Sacraments testimonies or scales of Gods promise Luther will haue that promise to be of present iustificatioâ— Caluin of eternall election And least he should 〈◊〉 to say an vntruth he cites a place out of Calâ—â—n Antidor conciliâ— Sess 6. ca. 5. as if he should there say that infants are baptized not to the end they might be receiued into adoption of the sonnes of God but that vnto them the promise of life might be sealed vnto whome before by grace of predestination it pertained And out of the 7. Session and 8. Canon as if there hee should wright that the right end and vse of sacraments is this to ascertaine vs of the eternall adoâ—tion grace whereunto before the foundation of the world we were predestinated Thus farre the Iesuite but all impudently without shame For Caluin in neither place speaketh one â—ote of eternall electioÌ„ or the grace of predestination Only in the former this he saith Insants are for this reason baptized because they are heires of the promise For vnlesse the promise of life did before pertaine vnto theÌ„ that man should prophane baptisme whosoeuer did but minister it vnto them In the latter these are his wordes Allthough baptisme be the hand-wrighting of that mutuall obligation which is betweene God vs yet the especiall vse thereof is to assure vs of free remission of our sinnes and perpetuall grace of adoption But is this to deny that sacraments are seales of the promise of preseÌ„t iustification Is this to restraine sacraments onely to thinges past as namely to the grace of electioÌ„ But this is Bellarmines trust and fidelity in citing the wordes and sentences of the Fathers and our Doctors Such are his two whole volumes of disputations namely a rude rable of false quotatioÌ„s which if the learned shall vouchsafe in courtesie to examine they shall soone see this doubtie disputant left as as dry as a kexe But to the purpose That the sacraments are seales of our eternall election although I deny not but that in the lawfull vsing and worthy receiuing of them it is most true yet remember I not that Caluin hath any where thus written nay the Vbiquitaries of our daies slander Caluin Beza as maintainers of a cleane contrary error to witt that they vtterly deny the sacraments to be seales of our election which also is altogether false But the simple naked truth of Calvines doctrine is this Sacraments profite beeing vsed a righte and doe exhibit seale and confirmâ— grace vnto the worthy receiuer not in regard eyther of the worke wrought or the deserte of the worker but in respecte of the promise of God instituting or ordaininge them as also through the faith of the worthy receiuer And here by grace he vnderstandeth euen our saluation it selfe together with all the precedent causes meanes and consequentes thereof such as are our free election remission of sinnes regeneration sanctification and life eternall So that by the name of grace he coÌ„priseth both grace past and already giuen togither with that which is preseÌ„t and to come but especially that which is there in the sacramente exhibited and present For euen our election before the world was is sealed and and assured vnto vs by the sacraments not as it is from aleternities decreed by God or as a thing done heretofore and past but as the present and constante decree of God reuealed in the Gospell concerning our saluation in Christ and by the same sacramentes everlasting life is confirmed not as a future good but as already we haue takeÌ„ possession thereof by faith For confirmation of this truth I could produce an infinite number of testimonies out of Caluin his Christian institution but it shall suffice to refute the Iesuite by the couÌ„ter-poyson of his CouÌ„sels Can 7. on the sacraments Caluin saith thus God in the sacrameÌ„ts doth promise grace not only of election but also of iustification Can. 4. Sacramentes are seales of the Gospell And can it bee denied but that the Gospell is a promise of actuall present iustification by faith Can 8. In baptisme God washeth vs by the bloode of his son by his spirite doth regenerate vs. In the sacrament of the supper he feedeth vs with the body and blood of Christ Can 7. of baptisme this is a principall part of baptisme that is assureth us of free remission of all our sins what is this els but present sustification and these may serue to coÌ„vince the Iesuit of a militious slaÌ„der coÌ„cerning the seals of our electioÌ„ that Calvâ—â— vnderstandeth them not onely of things past But who seeth not his absurd collection that if the Sacraments may goe for seales of our eternall election that then they shall not be seales of present iustification Are not election iustification subordinate and consequents one of the other so farre are they from abolishing one the other that the contrary should rather be infered they are seales of our eternall election therefore of iustification present grace For iustification is so proper naturall an affecte of election that there can be had no certainty of the latter without assurance of the former For they who are iustified in Christ are also chosen to him before the foundation of the world Whome God hath prâ—destinated these also hath he called iustified and glorified Now then let the Iesuite with open mouth exclaÌ„e on Caluins opinion as false absurde dangerous and impious And why forsooth false Because saith he Caluin contrary to that which the Scripture teacheth restrayneth Sacraments only vnto the thinge past namely to the grace of election But this cauill is already refuted And why absurde Because saith he he reacheth that by the Sacraments the promises are sealed vnto our consciences yet that infantes are lawfully baptised which noyther haue vse of reason nor conscience But we haue already sufficiently proued that neyther infantes borne in the Church of beleeuing parentes are altogether voyde of reason oâ— faith if we respecte the promised grace although actually they haue neyther the faith nor reason which is in those of riper yeares nor that baptising of Children confirmation of their faith by Sacraments is therfore to be differred because they doe not beleeue seeing of the Sacramentes there are other endes purposes whereunto they are ordained But why pernicious and dangerous Because he teacheth that the children of the faithfull are borne iust and holy and hath perswaded many that the sacraments are not necessary vnto the receiving of the grace of Christ Whence it is come to passe that many contemne the said sacraments and in the meane while the soules of many infantes never purified by the saving vvaters of baptisme abide in perpetuall corruption And is it in deed pernicious to teach that the children of the faithfull are borne holy that is not straungers but heires of the covenaÌ„t according to that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seede That
produce the opinions of Fathers and the sounder Schoole-meÌ„ who thus interpret the Scripture with vs I should lead you into a large field of discourse Notwithstanding it is not vnfitting my purpose to cite at the least some few of them for confirmation Let vs heere Cyrill thus recoÌ„ciling those words of Christ I pray not for the world with that sayinge of Iohn He is a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole worlde Iohn saith he seemeth to dissent from us Sauiour For our Sauiour heere refuseth to pray for the world but Iohn affirmeth that he is the propitiation and reconciliation not for our sinnes onely but for the sinnes of the whole worlde But the blessed Euangelist S. Iohn because he was a Iewe least the Lord should seeme to be an aduocate with his father for the Iewes onely not for other nations which as soone as they were called obeied of necessirie added for the whole world But the Lord Iesus separating you from them which are none of his saith I pray for them a loue who keepe my sayings and haue takeÌ„ my yoke For whose mediatour and high Priest he is he doth for good cause imparte vnto them alone the benefite of his mediation Hitherto Cyrill Let vs hear Prosper also in this answeare to Vicentius obiections clearly distinguishing on this manner As far forth saith he in his answere to the first obiection as you respect the greatnes and power of the price Or as you respect the our whole cause of mankinde so the bloud of Christ is the redemption of the whole world but they who passe the time of their life heere without faith and without the Sacrament of regeneration they haue no part in this redemption Wheras then in regard of the one whole cause of mankinde truely vndertaken by our Lord Iesus Christ all are well saide to be redeemed yet all are not freed from captiuitie withovt doubt the appropriation of redemption is theirs out of whome the prince of this worlde is cast dislodged and are nowe no longer â—ims of the diuell but meÌ„bers of Christ whose death was not so coÌ„municated vnto all mankind that it should effect the Redemption of these who were not to be regenerated and renewed in the spirit but so as that that which was by one example performed in behalfe of all might by the Sacrament be confirmed in some particulars For the potion of immortalitie being a confect of our infirmitie and Gods truth is of force in it selfe to profite all but if it be not drâ—nke it salueth not The same Prosper making answere to the demaÌ„ds of the FreÌ„ch-meÌ„ in plaine tearms alloweth of this phrase Christ died for the faithfull alone which these men condeÌ„ne as smelling of Turcisme his wordes are these Wheras then our sauiour is rightly said To haue beene crucified for the redeÌ„ption of the whole world in regard of the true and reall taking vnto him mans nature and in regard of the common losse wee sustained in the person of the first man Adam yet he may well be saide to be crucified only for those to whome his death was availeable For the evangelist saieth that Iesus should die for the nation and not for the nation onely but that he should also gather togeather in one the childreÌ„ of God which were scattered Thus far Prosper Gregorie saith The author of life gaue himselfe over vnto death for the life of the Elect. Innocentius 3. who liued a bont the 1200 yeere of our Lord thus writeth The bloud of Christ was shed FOR THE PREDESTINATE ALONE as touching the efficacy therof For the shedding of the righteous bloud for the vnrighteous was of so rich a price that if the whole world would beleeue in their Redeemer the snares of the Deuill should take bold of none Bernard saith Christ according to the fulnes of time indeed died for the wicked but according to Gods decree of Predestination for his brethren and friends Thomas on the 5. of the Apoc. writteh on this maÌ„ner Of the redeÌ„ptioÌ„ purchased by the passioÌ„ of Christ we may speak in a double sence signification either respecting the sufficiency therof so his passioÌ„ redeemed all because as coÌ„cerning himself he deliuered al For his passioÌ„ is sufficient to serue redeeme al yea if there were a thousand worldes as saith Anselme in his 2. booke and 14. Chapter Cur Deus homo c or els we speake therof respecting the efficacy in this sence he redeemed not all by his passion because all cleaue not fast vnto the Redeemer and therefore feele not nor perceiue the virtue of redemption The same authour againe saleth The merite of Christ as concerning the sufficiency thereof equally belongeth vnto all but not concerning the efficacy which happeneth partely by reason of free-wil partly by reason of Gods election by whome the effectes and fruites of Christs merits are mercifully bestowed on some and by the iust iudgment of God are withheld froÌ„ other some Lambard in his third book Distinct 22. ca. Christ offered himselfe vp to God the Trinity for almeÌ„ as touching the sufficieÌ„cie of the price paid but for the elect alone as touching the efficacy because he wrought salvation only for the Predestinate What should I say more where as these present proofes declare sufficiently that this interpretation of holy Scripture is not vpstart or profane but of ancient received in the Church and grounded on evident truth One only place of Peter Galatine a Monke indeed but yet a learned Divine and skilfull in the Hebrew I intend to alleadge that these clamorous punies novices in divinity may better see how that whatsoever is either vnknowne vnto them or standeth not with their monstrous inventions is not presently new-fangled heathenish Thus therefore he wel truely commenteth on these words of Esay My righteous servant shall iustifie many c. Although the passion of Christ ought to bee sufficient to wash away the sins of all men yet it washed not them all away but their sins only who shoulde beleeue in him repeÌ„t For this cause he saith And himselfe bare the sinnes of many Now omitting authorities let vs bring forth the reasons which this vpstart Pelagian progeny by their profane absurd opinion doth especiallie oppose against vs. They labour tooth and naile to prooue that Christ died for all why no man denieth it For this is the voice of Scripture They adde heerevnto that he died for all and everie particular man We deny not simply this their assertion although wee finde not where the scripture speaketh on this maÌ„ner They farther vrge that he died for all and evrâ—e particular both elect and reprobate for Cain David for Iudas and Peter for them which shall bee damned in like sorte as for them which shal be saved without all respect either of their faith or infidelitie This is a hard saying They run on still
