papists do.  For they say baptism itself doth all these things for us; whereas what the Fathers still averred was, that it is the grace and Spirit of God in baptism that doth them.  For, saith St. Basil, * “If there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the Spirit.” * “For remission of sins,” saith St. Cyprian, “whether it be given by baptism or other sacraments, it is properly from the Holy Ghost; for it is to him only the privilege of this work belongs?’ * “And the water,” saith Cyril of Hierusalem, “purges the body, but it is the Spirit that signs the soul.”  And presently, * “When therefore thou art descending into the water, do not look upon the bare water, but lay hold upon salvation by the working of the Holy Ghost.” * “But this benefit,” saith Gregory Nyssen, “the water itself doth not afford us, for it is the weakest of all creatures; but the command of God, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, coming mystically to our redemption.”  And to name no more, St. Augustine, * “The water of the sacrament,” saith he, “is visible, but the water of the Spirit is invisible; that washeth the body, and signifieth what is done in the soul; by the Spirit the soul itself is cleansed and fatted.”  So that it is not to the water itself, but to the Spirit in the water we are to ascribe these glorious effects; and therefore it is here said, that in baptism faith is confirmed, and grace increased by prayer to God.  We must pray for God’s presence in the sacrament; for without that we can receive no blessing from it; but with that there is no blessing but we may have in it.

      The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

      Ever since it pleased God to enter into covenant with man, he hath been pleased also to seal that covenant to him by sacraments, outwardly representing what was spiritually promised.  The covenant of works had a double sacrament annexed to it, the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  And the covenant of grace, according to the various dispensations of it, it hath had various sacraments also annexed to it.  Under the law, or the more imperfect expressures of the said covenant, the sacraments were circumcision and the passover; under the gospel, or the more perfect expressures of it, they be baptism and the Lord’s supper.  Which several sacraments, though they do differ in several things, yet as in other things, so in this they agree, that both under the law and gospel still one of them is an initiating, and the other a confirming sacrament.  And so these of the gospel do exactly answer those under the law, not only in being instituted by the same Lord, and representing the same grace, but also in entitling us to the actual enjoyment of covenant privileges, and then in confirming the same privileges to us.  By circumcision then, and baptism now, are we made members of the church of God; and by the Lord’s supper now, as by the paschal lamb then, the benefits of church membership are sealed and confirmed to us.  And the evangelical thus coming into the place of the legal sacraments, the same persons that were to participate of the legal are to participate also of the evangelical.

      Now under the law it is plain, that not only proselytes, but the children of Jewish parents, even of eight days old, were to be circumcised; that is, by circumcision were to be * initiated into the church of God; and so God commanding children to be circumcised, or initiated into the church, the same command may well be looked upon as reaching to baptism too; for it is by this we are initiated into the church now, as it was by circumcision they were initiated then.  So that whosoever doth not baptize his children * whilst children seems to me to transgress the command of God, in not initiating them into the church according to his precepts.

      For though circumcision be only mentioned, yet it was therefore mentioned because the initiating sacrament whereby children were invested with church membership; and the same reason holds good still for baptism.  And as where the reason of a law fails, the law itself is abrogated, so where the reason of a law remains, the law seems still to be in force, though some circumstances of it be changed.

      But I would not be thought to speak this as if I supposed there was no law commanding infant baptism in the New Testament, but only that for infant circumcision in the Old; for questionless the words of our Saviour are a law, when he saith, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19.  Where, though it be translated teach, yet the word in the original properly imports * disciple, and make disciples; as if he should have said, Go ye and disciple all nations, or bring them over to be my disciples, and baptize them.  So that all that are disciples are here commanded to be baptized; nay, they are therefore commanded to be baptized because disciples.  And seeing all disciples are to be baptized, infants, the children of believing parents, amongst the rest, must be baptized too; for that they are disciples is clear, from their being circumcised under the law for that argued they were in covenant with God, otherwise they could not have had the seal of the covenant administered to them; and if they were in covenant with God, they must needs be disciples; to be a disciple, and to be in covenant with God, being one and the same thing.  So that all that are in covenant with God are his disciples; and all that are his disciples are in covenant with him.  And again, of children our Saviour saith, Of such is the kingdom of God, Mark 10:14.  And therefore they must needs be disciples, unless such as are not disciples should be thought to belong unto the kingdom of God.  But I need not insist any longer upon this, to prove little children to be disciples, if their parents be.  For so long as children they are looked upon as parts of their parents, and therefore what their parents are they must needs be: if their parents be heathens, the children are heathens; if their parents be Christians, the children are Christians too.  And truly unless this be granted, the children of believing parents under the gospel will be brought into a worse condition than they were under the law; for under the law children were still acknowledged to be within the covenant, and therefore had always the seal of the covenant administered to them: and if the children of believing parents, I mean outward professors of faith, should be denied the same privilege now under the gospel; the gospel must be necessarily supposed to be more strait and narrow than the law itself.  But seeing both law and gospel contain one and the same covenant, and seeing under the law children were accounted disciples, and therefore circumcised as well as adult proselytes, it must needs follow, that children are in the same capacity still as they were then; and seeing they were then admitted into the church by circumcision, they are now to be invested with the same privilege by baptism.

      Only we shall take notice of the doctrine and practice of the primitive church in this particular; and surely the nearer to the fountain head, the clearer the streams Whether the apostles baptized children or no is nowhere expressly delivered in scripture; but howsoever it may be gathered from their successors: for certainly the apostles’ successors durst never have clone it unless they had seen the apostles themselves doing it before them.

      Now Origen saith, * “Young children are baptized into the remission of sins.”  And presently, * “And because that by the sacrament of baptism the filth of our nativity is laid aside, therefore are little children baptized.”  And elsewhere, * “To this may that also be added, that it should be inquired into what is the cause, that seeing baptism is given to the church for the remission of sins, according to the observance or custom of the church, baptism is given also to little children; whereas if there was nothing in little children that ought to belong to pardon and forgiveness, the grace of baptism would be superfluous.”

      In St. Cyprian’s time there were some that thought indeed that children ought not to be baptized till the eighth day, according to the time appointed for circumcision; but none that held they ought not to be baptized at all whilst children.  And to one that supposed they ought not to be baptized till the eighth day, St. Cyprian writes, saying, * “But as to the cause of infants, which thou sayest before the second or third day after they are born ought not to be baptized, and that the law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed, that thou shouldst think that any one that is born ought not to be baptized or sanctified before the eighth day, it seemed far otherwise to all in our council; for in this which thou thoughtest should be done, none agreed; but rather all of us judged that the mercy and grace of God (in baptism) should be denied to no one born of men.”  So that it seems a whole council then determined that children ought to be baptized.

      St. Augustine spends a whole chapter in proving, * “That by the price of the blood of Christ in baptism, children are washed, freed, and saved from original sin propagated from the first parents.”  And elsewhere he saith plainly, * “Seeing therefore children do not begin to be of the sheep of Christ but only by baptism, truly if they do not receive that, they will perish.”

      But to leave private persons, and to come to councils.  The second council at Milevum determined, saying, * “It pleaseth also that whosoever shall deny that children newly come from their mothers’ wombs should be baptized, let him be accursed.”  And the council at Gerandia, * “Concerning infants which are lately brought forth from their mother’s womb, it pleaseth that it should be appointed, that if they be infirm (as usually they are), and do not desire their mother’s milk, if they be offered, they may be baptized even the same day they are born.”  Yea, and the sixth general council, called the Trullan, saith, * “We, following the canonical constitutions of the Fathers, determine also concerning infants, that as often as there shall not be found sufficient witnesses which will say that they were undoubtedly baptized, and themselves, by reason of their infancy, cannot aptly answer for the mysteries being delivered to them, without any scandal such ought to be baptized.”  So that it is not only the opinion of private persons, or particular synods, but of a general council itself, that the baptism of infants ought in any wise to be retained in the church.

