man much extolled by the aduersaries THE FIRST CHAPITER BEFORE I come to examine the particular points of error false doctrine contayned in these sermons I thinke it convenient first in a chapter or two to declare the true Catholike faith concerning this sacrament as it hath alwaies bene receaued and acknowledged in the church of Christ and withal historically to note when an in what sort the Zuinglian heresie that I 〈…〉 which at this present beaâ—eth greatest sway among the Protestants of England Scotland for the Protestant coÌ„gregations preachers of Germanie from the beginning of this schisme in Martin Luthers time vntil this present day condemne it for heresie no lesse then do the Catholiks at some tymes endeuored to put forth it self but hath evermore bene repressed by the pastors of Christs church vntil this present age wherein faith decayng Christian beleefe being in many men for many points measured by carnal reason vpon such ground ether of prophane infidelitie or great decrease of faith the true beleef of this sacrament hath amongst many other necessarie articles fayled in the harts of a number ¶ Our sauiour Christ therefore when at the tyme of his passion he was to finish consummate the worke for which he was incarnate that is to redeeme mankynd abrogate the old law begin the new into this to transfer the sacrifices and priesthod of that former as the Apostle Paule teacheth vs in his last supper for a perpetual memorie of that high and infinite sacrifice offered on the crosse which was the persite absolute redemptioÌ„ and consummation of al the ful price and raunsom for al sinnes done or to be done from the first creation of the world vntil the last ending of the same to continue I say a perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice to ordeine the true vvorship of god in the nevv lavv or testament which worship in euerie law consisteth principally of sacrifice to leaue his people a peculier meane whereby that infinite vertue grace procured by the sacrifice on the crosse might be in particular diuided applied to them in his last supper instituted this sacrifice sacrament of the altar as comonly among Catholique Christians it is called the sacrifice sacrament of his owne most pretious body blud a sacrifice for that it is offered to the honor of god for the benefite of christian people in coÌ„memoration of Christ his sacrifice once done and now past as al the old sacrifices of the law of nature Moses were offered for the benefite of that people in prefiguration of the same sacrifice of Christ then to come a sacrament for that it was also ordeyned to be receiued of Christians in particular to feed our bodies to resurrection immortalitie to geue grace vertue sanctification to oursewles This to be the true sense meaning of our Sauiour in this institution and that principally especially concerning the sacrifice for the sacrament is more euident confessed by the more learned of our aduersaries it shal be proued plainly hereafter is sufficiently expressed in the wordes of our Sauiour vvhich according to the recital of al the Evangelists S. Paul yeld plainly this sense For when Christ nameth his body broken or geuen for vs which is al one as if he termed it sacrificed for vs his blud of the new testament shed there in the supper mystically for vs for remission of synnes these words as truly import a sacrifice as any words which the holie scripture vseth to expresse the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse especially those words of S. Paul Corpus quod frangitur the body which is broken most properly directly are to be referred to the body of Christ as in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread in which it novv is then was truly brokeÌ„ so it was not on the crosse as S. IhoÌ„ specially recordeth VVhe â—of S. Chrysostom writeth very liuinelâ— expounding this same word Hoc in Eucharistia vi lere liceâ— in cruce autem minime c. This we see done in the sacrament but not on the crosse For there ye shal not breake anâ— bone of him saith the Euangelist Iohn â—â— But that which on the crosse he suffered not that he suffereth in the sacrifice for thy sake o man is content to be broken And so this word being by S. Paâ—le incuitably verified of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t draweth by like necessitie al the rest both touching the body and blud therevnto although al the rest are also most truly spokeÌ„ of the same body of Christ as geuen for vs on the crosse which no ways impayreth but rather much streÌ„gtheneth the veritie real presence of the same body in the sacrament VVhich sense is yet more clearly necessarely confirmed if we coÌ„ferre these words of Christ vsed in delyuering the chalice of the new law with the vvords of Moses vsed in sprinkling the blud of gotes calues which was appointed by gods ordinance to ratifie establish the covenant betwene god and his people the synagoge of the Iewes in the old lavv For as then Moses gathering that blud in to some standing peece or cup sprinkled the people therevvith saying This is the blud of this old testament which god hath made with you euen to our Saâ—iour ordayning this new testament most euidently making relation to those former vvords of Moses and transferring them to his new ordinance vvhen he deliuered the chalice to his Apostles in them to the vniuersal Catholike church said This is the blud of the new testament as that vvas of the old this here conteyned in the chalice is the selfe same which is to be shed for yow as that was sprinkled vpon the Iewes VVhere S. Luke referring these later vvords shed for yow to that vvhich vvas conteyned in the chalice meâ—utably convinceth that vvhich was in the chalice to haue bene the very real blud of Christ as truly as that vvas his real blud which the next day vvas shed on the crosse as truly as that was real blud with vvhich the people vvere sprinkled in the old testameÌ„t in steed of vvhich blud this is succeded the truth in place of the figure as witnesseth S. Leo S. Austin S. Chrysostom other most auncient fathers All vvhich proue not only the real presence of Christs most pretious body blud but also that it is present by way of a sacrifice as in order to be sacrificed ¶ My intent is not to make any long discourses of this matter vvhich hath bene so learnedly treated dy diuers excellent men of our Iland within our memorie that I gladly confesse my selfe vnable to adde any thing to their labours Yet because this point of Christs testament is the ground of al and for denying the real presence of Christs blud in the sacrameÌ„t the Lutheran Protestants theÌ„ selues charge the
I vvil take as sure certainâ— vz. that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed sanctified and consecrated the bread because vve are taught so to beleeue both by the plain vvords of the Evangelists by S. Paule by consent of al fathers oâ— al auncient I â—â—uâ—gies or soâ—mes of Masse in al churches of Christendome vvhereof some example shal be geuen hereafter also by vâ—â—â—â—t of M. Ievvel Caluin Eâ—â— a vvho so effectually by innumerable places of cripture pâ—oue it and refel Musculus and consequently M. B. in thâ—â— point vvâ—o against al scripture wil haue blessing of these elements to be al one vvith geuing thanks to God VVherefore according to this most sufficient authoritie as Musculus truly telleth vs that Christ at tvvo seueral times first ouer the bread next ouer the cup gaue thanks to God so must vve also assure our selues the scripture these Protestans leading vs therevnto that Christ at tvvo seueral times blessed sanctified and consecrated those 2. seueral elements of bread and vvine vvhich he tooke in his hands Concerning the breaking and deliverie of the bread Musculus vvords are Christ brake it with his owne hands gaue it to his disciples He gaue not the bread whole to them which they afterwards should breake but him self brake it He gaue it not them to distribute but him self did distribute it willed them to take and eate it He deliuered with his owne hands this sacrament of grace signifying withal that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except himself gaue it by the vertue of his spirite Of which point I warne the reader not without cause Thus much saith Musculus concerning the external fact doing of Chrisi so far furth as agreeth to the institutioÌ„ of the mystical Supper After al vvhich finally for declaration that they might vnderstand vvhat he meant by the premisses he addeth This is my body which is geuen and broken for yow Do this in commemoration of me Again This cup is the new Testament in my blud which is shed for yow and for many to remission of sinnes Do this so oft as ye shal drinke it in commemoration of me This is the summe of that which Christ did vvhich he spake about the sacrament vvhich as the same author vvitnesseth Christ first of al did in the eyes of his disciples both that they afterwards should do the same them selues and also deliuer the same order to his church ¶ And this being agreed vpon according to the manifest storie of the Gospel exposition of the purest Protestants that Christ thus did as hath bene novv in particular described and thus spake item that thus he did spake as things apperteyning to the Sacrament and which he would not haue omitted by his Apostles disciples and aftercomeâ—â— to returne to M. B vvho affirmeth al the actionâ— and speeches which Christ did and vttered to be so essential to the Supper that if any one yea any iote be omitted the whole Supper is marred and peruerted let vs conserre these doings of Christ vvith the Scottish Supper ministred after their order vvhich is this Commonly once in a moneth the minister vvhen the supper is to be ministred first of al out of the pulpit reherseth briefly to the people a peece of the 11. chapiter of S. Paule touching the Institution of this sacrament Afterwards he maketh some Sermon against ether the Pope and Catholike religion vvhich is their common argument or in praise of their owne which is more seldom or as seemeth good to the minister The Sermon or exhortation ended the minister cometh downe from the pulpit and sitteth at the table now beginneth the communion euery man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serueth Then he taketh bread and geueth thanks ether in these words folowing or like in effect The thankes-geuing set downe for a paterne for al ministers to folow as in sevv vvords it rendereth thanks to God for his benefites of creation sanctification and redemptioÌ„ by Christ as is ordinarie in many good prayers so it maketh no mention of the Supper or any thing vvhich Christ spake or did therein saue that in one place they mention a table and remembrance of Christs death in these vvords Although we be sinners neuertheles at the commaundemeÌ„t of Iesus Christ our lord we present our selues to this his table which he hath left to be vsed in remembrance of his death vntil his coming again to declare and witnesse before the world that by him alone we haue receiued libertie and