my bodie doe signifie vnto vs not vvhere Christs body is neither what it is IN WITH or VNDER the bread but what the bread it selfe is and ought to be vnto the godly in this vse 2 The second Reason is because the body of Christ is a true instrumentall finite visible body after his ascension no longer present on the earth or every where but cōversant and remaining in heaven even vntil his last comming 3 The third Reason is because the sounder Fathers do teach that the body and bloud of Christ is in the bread wine not as in a caue orden but as in a mystery and by a mystery Chrysostome opers imperfecto Math. Homil 11. saith In holied and sanctified vessels is conteined not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of Christs body The third proposition III. The Signes and Things haue their coherence in the Lords Supper by a Sacramental vnion Now this vnion is of like quality with that vnion which is commō to the whole kinde of Sacraments otherwise it should not be a sacramentall vnion but by a title of distinction should be tearmed The vnion in the Lords Supper But in al the other Sacraments their is an vnion of Relation and respect to wit A mysticall signification of the Thinge signed by the Signe a sealing exhibiting receiving thereof after a lawful vse which is not without the faith and repentance of thē which approach vnto it to vse it The reason◠of the third proposition 1 The first is drawne from the nature of the whole kinde in this sort There is such an vnion in all Sacraments Therefore in the Supper also The Antecedent or former proposition of this argumēt is manifest out of the definition principal end of the Sacraments 2 The second is framed on this manner The bread is the body of Christ either in the truth of the thing as Augustine according to Prospers opinion speaketh or in a mysterie signifying it But it is not the body of Christ essentially 〈◊〉 the truth of the thing because there is no Transubstantiation Therefore it is the body of Christ in a mysterie so signifying 3 The third reason is because al the arguments by which the sacramentall speech in the wordes of the Supper is proved are hithervnto belonging For a sacramental vnion requireth sacramentall phrases and termes 4 The fourth is because we haue the testimonies of the Fathers that the bread is a signe figure and sacrament of the body of Christ no longer absent but present and yet present not in the outward and visible elements of bread and wine but in the worde ioyned with them present I say not to the mouth but to the heart not locally and in place but mystically and spiritually The obiection of Papists for their Transubstantiation drawne out of the words of the Supper This which Christ gaue and the Preist consecrateth is the body of Christ Therefore it is not bread The argument holdes from the rule of thinges different as if a man should say This is a man therfore it is not an Oxe Wee deny that this argument is framed as you say from the inducing of one speciall by the remouing of the contrarie of the same kinde because it is rather a faulty processe in argumentation frō the inducing of a sacramētal respect which is but an Accident to the displacing and deniall of the subiect substance such as this is if I should say This man is a Father Therefore he is not a man For so they argue This bread is the body of Christ therefore it is not bread There is therefore in this argument a Fallacie of Accident no lesse absurd the if you should thus conclude This thing is a table therefore it is not wood For although the body of Christ bee not the forme or Accident of bread◠yet the Relation and respect which the bread hath by vertue of the promise vnto the body of Christ is the forme of a Sacrament Whence it is a weake kind of reasoning to say A doue is the holy Ghost therefore it is no longer a doue Circumcision is the couenant of God therfore it is no longer Circumcision The cupp is the New Testament therfore it is no longer a cuppe The answere to all the testimonies of the Fathers which the Papists alleadge for the change of the signes is common that they are all to hee vnderstood of the Sacramentall not of an essentiall and reall mutat on which is apparant out of the consent of foundest Fathers in this point of the sacrament II. The second question Howe both the signes the heauenly things signified are exhibited or receiued in the Lords Supper This question is in controuersie betweene vs both with the Papists the Vbiquitaries because both of them are of opinion that the things being present in their signes or vnder the shewes of the signes are covertly and miraculously caried vp and downe in the hands of the ministers hādled by them and put into the mouthes of the Communicants We contrariwise teach that the thinges with their signes are both togither exhibited and receiued with their signes in the lawful vse of the Supper but in a diuers manner For the signes are handled by the Ministers and takē by the mouth of the Communicants But the things themselues are given by Christ our high Priest received by faith This point may in like sort with the former be expressed in three propositiōs two negatiue and one affirmatiue 1. The first proposition The things signified that is the bodie and bloude of Christ are neither handled nor reached out by the hand of the Ministers to be receaved corporallie in the signes The Reasons of this first proposition 1 The first reason is collected negatiuelie from the whole kinde of Sacraments thus In no Sacrament the Ministers handle or bestowe things spirituallie signified Therefore neither in the Lords Supper doe they handle the thing spiritually signified The Antecedent is proved both by an induction or instance in every Sacrament which is evident by the adversaries owne confession and also the proportion betweene the Sacrament and the worde Marc. 1. I am the voice crying c. Ioh. 1. I baptise with water he which cōmeth after me shall baptise with the holie Ghost and with fire 1. Cor. 3. 7. Neither he that watereth nor hee that planteth is anie thing but God which giveth the encrease Therefore it holdeth alike also in the Sacraments which are the visible word 2 The second reason is this The things signified are not corporally IN WITH or VNDER the signes as hath beene shewed Therefore they are not handled or distributed by the hand of the Minister 3 The third reason proceedeth thus The things signified in the Supper are spirituall which coupled with their signes are offered in the promise of grace But the promise of grace is not handled with hands c. 4 The fourth reason is the testimonies of Fathers as Chrysost
Sermone de Euch. 〈…〉 Thinke not wheÌ„ yee come to these mysteries that yee receiue the Lordes body at the hands of a maÌ„ that is to say the Minister with many other such like places II. The second proposition The things signified I meane the body and bloude of the Lord are not received WITH IN and VNDER the bread and wine by the mouth of the body Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first is because they are not bodily present with in and vnder the signes as hath beene shewed quest â— propos 2. 2 The secoÌ„d iâ— because they passe into the belly which is the receptacle appointed for bodily meates 1. Cor. 6. 13. For all which entereth in at the mouth goeth downe into the belly Mat. 13. 3. The third is because the promise wherin the things are offered is not receiued by the mouth III The third proposition The thinges signified suppose The lordes bodie and bloud are receiued spritually by faith 1 The first reason is deriued from the conditioÌ„ of the whole kinde because in SacrameÌ„ts the things signified are receiued by faith by which alone as we are iustified so we receiue all the benefites of the new Testament 2 The second is because the promise of grace is not apprehended but by faith Nowe the communion of the body and bloud of Christ is the promise of grace See Vrsin Volum 1. Pag. 103. The argument of a certeine famous Disputant framed in defence of the eatinge Christs body with our mouth Ob. To whatsoeuer instrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth to the same the eating of the other ought to appertaine But the eating of one body that is the bread in the Lordes Supper appertaineth to the mouth Therefore the eating of the other which is Christs body appertaineth to the same Ans 1 The Maior is true in such meates as are naturally conioined of containe one the other of the which sort is a a Pye Now the bread and the body of Christ are not so ioined togither In these then it is false The Maior thus he proues Whosoeuer includeth in the same worde of eating both bread and wine the body blood of Christ affirmeth also that they are both receiued vvith the same instrument But Christ includeth both bread wine his body bloud in one the same worde of eating Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the same instrumeÌ„t of eating Ans 1. The proofe of the Maior faileth because an vniuersal affirmatiue should be concluded in Barbara 2 The Maior beggeth that which is in controversie and is denyed The falsenesse thereof appeareth Iohn the third where CHRIST includeth in the same worde of birth the spirit and the flesh and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the same manner or by the same instrument 3 The Minor also is false For this worde of eating is referred to the hollyed breade not to the bodie but by way of consequence For it properly pertaineth vnto that which the Lord tooke in his handes and brake which was bread and not his body This reason is vvorthy the marking for that according to the Papistes and such as simplie mainetaine Consubstantiation the bodie of CHRIST is not there before the wordes of consecration as they call them are pronounced but beginneth to bee there in the very last instante of the pronouncing of these wordes This is my bodie But according to the Vbiquitaries which are as it were chymicall consubstantiators it is there indeede as in any other breade but it is not yet edible vntill after consecration CHRIST then commaunded not to eate that with our mouth in the breade which as yet was not in the breade or as yet was not edible Then againe he proues the Maior of his former syllogisme A word having but one signification is to be taken but in one But eating both of the breade and of the body of Christ hath but one signification viz. with the mouth It is then to bee taken in one signification of both Ans 1. Heere againe faileth the proofe of the Maior being an vniversall affirmatiue which should haue bin concluded in Barbara 2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in coÌ„troversie The third question Vnto whom these things are offered and of whâ—â— they are receiued Heereunto is there made aunswere in tvvo Propositions both being affirmatiue 1. Proposition The things signified are receiued by the faithful aloÌ„e 1 Reason Because only they that beleeue receiue the promises by faith 2 Reason Because they alone that beleeue haue the spirit of Christ from the which his life-giuing fleshe cannot be separated 3 Reason Because in them onely that beleeue Christ remaineth and they in Christ Eph. 3 17. 4 Reason Because they alone that beleeue receiue and haue life Ioh 3 6. 2. Proposition The vngodly comming without faith receiue the signes without the things themselues Looke the reasons as they are set downe in the Church pag 58â— Looke the obiections for the eating of the vngodâ—y Ibid. pag. 5â—2 A BRIEFE EXPLICATION OF the whole controversie concerning the Lordes supper betweene the Consubstantials and the true beleevers The chiefe pointes of this explication 1 What errors the Consubstantials impute vnto vs. 2 The arguments of the Consubstantials against our doctrine of the supper 3 The shifts of the Consubstantials including some of our obiections 4 Arguments against the presence and corporall eating of the body of Christ IN WITH and VNDER bread 5 The arguments wherby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refelled and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed The errors which the Consubstantials falsly impute vnto vs with their refutation Ob. IN the doctrine of of the Lordes Supper there are say the Consubstantials two extreams to be avoided for both every vertue every truth standeth betweene two extremes The one is of the Papistes the other of the Sacramentaries and on each side it seemes to be fourfould The errors of the Papistes are 1 Transsubstantiation 2 The worshippe of bread 3. The sacrifice of the masse 4. A maiming of the sacrameÌ„t Ans They set downe indeede the errors of the Papistes but they cannot refute them because their opinion agreeth more with the opinion of the Papists then ours doth For first although they teach not Transubstantiation yet they teach Consubstantiation whereof there is nothing delivered in the word of God 2 Whereas they teach the bodilie presence of Christ it must needs be that they also worship Christ in the bread whom they suppose to bee bodily present in vnder with and to the bread which is a thing no lesse idolatrous then if they worshipped the bread For wheresoever Christ is whether in a visible or invisible manner there he is to be worshipped 3 They establish the sacrifice of the Masse because as it hath bin already said whilest they are bound to worship Christ in the bread they are enforced to aske of
