that themselves do acknowledge in end the necessity of good works But to know how they are necessary either as causes or conditions is not a necessary curiosity wherof few are capable and without which many have gone to heaven And so now I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin concerning the Sacraments CHAP. XVIII Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacraments and particularly how they conferre Grace which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS I knew the Christian religion to be the most excellent of all true religions that ever have been whether we consider that which was vnder the law of nature or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses so I iustly conceived that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome to adorne and enrich it with most excellent Sacraments For since no religion whether true or false can be without some sensible signes Aug. lib. 19. cont Faust cap. 22. as S. Augustin hath observed the Christian religion which is not only the true but also the most perfect religion to which the former two served as preparations must also have the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments And so I found the same S. Augustin extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments above these of the ancient law Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 19. Aug. cont Faust lib. 19. c. 13. Our Lord saith he and the Apostolical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacraments for many and these most easy to be done most magnificent for signification and most pure to be observed And elswhere he saith the Sacramenss are changed they are made easier fewer holsommer happier Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments was generally believed to consist in this that God by them did conferre grace vnto our soules Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians that I knew diverse Protestants could not be at first perswaded that Luther or Calvin or that their Church taught the contrary and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them they were much scandalized at it In so much that some of them did say If the Sacraments do not confer grace and baptisme doth not take away original sin for what vse serve the Sacraments for what end were they ordain'd Wherefore being thus stirred vp to try this question I found in end that the Catholique doctrine which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace is conformable to the divine Scriptures that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin which denyeth the Sacraments to confer grace is not only false against the Scriptures but was also condemned as an ancient heresy by the holy Fathers that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments and is so absurd that diverse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion albeit it was taught both by Luther Calvin and in this point do agree with the Catholiques All which things for brevities sake I will only touch Of Baptisme S. Iohn said to the Iewes 3.11 Math. I indeed baptize yow in water but he who comes after me shall baptize you in the holy Ghost fire Ananias said to S. Paul be baptized wash away thy sins Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 Eph s 5.26 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme the Lauer of regeneration by which we are saved The same Apostle saith that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church by the lauer of water in the word of life By which testimonies albeit we speak nothing of many others it appear'd sufficiently clear to me since we are said to have our sins washed away by baptisme to be sanctifyed to be born of new again that by it we receive also grace without which these things could not be verified and performed The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist of which our Saviour saith If any man eate of this bread Iohn 6.51.54 he shall live for ever And again He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Now this everlasting life is no otherwise had here but by receiving Grace which is the seed of Glory and of eternal life happinesse Therefore these two Sacraments which are all that the Presbyterians admit do confer grace by the vertue institution of Christ What was the belief of the holy Fathers and of the whole Church in this point it is so clear that Calvin himself and other chief Protestants do acknowledge it to be the same which is now believed by the Catholiques against their doctrin Cal. lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. sect 14. 26. For. Calvin confesseth that with great consent it was taught and believed for many ages That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace if they were not hindered by mortal sin which albeit he calleth a pernicious and pestilentious opinion and alleadgeth that it drawes men from God to rest in the sight of corporall things and not in God himself yet he confesseth also that it was taught by S. Augustin the holy Fathers whom he striveth to excuse by saying that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments Cent. 2. c. 4. cent 3. c 4. Muscul in loc com p. 299. they vsed hyperbolical speeches The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin as an errour to the most ancient Fathers as to S. Clement Iustin Cyprian and others Musculus saith plainly that Augustin did rashly affirm that the Sacraments of the new law conferred grace These open confessions shall save our paines of citing the Fathers testimonies And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments it is