life c. and that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom to eate and drinke at his table with whom we haue our conuersation presently in heauen This is al that approcheth any thing nigh to the vvords and Institution of Christ Immediatly after this thankes-geuing the ministâ—r breaketh the bread and deliuereth iâ— to the poeple who distribute and diuide the same amonge them selues according to our Sauiour Christ commaundement Likewise he geueth the â—â—p Here is the entier forme and essence of the Scottish communion For that during the time of eating and drinking some place of the scripture concerning Christs death is read this is a sequele and fashion folowing after and not included in the nature substance of the communion vvhich al goeth before Let vs novv seuerally confer Christs supper vvith this communion and consider how many the same most substantial and essential points after their ovvne graunt vsed there are wanting here Christ first of al tooke bread in to his hands and afterwards gaue thanks and blessed vvhich albeit it may seeme vsual and ordinarie yet saith Musculus it is not so and the very vvords of scripture shevve that it apperteyned to the order and institution of a sacrament Here the minister cleane contrariwise inuerting the order of Christ first geueth at large a thanks after taketh the bread the vvhich vvithout any thanks or any vvord at al he deliuereth to the people Secondarily Christ made a special and seueral thankes-giuing blessing and sanctification or consecration first of the bread and next of the cup and this also he did as a thing perteyning to the verie order and institution of his sacrament Here is no such matter but a confuse thankes-geuing vvithout relation to ether and vvhich conteyneth a blessing sanctification or consecration of nether Christ did not only breake the bread once and afterwards bid them breake and distribute it amonge them selues but him selfe brake and distributed and deliuered it to them ech one with his owne hand signifying thereby that it was not possible for them to haue any participation of grace except he gaue it them by the vertue of his spirite Of vvhich point Musculus geueth the reader a special warning and prouiso Here the minister loth belike to take so much paynes
leaueth that office to the people to distribute and diuide the bread amonge them selues as though al grace came to them from them selues vvithout Christ and his spirite of vvhom they had no need and vvithal he maketh a grosse lye vpon Christ which may stand for a fourth difference betvvene their Communion and Christs Supper that Christ commaunded them so to do VVhereas in the quotations with which they most foolishly paint their margent there is no such thing but the cleane contrarie as before out of the Gospel and the very places which they quote by Musculus hath beneshevved Christ mingled the cup vvhich he consecrated vvhich thing albeit Musculus directly affirmeth not yet he supposeth it most likely and probable yea he nothing doubteth of it being the vniuersal custome of the country VVherevnto if he vvould adde that the text of the Euangelists is indifferent as expressing nether cleane wine nor wine mingled with vvater but only the cup or chalice in every place vvhich vndoubtedly speaketh of the Sacrament for the place of S. Matthevv vvhom S. Marke foloweth vvhere is mentioned the fruite of the vine is doubtful and by auncient fathers expounded diuers vvaies albeit being exactly coÌ„ferred vvith S. Luke and the Ievves maner of eating their Paschal lamb it seemeth most probably to apperteyne not to the cup of Christs Supper but to the cup of that Paschal lamb being applied to the supper of Christ though it include the one it excludeth not the other then lay vnto the Gospel being indifferent the general maner of the country of the lavv of the Iewish Synagoge of the sacrifices especially of that singular sacrifice which most expressely foreshevved this al making for the mixtion of vvater vvith it the vniversal consent of the Christian church and al antiquitie besides he should not deny but Christâ—o tempered the chalice vvhereof he made the sacrament So testifieth S. Iames the Apostle vvho vvas present in his Liturgie Likewise after supper Christ tooke the chalice mingling it with wine and water geuing thankes sanctifying and blessing it gaue it to vs his disciples c. So writeth the most auncict Christian doctor S. ClemeÌ„t a man of the Apostolical age mentioned commended by S. Paule S. Ireneus nameth it temperamentum calicis calicem mistum the chalice mingled or tempered S. Cyprian a number of times epaeteth that Christ so deliuered that Christ offered his chalice mingled with wine water So vvitnesseth S. Basile in his Liturgie And finally to omit al other because it is a thing vvel knovven that the vvhole primitiue church consenteth herein so vvitnesseth the 6. Councel of Constantinople and proveth it by great authoritie The vvords are The vse of mingling water and wine in the chalice in al churches is kept as delivered from god him self For S. Iames the brother of Christ and first bishop of Ierusalem likewise S. Basil that most glorious archbisshop of Caesarea having put in writing this mystical sacrifice declare that the holy chalice should haue in it water wine And the fathers of the Councel of Carthage in vvhich Councel vvas S. Austin plainly and precisely decree that in the sacrament of Christs body and blud nothing be offered more then Christ him self delivered that is to say bread and wine mingled with water Out of al vvhich the fathers of this Councel of Constantinople conclude If therefore any bishop or priest folow not this order delivered by the Apostles but offer the immaculate sacrifice not mingling water with wine in the chalice let him be deposed from his office This general or rather vniversal consent custom of al Christendome coming thus directly from the Apostles might suffise to overpeise for our side especially the vvord of the Gospel being indifferent or rather coÌ„pared vvith the old lavv more bending to the same side But because I vvil charge M. B. and his felovv-ministers no farther then they charge them selues and they plainly confesse not Christs chalice to haue bene tempered vvith vvater or at lest thinke not theÌ„ selues bound to folovv Christs example herein because it is not euidently specified in the Gospel nether vvil I vrge them farther vvith breach of Christs ordinance in this behalfe But the last and the same most pregnant principal of al that vvhich geueth light to al the precedent actions of Christ the vvords vvhich Christ adioyned to declare and expresse the meaning of the â—est the vvords vvhich as Musculus truly auoucheth Christ by his diuine wisedome ioyned to his doing and so bound the one with the other that his disciples might see in his doing and heare in his speaking that whereby they might be instructed in this sacrament and thereby al occasion cut of from mans rasbnes to inuent any new thing or corrupt any part of this sacrameÌ„t these vvords I say so vvisely disposed so necessarily ordeyned so significantly declaring our sauiours meaning and intentioÌ„ these vvords so diuine so mystical and effectual vvhere are they Hovv chaunceth it that they appeare no vvhere Are Christs vvords not vvorth the rehersing Or chalenge yovv to your selues a souerain vvisdome aboue the eternal vvisdome of God If not vvhy disioyne yow most sacrilegiously that vvhich he conioyned VVhy separate yovv and pul a sunder that vvhich Christ bound and coupled together After these precedent signes and actions vvhy here vve not This is my body geven and broken for yow This cup is my blud of the new testament which is shed for yow to remission of sinnes VVhy is this inexplicable benefite omitted vvhich vvas principally intended by al the Evangelists so specially remeÌ„bred If you list not to reherse them vvith the opinion of Catholikes or Papists as yovv cal true Christians as though there vvere some force vertue effect and operation in them vvhich vvas the faith of al the auncient and primitiue church as hath bene shevved yet at lest reherse them historically by vvay of narration as is the guise of the English comunion for that in the storie of the gospel so they stand and there ought to haue their place M. B. vvil perhaps reply O Sir vve omit them not For in the beginning before our Sermon the minister reherseth such vvords out of S. Paule But vvhat maketh that to your Communion vvhat maketh the ministers talking out of the pulpit before the Sermon to his communion vvhich he ministreth sitting at the table long after the Sermon is ended VVhat if the minister before he came to the church read the vvhole chapiter in his ovvne hovvse vvhat if over night Christs order is that they should be vsed ioyned vvith those other doings and actions in the administration of his supper Yow thrust them away from that place Christ tooke bread gaue thanks blessed diuided distributed to his disciples and then telling them what it was vsed those words Yow first take bread and then
diuide it as perhaps yow do at your owne domestical table but for ought els that should separate Christs table from your prophane table Christs spiritual supper from your fleshly and belly supper yow do nothing at al in such order as Christ required and in such order as is requisite to make a sacrament to make Christs table to make a spiritual Supper If the Minister at eight of the clocke say to the child which is to be baptised I baptise thee in the name of the father the sonne and the holy ghost or according to Zuinglius guise I baptise thee in the name of the lord and after hauing told a tale of 2. or 3 howres long at ten of the clocke sprinkle a litle vvater on the child wil any Christian cal this baptisme No it is a mere prophanation of baptisme and contempt of Christ and his ordinance ` The like is to be deemed of this your most arrogant damnable tearing renting in sunder of Christs diuine mysterie or rather cleane remouing and taking quit away of that which Christ appointed for the chief and principal I say cleane remouing away because that forerunning talke out of the pulpit being separated froÌ„ the communion by so long tract of time and interposing of a Sermon can be no more accompted any parcel of the communion then the words of baptisme vttered at eight of the clocke are to be esteemed a part of baptising or sprinkling of the vvater which ensueth 2. howres after VVherefore of this example and maner of communion I wish the godly Christian reader to consider how iust occasion the Caluinists geue to their bretherne the Lutherans to write of them that they hate the â—ords of Christs institution that they can not abide nether â—o set nor to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them that not without good reason Luther wrote of them that when they are enforced to talke of this matter and examine the words of Christ they make such a do before they can be brought vnto it they vse such a number of preambles such vaunts and bragger they