Article  XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper.

      The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

      Of the two sacraments which it hath pleased our Lord Christ to institute in his church, the first, viz., baptism, we have discoursed of in the foregoing article: the other presents itself to be spoken to in this under the name of the supper of the Lord.  Which name, though the papists are very angry at us for making use of it, yet we need not regard that, seeing the scripture giveth us sufficient warrant for it, St. Paul himself calling it the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. 11:20.  And therefore though the Fathers do often call it the eucharist, as we may see art. XXIV, yet do they frequently call it the Lord’s supper also, as we may see in the margin.*  And there is good reason for the name too; for seeing it was instituted at eventide, yea, at suppertime, it may well be called a supper; and seeing it was instituted by the Lord himself, it may well be called the Lord’s supper.

      This sacrament of the Lord’s supper is here said not only to be a sign of the love Christians ought to have to one another, but a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that to such as receive it by faith, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ; which being the very words of the apostle, 1 Cor. 10:16, I need not heap up any more scriptures to prove it.  For though our translation reads communion instead of partaking, yet they both come to one and the same thing; and therefore is it often translated partaking too as well as communion.  To this therefore I shall only add the express words of institution, wherein Christ said of the bread, This is my body, Matt. 26:26, and of the wine, This is my blood of the new testament, shed for many for the remission of sins, ver. 28.  And if the bread be his body and the wine his blood, it must needs follow, that whosoever eats the one and drinks the other as he ought to do is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ.

      The Fathers are very frequent in asserting this truth; I shall instance but in a few.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem; * “With all certainty or persuasion let us partake of it as of the body and blood of Christ; for under the type of bread his body is given to thee, and under the type of wine his blood is given to thee; that partaking of the body and blood of Christ, thou mayest be of one body and blood with him.”  So that we so partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, as that we are thereby made one body and blood with himself.  Therefore saith St. Hilary, * “Of the truth of the flesh and blood there is no place left to doubt; for now by the profession of the Lord himself it is truly flesh and truly blood; and these being received and taken down, cause that we should be in Christ, and Christ in us.”  And St. Chrysostom; * “Wherefore it is necessary we should learn the miracle of these mysteries, what it is, and why it was given, and what profit there is of the thing.  We are made one body, and members of his flesh and of his bones.  But let such as are initiated strive for the knowledge of these sayings: that therefore we may not only be made such by love and charity, but indeed mixed with that flesh.  It is that nourishment that causeth it, which he hath vouchsafed us, willing to show us the desire he hath towards us; therefore he mixed himself with us, and tempered his body with ours, that we might become one, as a body joined to the head.”  To which we may add that of St. Augustine; * “But let us hear and understand two in one flesh, Christ and the church, as the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus giving us his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, we receive with a faithful heart and mouth.”  Thus Origen saith, * “When thou receivest the holy food, and that incorruptible banquet, when thou enjoyest the bread and water of life, and eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, then doth the Lord come under thy roof.”  And Tertullian; * “The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the spirit.  The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened by God.”  And Macarius; * “In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood , and they that partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord.”  All which could not be, unless we were partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

      Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord) cannot be proved by holy writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

      Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whosoever worthily receives the sacrament of the Lord’s supper do[th] certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ, the devil thence took occasion to draw men into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was crucified upon the cross; and the wine, after consecration, the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side.  The time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory the Third, pope of Rome.  The persons that were the principal abettors of it were Damascen * in the eastern, and afterwards Amalarius * in the western churches.  It was no sooner started in the east, but it was opposed by a famous council at Constantinople, consisting of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, the famous opposers of idol worship.  But afterwards in the second council of Nice it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who confidently affirmed, that * “after the consecration, the bread and wine are called, are, and believed to be properly the body and blood of Christ.”  In the western also, Amalarius having broached this opinion, Paschasius Radbertus glibly swallowed it down.  But Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus or Bertramnus (of whom more presently) as also Johannes Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against it as a poisonous error.  And after them Berengarius too, who was not only written against by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, but condemned for it in a council held at * Vercel (where the book of Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also condemned) and at another council held at Rome about the same time.  And though he did recant his opinions at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, * as some think, so as never to hold it more, * yet his followers would never recant what they had learned from him.  But in the Lateran council, held an. 1215, the opinion of the real or carnal presence of Christ was not only confirmed, but the word transubstantiated was newly coined to express it by; that council determining, that * “there is one universal church of the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which Jesus Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of God; that for the perfecting the mystery of our union we might receive of him what he had received of us.”  And ever since this word was thus forged by this council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare their minds by concerning this great mystery; still holding with the council of Trent, * “That by the consecration of the bread and wine is made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which change is aptly and properly called by the holy catholic church transubstantiation.”  So that according to this opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine only, and not the body and blood of Christ, are after consecration as properly the body and blood of Christ only, and not bread and wine; the bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of Christ that hung upon the cross, and the wine into the very blood that ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.

      Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to fall into this desperate error, so as to say the bread and wine is really changed into the body and blood of Christ, because he doth really partake of the body and blood of Christ that rightly receives the bread and wine; that truth is no sooner delivered, but this error is presently opposed it being no sooner declared that the bread we break is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the blood of Christ, but it is immediately subjoined, that notwithstanding the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is to be rejected upon a fourfold account; first, because it cannot be proved by the scriptures; secondly, it is repugnant to them; thirdly, it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; fourthly, it hath given occasion to many superstitions.  Of which in their order briefly.

      As for the first, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the holy scriptures is plain from the insufficiency of those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel and the words of institution.  In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel we find our Saviour saying, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, John 6:55.  And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.  From whence they gather, that the bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of Christ; not considering, first, that our Saviour said these words at the least a year before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted; for when Christ said these words, it is said, that the passover was nigh, ver. 4; whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the passover following: and it is very unlikely that he should preach of that sacrament before it was instituted.  To which we may also add, that our Saviour here saith concerning the flesh and blood here spoken of, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, ver. 53.  Whereas it is manifest, that a man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament must of necessity be damned.  And therefore though the thing signified, even the flesh and blood of Christ, is here to be understood, yet the signs themselves of the sacrament cannot.  And so this place not intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, it cannot be a sufficient foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.  And, secondly, suppose this place was to be understood of the sacrament, when our Saviour saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; this might prove that Christ’s body and blood were turned into flesh and drink, but not at all that bread and drink are turned into his body and blood.  Thirdly, it is plain that our Saviour in these words doth not mean any external or bodily, but an internal and * spiritual feeding upon him. So that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, ver. 50, but live for ever, ver. 51; yea, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh, my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, ver. 56.  So that, as * Origen observeth, no wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners as well as saints, the worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine in the sacrament.  And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so neither doth the words of institution, This is my body, prove the transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of Christ.  For he that saith, because our Saviour said, This is my body, the bread is therefore changed into his body, may as well say, that because that Joseph said, The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years, Gen. 41:26, therefore the seven good kine and the seven good ears were all changed into seven years.  And because that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, Thou art this head of gold, Dan. 2:38, therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into an head of gold.  Whereas it is plain that in scripture * that is often said to be a thing which is only the sign of it: as the great God is pleased to explain himself when he said of circumcision, This is my covenant, Gen. 17:10; and in the next verse, And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant betwixt me and you, ver. 11.  And what sense the Most High explains himself by in that sacrament, we may well understand him in this.  When he said, This is my covenant, he tells us what he meant by the phrase, even, This is the sign of my covenant: and so here, when Christ said, This is my body, according to his own explication of himself before, it is no more than if he should have said, This is the sign or token of my body.  And therefore saith St. Augustine, * “For if sacraments should not have a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they often receive the name of the things themselves.  Therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of his blood is blood; so the sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.”  So that the words, This is my body, prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of his body, not at all that it is really changed into his body.  But that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the scriptures is further evident, in that it is contrary to them.