last Supper spake seriously Ergo he speake was figuratiuelie Ans 1. I deny the maior for els it would follow that no man speaking figuratiuely should speake seriously which is most false For God in al the sacraments though he speake figuratiuelie yet he speaketh seriouselie I haue earnestely desired saith Christ to eate this passeover with you I am the vine you are the branches Let this cup passe from me If it be thus in the greene wood what shal become of the 〈◊〉 He alleadged the 22 ps Al this though he speake figuratiuelie yet did he also speake theÌ„ seriously Ans 2. To the maior I answere that no man theÌ„ vseth resting or obscure sigures But this is a plaine figure because coÌ„mon his disciples speake this to him where wilt thou that we make ready the passeover for thee It is vsual in al sacrameÌ„ts It is forcible because it expresseth the likelihood between the signe and the thinge signified with the certainetie of their coniunction in lawfull vse Ans We may thus 〈◊〉 Because Christ spake seriously therefore he vsed a figure liuely expressing the thing Repl. Christ said his cup is the new Testament Now In testaments we vse to speâ—ke properly Christ here ordained a Sacrament Ergo c. Ans I deny the Maior retort it because wheÌ„ he would institute the Sacrament he spake figuratiuely calling his supper a testament which is to be vnderstood figuratiuely 1 Because otherwise there should be two covenants one proper the other the Lords supper 2 Because otherwise all should bee excluded from the covenaÌ„t of God which could not come to the Lords supper and al that received it should be in the covenant 2. Repl. IN MY BLOVD Therfore the reall bloud of Christ is in the supper is druÌ„ke by our mouth Auns We answere by retortioÌ„ because the new TestameÌ„t was made by the bloud of Christ that was shed vpoÌ„ the Crosse which iâ— applied vnto vs by faith not receiued through the mouth For els they should be excluded which cannot come to this Sacrament 3. Repl. There is an Emphasis in this worde Newe That which in the Olde Testament was done figuratiuely is in the Newe done really 1. Auns If they adde Christ body is eaten therfore with the boddy mouth there is more in their conclusion then is conteined in their Proposition because there was no figure in the old Testament which signified the bodily eating of Christ 2. Auns We answere againe thus by retortion The body of Christ is eaten no otherwise in the new Testament then in the Olde But in the Olde it was eaten only spiritually Therefore it is so eaten also in the Newe Repl. 3. The New testameÌ„t differeth from the Olde because in the Olde there are types and figures but in the Newe the body it selfe Heb. 9. Cor. 2. Ans 1. This difference of the Olde and New Testament That in the Olde Christ is not eaten bodily in the Newe he is no where expressed in the Scripture In these sayings of the Apostle which they cite A body signifieth that the shadowes of the Olde Testament are fulfilled by Christ because A body is there opposed to those shadowes Againe because he calleth it The body of Christ which phrase sheweth that these types are fulfiled by Christ Ans 2. Againe we answere by concession or grauÌ„t of as much as they conclude Although we haue Christ exhibited in the Newe Testament and he be borne man yet hence it therefore followeth not that his body is in the bread but only that it is in the Newe Testament Arg. 4. From the consent of the Evangelists end of Paule Matthew as Theophilact counteth wrote his 〈…〉 the 8. â—are after the ascension Marke in the 10 Luke the 15. Paule the 20. they al vse the san'â— wordes A speech often vttered in the same words is not figuratiue Such an one is that speech of the Lords Supper Therefore it is not figuratiue Ans 1. We deny the Maior because when any figure is cleere manifest Emphatical as this is it is reteined Ans 2. The EvaÌ„gelists do allso repeat the words of Christ which he spake figuratiuely That same though figuratiue is often repeated Thou shalt baptise with the holy Ghost with fire Ioh. 1. Mat. 3. Ans 3. Besides it is a fallacy from mis taking of the Cause because a speech is not therefore repeated because it is figuratiue or proper but that it may be the better rooted in the heartes Ans 4. Againe we deny the Mainor 1. Because Mathewe Marke say This is the bloud of the New Testament Luke saith This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my bloud 2. Mathewe Marke say This is my body Luke Paule adde which is deliuered for you 3. Luke saith which is deliuered for you Paule which is broken for you 4. Paule saith The bread is the communion of the body of Christ For although in this place he treateth not of purpose of the Supper yet he exhorteth thervnto Repl. 1. The meaning notwithstaÌ„ding is one the saÌ„â— Ans Wee seeke not now after the meaningâ— of the wordes but whether the wordes are the very selfe same Repl. 2. Ther is 〈◊〉 meÌ„tion at all made of any figure Where there is no mention made of any figure there is no figure Heere there is no mention made of any figure Therfore here is no figure Ans 1. We deny the Maior because that were fonde and men should seeme to boast of their skill if they should say they had vsed some excellent figure The scripture also speaketh often figuratiuely and yet it addeth not that it spake figuratiuely Auns 2. Wee deny the Maior because they make mention of a figure whilest they expounde it which is manifest by the nature of the Subiect Predicat The bodie was borne of the virgin was crucified c. Breade is made of meale Auns 3. He commaundeth that this should be done in remembrance of him therefore the bread is termed his body as a memoriall Auns 4. Mathewe Marke say This is the bloud of the New Testament Paule and Luke This is the Newe Testament in my bloud Nowe the Newe Testament is an obligation of God for the receiving into favour of such as beleeue and repent of them for the exhibiting of faith and obedience vnto him Auns 5. Paule saith that The bread is the communion of the body of Christ which is no bodily eating 1. The faithful are therby one body in Christ 2. He compares it with the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the altar in the olde TestameÌ„t which was not corporall 3. It can be attributed to the faithfull alone not to the vngodly 4 Iohn expoundeth this communion by remissioÌ„ of sinnes If we walke in the light we haue fellowshipe with him and the bloud of Iesus Christ the sonne of God cleâ—eth us from all sinne Repl. 3. Nay Paule vseth three wordes which are three demonstrations 1. COMMVNION Ans But this
CommunioÌ„ is an vnion with Christ and an enioying of all his benefites by faith To this belongeth the similitude of the Body and the Members of the Vine the Branches which hath no reference to any corporall eating This communion both was is common to all the godly from the beginning of the world to the end therof But they could not eate it bodily That wee may growe in him of whome the whole body is coupled He that cleaueth to the Lord is one spirit with him And wee are all baptised by one Spirit into one bodie But this wee knowe that wee dwell in him and he in vs in that he hath given vs of his Spirite This vnion then is that communion which is by the holy Ghost and therefore spirituall For breade caÌ„not be this communion but only by a figuratiue speech called Metonymie 2 GVILTY OF THE BODY He that is guiltie of the body of Christ eateth it They that receiue veworthily are guiltie of the body of Christ Therefore they eate it corporally For spiritually they can not for if they should so care they were not guiltie Ans I doe deny the Maior For he is guilty of the bodie of Christ who by his sins crucifieth it and despiseth the benefite of Christ Now vnto this guâ—lte there is no neede of anie bodily eating but not to receiue Christ by faith when he is offered vnto vs. So the iniurie offered vnto the Arke is said to be offered vnto the Lord. 3 Nor discerning the bodie of the Lord. They that discerne not the bodie of the Lorde eat it The guiltie discerne it not Therefore they eate it Ans We grant if the Maior be taken sacrameÌ„tally viz. of that bread which is named Christs bodie it is true if properly it is false For not to discernâ— is not to yeeld honor therevnto due to contemne him and not to receiueth thing signified So Heb. 10. ver 29 they are said to treade vnder feete the Son of God and to account the bloud of the covenant an vnholy thing which contemne him Arg. 5. Drawne from the testimonies of the Fathers and godlie antiquitie in the vncorrupt Church Ans The sayings of the Fathers are to be taken Sacrament allie or of the spirituall Communion They saie often that the bodie and bloud of our Lord is giuen vnto vs with the bread wine If theÌ„ they allowe of Corporall presence they allowe also of the Papistes Concomitancie or the separation of the blouds from the bodie 1. Augustine saith Thou receiuest that in the bread which hange on the Crosse that in the cuppe which waâ—shed from Christ his side Ans In the bread as in a signe that is togither with the Signe thou receivest the thing signified WheÌ„ we receiue the bread we are sure that we haue Christ 2 Cyrillon Iohn saith By a naturall participatioÌ„ 〈…〉 spiritually but also corporally not only according to the spirite but also according to the flesh corporally and essentiallie Auns Cyrill speaketh not of the manner of eating but of the thing eaten he sheweth that we are made partakers not only of the spirit but also of the humane nature of Christ Now he meaneth the spirituall communion 1 Vpon it he citeth the places of Ioh 6. 54. 1. Cor. 6. 15. where there is no mention made of any corporall eating 2 He speaketh of the presence of Christ not in the bread but in vs. 3 He proveth this abiding of Christ by the vse of the supper not by the corporall eating of it 4 He so describeth it as that he faith it shall endure in the life eternall 5 He speaketh of that CoÌ„munion which is proper to the Saints now that is spirituall For else it should also happen to the wicked III. The Shiftes of thâ— Consubstantials in eluding some not al for there are more obiected against thâ—â—â— of â—ur obiections 1 We doe not meane say they a naturall and 〈◊〉 eating Ans We obiect not this against them but only we aske whether Christ be eateÌ„ bodilie either after a grosse or subâ—â—e manner How so ever they answere there is too much idolatrie in their opinion For Christ refuting the Capernaites distinguisheth not the eating of himselfe into a grosse subtile manner but he simply saith that his body cannot be taken with a bodily mouth For hee saith that he shall ascend and that the words which he speaketh are spirit and life Ob. 2. We mainetaine not the vbiquitie For thereof is not one word mentioned Ans Here is to be noted the disagreement of ouâ— adversaries about Vbiquitie Neither is there one word mentioned to this purpose that the body of Christ is at once in many places For it is a properly belonging only to his divine nature to be 〈◊〉 once in many places Moreouer vpon this opinioÌ„ of theirs followeth the Vbiquitie for hee which at once is all in divers places must needs be infinite therefore necessarilie everie where Ob 3. We doe not destroy the article of Christs ascension Aunsw But they stumble at it For whilest they avouch that as often as the Lordes Supper is celebrated CHRIST is eaten corporally they must needes say that hee remayneth invisibly vpon earth whereas indeede hee is saide to haue left the worlde to haue ascended from an inferior to a superiour place there to remaine in heaven vntill he come to iudgment or that he descendeth from heauen as often as the Lordes supper is celebrated This is allready refuted How then is he in the breade Obiect 4. Wee take not awaie the doctrine of the proprieties of his humane nature Ans Yes quite awaie For they will haue his humane nature to be such as is neither seene felt nor circumscribed Repl. But Christ layde a side these infirmities and reserued his naturall proprieties Ans Nay these are his naturall proprieties which being taken awaie the truth of his humane nature is also taken awaye Augustine take away the space dimension of bodies and they wil be no where Obiect 5. We do not abolish the doctrine of communicating proprieties Aunsw Yes they doe For they applie the properties of the divine nature which are attributed to the whole person in coÌ„crete vnto both natures I will be with you vnto the end of the worlde this they take as spokeÌ„ of both natures Which is as much as if saying Christ was circuÌ„cised I should thus vnderstand it Christ was circumcised both in his godhead and also in the flesh Repli This onelie wee adde that those articles concerne not this place Ans By this reason all sectes might shift of all testimonies of scripture But by their leaue they concerne this place for two reasons 1 Because They are wrighten of the body of Christ But the body of Christ concerneth the Lordes supper Ergo these articles also concerne this place For they teach vs how Christes body is to be eaten 2. Because no one article of faith is contrarie to an other but everie one is