speake so many things from the matter and so litle to the purpose as is vncredible And vvhen at length they come to the point it self then lo they treade so nicely and gingerly as though they walked vpon eggs and feared they breaking of them and a man can scarce turne his hand but away they flie with such extreme hast as though the deuil were at their heeles and they feared lest they should stumble breake their necke at euery sillable which Christ pronounced A very liuely image and representation of this may a man see in the Scottish communion booke where in the beginning of their Communion in the margent very curiously they note Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. In the end they again daube the margent vvith printing the same quotations of Matthew Marke Luke Paule as they do also a thirdtime in their formal Thankesgeuing But if ye enter in to the text looke for Christs words erlier as they are vttered by S. Matthew or S. Marke or S. Luke or S. Paule ye find no part oâ— peece of them ve finde no body of Christ geuen or broken ye find no blud shed in remission of synnes ye find no blud of the new testament ve find nothing but bread from the bakers shop and wine from the vintners seller For if the missing of any ceremonie any thing or iote that Christ did suffice to take from it al nature of a sacrameÌ„t leaue it common and vulgar bread as M. B. peremptorily affirmeth whereas here are wanting so many matters practised by Christ so many points they ech one essential according to his owne confession yea vvhereas the very principal of Christs ordinance and institution is left out among so many other things vvhich Christ did which Christ spake which Christ required to be spâ—kâ—â— done how can it be denyed but this Scottish communion according to the sentence set downe by M. B. him self and most cleare reason and inevitable sequele drawen thence is a manifest corrupting peruerting of Christs holy Supper is mereprophane wicked Anabaptistical many degrees worse then the Iewish paschal supper or any Christian good mans dinner or breakefast as Luther also truly vvriteth in which bread is taken as wel as in their communion god honored and Christ remembred and thankes geuen to him for his inestimable benefites as wel as in their coÌ„munion Christ beleeued that is to say eaten by faith as wel as in their Communion bread and drinke blessed and sanctified by the word of god prayer and thankes-geuing better then in their communion as much loue and charitie found amongest honest neighbours as is among their communicaÌ„ts and finally what so euer is good and religious in their communion if any such thing be there is found as truly and plentifully in such a dinner as in that their Supper VVhereas their Supper is besides desiled and polluted with schisme and heresier vvith deuelish contempt of Christs church of omitting altering mangling and peruerting Christs owne doing of corrupting his holy sacrament of which prophane and sacrilegious wickednes no peece is found in such a breakfast or dinner Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament The Argument M. B. declaration why the sacrament is called asigne vz. for that there is truly ioyned to it it exhibiteth to the faithful communicants the thing signified that is the very substance of Christs body and blud Al which he vttereth so plainly in so significant termes and with such comparisons that he seemeth to be a very Catholike or at lest a Lutheran in that point Especially for that he requireth true and real ioyning of Christs body to ours by the sacrament that so our bodyes may be made partakers of life immortal and resurrection which is the doctrine of the auncient fathers and most strongly confirmeth the real presence CHAP. 6. THat which the Scottish communion booke in the last chapiter by refusing abandoning Christs order consequeÌ„tly bringing their Supper to mere bakers bread aud tauerners wine hath marâ—ed that in this next place M. B. vvith very honorable words goeth about to mend and repaire again For thus he declareth why their bread and vvine are called signes The reason vvhy I cal them signes saith he is this I cal them not signes because they signifie or represent only the body and blud of Christ But I cal them signes because they haue the body and blud of Christ conioyned with them yea truly is the body of Christ conioyned with thâ—â— bread and the blud of Christ conioyned with that wine c. Again In respect of this exhibition chiefly that they are instruments to deliuer and exhibite the thing that they signifie and not in respect only of their representation they are called signes
vvhich not Iohn Caluin but Christ ordeyned vve must answere cleane coÌ„trarie that there is but one propiner one person that offereth the sacraments and he exhibiteth not only the earthly matter but also the heauenly not only the signe but also the thing signified euen Christs owne body The difference betwene M. B. and me his ansvvere to the question and myne being so contrarie â—iseth of this that M. B. taketh his sacrament or rather signe I meane his tropical bread vvine from the ministerie institution of Iohn Calvin vvhom he must of necessitie separate and disioyne from Christ the ministerie of the one from the ministerie of the other so must needs haue tvvo different diuided propiners at lest The church taking her sacrament directly simply from Christ can make no difference betwene this ministerie that of Christs this offering and that betvvene this sacrament and that this body and that because as there it was done personally by Christ so novv it is by the order appointment and in the person of Christ And therefore although their eye sight tel them cleerly that then minister geues them nothing but bread and drinke the earthly signe not worth a straa a signe bare and barren without the thing signified yet faith telleth vs that the minister of the church geueth to the Catholike coÌ„municant altogether as much as Christ gaue to his Apostles that was beside the signe the thing signified his diuine and most pretious body vvhich there in a sacrament and after in sight of Iewes and Gentils was offered to God for vs. And thus S. Chrysostom many hundred yeres since taught vs to answere M. B. his question The holy sacrifice saith he whether it be offered by Peter or Paule or any other simple priest of what so euer merit he be it is the self same which Christ gaue to his Apostles Nihil habet ista quam illa minus This hath nothing lesse then that How so Because it is not man that sanctifieth this but Christ who sanctified that For as the words which priests now pronounce are the same which Christ vttered so the sacrifice is al one And so it is likewise in baptisme And after somvvhat more spoken to this effect he concludeth Qui autem hoc illo minus aliquid habere putat ignorat Christum esse qui nunc etiam adest operatur If any man suppose that this our sacrament sacrifice hath lesse then that as M. B. doth making so much difference betwene them almost as is betwene heauen hel â—he is ignorant and knoweth not that it is Christ who now also is present and worketh the consecration and sanctification of sacraments no lesse then he did then And so this first error being thus disproued the second vvhich dependeth theron is by the same reason corrected For as it is one propiner so that vvhich is geuen is geuen in one action vvhich albeit M. B. stay not on but vvith a simple negatiue passeth avvay yet for the readers better information I must tel him somwhat more at large that the signe and the thing signified is by the same Minister of the church at one and in the same action moment exhibited and offered The reason is for that albeit Christ in heauen and the Ecclesiastical minister in earth do differ yet vvhen he in earth forgeueth sinne baptizeth or consecrateth the sacrament he doth it not as of him self but as by povver and vertue and authoritie coÌ„mitted to him from Christ also as hath bene said he doth it in the person of Christ and so the action of Christ and his officer the priest is the self same in number and no way to be accompted tvvo ecclesiastical or rather sacramental actions hovv soeuer morally or physically the actions are distinguished As in like maner vvhen the king sendeth a noble man or iudge with his coÌ„mission into some part of his realme in matters of lavv or othervvise to take order for quiet gouernement of his realme that vvhich the king doth by such a iudge and deputie or this noble man or iudge doth by the kings warrant and authoritie is not in ciuil vvisedome and truth to be accompted tvvo several actions but one and much-more is that other of Christ and the priest one the self same in Theologie ¶ As for the third resolution vvhere it is avouched by him that the thing signified is neuer offered to the mouth of the body the blud of Christ the flesh of Christ whole Christ is not offered nor in the word nor in the sacrament to the mouth of my body to vvhich negatiue he addeth very confidently get me that in any part of the bible that there is any other maner of receiuing of Christ but by faith take it to them I aske him only this question vvhether S. Matth. Gosp â— Marks Gospel S. Luke S. Iohns Gospel vvith S. Paules epistles be any part of his bible If they be then let him ansvvere him selfe vvhether Christ when in his last supper he said to his Apostles Take eate this is my body according to S. Matthevv and S. Marke this is my body which is geuen and broken for yow according to S. Luke S. Paule vvhen thus he performed that vvhich he promised in the sixt of S. Iohn The bread which I wil geue to eate is my flesh the same flesh which I wil geue that is vvhich I vvil offer in sacrifice for the life and salvation of the world vvhen after this promise this performance thus mentioned by al the Euangelists the Christians vvere taught to beleeue as a thing most plaine cleere that in the dreadful sacrifice the bread which vvas there broken vvas the communication of Christs body according to Christs ovvne expresse vvord let him self I say ansvvere him self vvhether in these so manifest and euident speeches the body and flesh of Christ be not offered to the mouth of Christian men For the other part vvhich M. B mentioneth the blud of Christ when of that Christ reaching the chalice to his Apostles said to them drinke ye al of this for this is my blud of the new testament which is shed for many to remission of sinnes according to the same Euangelists and S. Paule when the first Christians were likevvise instructed in particular of this to beleeue vvithout al question of casting doubt that the cup or chalice of benediction which by the priests ministerie was blessed in the church was the communication of Christs blud vvhen vpon this most assured evident and infallible warrant the fathers of the primitiue church vvith one voyce and consent taught that self same blud of Christ to be as truly in the chalice as it truly gusâ—hed out from Christs side vvhen he hung on the crosse the same body and sacrifice to be receiued from the altar in the church vvhich was offered on the altar