      And that is the second thing here asserted of transubstantiation, that it is repugnant to the plain words of the holy scriptures.  Which to prove I need go no further than to show, that the scripture doth still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before consecration.  And this one might think was plain enough in the first place, even from the words of institution themselves: for the scripture saith, And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, Matt. 26:26.  So that that which Jesus took was bread, that which Jesus blessed was bread, that which Jesus gave to the disciples was bread; and therefore that of which he said, This is my body, must needs be bread too, as the * Fathers long ago acknowledged.  And truly in reason it cannot be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun this, but bread; for the body of Christ, that cometh after it, cannot possibly be the antecedent to it.  For according to the principles of our adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed into the body of Christ before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until the words, This is my body, be all pronounced; so that when the priest saith This, there is no such thing as the body of Christ present, that not coming in till both that and the following words too are perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of Christ can by no means be looked upon as the antecedent to this pronoun; but that it is bread, and bread only, that it hath reference to.  So that This is my body is as much as to say, This broad is my body; this bread that I have taken and blessed and give to you, is my body.  Now, as Bellarmine * himself acknowledgeth, this proposition, This is my body, cannot possibly be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense should be, This bread signifies my body, is a sign or sacrament of it, it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body of Christ: for if it be bread and yet the very body of Christ too, then bread and the body of Christ would be convertible terms.  So that the very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of which our. Saviour said, This is my body, was real bread, and so his body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence, that the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only represented by the bread.  But if this will not do, we may consider in the second place the institution of the other part of the sacrament for it is said, And he took the cap, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matt. 26:27, 28.  Where these last words, for this is my blood, &c., being the words of consecration; and our Saviour having given them the cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it, it could not possibly be meant of any thing else than the wine in the cup, of which he said these words.  To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words of consecration: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, Matt. 26:29.  Where we see our Saviour himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the fruit of the vine; and in saying that he will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, plainly shews that it was the fruit of the vine which he before drank.  So that the very wine of which he said, This is my blood, was wine still, and the fruit of the vine , which I hope none of our adversaries will say the very blood of Christ is.  But thirdly, this may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: The cup of blessing which, we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  1 Cor. 10:16.  Where we may take notice of two things: first, that he here calls the sacramental elements still a cup or wine, and bread, the bread which we break, so that it is still bread; and secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and the bread broken the communion of the body of Christ.  Now if the bread be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real body; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, The blood of Christ is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ is the communion of the body of Christ; and so the body of Christ must be the communion of itself; which is impossible.  To which we might also add the several places where the apostle still calls the elements bread and wine, or the cup; as, For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, 1 Cor. 11:26: Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ver. 27: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, ver. 28.  From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of Christ; that which we drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of Christ; and therefore, that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of Christ, is repugnant to the plain words of the scripture.

      The third thing is, that it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; which I need not spend many words to prove.  For in a sacrament it is requisite, first, that there be some outward sign representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed into the body of Christ, there is no outward sign at all in the sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of Christ, which are not signs, but the thing signified.  Nay, as St. Augustine observes * the signs themselves are the sacrament, and therefore where there is no sign, there can be no sacrament.  And so by depriving this sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament in it.  And therefore, if they will still hold that by the words of consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, let them cease to call that holy action any longer a sacrament, and name it, the body and blood of Christ; for according to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of Christ.  So that it is plain, that by this doctrine the nature of a sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacrament in particular must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.

      The fourth and last thing here objected against this doctrine of transubstantiation is, that it hath given occasion to many superstitions, which any one that ever observed their customs and practices cannot but acknowledge.  For this fond opinion possessing their brains, that the bread is the real body of Christ hung upon the cross, and pierced for their sins, O how zealous are they in wrapping it up neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasuries, carrying it about in their processions, yea, and at the length worshipping and adoring it too! which sad superstitions, yea, transgressions of theirs, we shall have occasion to speak of more presently.

      In the meanwhile, to these four indictments, justly brought against the doctrine of transubstantiation, I shall add a fifth; and that is, that it is contrary to the judgment of the Fathers too, and therefore may justly be condemned.  For Tertullian saith plainly, * “Having received bread and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.”  And in the sermon of extreme unction attributed to St. Cyprian, * “Our Lord therefore at the table, where he c partook of the last banquet with his apostles, with his own hands gave bread and wine; but in the cross he gave his body to be wounded by the hands of the soldiers, that in the apostles the sincere truth and true sincerity being more secretly impressed, might expound to the Gentiles, how wine and bread are his flesh and blood, and by what reasons the causes agree with the effects, and diverse names or species are brought to one essence, and the things signifying and the things signified should be called by the same names.”  So that it seems it was not his very body and blood, but bread and wine he then gave, and yet called by the same name with that they signified, even the body and blood of Christ.

      So Eusebius Caesariensis: * “The memory of this sacrifice we celebrate at the Lord’s table, by the symbols of his body and saving blood, according to the received constitutions of the New Testament.”  And Ephraem Antiochenus: * “And so the body of Christ received by the faithful is not turned from its sensible essence, and yet remains undivided from its spiritual grace.”  And Theodoret: * “But our Saviour changed their names, and gave the name of the symbol to the body; and the name of the body to the symbol”: not the things, but the names were changed.  And therefore saith St. Augustine, * “For the Lord did not stick to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.”  And Acacius saith, * “The bread and wine sanctifies them that feed upon this matter.”  And Macarius of Egypt saith, * “In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his body and blood.”

      To these we may add that of Bertramus, otherwise called Ratramnus: * “What else but the substance of the wine is seen?  It is clear, because the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood figuratively.”  And again: * “There is nothing more absurd than to take bread for flesh, and to call wine blood neither would it be a mystery, wherein there is nothing secret and hidden contained.  And how shall that be called the very body and blood of Christ wherein there is no change known to be made?  And if they have endured no change, they are nothing else than what they were before.”  And again; * “For as to the substance of the creatures, what they were before consecration, that they are also after.”  And in the Comment upon St. Matthew, attributed to St. Chrysostom, we find it said, * “If therefore it be so dangerous to transfer the sanctified vessels to private uses, in which not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained; how much more as for the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for himself to dwell in, we ought not to give place to the devil to act in!”  What could be spoken more plainly?  It is not the body of Christ itself, but only the mystery and sacrament thereof, that is contained in the holy vessels and offered in the Lord’s Supper.

      To all these testimonies I shall only add that of Theodoret again; * “The visible symbols he honoured with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature.”  And Gelasius, * “Truly the sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a Divine thing, and by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine Both not cease to be.”  And therefore we conclude, that transubstantiation is both a doctrine that cannot be proved by the scriptures, is contrary to the scriptures, overthroweth the nature of sacraments, hath given occasion to many superstitions, and is also contrary to the judgment of the Fathers.