is called the Lords supper not because it must needs be solemnised onlie in the evening or at supper time but because it was instituted by Christ in the last supper that he made with his disciples before his death The Lords table it is called because therin the Lord feedeth vs. The sacrameÌ„t of the bodie and bloud of Christ because therein are these thingâ— communicated vnto vs. The Eucharist because therein are solemne thanks giuen vnto Christ for his death and benefits towardes vs. Synaxis or assembâ—â— because it must be celebrated in assemblies and meetings of the church It is also amongst ancient wrighters named a sacrifice because it is a representation of that propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ perfourmed on the crosse with an Eucharisticall sacrifice or sacrifice of thaÌ„ksgiuing therefore 2 The Lords supper is a sacrament of the newe testament wherein by commandement of Christ the bread and wine is in companie of the faithful distributed and receiued in remebrance of Christ that is that Christ maie witnesse vnto vs that hee feedeth vs vnto eternâ—ll life with his bodie and bloud giuen and shed for vs and we render vnto him solemne thankes for these benefits 3 The first principal end vse of the Lords supper is that Christ may thereby witnesse vnto vs that he died for vs and with his body and bloude feedeth vs vnto eternal life that by this witnessing he may cherish and increase in vs our faith by consequent this spiritual feeding The second is a thanks-giving for these benefit of Christ with a publique solemne profession of them and our duty towards Christ The thirde is a distinction of the Church from other sectes The fourth that it may be a bond of mutuall charitie amongst Christians seeing they are all made members of one bodie The fite that it may bee a bonde and occasion of frequent assemblies of the church seeing Christ would haue one bread and one cup to be distributed amongst many 4 Hence hath the Lordes supper that first vse which is a confirmation of our faith in CHRIST because CHRIST himselfe by the hand of his Ministers reacheth dealeth vnto vs this bread and cuppe in remembraunce of himselfe that is that by this token and signe as by a visible word hee may admonish vs that he died for vs and that he is vnto vs the meate of eternal life whilest hee maketh vs his members and because he annexeth a promise vnto this rite that he will feede with his owne bodie and bloud such as eate this bread in remembraÌ„ce of him when he said This is my bodie and because the holy Ghost by this visible testimony moueth our minds and harts with more certainety to beleeue the promise of the gospell 5 There is then in the Lords supper a twofold kinde of food and drinke one externall visible and earthly namely the bread and wine the other internall invisible heavenly namely the body and bloud of Christ there is also a twofolde eating and receiving the one externall visible and signifying which is the corporall receiving of bread wine that is such a receiving as is perfourmed by the handes mouth and corporall senses the other internall invisible and signified which is the fruition of the death of Christ and a spirituall engraffing vs into the bodie of Christ that is such an eating as is not performed with the hands and mouth of the bodie but by spirit and faith Lastly there is a twofold minister of this foode and cup one externall of the externall foode and cup which is the minister of the church deliuering to vs with his hand the bread wine the other an internal minister of the internal food and cup which is Christ himselfe feeding vs with his owne body and bloud 6 The signes and elements serving for coÌ„firmatioÌ„ of our faith are not the body bloud of Christ but the bread and wine for the body bloud of Christ are receiued that we may liue for euer but the bread and wine are receiued that we may bee confirmed in the certaintie of that celestiall food and more and more enioy it 7 Neither is the bread changed into the body and the wine into the bloud of Christ neither are the bread and wine abolished that so the bodie bloud of Christ may succeede in their places neither is the very body of Christ substantially present in the bread or vnder the bread or where the bread is but in the lawfull vse of the LORDS supper the holy Ghost vseth this signe and Sacrament as an instrumente to stirre vppe faith in vs whereby he dwelleth in vs more and more and ingraffeth vs into Christ making vs become iust for him and by him to gaine everlasting life 8 But when Christ saith This that is this bread is my bodie and this cup is my bloud it is a sacramental or metonymicall kinde of speech whereby is attributed to the signe the name of the thing signified that is we are taught that the bread is the Sacrament or signe of Christs bodie that is doth represent and witnesse that Christs body was offered for vs on the crosse and giuen to vs for foode of eternal life and is therefore an instrument of the holy Ghost to continue increase this foode in vs as Paule saith The bread is the communion of Christs body that is that thing whereby we are made partakers of Christs body and else where We haue al drâ—nke of one drinke into one spirit The same is meant wheÌ„ it is said that the bread is called the body of Christ by similitude which is betweene the thing signified and the signe namely because the body of Christ nourisheth our spirituall life as the bread the corporall life and because of the sure connexion of receiving the thing and the signe in the lawfull vse of a sacrament And this is that sacramentall vnion of the bread the body of Christ which is expressed by the sacramentall speech not that local coniunction which by some is devised 9 As therefore there is one body of Christ properly so called and an other sacramental which is the bread in the Eucharist or Lordes supper so also the feeding on Christs body is of two sortes the first sacramentall which is an external corporal receiving of the signe namely the bread wine the second real or spirituall which is the receiving of the body of Christ and it is to beleeue in Christ and by faith dwelling in vs by his spirit to be engraffed into his body as members ioyned to the head and branches to the vine so to be made partakers of the life death of Christ Wherby it appeareth that they which teach thus are falsely accused as if in the Lords supper they did admit nothing besides the bare and naked signes or participation of the death of Christ or his benefits or the holy Ghost alone excluding
the true reall and spirituall communion of the bodie it selfe of Christ 10 The lawfull vse of the Lords supper is when the faithfull obserue this rite instituted by Christ in remēbrance of him that is to stir vp their faith and thankefulnesse 11 As in this vse the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally and really so without this vse as by infidels and hypocrites it is indeede eaten Sacramentallie but not reallie that is the sacramental signes as bread and wine are indeede receaued but not the things themselues signified by the signes namely the bodie and bloud of Christ 12. The doctrine of the Lords supper is grounded vpon manie those very forcible argumēts All places of scripture which mention the Lords supper do cōfirme it And Christ doth not cal any invisible thinge in the bread his bodie giuen or brokē for vs but that verie visible bread which he brake which because properlie it could not be so meant himselfe addeth an exposition that hee woulde haue that bread receaued in remēbrance of him which is as much as if hee had saide that this bread was a sacrament of his bodie Also he saith that the supper is the new testament which is spiritual one and eternall And Paule saith that it is a communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ because all the faithfull are one bodie in Christ which can haue no fellowshippe with the divell Also he maketh the same engraffinge into Christes bodie by one spirit in baptisme and the holy supper The whole doctrine and nature of sacraments doth confirme it which represent vnto our eies the same spiritual cōmunion of Christ to be receaued by faith which the worde or promise of the Gospell declareth to our eares and therfore they are called by the nāes of the things signified and haue not except in the lawful vse the receauing of the verie thinge annexed vnto them The articles of our faith cofirme it which teach that Christes body is true humane not present in manie places at once and that now it is receaued vp into heauen and shall there remaine vntill the Lord returne to iudgment that the cōmunion of the godlie with Christ is wrought by the holie Ghost not by enterance of Christs body into the bodies of men therefore al the purer antiquitie of the church with verie great and open consent professed the same doctrine 13 The Lords supper differeth from baptisme 1 In rite and manner of signifying because the washing signifieth remission and clensing of our sins by the bloud and spirit of Christ and societie of the afflictions and glorification of Christ But the distribution of breade and wine signifieth the death of Christ imputed vnto vs for remission of sinnes and that wee beeing nowe ingraffed into Christ are become his members 2 In special vse because baptisme is a testimony of our regeneration or covenant betweene God and vs and of our admission or being receiued into the church but the Lords supper witnesseth that we are perpetually to be nourished by Christ abiding in vs and that the covenant which we haue once made with God shall ever endure steadfast and that we shall for ever abide in the church and bodie of Christ 3 By the persons to vvhom they must bee ministred Baptisme is due to all which are to be accounted for members of the church vvhether aged or infantes the Lords supper to them onely which can vnderstande and celebrate the benefites of Christ and examine themselues 4 In often vse Baptisme must only once be received because the covenant of God once begun is ever firme and steadfast to them that repent But the Lords supper must be often receiued because the renuing of that league and often remēbrance thereof is necessary for the strengthning of our faith 5 In the order of vsing because baptisme must be ministred before the Lordes supper never but after baptisme 14 They come worthily to the Lords table which examine themselues that is which are endued with true faith and repentance Which who so do not finde in themselues they must neither presume to approach without them least they eate and drinke iudgement to themselues nor deferre repentaunce whereby they may approach least they pull vpon themselues hardnesse of hart and eternall punishments 15 The church ought to admit to the Lords supper all that professe that they embrace the foūdation of Christian doctrine purpose to obey it and to prohibit all such as being admonished by the church and convicted of their errors will not for all that desist from their errors blasphemies or manifest sinnes against conscience 16 The Pope hath done wickedly in taking the breaking of bread from amongst the rites of the the Lords supper as also in barring the people the vse of the cup. He hath also done wickedly in adding so many ceremonies never commanded by the Apostles Hee hath fowly transformed the Lords supper into a theatricall masse that is into a foolish imitation of Iudaical traditions stage-like gestures But most impious idolatrous are those devises to perswade that the masse is a propitiatorie sacrifice wherein by the Masse-Priests Christ himselfe is offered vp to his father for the quicke and dead and by vertue of consecration is substantially present and so abideth as long as the bread and wine remaine vncorrupt and bestoweth the grace of God and other benefits on them for whom he is offered and by whom he is eaten with the bodily mouth without any good motion of their owne and also that he is to be adored worshipped as he is included and borne about vnder those two kindes namely bread and wine For these damnable and abominable idols it is very necessary that the masse bee banished from the Christian church A FVNERALL ORATION OF D. FRANCES JVNIVS Professor of Divinity in the famous Schoole of Neustade vpon the death of D. ZACHARY VRSINE a most worthy man and vigilant Doctor and Professor of Divinity in the saide Schoole of Neustade WE haue lately lost noble and worthy auditors the most faithfull servaunt of God Zacharie Vrsine a reverende vvitnesse of our Lorde Iesus Christ a right vertuous man my sweete fellow-professor and one most beneficiall to Gods church of this man are we deprived and this our orphan-schoole left destitute of her parent The greatnesse of which losse if I woulde amplifie I shoulde but giue occasion of more heavinesse to your mindes that are already in this case too tenderly affected and faile exceedingly of that excellency of discourse which in so excellent a subiect may iustly be expected For though faine I would and could hartily wish that I might speak much to this purpose yet I neither thinke it fit considering I should but minister fuell to the fire of your affection nor accompt my selfe able as well for divers defects which I feele in my selfe of wit learning exercise continuance of conversing with that man of happy memorie whereby I am