only such as be of naughtie life but also of evil and heretical faith if they be not plain Apostataes Of the Calvinists special iustifying faith by which last refuge as al Catholikes be excluded from their spiritual communicatioÌ„ of Christ so yet other most detestable heretikes thereby receiue Christ as wel as the Calvinists And their doctrine of special faith the very roote of dissolute life plainely directly concludeth against M. B. that in their supper the worst Calvinists receiue Christ as wel as the best CHAP. 15. THe next matter not handled before is a couple of arguments vvhich M. B. obiecteth as in the behalf of Catholikes for the real presence The first is this The Apostle saith He that eates of this bread vnworthely is guiltie of the body and blud of Christ There iâ— their ground VVhereof they frame this argument No man can be guiltie of that thing which be â—â—â— not received Evil men receiue not the body of Christ Therefore they can not be guiltie of it This is the argument as he maketh it His answere to this as likewise to the next is out of Calvin thus First I say the first proposition is very false For they may be guiltie of that same body and that same blud suppose they never received it But take heed to the text The text saith not that hey eate the body of Christ but that they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely And yet because they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely they are counted before God guiltie of the body and blud of Christ not because they received him for Christ can not be received of any man bâ—â— worthely but because they refused him For when they did eate that bread and drinke that wine they might if they â—ad had faith eaten and drunken the flesh and blud of Christ Nâ—â— because thow refusest the body of Christ offered vnto thee thâ—â— contemnes it and so art guiltie of it In this answere whereas M. B. wisheth the reader or hearer to take heede to the text so do I to so shal he find M. B. to be as right a minister that is to say as right a falsifyer of the text as are coÌ„monly his felow ministers For where findeth he in the text except it be a false corrupted text that such men eate that bread and drinke that wine vnvvorthely Certainely not in any text of S. Paule For thus stand the words even as I find them translated by Beza and Calvin Therefore who so ever shal eate of this bread and drinke of this cup vnworthely shal be guiltie of the Lords body and blud But let every one proue him selfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh damnation to him self for that he discerneth not the Lords body These are the words of the Apostle and thus are they translated by Calvin Beza And novv take as good heed as yow can to the text VVhere find ye that evil men eate bread drinke wine VVhat godles dealing is this to wil your auditour to take heed to the text then your self to abuse the holy scripture to corrupt the text coosen your auditor or reader most vvhen most yow pretend honestie simplicitie vvil him to take heed to the text And let not the reader suppose that the corruption is smale or of no great moment For it is vile grosse and in this place so heretical that he had bene as good to have made a text of his owne as to have made the Apostle thus to speake For the Apostles vvords are divinely exactly set downe and Apostolically expresse the real presence For in naming this bread in vrging and repeating that bread vvhich in greeke is significantly put and declareth a singular bread he meaneth that bread of God which came from heaven that bread which geueth life that body vvhich in the old testament sometimes and in the Gospels oft times in one chapter of S. Iohn a dosoÌ„ times at lest is called bread vvhich bread our saviour him self assureth vs to be his flesh which was to be geven for the life and salvation of the world In naming the cup or that cup vvhich is Christs owne vvord and vvhich vvord being common to any thing conteyned in the cup be it the blud of the new testament which was shed for vs be it wine be it water be it ale or beer or any maner drinke to al vvhich the vvord cup may vvel agree our saviour restreyneth to the blud of the new testament shed for remission of sinnes and so restreyneth that it can not be referred to wine or any other thing S. Paule most assuredly meaneth the same and so in the one and other truly describeth the Catholike faith of the church Against vvhich M. B. telling vs that the Apostle saith such evil men eate that bread and drinke that wine most vvickedly by thrusting in his wine redueeth the vvord bread to a vulgar base signification because talking of bread and wine no man can conceive othervvise vvhereas the vvord bread being in scripture common to al foode vvhereby man liveth and the vvord cuppe being in his kind as large and general doth not signifie nether that our vulgar kind of bread nor this wine more then it signifieth flesh and ale or fish and vvater and being o 〈…〉 self indifferent other places of the scripture necessarily determine it to one certain more high and divine signification as hath bene declared Now vvhereas M. B. maketh a discourse that a man may be guiltie of a thing vvhich he receiveth not which no vvise man doubteth of and so a man may be guilty of Christs body and blud vvhich yet is not eaten oâ— drunken ether corporally or spiritually vvhich is a plaine case for Pagans and persecutors are guilty of Christian blud vvhich vniustly they shed though yeâ— they drinke it not and Pilate Herode Caiphas and the Ievves vvhich crucified Christ vvere guiltie of his death of â—ath body vvhich they eate nether vvay nether as Catholiks nor as Protestants al this is labour spent in vaine and talke to no purpose VVe argue not vpon vvords of condemnation or guiltines in general but vpon the vvords as they are put in the Apostle and ioyned vvith other vvords of his so they clearly prove a real presence and M. B. his interpretation is maledicta glâ—ssa a cursed glose and exposition because it is cleane not besides but against the text For saith M. B. the fault of these men vvhom S. Paule reproveth is because they eate not that divine bread nor drinke that diuine cup S. Paule saith their fault is because they do eate it and drinke it M. B. putteth the indignitie and vnworthines in refusing not receiving it S. Paule in receiving it not refusing For they do receiue eate it but
more be in the sacramental bread and vvine of the English and Scottish Communion And yet as I suppose nether the English not the Scottish ministers thinke it necessarie that vvhen they minister the communion there be present in the congregation reaping and thresshing grinding and baking and so forth nether yet that in their cup being made of vvine or ale there be many ale cornes or many grapes or in the bread many wheat cornes to signifie the vnitie of the lord with the congregation as also the vnitie of the bretherne and sisterne one vvith an other in faith and love but it is counted sufficient that to the matter of the sacrament these things vvere requisite before it could be made bread or vvine If he thus thinke and answere as he must of necessitie then he answereth him self that it suffiseth this sacrament in the Catholike church to be made of bread and vvine vvhich signifie spiritual nurriture though after consecration the substance of nether remayne vvhich yet nurrish even then sufficiently to performe that vvhich his argument requireth Finally this argument is condemned by Iohn Calvin him self and the vvhole consistorie of Geneva For vvhereas this man argueth that vve haue no sacrament because we want a signe if the substance of the bread be chaunged although that notwithstanding vve reteyne al properties qualities effects and operations of bread Calvin vvith his consistory as before is noted holdeth the sacrament to be perfite and absolute though there be no bread at al though there vvant both substance and qualities of bread al shape forme and nature of bread and vvine both internal and external And vvhereas against that opinion or licentious dispensation there vvas obiected belike by some minister of M. B. his conceite this argument vvhich here he opposeth the Consistorie answereth very gravely This analogie or signification of bread made of many graynes and wine of many grapes to declare our mutual coniunction although it be not to be contemned yet nether is it so precisely to be vrged but that it may suffise vs to testifie that coniunction and faith by like signes in general by other meate and drinke If then the Geneva bretherne may have a very perfit sacrament vvithout any kind of bread and vvine â—ther in substance or accident M. B. his reason proceedeth of smal vvit in denying vs a sacrament vvho reteyne the formet al necessarie properties of bread suâ—ficieÌ„t fully to signifie although according to Christs expresse vvord vve beleeve the substance of bread to be changed in to the substance of a more celestial and divine bread vvhich came from heauen Thirdly saith M. B. if there were such a wonderful thing as they speake of in this sacrament there would haue bene plaine mention made of it in the scripture VVhat playner mention can yow require then This is my body the self same which shal be deliuered for yow This is my blud of the new testament the same which shal be shed for the remission of sinnes for the redemption of the world Can M. B. vvith al his study devise vvords more plaine more effectual more significant Fourthly he much troubleth him self to find the veritie of this proposition This bread is my body vvhether it be true before the words spoken or after c. I answere first let him set downe a truth and not a falsitie and after propose his difficultie and then ether it shal be satisfied or vve wil acknowlege his deep and vnanswerable subtilitie But for ought appeareth in our testaments English Latin or Greeke Christ never vsed any such speech Christ never said This bread is my body but as hath bene declared before Christ so vttered his vvords as possibly they can not yeld that proposition Let M. B. marke vvel the words in the Euangelists and conferte them vvith his grammer rules ether in Greeke or Latin and if he can make Hoc to agree vvith panis or Hic vvith vinum then he may chaunce to trouble vs. Otherwise except he his vvil take vpon them to make vs a new Grammar a new Latin and Greeke language vvhich they may better do and vvith more reason then make vs a new faith new sacraments new Theologie as they have done he shal not find in al the testament that â—â—â—â— Christ said This bread is my body This wine is my blud ¶ Fiftly Austin saith lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana cap. 16. To eate Christs flesh and drinke his blud seemeth to commaund a wickednes or mischief Therefore it is a figuratiue speach whereby we are commaunded to communicate with Christs sufferings and with gladnes to locke vp in perpetual memorie that the flesh of our Lord was crucified and wounded for