      The body of Christ is given and taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

      It being so clear a truth, that the bread and wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ in the holy sacrament, we need not heap up many arguments to prove, that it is only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner, that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in the sacrament.  For if the bread be not really changed into the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is not really there present; and if it be not really there present, it is impossible it should be really eaten and received into our bodies as bread is.  So that the truth there demonstrated, and the truth here delivered, have so much affinity to one another, that they cannot so well be called two as one and the same truth.  And therefore to the arguments produced in the foregoing discourse, I shall add only these following, and that briefly, to show that the body and blood of Christ are not eaten after a corporal but only a spiritual manner in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

      First, therefore, it is impossible q that that body, which was but of the ordinary bulk with ours, should be sufficient, if eaten after a corporal manner, to feed and satisfy so many millions of millions of souls as have already, and may hereafter eat of it.  And secondly, suppose it was not impossible, yet it would be unprofitable for us thus, to eat of the body of Christ.  For our Saviour himself having preached concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, the Jews and Capernaites taking him (as their followers the papists do) in a carnal sense, cried out, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  John 6:52.  And his disciples themselves said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it?  ver. 60.  Whereupon he explained himself, and told them, * It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth, nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life, ver. 63.  As if he should have said, Though I do speak of eating my flesh, I would not have you think that my very flesh profiteth any thing, or quickeneth; no, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; and the words that I speak unto you are not to be understood in a carnal, but a spiritual sense, for they are spirit and life: plainly chewing that the corporal eating of his body is unprofitable, and that whatsoever he said concerning eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was still to be understood in a heavenly and * spiritual sense.  Thirdly, upon this supposition, that the body of Christ is corporally eaten in the sacrament, it follows that it was corporally broken too, and so that Christ did really break his own body, before the Jews broke it for him; yea, and that Christ received his own body into his own body: for that he received this sacrament himself, as well as administered to his disciples, is plain, not only from the testimonies of the * Fathers, but from the words of our Saviour himself: With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, Luke 22:15; and, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, Matt. 26:29.  So that I cannot see how it can possibly be denied, that Christ ate of the bread whereof he said, This is my body; and if he ate it, and ate it corporally, that is, ate his very body as we eat bread, then he ate himself, and made one body two, and then crowded them into one again, putting his body into his body, even his whole body into part of his body, his stomach; and so he must be thought not only to have two bodies, but two bodies so as to be one within another; yea, so as to be one eaten and devoured by another; the absurdity of which and the like assertions, he that hath but half an eye may easily discover.  So that it must needs be granted to be in a spiritual manner that this sacrament was then instituted, and by consequence that it is in a spiritual manner that this sacrament ought now to be received.

      And this was the judgment of the Fathers.  Macarius saith, * “In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood; and they that partake of the visible bread do spiritually eat of the flesh of Christ.”

      And St. Augustine: * “Understand spiritually what I say unto you; you must not eat that body which you see, nor drink that blood which they will shed that crucify me.  I have commended to you a certain sacrament; being spiritually understood, it will quicken you; though it be necessary it should be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly.”  For as AElfrick archbishop of Canterbury saith, * “That bread is Christ’s body, not bodily but spiritually”; and if so, it must needs be eaten spiritually, not bodily.

      And it being thus only after a spiritual manner that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, there can be no other means whereby we can receive him but faith.  And therefore saith Origen, * “That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to the material part of it, it goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught; but as to the prayer which is added to it, it is made profitable by the proportion of faith.”  And St. Cyprian, * “Drinking and eating belong to the same reason, whereby as the bodily substance is nourished, and liveth, and remains safe, so is the life of the spirit nourished by this proper food and what eating is to the flesh, that is faith to the soul; what food is to the body, that is the word to the spirit, working eternally by a more excellent virtue what the carnal elements do temporally and finally.”  And afterwards: * “As often as we do these things, we do not whet our teeth to bite, but by a sincere faith we break the holy bread and divide it, whilst we distinguish and separate what is divine and what is human, and joining the things separated together again, we acknowledge one God and man.”

      In St. Augustine we meet with many expressions to this purpose: * “How,” saith he, “shall I send up my hand to heaven to lay hold upon him sitting there?  Send thy faith, and thou hast laid hold on him.”  And again: * “For to believe in him, this is to eat the living bread; he that believeth in him eateth; he is invisibly fattened who is invisibly regenerated.”  And again: * “This therefore is to eat the food that doth not perish but endureth to eternal life.  Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly?  Believe, and thou hast eaten.”  So that it is faith whereby we feed upon the body and blood of Christ, and therefore it is not carnally but spiritually that we receive it.

      The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

      The sacramental bread and wine being vainly fancied to be changed into the very body and blood of Christ, it was presently conceived that something more than ordinary honour should be conferred upon it, yea that it was not only to be eaten, but laid up privately, yea carried about publicly, lifted up, and worshipped too, and that with the same * worship which is due to the true and living God and therefore have they appointed a certain holyday * too, which they call Corpus Christi day, wherein the sacramental bread might be annually carried about and religiously worshipped.

      Now we having before proved that this bread is not the very body of Christ, but bread still after as well as before consecration, we have overthrown the very foundations of these gross superstitions; it being only upon that account that they perform so much homage and worship to it, because they think it is not what it seems to be, real bread, but what it doth not seem to be, even the very body of Christ.  And the foundation being thus destroyed, the superstructure falls of itself; or if it still stands, it must but be like a castle in the air, without any foundation.  To what was therefore before proved, I shall wish the opposers of this truth, or the maintainers of the reservation and adoration of the sacraments, to consider these things:

      First, That that doctrine is contrary to Christ’s institution.  For he said expressly, Take, eat, Matt. 26:26; not, take and reserve it, not, take and carry it about, not, take and worship it, but, Take and eat; this is my body.  Neither need I heap up many arguments to prove, that according to Christ’s institution the sacramental bread is not to be reserved, much less worshipped, but eaten; for our adversaries themselves, the reverend fathers in the council of Trent, do acknowledge it. * And therefore, howsoever or whensoever this superstition first crept into the church, by their own confession it is contrary to Christ’s institution. Secondly, That it quite overthrows the nature of the sacrament.  For according to St. Augustine’s rule, * “If sacraments have not a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they are no sacraments at all.”  Now wherein is there any resemblance betwixt the body of Christ and bread, but only in the eating?  Even because the one received by faith nourisheth and preserveth the spiritual, as the other received into the stomach doth the natural life.  The bread itself hath no resemblance at all of his body, neither hath the bread as reserved, or carried about, or worshipped, any such resemblance; all the resemblance it hath, is in its feeding the body as Christ doth the soul. * Christ is the nourishment of our souls, as bread is the nourishment of our bodies; and therefore doth he sometimes call his body bread, and at other times bread his body.  And all the resemblance betwixt them consisting only in the bread’s nourishment of the body as Christ doth the soul; if the bread should lose its nourishing faculty, it would not be any whit like to Christ’s body, nor could it be the sacrament of it; and whensoever bread is not eaten, but reserved or carried about, though it may have it, yet it doth not exert any such virtue, and by consequence loseth its resemblance to Christ’s body, and so ceaseth to be sacramental bread any longer.  And therefore they must know, that the bread they reserve and carry about is not the body of Christ, nor hath any relation to it upon that very account, because they reserve and carry it about, and do not eat it.

      And if these considerations will not convince them, let them in the last place take notice of the testimonies of the primitive church.  Origen (or as others think St. Cyril) saith, * “The Lord said to them, concerning the bread which he gave to his disciples, Take and eat; he did not defer it, nor command it to be kept till tomorrow.”  And St. Cyprian, chewing the difference betwixt the sacramental bread and the shewbread, saith, the sacramental bread * “is incorporated not injured, received not included.”  As if he should have said, the shewbread was included in the ark of the covenant, but so is not this; it is only received, not included or shut up in any thing, and by consequence not reserved.  And in the Second Epistle to St. James, attributed to Clemens Romanus, we find it written, * “Let as many sacrifices be offered upon the altar as may suffice the people and if any remain, let them not be reserved till tomorrow, but with fear and dread be consumed by the diligence of the clerks.”