dissemble or take away the confirmation of faith But here masking wholy vnder a vizard of the Anabaptistes Infants saith he who while they are in baptizing crye struggle either vnderstand what is doing or not yf they doe not vnderstand neyther doe they beleeue and are in vaine baptized then the Anabaptistes preuaile yf they vnderstand then are they willfull sinners sacrilegious then againe the Anabaptistes preuaile Indeed the stage-man playeth his part cunningely But what if with an armed dilemma as he termeth it I should lykewise say The Iesuite that writt this is eyther a good man or a cauiller If a good man he should not so haue tyed then wee haue the better if a cauiller he should not be beleeued then againe we haue the better Is not this the like reason Either horne and part of the Iesuites dilemma is deceiptfull and in the former there is a double fallacy First froÌ„ that which is but partely true he concludeth as if it were simply and wholy true as where he reasoneth thus Infants do not vnderstand ergo they do not beleue it is true of the actes and vse not of the possibilitie of beleefe I meane that possibilitie not which wee haue by nature but by grace of that promise I will be thy God the God of thy seede Secondly he disputeth from that which is no cause as if it were a true cause thus Infants do not actually beleeue ergo they ought not to be baptized For the cause of baptizing of infants is not the actuall vnderstandinge or beleefe of infants but the promise pertaining vnto them as being children of the couenant Church as Peter wittnesseth Let every one be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ c. because to you and to your children is the promise made In the latter part of his argument is the same sophisme Infantes when they are to be baptized cry struggle often vse mishapen distorted motions But why is it because they striue against the sacred action of baptisme no but because some other thinge grieueth them as that they endure some passion paynefull to their tender infancye But what thinkes the Iesuit of those Infants which were vnder bloudy circumcision what thinkes he of Abraham an oldeman of the males of his familye of the Sichemites was there thinkes he no struggling no mishapen or distorted motion Or why should he rather terme infants sacrilegious then he doth his Vestal Nannes who in tune of their confession penance and communicating so lessoned by the Eâ—â—ers do often let fall many à tender teare who in sacred actions vse more misshapen motions then the Preist at Masse nay did the Iesuit himselfe never weep for devotion in saying Masse and so proue himselfe sacrilegious Bellarmineâ— so great a Doctor me thinke should be a shamed of so childish trifles Here what Austin sayth of this matter Wheras infants striue as much as they can by cryes shrinkings it is not imputed vnto them all their resistance is accounted nothing c. because they know so little what they doe that they are not thought to do it the like vnto this we may read in his 23 Epistle in his 4. booke 25. Chapter of Baptisme against the Donatistes In the end he dismisseth Luther with this fruÌ„p I pray 〈◊〉 what Gospell Apostle or Prophet did he euer read that Sacraments of the new Testament were seals of the worde of God was it belike in the Gospell of Saint Luther But where as he sayth were seales of the worde of God for were seales of the promise of grace it is but a cunning peece of forgery thereby to make vs seeme to repose all the authority of Gods worde on the Sacraments which we before haue refuted Thus he presumes to pul a dead lyon by the beard whose very lookes were he liuing he durst not abide But I pray Sir tell vs first in what Gospell you read that Sacraments are not seales of the promise of Grace nor confirme our faith but that they bestowe grace that they iustifie sanctifie if they be of the old testament by vertue of the very actioÌ„ of the receiuer if of the new by the worke done eveÌ„ without faith or any good inteÌ„t or motioÌ„ of the receiuers wheras contrary-wise the scripture speaketh playnly that Circumcision profittethâ— them that keepe the lawe but to the transgressors thereof it is vncircumcision Those which beleeue and are baptized shall be saued Wee must examine our selues 〈◊〉 so eate of this holy bread In what gospell I saye reade you this Belyke in som Layolan or GregorioÌ„ Calendar Now one the other side hearken where Luther hath reade that sacrameÌ„ts are seals of the promise of grace God sayth of circumcision That it may be a signe of the couenant betweene me and you But Paule interpreteth this couenant to be grace the righteousnesse of fayth Of the Passeover That bloud shall be vnto you for for a signe vpon those houses where yee are that seing that bloud I may passe over you But this Passeover did signifye the grace of Christ Of Baptisme Baptize all nations in the name that is in the authority commaundemâ—nt steede of the father the sonne the holy Ghost And Arise wash away thy sinnes And Baptisme is the washing of new birth Baptisme saueth vs. not that wherewith wee wash away the filth of 〈◊〉 but that whereby with a good conscience we make request vnto God Of the Lords Supper This cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood Also Doe this in remembrance of me This if you vnderstand you haue the thinge you sought for namely where in scripture Sacraments of both lawes are said to be seales of grace For why as you vse to say should sacraments of the new testameÌ„t be of worse conditioÌ„ theÌ„ those of the old if you do not vnderstand you are not worthy to be called a maister in Israel which know not that naturally it belongeth vnto all sacraments to signifie seale vnto the faithfull some promise of grace Listen farther vnto the Fathers of the Church as Basil who confesseth plainly what you deny impudeÌ„tly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is For baptisme is the seale of saith And Tertullian speaking of baptisme in this sort This washing is a seale of our faith And Austen who termeth the sacraments certaine visible seales of heauenly thinges Do you not now blush at your owne question Where red Luther this So dismissing Luther he settes vpon Zwinglius taking vpon him to lash for sooth scourge his opinion That Sacramentes are signes of engadging our selues vnto God But we haue already proved that here the Stage-maÌ„ doth but play the caviller At the length rouzing himselfe more terribly against Caluin Betweene Luther saith he Caluin this is the difference that whereas hath â—ake the
Trinity eternal Deity of the Son holy Ghostâ— or as though he wrested the Christians weapons out of their hands or by manifest consent were an opeÌ„ abetter of the Arrinish glosies No no would to God rather you Vbiquitaries did not so oâ— would at least cease to spread the infection of your Arrian leprosie throughout the church He indeede made choise of some argument before others not vnadvisedly or to such purpose as you slaunderously imagine but as himselfe often profesieth because he did wish we would bring nothing but what were sound and substantiall And good reason for he found by experience in his conflictes with Servetus Gentâ—â—is the like monsters which were arguments of strength and perspicuity and which were not which did powerfully presse the adversary and which did not And therefore he saw well that he was to coÌ„bate not with number but waight of arguments by his example taught others how to encounter heretâ—ques who are now growen far more subtile slippery then heretofore was either Samosateâ—â—â— himselfe or Arrius or any other of their principal patriarchs For now the adversary which by these his instruments impugneth the glory of Christ is growen old and wily There are now to vse the words of Cipâ—ian almost sixe thousand yeares accomplished since first the Divel beganne thus to war against God He hath by this tâ—â— even by practise of antiquity throughly instructed heretiques in all sleightes of attempting all trâ—â—kes devises of vndermining Lastly seeing the spirites of the Prophets are subiect to the prophets this worthy excellent servant of God did only by wrighting advise not prescribe vnto the church any interpretations or opinions of his own Cease therefore ingratefull exclaimers to forâ—e out against him the pestilent poison of slaundering tongues in your pulpits which without him many of you were scarsely able to mainetaine with credit But to let these passe I come now to the secoÌ„d sore of wrightings which is both heretical and intollerable for monstrous paradoxes therin maintained plaine principles of divinity dâ—faced opeÌ„ testimonies of scripture perversely corrupted heresies long since condemned lately restored and imposed vpon the simple vulgar for verities EvaÌ„gelicall In which kinde the most bitter Aâ—chilochian disputant Huberâ—us an impudeÌ„t back iuding Apostata doth now Lord it whom hatred against the truth truely knowen but want only denied wilfully impugned doth euerie day more then other so swiftelie sweepe away with a continuall current of barking and back-biting that meÌ„ may iustly suspect him for a fearfull example of one giuen over by God into a reprobate sence God of his mercie gâ—aunt him a better minde if he be not past cure or at least so bridle his furie that he cary not others with him headlong to destruction He as an impe of Pelagius mouthy sectary of Eâ—icurâ—us filleth all Germanie with horible exclamations that all men without exception as well faithfull as Infideli alreadie dawned as hereafter to be condemned reprobate as others suppose doggs hogs as Christ his sheepe Nero Heliogabalus as Dauid Iosaphat Iudas as Peter are by the death of Christ reconciled vnto God sanctified iustified their sius pardoned theÌ„selues receiued into the bosome sauor of God in a word saued applaud your patroÌ„ procter ò you dogs hogs which hath opened so wide a gate vnto Atheâ—sme no maÌ„ daÌ„ned for sin but only for vnbeleife that in God there is no eternal decree of electioÌ„ reprobatioÌ„ that God hath not defined a certaine â—uÌ„ber of them which shal be saued that al meÌ„ euer since the fal of Adam are elect in Christ that Election grace and forgiuenes of sins is generall and coÌ„mon vnto all and that with God there is no speciall Election but this speciall Election is only in respect of men as every man privately applyeth to himselfe that grace which is coÌ„mon vnto al that God knew from everlasting who woulde embrace his grace offered and who againe would make shipwracke thereof that to Elect is nothing else but to invite and win mankinde vnto himselfe that many of the Elect do perish that the certeinty of Gods giftes and graces whereof wee boast out of Rom. 11. 29. where they are said to be without repentance is a vaine brag that our ElectioÌ„ in Christ is founded on a supposition and condition If wee beleeue that it relyeth wholy on our faith that faith is not given vs indeed without the grace of God howbeit the meanes by which it is giuen vs are in our own power that the vnregenerate haue an arbitrary ability to run assone as God calleth them by his worde that they can of them selues perceiue and vnderstand the Lordes voice when he crieth vnto them that the cause why of many who vse the same meanes some beleeue and persevere 〈◊〉 her some beleeue not or beleeving persevere not is the right or not right vse of the meanes that this vse is in our owne power that the 9. Chapter to the Romanes treateth not of Predestination to life or death that this doctrine of pedestination maketh God a lying God a cruel God a God reioycing in euill and an vniust God that it ouerthroweth the ministery leaveth no place for wholsome exhortation that it breedeth securitie despaire in men and an hundred other postions of this kinde wherwith if you conferre the auncient pestilent heresies of Pedagius Coelestius they will concurre with this doctrine meete therwith as iust as germans lipes For the Pelagians taught the selfe same as appeareth both out of the writinges S. Austen out of the epistles of Prosper and of Hilarie vnto him touching the reliques remainder of the Pelagian heresie in Fraunce They taught that in deede all men had sinned in Adam and that no man was saued by his owne workes but by the grace of God in regeneration howbeit the proptiation of Christes bloud is say they proposed vnto all without exception that whosoeuer will laie hold on faith receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme may be saued that God knew before the framing of the world who would beleeue coÌ„tinue faith full that he predestinated them vnto his kingdome whom he forsawe to be such as being freelie called by grace would proue worthie their Election and departe this life with a laudable happy end that therefore all men are admonished to beleeue liue well that no man might despaire of attaining saluation They denied that there was a set number predestinate of God least the vse of exhortation thereby should bee voide and the force and edge of preaching rebated They avered that all serious industrie in weldoing was cleane remooued all manner of vertues cancelled if Gods decree preuent menâ— willes that vnder the title of Predestination the Stoicks fatall necessitie was againe set on foote and established that the. 9. Chap. to the Rom. was was neuer vnderstoode by the