vs. For otherwise as the same Austin makes mention it were more horrible to eate the flesh of Christ really then to murther him to drinke his blud then to shed his blud S. Austins vvords answere them selues and so doth S. Austin in other places and even here the second place answereth the first because it notifieth how far forth this speach is figurative Only this may be added to the first that vvhen S. Austin saith that to eate Christs flesh is to coÌ„municate with Christs sufferings and to locke vp in perpetual memorie that Christs flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs he meaneth no other thing then S. Paule doth and the church also vvhen they vvil al Christians vvhich ether offer the mystical sacrifice or receive it to do it in remembrance of Christs bitter passion vvherein his flesh vvas truly wounded and crucified for vs as here it is not And that S. Austin thus meant and never meant by locking vp Christs death in perpetual memorie to shut out this real sacrifice and sacrament vvhich most directly and perfitly continueth that death and bluddy sacrifice in perpetual memorie let S. Austin him self be iudge in a number af other places vvhereof some heretofore have bene other hereafter shal be cited For this present this one may serue The Iewes saith he in their sacrifices of beasts which they offered after diuers sorts and fashions as was connenient for so great a matter practised a fore signification or representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse VVherefore now the Christians also celebrate and keepe the memorie of the same sacrifice past How by vvords only or cogitations or eating bread and drinking vvine as in the Scottish and Geneua English supper No but by a holy oblation and communication or receiving of the same body and blud of Christ Peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosanctâ— oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis c. This S. Austin thought the best vvay to locke vp Christs sacrifice and death in perpetual memorie And this perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice standeth wel and is best preserved by the churches mystical sacrifice and real presence of
spiritually we may eate Christ in the supper as we may also at dinner or breakfast or walking or praying or hearing a sermon or when so euer we thinke on him beleeue that he truly dyed for vs yet no such eating is proper to the supper â—oâ— vve see it is coÌ„mon to al times and al places the supper vvas not instituted therefore but to ratifie confirme and seâ—le such spiritual eating and herein in this 〈…〉 consisteth truly the essence of Calâ—ins supper and not in eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blud so much as spiritually For such a supper imparteth not vnto vs nether coÌ„municatâ—th the body of Christ nor is cause instrument or meane thereof othervvise then for that it stirreth vp ouâ—â—â—â—â— mynds and geueth vs occasion to beleeue in Christ by vvhich beleef only and no 〈…〉 Christ is eaten So that if by hearing a good sermon or reading a good chapter of the old testament or nevv or talking vvith a good zealous brother or sister a mans faith be better moued then by receiuing the supper to beleeue that Christ died rose again whereof many zealous Protestants much doubt to reforme their â—aith herein haue need of better helpes then is yelded to them by breaking of bread drinking of wine which thing may be very common and is very probably supposed then by such a sermon such a chapter such good brotherly talke Christs flesh is eaten more properly more truly more really and effectually then it is in the supper And therefore this is not the cause why the supper was instituted For so the word preaching serueth much better as Peter Martyr also conuinced by manifest reason and sequele of the Caluinian doctrine confesseth For being thus vrged I deny not saith he but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no losse in words then in the sacrament or symboles For this receiuing is wrought by faith And to faith we are stirred vp by wordâ— aâ— wel as sacraments Neque vereor dicere multo etiam maâ—is c. And I feare not to affirme that wecome to the receiuing of Christs body much more by words then by sacraments For sacraments haue al their force from the words VVhich is most euideÌ„t to any Christian man indued with coÌ„mon capacitie To vvhom if one say these words that Christ dyed for our sâ—nnes rose againe for our iustification by whose death we al looke to be saued obteyne eternal felicitie and an other bring him in to the Protestant congregation and there breake before his eâ—es a loaf of bread and â—il a goblet of wine comparing these tvvo together there can be no question but the first vvords are ten rymes more avayleable to make the hâ—â—â—er eate Christ by faith then this later dumb ceremony vvhich may haue tvventie other significations as vvel as Christs passion death and resurrection and our iâ—stiâ—ication and doth not nor can signifie any such thing except some body tel him that such a signification is meant and intended thereby VVherefore the body of Christ being better receiued before supper by reading talking conferring vvith some honest zealous brother or before the taking of the bread by the preaching of the minister then by such symbolical receyuing of bread wine Christ being in that sort out of the supper both more coÌ„monly and ordinarily receiued as Caluin confesseth and euerie man may see then in the supper which chaunceth to many scarce once in the yere to some scarce once in 10. yere the receiuing also out of the supper by words being more effectual and profitable then in the supper by bread drinke as P. Martyr acknovvlegeth and by good reason iustifieth hereof Luthers obiection against this Caluinian supper albeit it vvere very rude and rustical yet lacked it not altogether ground that Christ had smale occasion to institute such a supper vvhereof al the Christian world is ful For there is neuer a Christian but ether doth or at least may make this supper euery hovvre of the day night also if he vvake and thinke vpon the passion and death of Christ VVhich obiectioÌ„ of Luther because it is though grosse and blunt yet sure euident therefore to auoyd that absurditie and that this supper of Carolostadius Zuinglius invention and framing but of Caluins polishing and persiting should not be altogether voyd of some vse this vvas deuised that it should serve for a seale to confirme the ministers preaching and the brethrens receiuing vvho ether before the supper or in the supper according as their mynd vvas thinking of Christ hauing eaten him by faith and cogitation spiritually aftervvards resorting together to their supper there receiue the seales of bread and vvine or some other nutriment to confirme assure them that before they haue receiued the Lords body spiritually by faith And this is the sealing and confirmation proper to the supper vvhereof in the places before noted P. Martir and Caluin vvrite and vvhich Caluin most accompteth of therefore geuing the definition of a Sacrament as it is common to the tvvo Baptisme and the Supper vvhich only he admitteth for sacraments maketh the very essence nature of them to consist in this sealing A Sacrament saith he is an external signe whereby the Lord sealeth to our consciences the promises of his beneuolence thereby to proppe vp our weake faith And this sealing and confirming is taught both by Caluin and al other right Caluinists as a most special substantial proprietie of their supper and the other sacrament of Baptisme also as that baptisme sealeth to vs remission of sinnes and election to life eternal the supper sealeth to vs the manducation of Christs body and blud which by faith we haue receiued For truly to speake after these mens doctrine the Supper yeldeth no more the one then baptisme doth the other the supper no more conferreth or imparteth Christs body then baptisme conferreth remission of sinnes and election to life eternal But saith Caluin aâ— in publike grauntes the seales which are set to the writings and instruments are of them selues nothing for if nothing were written the putting to of the seale were of no effect but when the writing is made graunted then the seales confirme make the same more autentical and as among the auncient Greekes Romanes their leagues and treaties of peace were confirmed by killing a sow which sow so killed had bene to no purpose had not the words couenants of the treatie bene accorded before for many a sow is killed which signifieth no such mysterie likewise in coÌ„mon contractes when matters haue bene by words of frendship agreement before concluded arrested on then is the contract ratified confirmed by shaking of hands without which antecedent words of concord the shaking of hands is nothing which may as wel be done by an enemie to euil purpose as
can not comprehend vet let our faith beleeue For true it is though most miraculous in these sacramental earings of the Ievves who so perceiueâ—h not many miracles to be coÌ„teyned is more then a doâ—t vvere he not if not in vvit a very dolt asse yet surely in diuinitie a very simple one vvho vvould attribute such miraculous excellencie to the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvhich them selues notvvithstanding al their hyperbol cal lâ—ing florishes meane not to be true no not in the gospel And vvhat so euer they meane the vniuersal scope and drift of scripture denieth refuteth it in the old lavv most effectually For although the good men vnder the law which vnderstood their ceremonies and sacraments to be shadowes and darke presignifications of a Messias and by vsing them were kept in an obedience and orderly subiection and expectation of a Sauiour to come by such obedience faith pleased god and were therefore rewarded at his hands yet that those ceremonies and sacraments velded them any such grace as is here declared much lesse the participation of Christs true flesh blud which is the supreme soueraine grace of al that euer was or euer shal be in this world the old testameÌ„t it self and also the new in many places denyeth especially the Apostle S. Paule in whole chapirers of his epistle to the Hebrewes where he most expresly treateth discourseth of their sacraments and state of the old testament in comparison of ours and state of the gospel For to omit sundry textes apperteyning to this purpose in the Prophets Euangelists to rest only vpon S. Paule when he saith that circumcision the principal sacrament of the law was nothing of no effect to conferre grace and that Abraham him self vnto whom singularly circumcision was a sâ—â—â—e of the iustice of faith was not yet iustified in circumcision nor by circumcision but otherwise when he disputeth that no worke no ceremonie no sacrament of the lâ—â— was 〈◊〉 to iustification but only the faith and grace exhibited in the new testament when he calleth al those Iudaical sacraments infirma et egena elementa weake and poore elements or as the English bibles translate it weake and beggerly