      To this purpose also it was determined in the Caesaraugustane council; * “If it be proved that any one, having received the grace of the Lord’s supper, hath not consumed or eaten it up, let him be anathema for ever.”  And in the first council at Toledo, * “If any one shall not consume the eucharist received of the priest, let him be put away as a sacrilegious person.”  Which canon was explained and confirmed again in the eleventh council at Toledo, an. 675. *

      To this we may also add the several ways whereby the primitive church used to dispose of the sacramental bread and wine which was left after the communicants had all received.  Evagrius tells us, * “There was an ancient custom at Constantinople, that when many pieces of the undefiled body of Christ our Lord were left after the communion, such young youths as went to school were sent for, and eat them up.”  But St. Jerome tells us, that * “after the communion, whatsoever was left of the bread and wine, the communicants themselves eating a common supper in the church, did consume them together.”  And Hesychius saith, * “What was left used to be consumed in the fire.”  Whence we may observe, that even what was left after the communion was not reserved; but though some used one, others another way, yet all used some way or other to consume it, so that it might not be reserved.

      And if the primitive church was against the reservation, surely it was much more against the adoration of the sacrament, holding, as we have chewed before, that no person or thing, under any pretence whatsoever, ought to be worshipped besides God.  I know it is not bare bread our adversaries say they worship, but Christ in the bread, or the bread in the name of Christ.  But I wish them to consider what Gregory Nyssen long ago said, * “He that worshippeth a creature, though he do it in the name of Christ, is an idolater, giving the name of Christ to an idol.”  And therefore, let them not be angry at us for concluding them to be idolaters, whilst they eat one piece of the bread, and worship the other; and for asserting that the sacraments ought to be reserved, carried about, or worshipped.

Article  XXIX

Of the Wicked, Which Do Not Eat the Body and

Blood of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper.

      The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.

      It being not after a carnal but spiritual manner only, as we have seen in the foregoing article, that the body and blood of Christ are eaten and drunken in the sacrament, it must needs be a spiritual person, not a carnal, that can eat and drink it.  For though a spiritual person may do some things carnally, yet a carnal person can never do any thing spiritually.  And therefore, though godly and spiritual men may feed upon the body and blood of Christ * out of the sacrament as well as in it, yet wicked and carnal men miss of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament as well as out of it.  They may indeed eat the bread which signifies the Lord, but they cannot feed upon the Lord which is signified by the bread.  They may take down the bread and wine into their bodies, but not receive the body and blood of Christ into their souls.  And truly, we need not go far to prove this, even that wicked men do not eat the body and blood of Christ; for if they eat the body and blood of Christ they are not wicked men, but such as dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them; as Christ himself assures us, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, John 6:56.  He that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him, can be no wicked man; but he that eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ, dwells in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him, and therefore cannot possibly be a wicked man.  And if he that eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ can be no wicked man, it must needs follow that no wicked man can eat and drink the body and blood of Christ.

      But this is not all: for a wicked man doth not only miss of the grace signified by the bread and wine; but in eating and drinking the bread and wine that signify that grace, they do but eat and drink damnation to themselves.  For the apostle saith expressly, Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11:27; yea, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; not discerning the Lord’s body, ver. 29.  Not as if the sacraments themselves were the cause of their damnation; but because their coming with sinful hearts to it * becomes an aggravation of their sins; even as Christ himself, who came into the world for our salvation, by reason of’ their unbelief, becomes to many an occasion of their greater damnation, John 3:19.  And thus the same sacrament that is to the godly the savour of life unto life, and not of death unto death, to the wicked is the savour of death unto death only, and not of life unto life; the one finds a blessing in it, and no breach, the other finds a breach in it, and no blessing; the one so eats and drinks the bread and wine, as to partake of the body and blood of Christ, the other eats and drinks the bread and wine, so as to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ; the one eats and drinks salvation, the other damnation to himself.

      And this was the doctrine of the primitive church.  Origen saith, * “Many things may be spoken also concerning the Word itself, which was made flesh and true food, whom whosoever eateth shall certainly live to eternity, whom no wicked man can eat.  For if it could be that he that still remains a sinner should eat the Word which was made flesh, seeing he is the Word and the bread of life, it would not have been written, Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever”: and how they get hurt too as well as no good at the sacrament, the same Father expresseth it elsewhere, saying, * “Dost thou not fear to communicate of the body of Christ when thou comest to the eucharist, as if thou wast clean, as if thou hadst nothing of unworthiness in thee? and in all these things dost thou think thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  Dost thou not remember what is said, For for this cause many are weak and sick, and many sleep amongst you?  Why are many weak?  Because they do not judge nor examine themselves, nor understand what it is to communicate with the church, nor what it is to come to such and so great sacraments.  They suffer what they that are sick of fevers use to suffer whilst they presume to eat the meat of the healthful, bringing destruction to themselves.”

      To this purpose makes that of St. Cyprian; * “The sacraments, as much as in them is, can never be without their proper virtue, neither doth the Divine Majesty any way absent itself from the mysteries.  But though the sacraments suffer themselves to be taken and touched by unworthy persons, yet they cannot be partakers of the Spirit, whose infidelity and unworthiness contradicts so great piety.  Therefore to some these gifts are the savour of life unto life, to others the savour of death unto death.”  And elsewhere * “He that is down threatens them that stand, and the wounded such as are whole; and because he may not presently receive the body of the Lord with his polluted hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with his defiled mouth, the sacrilegious fellow is angry at the priests.  But O thy exceeding madness, thou furious person!  Thou art angry at him that strives to turn the wrath of God from thee!  Thou threatenest him that beggeth the mercy of God for thee, who is sensible of thy wound, which thou thyself art not sensible of!”

      But I need not search the Fathers for the confirmation of this article, for it is indeed almost word for word taken out of a Father, St. Augustine by name, who is quoted in it; for he in his Comment upon the Gospel of St. John hath this passage, * “And by this, he that doth not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ doth not dwell, without all doubt doth not spiritually eat his body nor drink his blood, though he may carnally and visibly press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; but rather, to his judgment or condemnation, eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing; because being unclean, he presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no one can worthily receive but he that is clean.”  In which passage the sense of this article being so fully contained, and it being the place, I suppose, cited in the article itself, I shall not add any more to it; but only conclude with that of St. Basil: * “Let us therefore cleanse ourselves from all defilements, and so let us come to these holy things, that we may escape the judgment of those that killed the Lord.  For whosoever eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Article  XXX

Of Both Kinds.