in shorter time cast a number from of the bridge into the stream then deliuer one only from the perill and danger of drowning In like manner it was a worke of more ease to destroy all mankind then to restore one man out of that generall ruine and destruction That the Devill was able to doe and Adam also was able to doe it this none but Christ could perfourme Wilde beastes and calamities haue power to hurt and murther man but it is in the power of no creature to repaire mans losse of salvation and life eternall but this was reserved to the power of GOD alone creator of all thinges wherefore the death of Christ had beene of greater force then the sinne of Adam yea though it had restored but one only man vnto life And certaine it is and an vndoubted truth that the blessings recovered by Christ so far surpasse those whose losse we sustained by Adam as heavenly things and things eternall excell earthly and corruptible things For Adam as the Apostle witnesseth is of the earth earthlie but Christ is heaveâ—lie Adam is a living soule but Christ is spirituall Adam cast vs out of an earthly paradise but Christ hath pâ—â—ced vs in an heavenly Paradise and hath given vs everlasting happines Thus 〈◊〉 haue thought it meete and convenient to proceede 〈◊〉 setting downe the 〈◊〉 of Christs death and resurrection which all appears came to them all and them alone who sticke fast vnto Christ by faith in making answere to the cavils and slaunders of Heretiques c. A SHORT INTRODVCTION TO the CoÌ„trouersie of the SacrameÌ„t of the Lords Supper vnfolding the substaunce of the cheifest questions coÌ„troversed or not controuersed therin bâ—tweene the professors of the Gospell Compiled and written by D. Dauid Parry Foure generall Premises 1 LEt our yong Diuines carry in memorye that the questions touching the Ceremonies and rites of the Supper are to bee distinguished from the doctrine which is the promise of the Gospell annexed vnto the outward and visible rites 2 Let them also learne to put a difference betweene the questions coÌ„troversed and not controuersed aswel concerning the rites as concerninge the doctrine 3 Let them knowe that the questione controversed about the rites and ceremonies are not so principal nor of such circumstance as the other which concerne the doctrine and that for the most part they may and ought to be decided in equitie according to the circumstances of 〈◊〉 place and person yet with this caueat that all be done for edification 4 Let them know moreover that the maine question touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper not controversed hitherto by any are three and againe on the other side the questions controversed are also three wherunto all the rest may easily be refered Touching both these I will verie briefely instruct the yonger sorte The three questions touching the Lords Supper not called into doubt or controversy are these I. What the Supper of the Lord is All the professors of the Gospell agree in this pointe that the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament of the new Testament instituted and ordeined by Christ wherin together with the taking of bread and wine the true body and bloud of Christ is receiued and the communion or participation of Christ with all his blessinges and benefites is sealed vp in the heartes of the faithfull beleeuers II. What are the endes or vses of the supper instituted by Christ Herein also all the professours of the Gospell agree in one that this receiuing of the Sacrament confirmeth our faith of the promises of grace both because this 〈◊〉 the generall and common vse of all Sacraments whatsoeuer also because Christ himselfe hath said of this Sacrament Doe this is remembraunce of mee And This cuppe is the newe Couenant in my bloud III. What is giuen receiued iâ— the Lords Supper In this also there is a mutuall consent of all that the bread and wine are giuen and receiued visibly corporally by the hand and month of the minister communicants but the body bloud of our Lord with all the benefits of his passion are invisible and spiritually giuen and receiued by them both In all these I say there is a ioynt agreement betweene al diuines which professe the Gospell as for vaine brablers whose brawles and iaries may not be the measure wherby to iudge of the consent or controverses of the churches professing the Gospell they neyther agree in these nor in any other The three questions called into doubt or controuersie are these The first question What is the vnion of the Signe signifying or the Thing signified in the Lordes supper whether it be Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or only a mysticall reference or relation of the one to the other To this question we make an answere consonant to the Catholicke faith in three seuerall propositions the two of which are Negatiue and third Affirmatiue 1 Proposition The Sigâ—es and the Things are not vnited by Transubstantion that is by such a charge as in which the substance of â—he Signe are transformed into the substaÌ„ce of the Thinges the accidents onely remaining The reasons of the first proposition 1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which haue a Sacramentary proportioÌ„ in the Eucharist which the Accidents of bread and wine the substance of the body and bloud of Christ can by no meanes haue 2 The second reason is deduced out of the wordes of Christ who saied This is my body not let this bee or bee made my body 3 The third reason is because the bread is termed bread both before the action of Consecâ—â—tion in the action and after the action 4 The fourth reason is because the sounder Fathers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Supper and when they speake by way of Hypeâ—bâ—le of chaÌ„ging of the bread they will be vnderstood to speake Sacramentally As Theodoreâ— Diolog 1. witnesseth saying it was the will of Christ that they who vse the Sacraments should not bend and set their mindes on the nature of the thinges which are seene bâ—t should beleeue that which was made through grace by alteratioÌ„ of the names Here in the same diologue he teacheth that we must vnderstand a sacramentall change in these wordes Christ honoured the visible signes with the title and name of his body and bloud NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME but by adding grace to the nature The second proposition II. The Signes and things signified are not vnited by Consubstantiation that is by a reall Existence of two bodies in the same place or by the close conveiance of one within the other such as we see is of the corne in a sacke of 〈◊〉 in a mans purse of an Infant in his cradell or of 〈◊〉 in a roundler For this is a likelihood of things vnited in substance The Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first reason is because the words of Christ This is
God forgiuenes of their sinnes for that Christs sake whome they beare in their handes which is nought els but the Popish oblation of Christ 4 They of force admit the mangling or abridging one part of the Sacrament For they reteine the foundation on which the Papistes builde this errour For wheras they hold a corporal presence of Christ in with vnder or to the bread they must necessarilie either withholde the cuppe from the Communicantes because in their doctrine and opinion the bloud of CHRIST is in his body or else they must separate CHRISTES bloud from his body then which nothing can be more absurd Wee offend not as they charge vs in the defect but keepe the meane For wee teach the spirituall presence and participation that is to say that all the faithfull which eate and drinke the breade and wine are truelie made partakers of Christ himselfe and al his benefites and so made one with him that they become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones But ther as it hath beene already demonstrated offende as doe the Papists in the excesse Yea but say they these are the errours of the Sacramentaries to say that Obiect 1. The Sacraments are only bare signes and tokens Ans We teach no such doctrine but we teach that the Thinges signified are exhibited and received togither with the Signes although not corporallie yet in such manner as fitteth Sacraments Obiect 2. CHRIST is present onlie according to his working Ans Neyther is this our doctrine but we teach that Christ is present and vnited vnto vs by the holy Ghost howsoever his body be farre remooued and absent from vs in like sorte as he is wholy coÌ„uersant with vs by his ministery although it be otherwise in respect of his other nature Obiect 3. In the Sacrament is only an imaginarie figuratiue and spirituall bodie of CHRIST not an essentiall bodie Aunsw Touching the imaginarie bodie obiected wee neuer made mention thereof but our whole doctrine is concerning the true flesh of CHRIST vvhich is presente vvith vs yea though hee remaine still in heaven Father we say that we receiue the bread and the body but both in their proper manner Ob. 4. The true body of Christ which hung on the crosse and the true bloud which was shed for vs is distributed but spiritually that it is receiued of them only which are worthy CoÌ„municants and the vnworthy receiue nothing but the bare signes to their iudgement and condeÌ„â—ation Ans This obiection is indeed the very doctrine we preach and therfore we grant the whole as being consonant and agreeable with the word of God the nature of the Sacramentes the Analogie of faith and the communion of the faithfull with Christ II. The arguments whereby the Consubstantials labor to 〈◊〉 â—hrow our doctrine touching the Lords Supper togither with their Confutation and Answeres Arg. 1. The words of Christs institution are plaine evident THIS is my bodie THIS is my bloud Auns The words they cite are swords to cut their owne throats For they say that 〈◊〉 vnder or with the bread Christs bodie is reallie receiued whereas Christ saith that the bread it selfe is his bodie Therfore they do the Church a double wrong One in that they thrust on her their owne words insteed of Christs Another in that they think her so blind that shee caÌ„not see the diversity of these two sayings The bread is in the bodie and The bread is the body Moreover they make Christ a lier For they deny that the bread is his body and say that his body is in the bread Let them looke what answere they wil make vnto Christ in the last day of iudgment concerning this despightfull and reproachfull blasphemy The Papists themselues rather reteine Christs words then our Consubstantials For they teach that the bread is so the body of Christ that for sooth it is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ But these men keepe not the word but follow as they say the sence and meaning Wherefore wee must search diligeÌ„tly whether of vs â—s in the truth Our doctrine shall be proved in the end Repl. In the same place this expositioÌ„ is added which is given for you and which is shed for you Ans 1. Thuâ— to argue is to begge that which is in controversie For they take this as granted that the bread to properly tearmed the body which remaines yet to be proved Ans 2. We answere by retorting the argumeÌ„t thus That which we properlie call the bodie of Christ was given for vs But the bread was not giuen for vs. Ergo c. Auns 3. As the bread is the bodie broken so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body But the breaking of the bread is improperly and mysticallie the breaking of the bodie of Christ For the breaking of the body is the crucifying ther of Thâ—refore the bread brokeÌ„ is in a mystical sence the bodie broken Arg. 2. The second argument is drawne from the author Christ himselfe which is true Ans This argument takes that for a grouÌ„d which is in controuersie for they must proue that Christ said his body was in vnder or with the breade Nay one may speake figuratiuely yet plainely to Replie 1. He is omnipotent Ergo he can be everie where yea even in the bread Ans 1. Though he could make two contradictories at once true yet he will not 2. God cannot do thinges contradictorie because he is truth But to will thinges contradictorie is the part of a lier We do not therfore deny the truth and omnipotencie of God but their lyes nay we defeÌ„d it saying that God doth what he speaketh But they oppugne it by teachinge that in God are contrarie willes Repl. 2. Christes bodie hath manie prerogatiues wherby it differeth froÌ„ our bodies as namely that it was born of a virgin walked on the sea was at one time in the graue in bell and in paradise passed through dores shut Auns These examples are partly improper or vnlike partely false Vnlike 1 Because they may also be incident to treatures as walking on the water to Peter passinge through shut doores to spirites 2. Because they imploy a contradiction for when he is said to bee borne of a virgin he is not at the same time said not to bee borne of a Virgin But at once to be finite and infinite implieth acontradiction False 1 For he passed not through closed doores wheras they might yeeld and giue backe to him 2 For neyther did he passe through the dore of the sepulcher wheras that is said to haue ben opened by the Angell 3 For neyther was Christes body at one and the same instante in manie places which they seeme to haue taken from Augustin But he saide that his body was in the graue his soule in hel his Deity everie where Arg. 2. The third argument is taken from the circumstance of time thus No man Speaking seriously speaketh figuratiuely Christ appointing his