ordinances when he teacheth the vvhole lavv and al the ceremonies sacraments thereof to haue bene reiected and altered because of their weakenes and vnprofitablenes that those sacrifices baptismes and meates drinkes blud of oxen and goates were only iustices of the flesh sanctified those that vsed them no otherwise then in taking away legal pollutions and so purified men only according to the flesh and therefore were instituted by god not to remayne for euer but only vntil the time of correction or new testament and then other maner sacrifice and Sacrament should succede in their place briefly when he teacheth the law to haue had a shadow of good things to come not the very image of them much lesse the body which is geuen by Christ in the nevv testament that it vvas impossible for the blud of those sacrifices to take away sinne and purifie the comscience for vvhich cause also god foretold by his prophets that he vvold reiect those hostes and oblations sacrifices and that they pleased him not vvhen the Apostle thus vvriteth thus teacheth thus disputeth against those legal sacraments vvhat Christian man vvil say that vvith them vvas exhibited and conioyned the true flesh and diuine blud of our god and Sauiour as before according to Caluins first preaching the same is conioyned vvith the sacraments of the nevv lavv If vnder those elements of bread and wine as novv in the supper the body and blud of Christ were not only figured but also truly deliuered if vvhen they vvere eaten of the Ievves by the omnipotencie of god and miraculous operation of his holy spirite Christ Iesus I meane as Calvin teacheth me the flesh blud of Christ yea the very substance thereof as Beza also with the consent of a whole Caluinian Synode speaketh were receiued vvithal then truly S. Paul in calling such a Sacrament a weake and beggerly ordinance had bene a very vveake Apostle an vnfit instrument to publish Christs name before nations and Princes of the vvorld vvho of Christs diuine person of his pretious flesh and blud the price raâ—â—â—om of the world reconciliation of al things in heauen and earth had had so meane and beggerly aâ— opinion But because most sure it is that b. Paule was â—â—â—nom any such beggerly or rather beastly ethnical â—og 〈◊〉 the Calumâ—â— who in this deteâ—â—able â— aâ— pâ—â—mous conâ—cite â—oloweth Calâ—in know that tâ— hâ—m S. Paule speaketh and he shal once to his eterna payne vnlesse â—e in time repent â—â—ele true that which S. Paule threatneth in eueÌ„ for this particular blasphe â—â—â—s heresie of matching the base Iewish ceremonies with Christs most heauenly and diuine Sacraments A man making frustrate the law of Moyses is adiudged to death therefore by the verdite of 2 or â— witnesseâ— How much more deserueth he more extreme punishmentâ— which thus treadeth the sonne of god vnder foote and esteemeth the blud of the new testament polluted by making it nothing superior to the blud of beasts and so hath done contumelâ—e to the sp rite of grace beyond al measure abased most vily and contemptuously the diuine state and maiestie of the new testament Let the discreete reader know that against this Iudaisme the Christians euer from the begâ—nning of Christianitie haue had touching their sacraments a more excellent faith and diuine perswasion as who vpon warrant of Christs words haue euer beleeued that in the one sacrament was deliuered the body and blud of Christ the same in veritie and truth of substance that was sacrificed on the crosâ—e as before more largely hath bene deduced And for the other sacrament for I mention no more because thâ—se men acknowledge no more the holy scriptures and writings of the Apostles and the church ensuing haue yelded vnto it as to an instrumental cause higher grace vertue then to any sacrament of the Iewes law or al their sacraments and sacrifices ioyned in one For proofe whereof when Christ was baptized the heauens opened and the holy ghost descended to signifie that by baptisme the way to heauen shut before is made open to is the holy ghost powred in to vs as Christ him self by word and deed taught most manifestly except a man be borne of water the spirite he can not enter into the kingdome of god And to testifie that aâ—â—uâ—â—dly and that in baptisme Christians are made partakers of the holy ghost in the begin â—â—â—g of the church the holy ghost â—â—sibly deseended rested on them that were baptized by the Apostles and first preachers of our faith And the gospel Apostolical writings euery where teach that â—â—bert the baptisme of Iohn
the Communion vvas ended and the CoÌ„municants had drunke their parts didst not thow forbid me to powre backe again in to the tankard the wine that remained VVhen the breads appointed for the Eucharist were spent and new were to be taken and deliuered out didst not thow repeate againe the institution of Christ and that in solemne musike VVhen as in the congregationâ— would not willingly permit to thee the administration of the cuppe didst not thow commaund thy colleag that in the face of the congregation he should take the cup from me by force And for that cause did not I hold it fast and with both my hands So bissie vvas this good minister to hold fast the cup lest he should leese his drinke and to omit al the former vvranglings bravlings quarellings by your Diuinitie so bissie was Christ in heauen also to make correspondeÌ„ce as yow cal it concurrence and ioynt effering with him to resemble the action of this minister ¶ Again hovv chaunceth it that yovv forget so soone the forme of ministring your Communion vvhere it is precisely noted that the people not the minister distribute and diuide the bread among themselues and so this your sacramental signification of Christ as bissie as the minister when as the minister sitteth stil and doth nothing is cleane lost and Christ left as quiet and voyd of such bissines in heauen who in deed medleth nothing vvith your communions as he vvas before Thirdly which is the chief I maruel you perceiue not your owne vvrong and false application of your communicating vvhen yovv so expresse eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blud by the ministers action deliuering the bread as though the only instrument of deliueringâ— vvere the minister and the broad and as though vvith the bread it were stil deliuered when as yow make such a ioynt-offering and concurrence as here yovv describe that the signe and thing signified are offered both together one time and in one action say other where that so 〈◊〉 is the body blud of Christ conioyned with that bread 〈…〉 wine that as soone as thou receiuest that bread in to thy mouth if thow be a faithful man or woman so soone thow receiuest the body of Christ in to thy sowle that by faith Know yow not that this doctrine is refuted by every SacrameÌ„tarie Protestant I suppose that ever wrote of the sacraments VVho is there among them al that ever wrote a booke of common places but he hath one railing invectiue against the Papists because they taught that Gratia dei est alligata sacramentis Gods grace his body and his blud remission of synnes is ioyned or annexed to the sacraments For by alligata they meane not tyed or bound as a thief is with ropes but as by gods creation phisical vertue is ioyned to causes natural moral vertues to causes moral and theological graces to sacraments which are like causes efficient and instruments theological by Christ ordayned to such effects and ends Reade vvith a litle more diligence Calvins Institutions whereas yovv vvil haue the body and blud of Christ truly conioyned with your bread and vvine and likevvise grace of regeneration vvith the vvater of baptisme yovv shal synd that Caluin chargeth yovv in any case not to say so nor to thinke that any vertue at al much lesse that fountayne head-spring of al vertues is conioyned with any sacrament Reade his commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Ephesians and yovv shal see him most strongly after the principles of your gospel to beate dovvne al this ioynt offering and ioynt receiving The libertie of gods spirite and grace of god is not tyed to the signes saith he and many receiue the signe that are not partakers of the grace not only through their fault because they refuse it but euen by the very nature of the sacrament and ordinance of God therein For that the signe is common to al good and bad but the spirite which delivereth the thing signified is â—euen only to the elect chosen Reade Zuinglius and he vvil teach yovv that herein yovv erre notably Some there are saith Zuinglius which suppose the sacraments to be such signes as when we vse them that is inwardly done in our harts which outwardly is signified by the sacrament But this is false For so the libertie of gods spirite should be bound if he were driuen to worâ—â— inwardly vpon those whom we marke with the sacraments outwardly Reade Musculus and yovv shal find that be vpon the like ground condemneth your opinion as vnreasonable according to the Protestant theologie VVhen Christians are baptized saith Musculus the things signified by the external sacrament are wrought in the elect as pleased the spirite of Christ ether before or after or in the very act of baptizing And therefore let no man thinke that the spirite is so tyed to the external sacrament that he worketh spiritually and effectually ether in the harts of al that be baptized or ever in the very act of baptisme He is a mad man that so thinketh c. And it is very absurd to tye the operation of the holy ghost which is most free to the external act of baptisme Reade Bullinger and he vvil teach yovv that faithful Christians do not then first receiue gods grace and beauenly gifts when they receiue the sacramental signes But first they haue the things signified after at leasure they take the signes c. So when we baptise children we protest clearely that we do not then first in baptisme geue them the grace of god which before they wanted but by baptisme we seale and confirme that which they had receiued before and in like maneris it in the supper eodem modo fit in caena Finally reade Peter Martyr Bucer Beza Occolampadius any Zuinghan Caluinist or Anabaptist and yovv shal find them to reproue this your opinion as Papistical And vvhat need I to obiect particular doctors vvhereas the vniuersal scope and preaching of al Caluinists and Caluinisme is plaine contrarie So soone saith this man as thow receiuest the bread into thy mouth if thow be faithful thow receiuest the body of Christ by faith in to thy sowle So soone say yovv and no sooner not before VVhen at your supper there be 2 or 3. hundred doth not the last maÌ„ â—ate Christ by faith before his turne come to receiue the bread into his mouth Al the time of the Sermon al the time of the thankes geuing al the time of the communioÌ„ when he seeth the bread brâ—ker and wine powred cut and he by occasion thereof thinketh on Christs passion doth he not spiritually by faith eate Christ Do not yovv defend this to be the proper spiritual eating of your supper It is evident and manifestly declared before VVherefore this is a very iest and plaine mockety to say that so soone as thow