so clear of it self that it needeth no illustration Vpon this consideratiō S. Augustin Aug. tract 80. in Ioan. admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacraments cry'd out Vnde tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat Whence comes saith he so great vertue to the water that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the soule Where he ascribes this wonderful effect to the goodnesse omnipotency of God which sheweth also that his speeches are not hyperbolicall as Calvin falsly pretends Thus much briefly to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be conforme to the Scriptures holy Fathers and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments And therfore Calvins opinion which is iust contrary must needs be against all these He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers and consequently it cannot be conforme to the Scriptures whereon they founded their faith and not vpon humane imaginations That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments denying them to conferre grace is so evident that it needs no proofe Calvin saw this so clearly that he pretended the Farhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacraments and that this vertue which the Catholiques do ascribe to the Sacraments makes people to trust more in creatures them in God himself But as I found
really present in the Sacrament Although this be a most important question and is much agitated by the curiosity of carnal reason yet I was soone satisfyed in it because I was resolved by Gods grace to found my faith vpon no other ground but vpon the divine Scriptures as they were vnderstood by the ancient Church holy Fathers And therefore after a little diligence and some conference with a Catholique on this matter I found that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was conforme to the clear words of the Scriptures which were so vnderstood by the holy Fathers and which in right reason cannot be otherwise vnderstood and that God hath approved this truth by famous miracles And vpon the other part I found that the Presbyerian doctrin is against Scriptures Fathers Councels and right reason that it is an ancient heresy and so false that many Protestants do eagerly oppose it and lastly that such great confusion was in this matter among the first Apostles of this new religion that it is no wonder to see it so much multiplied among their children All which points I will briefly touch 1. The Catholiques bring expresse Scripture for the reall presence to witt the words of Institution of this holy Sacrament related by three Evangelists and one Apostle where our Saviour alwayes saith This is my body This is my blood And to know that he mean'd of his true reall body he adioyneth my body which shall be given for you and my blood which shall be shed for you Now it was his reall body which was given for them and his reall blood which was shed for them S. Iohn ch 6. Therefore it was his reall body reall blood which they received in the Sacrament Moreover S. Iohn relateth along discourse which our Saviour had to the Iewes in which he affirmes that he was the bread of life that came down from heaven And the bread which he was to give was his flesh for the life of the world and vnlesse they eate his flesh and drink his blood they should have no life in them And notwitstanding that the Iewes murmured at all these things saying How can this man give vs his flesh to eate and this is a hard saying who can heare it Yet our Saviour did with many asseverations affirm it over and over again yea and the suffered them to depart from him because they would not believe this divine mystery Now Christ is not a mocker or deceiver of men to speak one thing yea and to averre it with asseverations which are equivalent to oaths and to intend the contrary Christ is not ignorant of the vsual manner of speech Therefore since he tells the Apostles plainly that the Eucharist is his body delivered for them it must be his body as the Catholiques beleeve and cannot be not his body as the Presbyterians imagine If the Scripture be Iudge of controversies then this controversie is decyded for that Iudge to which Protestants make ordinarly their appeales hath so determined the cause against them that they dare not stand to the clear words of their Iudge in so much that some learned Protestants do confesse that the Scripture taken in the native proper and literal sense is plainly for the Catholiques against themselves and namely Morton when he speaks thus to the Catholiques If the words he certainly true in a proper and literal sense Morton deinstit Sacrament lib. 2. c. 1. then we are to yeeld to you the whole cause And therefore they are enforced to runne to their tropes figures But I found the holy Fathers making no such glosses on our Saviours clear words taking them in their proper sense S. Augustin citing these words of our Saviour this is my body Aug. in ps 33. speaks thus A man may be carried by the hands of others no man is carried in his own hands but Christ was carried in his own hands when recomeÌ„ding his body he himself said this is my body For he carried himself in his own haÌ„ds And again We receive with a faithfull heart and month Idem contr adversar legis lib. 2. c. 9. Ambros lib. 4. de Sacram cap. 4. Chrys lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Cypr. de Coena Domini the Mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ who giveth vs his flesh to eate S. Ambrose saith clearly Before consecration it is bread but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ Heare him saying take