a rule by which we must interpret an other so the doctrine of iustification pertaineth to this because in the Lords Supper must no other righteousenesse be sought then by the bloud of Christ Obiect Wee must not sette downe the manner howe Ans Here is a double errour 1. When they say we must not define or set downe the manner and so they contradict scripture which defineth it teacheth vs that it is spirituall that the vnion with Christ is made in faith by the holy Ghost 2. Themselues set downe the manner as appeareth manyfestely by their wrightings Obiect 7. It is trewe that Durandus sayth Wee heare the wordes perceaue the motion beleeue the presence and knowe not the manner Ans 2. This neither helpeth you nor hurteth vs because Durandus was a Papist Aunsw Wee may graunt this saying so it bee rightly vnderstoode VVee heare the worde this is my bodie not that in the breade wee doe with our mouthes feede on the bodie of Christ We perceiue the motion that is that the breade entereth into our mouth not the body of Christ We know not the manner that is perfectly namely how the holy Ghost is everie where all in Christ and in all the god he and how he doth vnite vs in Christ We beleeue the presence but such a presence as is the eating and as is the vnion of the members and the head Ob. 8. This 〈…〉 that the bodie and bloud of Christ is given vnto 〈◊〉 cruelie substantiallie and 〈…〉 Ans We grant that wee eate the true bodie of 〈◊〉 then the whole disputation is to no purpose 1 Because they coufesse that we are made partakers of the true bodie of Christ and that we 〈◊〉 of the manner which also we grant 2 Because the reasons oâ— refutations which they bring are or no moment 4 ARGVMENTS WHEREBY IT IS proved that the bodie of Christ is present neither IN nor VNDER nor TO the bread of the Lords supper nor is corporally eaten IN it VNDER it WITH it c. 1. BEcause he tooke on him very nature of maÌ„ Besides we cannot eate him otherwise then did his disciples in the first supper 2 Hee did truely ascende from earth into heaven 3 Such is the eating of him as is his aboad with vs 4 Al the godlie of the Old and new Testament haue the same aboad with Christ 5 Christ alone can offer himselfe to his Father Nowe in the vse of the Lordes supper wee must needs craue of God remission of sins If therefore he be present with the bread wee must desire this of him so we offer bread In the new testameÌ„t it is not lawful to direct our praiers to any one certaine place 6 Those good gifts which are promised only to the godly are spiritual To these and others aboue cited may be added the consent of Fathers as Ambrose Athanasius Augustine Basill Baâ—e Bertraâ—s Chrysostome Clemens Alexandrâ—â—â— the Nicene Counsell Cyprian Cyrill Dionysius Gelasius Gregorie the Greate Gregorie Nazâ—â—zen He sâ—chius Hierom Hilarie Irenaeus Iustin Leo Macarius Origâ—n Procoplus Gaza Tertullian Theodoret c 5. Arguments whereby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refeâ—â—ed and the truth of the right doctrine confirmed Arg. The Marcionâ—â—es and Manichees fained that Christ had no true solid humane bodie but onlie an imaginarie or seeming bodie so that he did only seeme to haue flesh bones whereas indeed he had none And that the verie incarnation and al motions and operations of Christ did only appeare in shew wheras indeed there was no such thing But this opinion of Vbiquitie and real communication of proprieties revoketh from hell that phantastique dotage of Marcion and Manes Wherefore this also as the Manâ—cheaâ— heresie is to be condemned banished from Gods Church vnto the very deepest pit of hell The Minor is thus proued The Vbiquitaries beleeue and teach that all properties of the Deity were at the instant of conception really transfused from the Deity of the Worde into the humane nature assumed by Christ Hence follow these absurdities 1 Christ shall not be truelie borne of the Virgin if according to the nature of his humanity hee were truely essentiallie without his mothers wombe before he were borne and after his birth were according to his humane nature as truely and substantiallie in his mothers wombe as before 2 In his humane nature Christ was not truly weak and subiect to passions if then also he were partaker of divine maiestie and omnipotencie 3 He was not truely dead if in the verie instant of death both in soule and bodie he were essentially everie where present with his Deity For his soule everie-where-present with his everie-where-present bodie could not reallie bee separated by distance of place and therefore his body could not die but imaginarily 4 He did not truelie ascend into heaveÌ„ but we must say it was onlie an imaginarie and phantastique shew if in bodie he were there substaÌ„tially before he ascended thither after he ascended nevertheles he remaine in the earth nay in the very bodies of the faithfull by substantiall presence of the same bodie as truely as before if these things did indeed so fall out it will follow that the same bodie of Christ was at once weake and yet omnipotent base and glorious able to suffer and vnable dead and living limited and vnlimited which to saie were blasphemie To avoide these prodigious and impious absurdities they tell vs that Ob. Christ in respect of his bodie was in deed limited weake passible mortall in the time of his humiliation because he did empty himselfe would not before his resurrection shew forth that maiestie which hee imparted to his bodie Ans They doe ill to interpret this emptying of concealing all his glorie and maiestie for the time wherein he tooke our nature vpon him whereas indeed it is to be vnderstood of the divine nature of the worde as it vouchsafed to take vpon it the shape of a servant that is the Masse of our nature and would become man Besides it would followe that Christ did even then shew forth the power maiestie communicated to his flesh when he was truely subiect to infirmitie and circumscribed by his body as which weeping he raized Lazarus and beeing taken by the Iewes healed Malchus which was wounded by Peter But what is it to fetch backe the Marcionites from hell or in the greatest mystery of religion to speak blasphemie if this be not Argum. 2 This is the blasphemie of Samosâ—teâ—â—â— Airtus and the late Antitrinitaries that the man Christ is not properlie and naturally God but only by accidentall participation of the Divine proprieties maiestie honor power and vertue In like manner conceaue the Vbiquitaries of the deitie of the man Châ—ist deâ—ining the personal vnion by this only coÌ„municating of proprieties wherby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent present in every place So that the same man is and is called God not because properly
from sin Mat. 26. 26. 28. the bread wine is the body bloud of Christ And 1. Cor. 10. 16. It is called the communion of the body and bloud of Christ And so expoundeth it selfe Gen. 17. 11. Rom. 4. 12. Circumcision is a signe of the covenant Exod. 12. 27. The paschall lambâ— was a signe of the passeover Exod. 31. 14. The sabbaoth a perpetuall signe of grace and sanctification Heb. 9. 24. Ceremonies are similitudes types of true things Marc. 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptised shal bee saued Luc. 22. 21. The bread of the Lords supper is commanded to be eaten in remembrance of Christ 8 The lawfull vse of sacraments is when such as are converted obserue those rites which God hath commaunded for such ends as God ordained the sacraments The proofe That onelie is the lawfull vse vvhich agreeth with Gods institution but the institution comprehendeth these circumstances of persons rites and endes therefore these once broken the fignes are presentlie abused Esa Ier. 7. Psal 50. 9 In this vse the things signified are alwaies taken togither with the signes The proofe For thus much the rites do signifie the promise annexed to the rites doth containe as Mar. 16. He which shall beleeue and be baptised shall bee saued but God is true speaking to vs as well by signes as by wordes Therefore the signes are not in vainâ— though the things be taken in one sorte the signes in an other 10 But without the vse appointed by God which is not without conversion neither the ceremonies haue the nature of a sacrameÌ„t nor gods benefits thereby signified are receiued with the signes The proofe The signes of the covenant confirme nothing to them which keepe not the covenant or substitute others in their places or refer them to an other end but sacraments are signes of the covenant wherby God bindeth himselfe to grant vs freelie remission of sins eternal life for Christ ergo they confirme not them in the grace of God which are without faith and repentance or vse other rites or to other purpose then God hath appointed Besides it is superstitious and idolatrous to attribute the â—estâ—fying of Gods grace either to an externall worke without promise or to a worke devised by men Wherfore this abuse of sacraments hath not the grace of God annexed vnto it or confirmeth any man therin as it is said Rom. 2. 25. CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ availeth if thou keepe the law but if thou be a traÌ„sgressor of the law thy circumcision is made vncircumcision 11 The Godly receiue these signes to their salvation the vvicked to their condemnation but onely the godly can receiue the things signified to their salvation The proofe Vs saith Peter vz. which beleeue amongest whome hee reckneth himselfe baptisme saveth not the washing away of the filth of the flesh but the request of a good conscience vnto God And Paule 1. Corinth 10. 16. the breade which wee breake is the communion of Christs bodie And whereas the Sacraments are an external instrument wherby the holy Ghost cherisheth preserveth our faith is followeth that as the preaching of the word so they also further the saluatioÌ„ of the faithful But contrariwise the wicked by abuse of sacrameÌ„ts coÌ„teÌ„pt of and his benefites which are offered them in the worde sacraments and confession of that doctrine which with a trewe faith they do not embrace heape vnto themselues the anger of God and fearfull punnishment according to these sayings He that offereth an oxe is as if he killed a man hee which offereth a ramme is as if hee slew a dog c. Esa 66. 3. He which eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh his owne damnation not making any difference of the Lordes bodie for this cause manie amongst you are weake and sicke and many are fallen a sleepe 1. Cor. 11. 27. But the things signified because they are receaued only by faith and are either the true causes of saluatioÌ„ or saluatioÌ„ it selfe namely Christ and his benefittes they neither can be receaued by the wicked nor of any but vnto saluation as Christ saith Ioh. 6. 12. But in the elect after they are converted the fruits of a sacrament though vnworthily receaued do in the end follow The proofe The promise and the signes of that promise which hath a coÌ„dition of faith annexed vnto it are ratified and take effect whensoeuer the condition is performed but such 〈◊〉 the promise which is signified and confirmed by the sacraments therfore if there be faith beleeuinge the promise and signes whether in the vse or after the things promised and signified are then receaued I might deale with thee as thou hast done when thou didest despise the oath in breakinge the couenant Nevertheles I will remeÌ„ber my couenant made with thee in the daies of thy youth wil coÌ„firme vnto thee an euerlasting couenant 13. Of sacraments some are once onely to be receaued some often-times some are to be ministred onely to those of ripe yeares others euen to infants also according as they are ordained for once making a couenaunt with all those that are conuerted and which are to be receaued into the church as circumcision and baptisme or instituted to renue the couenant and preserue the vnitie and fellowship of the church after our fall coÌ„flict against temptatioÌ„ as the arke the paschal lambe with other sacrifices the Lords supper The proofe The iterating or renewing of baptisme is no where commaunded the reason is manifested because those sacraments are instituted to be an initiating or solemn receauing into the church which is euer firme to him that repenteth or persevereth But the iteratioÌ„ of the vse of other sacraments is commaunded as in sacrafices in the Paschal lamb in worshiping before the arke in sanctifying and clensing it is apparent Also of the Lordes supper it is said As often as yee do this yee shall shew the Lords death The reason is because they are testimonies that the couenant begunne in circumcision baptisme is ratified and firme to him that repenteth And this often exercising of our faith is necessarie 14. The thinges common to the sacramentes of the new and olde testament are those which are before set downe in the definition of a sacrament The differences betweene both are these that the sacraments of the olde testament did prefigure Christ which was then to 〈◊〉 the sacramentes of the newe testament represent vnto vs Christ with all his benefits being alreadie come the olde were others and more rites as circumcision sacrifices washings the Pascall lambe the sabbaoth worshipping before the arke c the new are likewise others and onlie tvvo baptisme the supper of the Lord the old were obscure the new are more plaine easie the old were commanded to Abrahams posteritie their housholds the new to the whole church culled and collected out of Iewes and Gentiles The proofe That one definition serveth for the sacraments of both new and