      The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

      When our Lord Christ instituted the sacrament of his supper, he was pleased to ordain two signs to be used in the administration of it, bread and wine, the one to represent his body, the other his blood.  But about four hundred years ago, the church of Rome, for reasons best known to herself, thought good to make a countermand, that bread and wine should not be both administered to all communicants, but that the lay people should be content with the bread only without the wine, yea and the clergy too, if there were any present besides him that consecrated it.  So that in few words * they ordained and still use to deny the cup, and to administer the bread only to all the communicants, the priest that consecrates it reserving every drop of the wine for himself.  Now against this wild practice of the church of Rome our church of England is pleased in this article to set herself, determining that the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people.  Neither is this only here asserted, but confirmed too; so that I need go no further for the proof of the article than to the article itself.  And the reason that is here brought is from Christ’s institution and command, For by the ordinance and commandment of Christ, both the parts of the sacrament, viz. both bread and wine, ought to be administered to all Christian men.  And to prove this proof of the article, we make take notice of the words of institution themselves.  After therefore he had distributed the bread, St. Matthew saith, And he took the cup, and Gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, Matt. 26:27.  St. Mark, And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it, Mark 14:23.  St. Luke, Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22:20.  St. Paul, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11:25.  In all which places we may observe all these things making for our purpose.  First, that the bread is never spoken of, but still the cup is brought in after it.  Secondly, that as the bread is still brought in to represent his body, not his blood, so is the cup still brought in to represent his blood, not his body.  So that neither of them is appointed to represent both; and by consequence, he that is partaker of the bread only doth not partake of his blood; neither doth he that is partaker of the wine only partake of his body; but to partake both of body and blood, we must receive both the bread and wine.  Thirdly, that St. Luke ushers in the institution of the cup with the word likewise, Likewise also the cup; and St. Paul, After the same manner also the cup; so that after the same manner that he instituted the bread, he instituted the cup also: now our adversaries themselves acknowledge he instituted the bread so as to be communicated to all; and therefore we may well say, he likewise and after the same manner instituted the cup to be administered to all.  Fourthly, that in St. Matthew he said, Drink ye all of it, and in St. Mark, They all drank of it, expressions not to be found in the institution of the bread; as if he foresaw this very corruption that the devil would bring into his ordinance, even that though all should be suffered to eat the bread, yet all should not be suffered to drink the cup.  Therefore hath he left a particular command, that all should drink of the cup; so that if either of the parts might be omitted, certainly the bread should be rather omitted than the cup, it being so expressly and in plain terms commanded, that all should drink of the cup; whereas there is no such express command for all to eat of the bread.  And our Saviour commanding them all to drink of it, in obeisance to his command they all drank of it; so that though it be not said, They all ate the bread, yet it is said, They all drank of the cup, even all the communicants, as well as he that consecrated it; to shew us that all are to drink the cup as well as eat the bread.  Nay, lastly, it is here said, Do this, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me.  Do this: what?  Eat the bread only?  No.  Drink the cup only?  No; but administer and receive both bread and cup, in remembrance of me, who have now administered both unto you.  And therefore, Do this, was not brought in till the cup was administered as well as the bread.  And therefore it cannot possibly be denied, but that according to Christ’s institution the cup is to be administered to all Christian men as well as the bread, that being an essential part of the sacrament as well as this.  And seeing Christ hath joined them both together, it is not for man to put them asunder; but as St. Cyprian observes, * “We are admonished, that in offering the cup the tradition of the Lord is to be observed; neither is any thing to be done by us, but what the Lord hath done before us.”  And afterwards, * “If it be not lawful to break the least of Christ’s commands, how much more is it not lawful to infringe such great ones, so mysterious, so much appertaining to the sacrament of the Lord’s passion and our redemption, or to change it by human tradition into any thing else but what was divinely instituted!”  And St. Ambrose, * “He saith, it is unworthy of the Lord, whosoever celebrates the mystery otherwise than it was delivered.  For he cannot be devout who presumes otherwise than is given by the Author.  Therefore he (St. Paul) admonisheth that his mind who comes to the eucharist of the Lord be devout according to the order that is delivered.”

      To this institution of Christ, I might add many more reasons to prove, that in the Lord’s Supper both bread and wine are to be administered; but that its very being the Lord’s supper, one should think, might be reason enough for it; for it is but a bad supper where there is bread only, and not drink.  So that to deny the cup to the communicants is to deprive them of one part of their slipper; yea, and to deprive the communion itself of the perfect nature of a sacrament, by destroying the analogy betwixt the sign and the thing signified, which, as we have seen, consisteth in the resemblance there is betwixt bread and wine’s nourishing of our bodies, and Christ’s feeding of our souls.  Whereas we know that bread without wine, or some liquid thing or other in its stead, is not the whole and perfect nourishment of our bodies; and therefore not like to Christ, who is alone the perfect food and nourishment of our souls.  And * seeing therefore this sacrament was ordained for the spiritual nourishment of our souls, as bread and wine together make up the perfect nourishment of our bodies, neither of them is to be denied to any, but both administered to all communicants.

      And if we consult antiquity, we shall find that in the first three hundred years besure the people partaked of the cup as well as bread. In the Liturgy ascribed to St. James it is said, * “And when the deacons take the dishes and cups to distribute to the people.”  And Justin Martyr in his second Apology for Christians saith expressly, * “But the president having given thanks, and all the people praised God, those which are called deacons by us give to every one that is present to partake of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they carry it also to those that are not present.”  And St. Cyprian, * “There are some either ignorantly or simply consecrating the Lord’s cup, and administering it to the common people, do not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and doctor of this sacrifice, did and taught.”  And elsewhere, * “Where the solemnities being ended, the deacon begins to offer the cup to those that are present.”  Yea, and Ignatius, * “For there is one flesh of the Lord Christ, and his blood one that was shed for us; one bread that is broken to all, and one cup that is distributed to all.”

      Neither did the next three hundred years deny the people what the first, according to Christ’s institution, granted them. * “This is the manner,” saith Athanasius, “of this cup, and no other, this do you lawfully give the people to drink of.”  And St. Hilary, * “If the faults be not so great, that a man may be excommunicated, he ought not to separate himself from the medicine of the body and blood of the Lord.” * “Not,” saith St. Chrysostom, “as it was in the Old Testament, the priest ate some things and the people another, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things which the priest partaked of; it is not so now, but one body and one cup is now propounded to all.”  Yea, Gelasius saith, * “The division of one and the same mystery cannot happen without great sacrilege.”  To pass by others, as * Leo Romanus and * Gregorius Turonensis, both of which lived about this time, and gave testimony to this truth, Remigius saith, * “The cup itself is also called the communion, as if he should have said the partaking; because all communicate or partake of it, and receive their part in the blood of Christ.”

      To these we may add the next three hundred years too. Gregory the Great saith, * “His body in the sacrament is taken; his flesh is divided for the people’s salvation; his blood is poured not into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of believers.”  And Gregory the Second, * “The high priests, when any one hath sinned and made confession, when they have chastised and afflicted him enough with hunger, they give him the precious body of the Lord, and make him drink of his holy blood.”  Yea, and Gregory the Third too saith, * “But to lepers, if they be believing Christians, let the participation of the body and blood of the Lord be granted.”  And Haymo Halberstatensis saith, * “In the church believers every day eat his body and drink his blood.”

      And this was the doctrine also of the church of Christ from the nine hundredth year of his incarnation to the time of the schoolmen, as we may see in * Bernard, * Fulbertus Carnoteasis, * Theophylact, and b others, that lived within that time.  But let these speak for the rest Anselme; * “Whosoever, whether rich or mean or poor, whether clerk or layman, that shall eat this bread of the Lord and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”  And Micrologus saith, * “That Gelasius writing to certain bishops, commanded him to be excommunicated, whosoever having received the body of Christ should abstain from partaking of the cup.”  And in Hugo de S. Victore, * “The Lord’s supper is received in both kinds, to signify that the effect of this sacrament is double.”

      And though the schoolmen were the first that (as I can find) moved the question, whether it was lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood yet even amongst them several, if not most, holding with us, that both kinds ought to be administered, as * Lombard, Bandinus, * Alexander Alensis, and * others.  And amongst the rest, Albertus Magnus saith expressly, * “Because the use of the faithful and the unity of the mystical body is not perfectly signified and caused, but only under a double sign; therefore in the virtue of the sacrament both ought to be had.”  And thus we see, how from our Saviour’s time, for thirteen or fourteen hundred years together, the cup was administered as well as the bread to all and therefore, we may well conclude, it ought to be denied to none.

Article  XXXI

Of the One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross.