eate This is my body c. S. Chrysostom saith He who sitteth above with the father in that same instant of time O miracle O the bounty of God! is touched by the hands of all and he gives himself to those who will receive and embrace him S. Cyprian The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh Many more testimonies of these and of the other holy Fathers in all the first ages even vntill the time of the Apostles Concil Nicen. apud Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. aristi c. 10. Concil Ephes apud eund lib. 2. cap. 25. may be seen collected by Coccius and Gualterus So that I found both the Scriptures Fathers giving sentence against the Presbyterians The first for the letter and the other for the sense This same truth is also confirmed by the testimonie and authority of the vniuersal Church in general Councels as the first Nicen Councel whose words Bellarmin cites The third generall Councel of Ephesus to which S. Cyrill of Alexandria did preside by which Synod the epistle of S. Cyrill to Nestorius where the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist is contain'd was approved as it was thereafter by the fourth and fift generall Councels to speak nothing of other more late Councels Besides all these authorities it was also made evident vnto me by the light of reason that our Saviours words concerning the institution of this Sacrament cannot be but literally vnderstood For 1. the principall articles or points of our faith are not delivered in the Scriptures but in proper and clear words But this by all mens Confession is a principall mystery of our faith Therefore it is delivered in clear and plaine tearmes 2. That cannot be ascrybed to Christ without blasphemy which no reasonable or prudent man would do But no reasonable or prudent man would make his testament in obscure and figurative words for that were the high way to deceive his children heires and put them at variance Therefore since Christ at the institution of this Sacrament a little before his death was making his Testament as is manifest by his words when he calleth the Chalice Luke 20.22 the new Testament in his blood by which he left vnto his children the most precious legacie of his body for their comfort nourishment he spake properly clearly and not figuratively 3. Chrâ—st promised the Iewes
at last betwixt these two Ministers to make them abstaine from their publique and scandalous contradictions yet that concord did not laste long their inward fire did shortly burst forth For one day after Sermon the Independent inviting the people to his Communion which he was to give the next Sunday he was publickly interrupted by the Presbyterian who accused him of Apostasy from the Covenant and Presbytery and straitly charged the people to receive no Communion from him And with this confusion the meeting ended but the Ministers bauling continued a space thereafter The event did shew that the Presbyterian got the better of this conflict for the other did not appeare at the day appoynted to give the Communion as he had promised Yet the fulnesse of the Presbyterians victory was much diminished by reason the others place was supplyed by his Colleague who besids others had both the Presbyterians daughter and son-in-law for two of his Communicants I conceived that all these dissensions and divisions did fall forth by Divin providence to give people sufficient notice that a Church of so great confusion cannot be the true Church of Christ which ought to be a house of great order and Vnity and to shew that these Ministers who are the Rulers or rather M s-rulers of such a confus'd Church and who bragge so much of the Spirit are not led by the Spirit of God which is not contrary to himsef but by the Spirit of errour and giddinesse And although sometymes the Ministers to cover the vgly deformity and great scandals of all their dissensions would pretend that their differences were not in fundamentall points yet at other times their words did varie and their actions contradicted ever their words For they changed their tongue as the diversity of questions did trouble them or the interest of their cause did presse them When they were not vrged with their dissensions then they cry'd vp Presbytery as the only scepter of Christ the only governement of the Church iure divino the only means to vphold Christs Kingdome and to hold out the wild boare of Anti-Christianity It 's well knowen also how necessary and fundamentall a point the Covenant was esteem'd and how the Ministers put it very neare in ballance with the booke of life But their actions did shew more sensibly then their words that they esteem'd their dissensions to be in substantiall and fundamentall matters Or else they have been voyde not only of Christian charity but also of humane discretion For how could they haue embroyl'd all these kingdomes into so great confusion and bloodshed for such matters as themselves esteem'd only circumstantiall and not substantiall How could they with any discretion force these points of their now Reformation which they thought only ceremoniall and not substantiall so furiously and substantially vpon others But whither their differences were in fundamentals or not for the Matter It 's euident that they were substantiall and fundamentall for the manner to the substantiall destruction of one and other and almost to the fundamentall subversion of three kinhdomes Yea I found that the Presbyterians in Queen Elizabeth and King Iames time were more ingenuous and confessed freely that their differences from the English Church were in weighty and substantiall matters For