old testament we haue alreadie prooued before That there is a difference in the number and forme of rites appeareth by an induction For in the new testament it is plaine there are but two because no other ceremonies having a promise of grace annexed are commanded by Christ That sacraments of the olde testament shewe Christ to come of the newe alreadie come it is manifest by their interpretation delivered in scripture whereof we spake in their definition They differ in plainenesse because in the new testament are fewer and those signifying things alreadie fulfilled in the olde there are more rites and those shaddowing future thinges all whose circumstaunces were not yet knowne Lastlie by induction it appeareth that the old were commaunded onelie to Abraham and his posteritie and their servauntes the new to all even as manie as will be members of the church as Genesis the seventeenth Everie man childe of eight daies olde amongest you shall bee circumcised in your generations as well hee that is borne in thine house as he that is bought with monie of anie stranger which is not thy seede Exod. 12. No stranger shall eate thereof Math. 8. Teach all nations baptising them c. 15 Both Sacraments and preching of the gospel are Gods worde which hee exerciseth tovvardes his church by the Ministers because they teach offer promise vnto vs the same communion of Christ and his benefites and are external instruments of the holy Ghost wherby he moveth our hearts to beleeue and therefore maketh vs partakers of faith in respect of Christ and his benefits Neither yet is the working of the holy Ghost tied vnto these sacraments nor doe they at al profit but rather hurt such as with faith do not apply them to themselues as the very words rites do signifie The proofe That the Ministers do all in GODS name in administration of sacramentes and that by the sacraments God doth signifie that is teach offer promise vnto vs the communion of Christ we shewed before in our second proofe Whereupon followeth this other conclusioÌ„ that the holie ghost therby moueth our harts to beliefe For because sacraments are a visible promise they haue the same authoritie to confirme faith in vs as hath a promise made by word Whence also followeth a third coÌ„clusioÌ„ For that which serveth to kindle stir vp faith in vs the same also serveth to the receiving of the communion of Christ because wee haue this communion through faith The breade is the communion of Christ bodie Baptisme saveth vs c. And yet the holy Ghost doeth not alwaies by them confirme our faith because neither by the word doth it alwaies kindle faith in vs as the examples of Simon Magus and infinite others doe shew That the vse of sacraments without faith is hurtfull is alreadie prooved in the eleventh proposition 16 The word and the sacraments differ because the word signifieth gods wil towards vs by speach the sacraments by gesture by the worde faith is begun and confirmed by the sacraments onlie faith begun is confirmed the word euen without the sacraments doth teach and confirme which the sacraments doe not without the word without the knowledge of the word they that are of ripe years cannot be saued but without the vse of sacrameÌ„ts if it be not by contempt men may be both renued and saued the word is to be preached to the vnbeleeuing and vvicked the church must admit to the sacraments only such as God will haue vs account members of the church The proofe Sacramentes without the worde going before doe neither teach nor confirme our faith because their signification is not vnderstood but by preaching or expounding them by the word neither can a signe confirme any thing but what is before promised This maie be proved by example of the Iewes who either did or die obserue those ceremonies abolishing or not vnderstanding the promise of grace and of Christs benefits Men of yeares cannot bee saved excepte they haue knowledge of the word either by teaching after the ordinarie way or by revelation after an extraordinary waie Because Hee that beleeveth not in the sonne is alreadie iudged Ioh 3. 18. Faith is by hearing hearing by the word of God Rom. 10. 17. But without sacraments they maie be saued because though by some necessarie occasion they be hindred from them yet may they beleeue as the theefe on the crosse or if they be infants they may be sanctified according to the measure of their yeares as Iohn in the wombe of his mother manie other infants which died before the daie of their circumcision The word also must be preached to the wicked because it is ordained for their conversion The sacraments must be administred vnto theÌ„ which are to bee acknowledged for members of the church because they are instituted only for the vse of the church Act. 8. 17. If thou beleevest thou maist be baptised 17 This is common to Sacrameâ—ts and sacrificer that they are workes commanded of God to bee done by vs in faith but yet a sacrament and a sacrifice do differ because by a sacrameÌ„t God doth signifie and witnesse his benefits which he performeth vnto vs but by sacrifice we perfourme and offer our obedience vnto God The proofe That sacraments are workes commanded of God to be done by vs in faith wee haue shewed in the 1. 2. 3. and 10. proposition Both are mentioned Heb. 11. 4. By faith Abel offered vnto God a greater sacrifice then Caine c. That Sacraments are signes of Gods will towards vs it is prooved in the second propos 18 And therefore the same ceremonie may haue the nature of a sacrament of a sacrifice because thereby God giving vnto vs visible signes testifieth his blessings and benefits towards vs and wee by receiving them doe likewise testifie our duty towards him The proofe This is manifest by the Pascal lamb and other sacrifices also by the sabbaoth which were an obedience commanded by God whereby the godlie did worship him and shew themselues gratefull to him withall were signes of Gods benefits which they receaved by the Messias So baptisme is a profession of Christianisme and a signe wherby Christ witnesseth that we are washed in his bloud The Lords supper is a thankesgiuing for the death of Christ and an admonition that we are quickned for and by his death are made his members and shall as bide in him for ever AN ANSWERE TO SOME ARGVMENTS against the Sacraments Certaine obiections against the afore-said propositiâ—ns of Sacraments with short answeares of Vrsinus therevnto taken in a publique disputation Anno. 1567. 1 OBiection against that part of the seconde proposition Sacraments are signes of the eternall covenant The signes of an eternal covenant are eternal But these signes are not eternal Ergo neither is the covenant eternall The proofe of the maier denied is In relatiues one being taken away the other also is taken awaie Aunswer to the rule whereby the
bee preached even to the vnbeleeuing Christ forbiddeth vs to cast peaâ—les to swine and dogges Therfore the wicked must not be admitted to the hearing of the word preached Ans To the antecedent by dogs and swine are not meant simplie he wicked but such enemies as mecke persecute the doctrine barking and impugning it like dogs and treading it vnder foote like swine Against such this argument were of force XXIV OF BAPTISME 1. Baptisme is a sacrament of the new testameÌ„t whereby Christ witnesseth to the faithfull being baptized with water in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy Ghost that all their sinnes are forgiuen them the holy Ghost giuen vnto them and themselues ingrassed into the church and bodie of Christ and they againe professe that they receaue these benefittes of God therfore euer after will and must liue to him and serue him And this same baptisme was begun by Iohn Baptist and continued by the Apostles this only was the differeÌ„ce that he baptised men into Christ which should suffer and rize againe but these into Christ which had suffered was rizeÌ„ 2. The first end of Gods institutioÌ„ of baptisme is that God herby might signifie witnesse that by the bloud and spirit of Christlâ—â—â— doth clense those that are baptized from their sinnes and engraffeth them into the bodie of Christ and maketh them partakers of all his benefits 3. The second is that baptisme may be a soleÌ„ne receauinge or enroulinge of men into the visible church of Christ and a distinction therof from al other sectes 4. The third that it may be a publique soleÌ„ne profession of our faith in Christ of bindinge our selues to faith in him obedieÌ„ce towards him 5. The fourth that it may be an admonition of our plunging into afflictions and our risinge and deliuerance out of them 6. Baptisme hath by Gods commandement the promise of grace a certaine power to seale and witnes annexed by Christ vnto these rites rightlie vsed For Christ by the hand of his ministers baptâ—zeth vs as by their mouth he speaketh to vs. 7. There is therfore in baptisme a 2 fold water one external visible earthly which is the elemeÌ„tary water the other internal uisible heaueÌ„ly which is the bloud spirit of Christ there is also a twofold washing the on external visible signifying naÌ„ely the sprinckling or powring on of water which is corporal that is receaued by our bodily parts 〈◊〉 the other internal invisible signified namely remissioÌ„ of our sins by Christs bloud shed for vs our regeneration by his spirit our beiâ—◠〈◊〉 grafted into his body which is spirituall that is is received in spirit by faith Lastly there is a two fold minister of baptisme one external of external baptisme which is the minister of the church baptising vs in water with his hand the other internall of internal baptisme which is Christ himself baptising vs with his bloud and spirit 8 Neither is the water turned into the bloud or spirit of Christ neither is the bloud of Christ present in the water or in the same place with the water neither are the bodies of such as are baptized sprinkled invisibly therewithal neither is the holy Ghost in substance or vertue more in this water then elsewhere but in the lawful vse of baptisme he worketh in their heartes which are baptised and spiritually doth wash and sprinkle them with the bloud of Christ and vseth this external signe as an instrumeÌ„t as a visible word promise to vphold stir vp the faith of such as are baptised 9 Therfore when baptisme is said to be the washing of regeneration or to saue vs or to wash away our sins it is meant that externall baptisme is a signe of the internall baptisme that is of regeneration salvation and spirituall washing that this internall washing is ioined with the external whensoever baptisme is lawfully vsed 10 Yet is sinne an baptisme so abolished that we are freed from the guilte of GODS anger and eternall punishment and regeneration is begunne in vs by the holy Ghost the reliques of sin remaine in vs to the end of this life 11 But all and only the renued or the regenerate baptised to those endes for which baptisme was instituted by Christ do lawfully receiue baptisme 12 The church lawfully ministreth baptisme to all and onelie those whom it ought to recken in the number of such as be renued and members of Christ 13 Whereas also infants of Christians are of the church whereinto Christ would haue al that pertaine to him bee receiued and registred by baptisme and therefore baptisme is now in steede of circumcision whereby iustification and regeneration and receiving into the church were sealed by for Christ as yet to come as in baptisme by and for the same Christ already come as well to infantes as to those of riper yeares pertaining to the seed of Abraham and whereas no man can forbidde water that they should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost clensing purifying their heartes truely those infantes must needs bee baptised which either are borne in the church or together with their parents come over to the church 14 As the promise of the gospell so baptisme also receiued vnworthily that is before conversion is firme and procureth salvation to such as repent and the vse thereof before vnlawful is now made vnto them lawfull 15 Neither doth the wickednes of the Minister make the baptisme vaine of no force if it bee done into the faith and promise of Christ therfore the church ought not to rebaptise eveÌ„ those that haue bin baptised by heretiks but to informe them in the true doctrine of Christ and baptisme 16 And as the covenant once begun with God remaineth perpetually stedfast to such as repent even after their sinnes from that time committed so also baptisme once receaved confirmeth those that repent in remission of sinnes for all their life and therefore ought neither to be â—terated nor deferred to the end of life as if on that condition onlie it did clense vs from our sinnes if we coÌ„mitted no more after we were once baptized 17 But all that are baptised with water vvhether infantes or aged are not made partakers of the grace of Christ For Gods eternal election and calling to the kingdome of Christ is free 18 Neither are all excluded from the grace of Christ which are not baptised vvith water For not the want but conteÌ„pt of baptisme excludeth from the convenant made by God with the faithful and their children 19 And whereas the administration of Sacraments is a part of the ecclesiastical ministery they which are not called thervnto and especially women must not presume to take vnto themselues authoritie of baptising OF THE LORDS SVPPER Disputed in the Coll. of Wisdome the 2. of May Ann. 1575. 1 ONe of the Sacramentes of the new testameÌ„t