      The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

      What we from the scripture call the Lord’s supper the Papists from tradition think good to call the Mass or Missa, though they cannot agree about the etymology of the words,* some deducing it from the Greek, * others from the Hebrew, but * others, and that more properly, from the Latin tongue.  But howsoever they disagree in the word, they still agree in the thing, avouching that in this mass they offer up a * true and perfect sacrifice to God, * propitiatory for the sins of the people, even as Christ did when he offered up himself to God as a propitiation for our sins.  This, I say, is that which the church of Rome confidently affirms, and which our church in this article doth as confidently deny.  And that,

      First, because it is contrary to the scriptures; for the scriptures plainly hold forth Christ only as offering up himself, and that once for all; for this he did once, when he offered up himself, Heb. 7:27, 9:28.  Whereas in the sacrifice of the mass they make as if the priest sacrificed Christ too, and that as often as himself sees good.  The scriptures say that by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10:14; but according to this doctrine they are so far from being perfected by one offering, that they still need from day to day to have fresh offerings made for them.

      Nay, and the scriptures say expressly that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, Heb. 9:22; but according to this doctrine there is remission of sins without shedding of blood, themselves acknowledging there is no shedding of blood in this sacrifice, and yet averring sins are pardoned by it.

      And as this doctrine is contrary to scripture, so is it repugnant to reason too, there being so vast a difference betwixt a sacrament and a sacrifice for in a sacrament God offereth something to man, but in a sacrifice man offers something to God.  * What is offered in a sacrifice is wholly or in part destroyed, but what is offered in a sacrament still remaineth.  And there being so great a difference betwixt the one and the other, if it be a sacrament it is not a sacrifice, and if it be a sacrifice it is not a sacrament, it being impossible it should be both a sacrament and a sacrifice too.  To which we might also add, that, according to this opinion, Christ offered up himself before he offered up himself; I mean he offered up himself in the sacrament before he offered up himself on the cross; which offering up himself in the sacrament was either a perfect or an imperfect sacrifice or oblation.  To say that Christ should offer up an imperfect sacrifice to God is the next door to blasphemy; but yet a perfect one that sacrifice could not be, for then it need not have been repeated again upon the cross.  But I need not heap up more arguments to pluck down that fabric, the foundation whereof is already destroyed.  It is transubstantiation that is the ground of this fond opinion, therefore do they say the body of Christ is really offered up to God, because the bread is first really turned into the body of Christ; but now it being proved before that the bread is bread still after, as well as before consecration, and not the very body of Christ, though the bread be consecrated by man, the very body of Christ cannot be offered to God in the sacrament; and therefore, if they will still call it a sacrifice, they must acknowledge it is such a sacrifice wherein there is nothing but bread and wine offered to God, and by consequence no propitiatory sacrifice; for, as we have, seen, without shedding of blood there is no remission, and in the breaking and pouring forth of bread and wine there is no shedding of blood, and not, therefore, any remission of sin.

      But neither is this doctrine contrary to scripture and reason only, but to the Fathers also.  Origen saith, * “Christ offered one only, and a perfect sacrifice, for which all these sacrifices went before in types and figures; the flesh of which sacrifice if any one touch he is presently sanctified, if he be unclean he is cleansed, if diseased he is cured.”  And if Christ offered but one, and that a perfect sacrifice, what need we any of the missatical sacrifices?  And St. Chrysostom speaks plain: * “This therefore intimates to us the greatness of the sacrifice here spoken of, which being but one, and but once offered, was sufficient or able to do that which all the other could not”: so that the sacrifice of Christ was but once offered, either by himself or any one else.

      To this purpose makes that of Eusebius Emissenus: * “Because he was about to take his body from our eyes, and carry it up to heaven, it was needful that in the day of the supper he should consecrate for us the sacrament of his body and blood; that that might be continually worshipped by the mystery which was once offered for a price.”  And St. Augustine * “Christ died once, the just for the unjust; death hath no more power over him; but lest you should forget what was once done, it is brought into our minds every year, as oft as the passover is celebrated.  And is Christ slain so oft?  No, but the anniversary commemoration of it representeth what was long ago done, and makes us to be moved so as if we saw the Lord present upon the cross.”  So that in the sacrament there is not any offering made by the priest, but only Christ’s offering up himself once to God is here still represented and signified to us.  And the same Father elsewhere: * “Wherefore Christians do still celebrate the memory of that sacrifice then made in the holy offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ.”  And St. Ambrose: * “The sacrifice effectual for our eternal salvation was once offered in Christ.”  And presently, * “What we do is done in commemoration of that which was then done, for, Do this, saith he, in remembrance of me.”  And therefore saith Lombard also, * “That that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice or oblation, because it is the remembrance or representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.”  And by this we may see in what sense the ancients called the eucharist a sacrifice; not as if it was a true or proper sacrifice itself, but only the commemoration or representation of that one and only true and proper sacrifice offered up by Christ himself: and so all the sacrifices of mass are at the best but dangerous deceits.

Article  XXXII

Of the Marriage of Priests.

      Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

      When God had made man, he was pleased to make woman of him; and having made this woman of him, he joins her again unto him: he had no sooner made one but divides him into two; and he had no sooner divided him into two but he unites them into one again, making them man and wife, and so one flesh.  And God having thus ordained marriage in the estate of innocency for the mutual society and comfort that one ought to have in the other, for the propagating their posterity, and so the peopling of the world, it seemed to be written in the law of nature, as well as instituted by the law of God; and therefore it was that in all ages, since the creation of the world, all sorts and degrees of men, of what nation and condition soever, have still been permitted by God, and desirous themselves, to enter this holy estate of matrimony; so that before and under the law, the priests, as well as the people, yea, the high priest himself, had this privilege expressly granted to him.  And if we cast our eyes upon the gospel, we shall there find expressly delivered what is here in this article so plainly asserted, even that it is lawful for bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as for other men, to marry at their own discretion.  For St. Paul saith expressly, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, 1 Tim. 3:2.  So that a bishop may be blameless and yet married, blameless and yet the husband of one wife; * though to have more than one wife at one and the same time, as some of the Jews had, is here forbidden.  But seeing to have more wives than one is here forbidden, to have one wife is plainly permitted.  And again; For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I have appointed thee.  If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, &c. Tit. 1:5, 6.  So that here too a man, yea, one that is ordained, may be blameless, yet the husband of one wife; blameless, and yet have children; whence * both St. Chrysostom and OEcumenius observe, that the apostle here stops the mouths of those heretics that condemn marriage, shewing that it is not an unholy thing, but so honourable that a man with it may ascend the holy throne of episcopacy.  And so concerning deacons the apostle saith, Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well, 1 Tim. 3:12.  And if they may be the husbands of one wife, it must needs be lawful for them to marry at their own discretion.  To this purpose also makes that of the same apostle, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, 1 Cor. 7:2.  Now if every man may have his own wife, why not bishops, priests, and deacons, as well as others?  Especially considering that marriage is honourable in all, Heb 13:4; and if in all, then in ministers as well as others.  Certainly the apostles themselves thought it honourable in themselves as well as others, otherwise themselves would not have been married men.  St. Ambrose saith, * “All the apostles are said to have had wives, except St. John and St. Paul.”  But Ignatius, that * “Peter and Paul and other of the apostles were married.”  St. Basil, * “Peter and the other apostles.”  Clemens Alexandrines saith, * “Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip gave his daughters to men in marriage; but Paul doth not stick in one epistle to make mention of his wife.”