thus they speake in M. Rogers M. Roger praefat Doct. Aug. num â—1 13. The controuersy betwixt them and vs is not as the Bishops and their favourers would deceive the world concerning Corner Capes Surplices c. but of more weighty matters as of the true Ministery the Governement of the Church And againe wee contend with the Formalists whither Iesus Christ ought to raigne In this cause we ought so to oppose Ever the Conformists that if we had as many lives as we have haires we ought rather to loose them all then to leave off our enterprise Vpon the other part the English Church or the old Protestants do acknowledge that they differ Substantially from the Presbyterians Covell iust d f. art 11. p. 67. This Doctour Covel plainly protesteth in all their names Least any man Saith he should thinke our contentions with Puritans were in smaller points and difference not great each side hath charged one the other with heresies if not infidelities yea euen with such as quite owerthrow the Principall foundation of our Christian faith And albeit they would not confesse their differences to be in fundamentalls yet it is evident they are so For what is more fundamentall to a Church then the Gouernement established by Christ what is more fundamentall then the foundation of faith to wit the Apostles Creed what more fundamentall then the Sacraments of the Church and the Lords prayer And in all these they have Tragicall differences besids in many other points no lesse substantiall although not so sensible as in Predestination and Reprobation Vniversall grace whether God absolutly decerns or only permits sin whether the Sacraments confers grace whither Christs body be really present in the Eucharist Whither Christ redeem'd the world by shedding his blood and corporall death or by suffering in his soule the paines of Hell Whither man after the fall hath free will and many more which may be seen collected in the Protestants Apology Apol. Protest tract 2. c. 3. sect 5 sub 2. 3. ad 10 in all which the old Protestants and the Presbyterians do teach ooposite doctrines and accuse others of grosse errours and sometymes of blasphemies Having then diligently considered these things I made this reflection with my self How can this Scottish Church which is like a Babel of confusion be the true Church of Christ which for order and Vnity ought to be like to the heauenly Ierusalem How can that Church which is the vnhappy roote of so much Dissension and Division be the Church of Christ which is no lesse the roote of Vnity then it is the pillar and ground of verity I see that ever one sect begets an other which not only divids but strives also like vipers brood to destroy the former Such confusion and Dissension becomes not the Church of Christ but are more proper for the Synagogue of Anti-Christ If the true Church may be knowen by her Vnity then the false Church is no lesse but more easily discerned by its Dissension Math. 7.16 Our Saviour saith of all false Prophets who appeares at first in sheeps raiment you shall know them by their fruits Aug. in psal 149. and S. Augustin sheweth that their fruits are dissensions We sought saith he among them the fruits of charity and we find the thornes of Dissension If therefore we observe our Saviours rule and iudge the Ministers by their fruites we will soone find them not to be true Prophets and their Church wherein their is such Dissension not to be the true Church of Christ but rather a Babel of confusion Therefore I will endeavour by Gods assistance to seek out a Church which hath not only constancy but
as flat blasphemy And yet Calvin esteem's so much this blasphemous fancy that he makes it the price of our Redemption For thus he writes Nothing had been done Cal lib. 2 instit vt sup if Christ had onely dyed a Corporal death but it was also requisite that he should feele the severity of the wrath of God And when this was obiected as a blasphemy by F. Campian Whitaker did second sustaine it Vvitak lib. ◠cont Dureum sect 18. saying that Calvin wrote most truly that nothing had been done if Iesus Christ had onely suffered a corporal death Yea he calls this a doctrin most full of comfort These doctrines are so fals against the Scriptures which shew nothing more frequently and clearly then that we are redeemed by the blood and death of Christ and they are in themselues so absurd and blasphemous that we neede spend no more time in refutation of them for they are of the same kind with those of which S. Hierome speaks when he saith that to discover them is to vanquish them Yea some Ptotestants have written against them as Doctor Bilson B. of Winchester in his booke Bilson in Apol. Prot. tract 3. sect 3. num 40. which he intitles The full redemptein of mankind by the death and blood of Christ And in the defence of the article that Christ descended into hell c. But notwithstanding all the grosse absurdities of this sense invented by Calvin yet it was generally followed by the Presbyterians and by many other Protestants who denyed the local descent of Christs soule to hell For although it sounded very ill yet it behooved to be kep't by the Presbyterians for want of a better vntill a new one more commodious was found out which now lately hath been performed by the new Reformers of these times who see further and more clearly then M. Calvin who although he was famous in his owne generation and was reputed to be an Apostle sent extraordinarly by God to reforme the Church yet did not so much as know his Catechisme nor the true sense of the articles of his Creed but invented such a sense as some of his disciples haue abandonned it as