Gospel sundry times vve reade And this is no derogation to Christ but rather glorie as S. Ambrose verie vvel teacheth For our Lords wil is that his servants haue great power His wil is that they sâ—â—uld in his name do such things as him self did when he was here on earth Yea in S. Ioan. 14. he saith that they shal â—â— greater things then he did Act. 9. when he could haue restored to Saul his sight yet he sent him to Aâ—anias And to be short having with sundry scriptures iustified this in fine he opposeth his adversaries the Novatian heretikes as I do M. B VVhy presume yow to deliuer and clense any from the fowle and stinking service of the devil Cur baptizatis si per honimem peccata dimitti non licet VVhy baptize yow if by man sinnes can not be forgeuen For in baptisme is forgeuenes of al sinnes Et quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per la vacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent And what skilleth it whether in Baptisme or Penance Priests exercise this right which by Christ is geuen to them Thus S. Ambrose And therefore if this be al the difficultie why a man may not in the sacrament geue Christs body we see the case is not so hard As for that M. B. obiecteth of S. Iohn Baptist proceedeth first of ignorance then of heresie Of ignorance for that from S. Iohns ministerie baptisme which apperteyning to the old lavv and so vvithout question not being of force to remit sinne he draweth his argument to proue that the ministerie baptisme of Christs gospel can not remit sinne VVhich argumeÌ„t holdeth as blindly ignorantly as if he said Moyses could not forgete sinne ergo Christ can not whereof hath bene spoken before And for his better instructioÌ„ herein he may must learne that not S. Iohn Baptist but Christ is the malâ—â— and ordeyner of the nevv testament and al sacraments apperteyning thereto as the prophete Esay the Apostle Paule and vvhole frame of the nevv testament declareth VVherefore if he wil proue that the ministerie of the nevv testament consisteth only in the external element let him shevv it in some one sacrament of this state and so he speaketh to the purpose Of heresie his reason proceedeth because he assumeth as certain that our baptisme is not in the fier and spirite but in water only as that of S. Iohn Baptist was VVhich doctrine stinketh of heresie as being not only coÌ„demned for such by the late general Councel of Trent but also earnestly reproued by al the auncient fathers vvho by occasioÌ„ wrote of those two baptismes vvere they Greeke or latin as Origen in epist ad Romanos ca. 6. Athanas quaest 133. ad Antioch Basil lib. 1. de Baptismo ca. 2. Nazianz. orat 39. in lumina S. Chrysest hâ—m 10. 12. in Matth. 16. in Ioan. S. Cyril lib. 2. in Ioan. ca. 57. where he of purpose handeleth this matter saith that the holy ghost foresaw that afterwards would rise ignorant felowes who would not distinguish Christs baptisme from Iohns and that therefore the holy ghost moued Iohn baptist him self to speake most plainly that it baptized in water only Of the latin doctors Tertul. in liâ— de baptismo S. Cyprian in his sermon de baptismo Christâ— â— Optatus lib. 5 S. Hilarie in Matth. ca. 3. S. Ambros lib. 2. cap. â— in Luc. praeâ—â—â—io in psal 37. S. Leo epistola 4. ca. 6. S. Gregâ—r Homil. 20. in Euangel S. Austin and S. Hierom in a numbeâ— of places S. Hierom. epist 83. ad Occanum in 2. cap. â—oelis iâ— dialogo contra Luciferianos S. Austin epist 48 prope finem 163. Enchirid. ca. 19. 49. Lib. 2. contra literas Peâ—iliani ca. 37. lib. 3. ca 76. lib. 4. de baptis coÌ„tra Donatist ca. 26. lib. 5. cap. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. de vnico baptismo ca. 7. de vnitâ—r ecclesiae ca. 18. Of which two fathers S. Hierom earnestly reproveth them vvho vvith M. B. and the Caluinists thinke that Christs baptisme Iohns was al one and saith that they mainteyne a froward opinion by yelding to much to the baptisme of the seruant destroy the baptisme of his our maister S. Austin that they defend a wicked sacrilegious opinion And what need I to alleage auncient fathers to this purpose vvhereas Caluin confesseth it as a cleere and knowen case that they in deed thus taught much laboured to distinguish the baptisme of Christ and Iohn whose authoritie yet most arrogantly he contemneth But therefore to breake his insolent spirite supporte the fathers authoritie let it be added that this sacrilegious opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists was long before these fathers liued condemned by the Gospel it self in which we find the ministerie of Christs baptisme to haue bene done not in water only but in water and the spirit or as it is expressed sometimes in fier and the spirit that is in the spirite of god who as he descended visibly vpon the Apostles in forme of fier in the day of Pentecost so oft times visibly in the primitiue church he powred his grace on the nevv Christians especially vvhen they received the sacrament of baptisme confirmation thereby to testifie that his presence grace was euer infallibly geuen in al the baptismes which vvere ministred in Christs name and by his order since the first institution thereof as S. Iohn Baptist him self in the place quoted by M. B. plainly told distinguishing most euidently as betwene his person and the person of Christ so betvvene his ministerie and baptisme vvhich was in water that vvhich Christ vvas to ordeyne in water and the spirite as it is noted in euery of the Euangelists and in the Apostles vvhich spake thereof afterwards ¶ And novv this blocke being remoued which lay so in M. B. his way that he could not allovv a man to deliuer Christs body blud no more then a maÌ„ could geue remission of sinnes vve may vvith so much the more facilitie conclude the answere to his first question whether one person or tvvo deliuer the sacrament And alb eit his answere be that there are twa propiners twa perons which offer and geue the sacrament Christ and the minister of which twa the minister geueth the signe Christ the thing signifiedâ— the minister the earthly matter that is bread Christ the heauenly matter that is his body coÌ„paring these two ministeries together he so abaseth the one that he saith he wil not geue a straa for it so that by this description their coÌ„munion so far furth as by their ministers it is geuen is nothing els but an earthly signe a coÌ„mon peece of bread not worth a straa al vvhich I graunt in such sort as hath bene said before yet referring this to the sacrameÌ„t of the church
his vvit and memorie be but very indifferent especially vvhen he is first vvarned by the minister and after seeth the bread and vvine conceive thus much as vvel as the most honest man in the congregation For let M. B. marke vvel vvhat it is to eate Christ spiritually in their sacrament By his ovvne definition and the coÌ„mon consent of his maisters this eating hath no relation or dependence of charitie of honestie of vertue of good life but only of faith Bring with yow to the table saith M. B. not one mouth only of your body but also the mouth of the sawle VVhat is that A constant persuasion in the death of Christ and al goes wel This persuasion my Protestant of vvhom I speake vvanteth not For I presuppose him to be no apostata though I graunt him to be an heretike and therefore he doubtles hath this mouth of his sawle and therefore eates Christ and so al goes wel Again As the mouth of thy body takes the bread so them â—â—â— of thy â—awle takes the body and blud of Christ by faith For by faith and a constant persuasion is the only way to eate the body and drinke the blud of Christ â—nwardly Then inwardly doth this evil Protestant eate Christs body and inwardly doth he drinke his blud For being a Christian though a bad one he must needs have a faith and constant persuasion of Christs death Christ saith Peter Martyr in the 6. of S. thou promised to gâ—ve his flesh to be eaten And that which he then promised he performed in his lâ—st supper But not then only He also performeth it now so often as we truly beleeve that he hath dyed for vs. VVhat need I repeatâ— that vvhich is most evident that the vvicked have this faith of beleeving Christs death therefore eaâ—e spiritually the flesh of Christ Calvin goeth one point further requiring that they beleeve Christ not only to have died vvhich only M. B. and Peter Martyr vâ—ge but also that he beleeve Christ to have risen again VVhâ—â—â—as I sinâ— in Beza is a question of great 〈◊〉 and not beleeved of many Protestants But yet I presuppose â—â—â— Protestant not to be proceeded so far but â—esting in the vulgar heresies of Calvins Institutions or the Scottish confession of faith not to deny Christs death or resurrection and then nothing yet is said but that he eateth Christ truly by faith be his life never so detestable And thus vvhereas M. B. saith that no evil receive Christ I must conclude rather that al evil receive him after their doctrine as now appeareth But yet remaineth one farther subtilitie vvhich M. B. afterwards toucheth and greatly magnifieth Learne me saith he to applie Christ rightly to thy sowle and thâ—w hâ—â— wonne al thow art a great Theologe Let vs in the name of God learne this high mystical point Is there any other applicatioÌ„ of Christ then by faith by beleeving his death and rejurrection No doubtles as Calvin Beza Martyr M. B. him self have often told vs. Then this is not so mystical a point nor able to make so great a Theologe except every â—inker and cobler that beleeves his Creed be among the Protestants a great Theologe because perhaps most of their chief Ministers and preachers beleeve not so much Na saith M. B. there is yet a farther degree deeper mysterie in this eating and application Let vs once have a plaine descriptioÌ„ thereof that we may know vvhere to rest and vvherevnto vve shal trust That M. B. geveth in these vvords The eating and drinking of the sowle is no other thing but the applying of Christ to my sowle the applying of his death and passion to my sowle Yet this must be made somwhat more plaine and intelligible For as M. B. obiecteth afterwards Christ him self his body and blud can not be geuen or applied to thee seing that looke how great distance is betwixt heaven and earth as great distance is there betwene the body of Christ and thy body or sowle even so touching Christs death passion that is now long sithence past and as the Apostle teacheth he being risen from death dieth no more but liveth at the right hand of God â—â—â—nally and how then applâ—e yow his death and passion to â—â—â—â— sowle Thus and this must vve take for the chief last resolution vvhich this man here geveth vs and vvhich 〈◊〉 learned maketh vs great and profound Theologes The eating of the sawle is no other thing but â—â—e applying of Christ to the sawle that is to beleeve that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes for me This as being the very key and summe of that he preacheth concerning