      And as the apostles were most of them married men themselves, so do they decree, (supposing the canons attributed commonly to them to be really theirs, which of all the people in the world the papists, who are the sole oppugners of this truth, will not deny, I say, supposing this, the apostles themselves decreed,) saying, * “Let not a bishop, priest, or deacon put away his wife under the pretence of religion; and if any one do put her away, let him be excommunicated, and if he persevere, deposed.”  Upon which canon Zonaras saith, * “That if any one that is consecrated or ordained under pre-. tense of religion shall put away his wife, let him be excommunicated; but if he continues not taking her again, let him be deposed also; for that seems to reproach or condemn marriage, as if copulation brought uncleanness, whereas the scripture calls it honourable, and the bed undefiled but the canons mind us of some bishops then that had wives, for the bishops. had not then the lawful conjunction with their wives forbidden.  And Balsamon: * “Before the sixth general or Trullan council, it was lawful for bishops to have wives, even after their episcopal dignity, as the priests and deacons also that are ordained after marriage still have them.”  So that the apostles here plainly determined, that it was not only lawful for men in orders to have wives, but unlawful for them to put their wives away under pretence of religion.

      And if we consult the primitive church in this particular, we shall find it following of the apostles’ steps.  It would be endless to number up the several passages we meet with in the Fathers, and the several examples of bishops, priests, and deacons we find to be married in the primitive church, which would help to confirm this truth now; but leaving both the judgments and examples of private men, we may bring many and famous councils that long ago subscribed to this truth.  The council of Neocesarea; * “If the wife of any layman shall be manifestly convinced to have committed adultery, such a one cannot come into the ministry; or if she shall commit adultery after his ordination, he ought to put her away; but if he lives with her, he cannot perform the ministry committed to him.”  Where we may note, 1, that it is not a man’s having a wife, but a man’s wife’s committing of adultery, that should debar him from the ministry and, 2, that it is lawful for one that is ordained still to keep his wife, unless she have committed adultery, for it is only upon that account that this council decreed she should be put away.  The council at Gangra: * “If any one shall separate himself from or judge concerning a priest that is married, as if when he offers or consecrates the sacrament he ought not to partake of the offering, let him be anathema;” * which canon, as Balsamon observes, pronounces a curse against all such as do not indifferently receive of priests that have wives, viz. that do not as well receive the sacrament of them that have wives as of them that have none; plainly implying, that it is as lawful for a married as for an unmarried priest to administer the sacraments, and by consequence to be in the ministry.  The council of Anguri or Enguri: * “Whosoever, being ordained deacons, did at their ordination testify and say, they must needs marry, not being able to continue as they are; such after marrying are still to continue in the ministry, because they were permitted by the bishop;” and if a deacon may be continued in his ministry, though married, there is no reason that either bishop or priest should be cast out of the ministry because married, for the one is in holy orders as well as the other.

      The Trullan council speaks also fully to the purpose, the thirteenth canon whereof begins thus: * “Forasmuch as we know that in the church of Rome it is delivered for a canon, that those which shall be thought worthy to be ordained deacons or presbyters shall profess that they will not be joined any more to their wives; we, following the old rule of the apostolical perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages or cohabitations of consecrated men with their wives be from henceforth confirmed, not dissolving their conjunction with their wives, nor depriving them of conversing with one another.  But if any one be found worthy to be ordained a subdeacon, deacon, or priest, let such a one by no means be forbidden to ascend that degree, because he dwelleth with his lawful wife.  Neither let it be exacted of any one at the time of his ordination, that he profess that he will abstain from the lawful conversation with his own wife.”  And presently: * “If any one therefore, being stirred up against the apostolical canons, shall dare to deprive any of those in their orders, we mean priests and deacons, of their conjunction and communion with their lawful wives, let him be deposed.”

      To which we may also add that canon of the fifth council at Carthage, cited in this Canon of the Trullan council, decreeing, * That subdeacons handling the holy mysteries, and deacons, and priests, (yea, and bishops too, as it is in the Carthaginian council itself, though not mentioned in the Trullan quotation of it,) do, in their proper turns, abstain even from their consorts.  So that they were commanded to abstain from their wives when their course came to minister, as both * Balsamon and * Zonaras explain the canon, but not to be cast from their ministry because they had wives.

      To these we may add that of the council at Angiers, * “Let none but such men as are the husbands of one wife only, and are joined to virgins, be ordained deacons or priests.”  Such as had. more wives than one, according to the apostle’s rule, might not be ordained, but such as are the husbands of one may.  And the first council at Toledo, * “It pleaseth us that deacons, if they be sound and chaste, and of a continent life, may be placed in the ministry, although they have wives.”  So that their marriage was no hindrance to their ministerial function.

      But the most remarkable passage is that of Paphnutius in the council of Nice, recorded by * Socrates, * Sozomen, * Gelasius Cyzicenus, * Nicephorus, and others.  The relation which Socrates gives of it is this; * “And let so much,” saith he, “suffice to be spoken concerning that one thing of Paphnutius.  But now I will declare what came to pass, by the means of his counsel, to the benefit of the church and the ornament of those that are ordained.  It seemed good to the bishops (in the council of Nice) to bring a new law into the church, that those that are consecrated, I mean bishops, priests, and deacons, should not lie with their wives which they married when laymen.  And they having propounded to consult about that matter, Paphnutius, standing up in the midst of the assembly, spake aloud, that so heavy a yoke should not be laid upon consecrated persons, saying, that the bed is honourable and marriage undefiled; that they must have a care lest they injure the church by too great severity, for all cannot bear the exercise of so much freeness from passion, neither could the continency of every man’s wife be so well preserved: but the use of a man’s lawful wife he called continency or chastity but it is enough that they that come into the clergy do not marry according to the ancient tradition of the church: but that they should not be separated from those which before when laymen they had married.  And this he said, having himself never touched a wife, nor scarce a woman; for from a child he was brought up in a monastery, and for his continency was as famous as any.  The whole assembly of sacred persons assented to the words of Paphnutius, and therefore they ceased from any further inquiry into this business, leaving every one to his liberty whether he will abstain from his wife or no.  And so much concerning Paphnutius.”  So far Socrates.  From whence we may observe how this most renowned council that ever was since our Saviour’s time, assenting to Paphnutius’s words, or, as Sozomen expresseth it, * “approving of his counsel,” acknowledged that marriage was as lawful, and the bed as undefiled, and the use of their lawful wives an act of continency and chastity even in bishops, priests, and deacons, of whom he only spake, as well as in any others; from whence it must needs follow, that it is as lawful for them as any others to marry.

      And thus we see how the primitive church still acknowledged the truth of this doctrine, neither do we read it much opposed by any but the church of Rome and her complices.  The first that set himself against it was pope * Siricius, after him Innocent the First, * John the Thirteenth, Leo the Ninth, and others; but the most implacable enemy was * Gregory the Seventh or pope Hildebrand, about the year 1073; * about which time also it began to be prohibited here in England; after him * Calixtus the Second, * Alexander the Third, and others of the same rank; and as one of them succeeded another in the see of Rome, so still one excelled another in inveighing against this sacred truth, till at the length they are now come to that height as not to be ashamed to say, * “That it is a greater sin for a priest to marry, than for him to commit fornication or adultery;” as if the pope strove to make good the apostle’s saying of himself, Who opposeth and exalteth, himself above all that is called God, 2 Thess. 2:4.  God indeed hath forbidden to commit adultery, but the pope hath forbidden priests to marry, and therefore it must needs be a greater sin to marry than to commit adultery; for in that they transgress the command of the pope, whereas in this they only transgress the command of God; and what is, if this be not, to oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God? making it a greater sin to transgress his edicts, than the great God’s most sacred precepts.  But let us not wonder at the propagation of this doctrine, for it is no more than what was long ago foretold; for the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, 1 Tim. 4:1, 2, 3; so that this doctrine they stand so stiff for, it is but the doctrine of devils, which we who desire still to stand fast to the doctrine of God dare not but deny, and conclude that no one should be forbidden to marry, but that even bishops, priests, and deacons may marry at their discretion, as well as other Christian men.