false and others as blasphemous As Beza in his version of the Scripture turned Hell into Grave so he vnderstood this article of the Creed he descended into Hell that is He descended into the grave Which errour together with the former coruption invented by M. Calvin a learned Minister in Edinburgh did publickly refute in divers Sermons a little before the troubles for which he was much persecuted by the Puritans He shew that Bezas corruption made a grosse Tautology in the Apostles Creed or it made an explication more obscure then the thing it explained The Tautology would be very grosse to say Crucifyed dead and buryed he descended into the grave that would be twice buryed Or if you make descending into hell the explication of burial that is a rare Commentary to explicate a matter which is cleare and needs no Cōmentary by that which is more obscure and cannot yet be rightly vnderstood by Protestants as appeares by their dissensions The same Minister shew that both these vices were against the end of the Creed and the wisdome of the holy Apostles who made it short and plaine that it might serve the capacity of all men and therefore it was to be free of idle Tautologies and obscure Commentaries But at that time this Minister did not know that the Presbyterians were to deny the Creed to haue been composed by the Apostles by which his arguments are answered although by falling into grosser absurdities The third sense devised by the Presbyterians at Westminster is subiect to the like inconveniences that is both of Tautologies and obscure glosses For they say by that article He descended into Hell is vnderstood that he continued in the state of the dead and vnder the power of death till the third day For first it would be a Tautology to say dead and buryed and then repeate againe he remained dead or in the power of death that is sufficiently knowen by the words that follow to witt The third day he arose from the dead For he behoved to remaine dead so long as he was dead and he was dead till the third day that he arose from the dead So that the addition of he descended into hell vnderstood in the Ministers new coyned sense would not be onely superfluous but also ridiculous Then if they will make Christs descent to hell an explication of Christs remaining dead the Commentary would be more obscure then the text which is clear of it self How would the Presbyterians be pleased if one would say of Iohn Calvin or Knox or of their late Apostle M. Henderson that they are dead buryed descended into hell And if this man being accused before the Presbytery would bring in his owne defence the Ministers new Commentary that he meaned only by these words that they remained in the power state of death because they are not as yet risen from the dead I am morally perswaded what ever Commentary could be brought either their owne or any other the Presbyterians would be ill pleased with such a Text and would thinke it was sufficient to haue said that they were dead and buryed without this addition They descended into Hell But of all the expositions that ever I found on this article that of the late Protestant Bishop Vsher is the rarest which D. Vane speaking of the Ministers iuglings describes thus D. Vane Lost sheep pag. 243 1. Edit O what Serpentine wriglings and windings to escape the assaulters do they make O what perverse ridiculous and contradicting answers and evasions do some of them make In which they shew at once both much wit and much folly For fooles could not speake as they do and wise men would not In so much that B. Vsher Primat of Armagh a very learned man to avoid the Confession of Christs descent into Hell according to the article of the Creed in the plaine sense thereof doth so turne it and wind it that he makes the sense of the words He descended into hell to be He ascended into Heaven To such pitifull refuges doth the weaknesse of a bad cause drive them c. Thus he And so by this Bishops Commentary for descend we haue ascend and for Hell Heaven But all these senses being nowayes satisfactory the Presbyterians tooke the cleanliest easiest way to deny the Creed it self to be Apostolique that so men might not care much or take great notice of the sense when all authority is taken from the text That shift might in some manner serve their turne if this truth were not as expresly in the Scripture as it is in the Creed Now I would inquire at any man of conscience or ordinary discretion who will consider impartially these things what I should do in this case should I believe the Presbyterians who haue
testament of Moyses rod turned into a serpent of water turned into blood You see then saith he that by prophetical grace nature was twise changed what shall we then say of the divine consecration it self where the words of our Saviour do operate if the speech of Elias was so prevalent that it brought down fire from heaven shall not the speech of Christ prevaile to change the species or nature of the elements Cypr. serm de de coena Domini Greg. Nys Orat. Catech. cap. 37. Damasc l. 4. Ortho fidei S. Cyprian above cited saith that the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the omnipotency of the wotd is made flesh S. Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that the bread wine are transelemented And S. Iohn Damascen averreth that the elements are transchanged ascribing also that change to the omnipotency of God albeit we cannot know the manner how it is done Neither is that much to be admired for the same Father saith we can hardly tell how bread and wine or water by eating drinking are turned into the substance of our body blood If we can hardly know the manner of that change which is made every day by nature how can we think to comprehend the manner of this supernatural change which is made in the divine mysteries by the omnipotent power of the God of nature These testimonies besides others shew me sufficiently both the possibility antiquity of the thing signified by transubstantiation to witt a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christs body blood the outward formes or accidents of bread wine remaining Therefore the Presbyterians do affirm very rashly in their new Confession that this change is not only repugnant to Scripture but also to common sense and reason seing the holy Fathers who cannot with any modestie be denyed to have common sense and reason did believe and prove it both by the Scriptures reason At least I resolved to preferre alwayes the common sense of the Fathers to the private sense of the Presbyterians Then when the thing it self is clear it is great follie in some to make out cryes against the word transubstantiation which they may do as well vpon the same ground against the words Trinity Consubstantial If they receive these vpon the authority of the Church and a General Councel why not the other also vpon the same authority If the change of our Saviours figure or Countenance vpon mount Thabour be fitly called Transfiguration Math. 17. v. 2. why may not also this substantial change of the elements into his body blood be iustly called Transubstantiation yea Beza plainly confesseth that if the letter of the Scripture be followed Papistical transubstantiation is established Beza vt infra And we have seen that the letter must be followed As I saw great vnity among the Catholiques in their belief concerning the holy Sacrament so I admired to find such dissension and confusion among Protestants in so substantial a point of the Christian religion and that this confusion should have risen eVen among their chief Apostles and the first builders of their high tower of Reformation Luth. in lib. de Capt. Babyl cap de Eucha Zuing. in lib. de vera falsa relig ca. de Euc. Cal lib. 4. Instit cap. 18. For Luther teacheth that Christs body is truely and really in the Sacrament but that the substance of the bread is not changed into it and that they remayne both together Zuinglius opposed his Master and taught that the Sacrament is only a bare signe of Christs body which is not in or with the elements but only really in t he heavens Then Calvin the third Apostle came in with pretence of a third light wherewith he would illuminate the world and reform these Reformers First he taught with Zuinglius against Luther that Christs body is only really in the heavens and not in the elements Then against Zuinglius he saith that the elements are not bare signes but they exhibite vnto vs the true body blood of Christ which we eate by the mouth of faith And because it seems impossible to eate any thing remaining at so great a distaÌ„ce he telleth yow that this mysterie is vnperceptible as indeed it is in his opinion which is more hard to conceive then the belief of the Catholiques because it is impossible and hath no ground neither in Scriptures nor Fathers But as some grave Authours have ' observed Calvins opinion of the Sacrament ' differs nothing in reality from the opinion of Zuinglius except only in obscurity of words which are trimmed vp to deceive men putting them in hopes of realities but indeed giving them nothing but bare figures For which cause Luther and his Disciples do brand both Zuinglius Calvin and their successors with the infamous name of Sacramentarian heretiques We do seriously censure saith he Luth. cont artic Louan Thesi 27. Idem tom 7. Vvit f. 381. ibid fol. 382. Luther in lib de Missa priuata vnct sacerd com 7. wit om Zuingl in lib da subsidiâ— Encharsstia Tigurini tract 3. cont confes Luth. p. 61. Zuinglians all Sacramentaries as heretiques strangers from the Church of God Again I take God to witnesse the whole world that I do not agree with them nor shall ever agree with them so long as the world endureth but I shall keep my hands free from the blood of those whom these heretiques draw from Christ whom they deceive and murder He leaveth also a perpetual curse to all those who will make peace with them which curse his disciples have diligently shun'd Yea he professeth that amongst other things the Devil counselled himself to deny the real presence to which he did not give consent by reason of Christs clear words to the contrarie But what the Devil could not do in this point with the Master he performed by his Scholler Zuinglius who by his own confession learned this opinion of a Spirit in the night for which cause Luther saith that the Devil doth now ever dwell in the Zuinglians that their blasphemous breasts are insatanized supersatanized and persatanized with many other horrible expressions of which the Zuinglians say did ever a man heare such words proceed from a furious and infernal Devil Luthers Schollers do continue their Masters zeale for one of them very famous Schlussel de Theologia Cavin lib. 1. c. 20. writes that as of old Averroes the Arabian the Pagans Iewes railed at the Christians for their beleef of Christs reall presence so do now hostes abiurati testamenti filij Dei Calvinistae blaspbemi the blasphemous Calvinists the foresworne enemies of Christs tâ—stament and with the auncient Pagans they take great pleasure with poisoned and Devilish blasphemies to deface and inveigh against the receiving of Christs true body which we by Christs words defend And having shewed by all circumstances that the