this matter in his next sermon he enlargeth thus VVe eate the flesh of Christ by faith and drinke his blud chiefly in doing two things first in calling to remembrance Christs death and passion how he dyed for vs. The second point of this spiritual eating stands in this that I and every one of yow beleeve firmely that he died for me in particular that his blud was shed on the crosse for a ful remission and redemption of me and my sinnes In this staÌ„ds the chief principal point of eating Christs flesh VVel then now vve know a thorough perâ—ite definition and explication of this spiritual eating and drinking to vvit that every man in particular is bound to beleeve that Christ died for him for so I interpret M. B. his meaning and not that every man is bound to beleeve that Christ died for M. B. shed his blud for M. B. and purchased remission of sinnes for him as his vvords sound to conclude my purpose I say vvhat Protestant if he be a Christian doth not thus applie Christ vnto him self doth not thus eate the body of Christ and drinke his blud except he be in desperatioÌ„ or as hath bene said be an Apostata so no Christian For no man can have the name of a Christian â—â—cept he beleeve the death of Christ vvhich vvas suffered according to Christs owne teaching his Apostles both for the sinnes of every particular Christian also of the vvhole vvorld He is the lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world He came in to the vvorld and vvas incarnate to save his people from their sinnes To Christ al â—he prophetes geve testimonie that al receive remission of sinnes by his name vvhich beleeve in him He is the raunsom and propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours only but also for the whole world and so forth in every Gospel Epistle and almost in every chapter of ether Gospel or Epistle so plainly that no creature having the name of a Christian can doubt but Christ died for him and by his death purchased remission of his sinnes therefore every Christian be he never so evil applieth Christ
vnto him in the supper yea out of the supper also â—â— vvel as M. B. him self doth in the supper Every Chastian I say of vvhat condition faith or qualitie so ever not only Catholike but also heretike or Protestant of any sect Lutheran Zuinglian Calvinist Anabaptist Arrian Trinitarian and vvhom ye vvil besides For al and every one of these beleeve that Christ shed his blud for him and that Christ hath purchased remission of sinnes for him And is not these mens religion and Theologie a verie profession of deceite and mockerie of the vvorld vvho keepe such a do make such a sturre about the application and coniunction vvhich they have vvith CHRIST in their supper and tel vs that it so far surmounteth the vvitte and capacitie of man that except the spirite of God reveile it except the spirit of God illuminate our minds and be bissie in our harts it can not be conceiued and therefore the poole Papists can not get this vnderstoode It so far surpasseth the coniunction and possession vvhich vve have of Christ by his vvord that vvhereas in the word we get but a litle grip of Christ as it were betwixt my finger and my thumb here in the supper I get him in my whole hand and more to who extolle this eating and drinking as a vvorke so divine supernatural and supercelestial that no evil man may eate Christ as they eate him spiritually in their supper and yet in fine vvhen they come to the issue of their apisâ— doctrine and are driven to expresse plainly vvhat they meane by this their spiritual eating they can make no other thing of it but that vvhich not only evil Christians may have but also the vvorst Christians actually have and must have and vvithout having vvhich and in that maner eating Christ they are no Christians at al And vvhich eating is so far of from being peculiar to the supper that perpetually in al suppers and dinners al Christians do thus eate Christ for every Christian ever at al 〈…〉 beleeveth that Christ died for him for remission of his sinnes or els he is a Ievv or a Turke and no Christian and can not be vvithout this spiritual coniunction and application Is not I say these mens preaching and teaching a mere iest a very scorning and deluding of their folovvers Let the reader vvaigh vvel this point and he shal be iustly moved to abhorre and execrate these coosening companions these vvicked ministers as the very Angels of Satan vvho vnder pretence and colour of a fevv high lofty affected vvords as S. Peter long ago prophecied of them superba vanitatis loquentes by speaking proud vaine words vvithout pith or substance leade their miserable disciples to hel euen like beasts to the slaughter ¶ And thus much may serve for a ful ansvvere to M. B. in this place and here vvould I end this argument vvere it not that yet there remayneth one farther shift vvhich albeit M. B. touch but obscurely here yet he at large layeth it forth aftervvard and therefore I vvil not altogether omit it The matter is this that albeit they in vvords make their spiritual eating of Christ by faith to be such as vve haue heard such as every child learneth in his Catechisme such as Catholikes professe professed before ever the Gospel of Calvin or Luther or any sentence or sillable thereof vvas coyned in the vvorld yet they after their fashion have an other meaning in the vvord faith and consequently in eating by faith then haue the Catholikes and vvhereby in deed they exclude the Catholikes from their eating and make it proper to them selues VVhat mysterie is this or vvhat can they vnderstand by their faith more then other men more then hath bene said alredy M. Fox declaring the very first original of their Gospel in Martin Luther expresseth it thus Though Laurentiâ—â— Valla and Erasmus had somwhat broken the vvay before Martin Luther came c. yet Luther gave the stroke and pluckâ— dovvne the foundation of errour and al by opening one veine long hid before wherein â—eth the â—â—â—â—stone of al truth and doctrine as the only principal origin of our salvation which is our free iustification by 〈…〉 in Christ VVhy vvas that doctrine so straunge and never heard of before No not in Luthers sense For the meaning of it is not that we must generally beleeve only thâ—â— sinnes are or have bene remitted to some but that Gods expresse commaundement is that every man should beleeve particularly his sinnes are forgeuen This is the testimonie that the holy ghost geveth thee in thy hart saying Thy sinnes are forgeven thee and this is the faith by which we are iustified and the same is the right faith by vvhich the Protestants peculiarly above al other Christians old or new eate the flesh of Christ For albe it Catholikes have the sacrameÌ„ts of Christ more in number and more effectual for grace and spiritual operation then have the Protestants and they are learned by the evident vvord of God that the sacraments as instruments ordeyned by Christ infallibly bring vvith them remission of sinnes or other iustifying grace yet because they know vvithal that the hait of man is inscrutable and every maÌ„ knoweth not his owne vvayes many seeme repentant for their life past who yet have not a ful purpose to amend the same and so by reason of our owne imperfection and indisposition the sacraments some times vvorke not in vs that good vvhich otherwise by Christs institution they could and assuredly vvould for these causes as on the one side vve haue occasion of confidence so on the other side vve may vvel feare and in feare and trembling vvorke out owne salvation although vve have great and certaine hope yet have vve not sure and certain faith of our iustification or favour vvith God nor make vve but privat peculiar iustification an article of our faith as do the Protestants vvho be they never so great sinners and blasphemers yet by vertue of their faith are ever so sure as possibly may be that their sinnes are not imputed to them but they are most cleane pure and sanctified and so continually feed on Christ by this apprehensiue faith And this as the Protestant writers define is the essential difference betwene a Catholike and a Protestant For saith Calvin the very definition of the Protestant faith it a sure and certaine knowledge of Gods benevolence towards vs. And he is not to be accompted a faithful Protestant except he be thoroughly persuaded that God is to him a loving and merciful father whereof he must have fixed in his mynd such an assurance as we have of things which we know and find true by experience And as Bucer vvhom for honors sake Calvin vsed to terme his Master our first Apostle of this new Gospel in Cambridge in the disputation of Ratisbon after published by him self expresseth it Nostra confessio
est Christianum hominem non esse qui non eadem fidei certitudine credit Dominum Iesum esse filium Dei se per eum esse percepturum vitam aeternam VVe professe â—aith Bucer Brentius Georgius Maior vvith other Lutheran Divines disputers against the Catholikes in that conference that he is not to be taken for a Christian man who beleeveth not with the same certitude or assurance of faith both that Christ our lord is the sonne of God and that him self in particular by Christ shal possesse life eternal This is that vvhich M. B. meaneth vvhen he saith that the applying of Christ eating of Christ by faith is to beleeue that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes to me VVhich iustification and remission of sinnes being in particular beleeved of the Protestant in such sort as is any article of his â—aith thereby geveth a spiritual manducation to him vvhich the Catholike hath not Thus writeth M. B. afterwardes vvhere he spendeth many pages in magnifying this â—aith This faith â—aith he workes a wonderful assurance and persuasion that God loves me that he wil saue me that meâ—â—â— life saluation at perteynes to me This works the seeling of mercy in our hart a particular application whereby we claime Christ and God as proper to vs as if no man bâ—â— title to him and his promises but we Again This particular application is 〈…〉 difference the chief marke and note whereby our â—â—ith who are iustified in the blud of Christ is discerned 〈…〉 faith of the Papists c. For the Papist 〈…〉 promise of mercy to his ownesowle He countes it preâ—â—â—tion as in truth it is and for presumption counted and coâ—demned by the Apostle Rom. 11. 20. 21. â—â— Corint 9. â—7 Philip. 3. 11. 12. Hebr. 4. 1. 2. c. to say I am an elect I â—â— saueâ— iustified This is the vvonderful faith of the Protestants vvhich to them is al in al. This M. B. calleth their iustifying faith By this thy eate Christ so as no man doth 〈…〉 theâ—â— By this they are sure of heaven in heaueÌ„ to be felowes equal vvith S. Peter S. Paule yea vvith the blessed virgin mother of God For so Luther foundeâ— and first inventor of this faith writeth expressely Quâ—â— hac side renati sumus pares sumus in dignitate honore D. Paulo Petro S. Deiparae virgini ac divis omnibus VVâ—â— now that at last vvâ— know exactly vvhat faith it is vvhich geveth the Protestants so deep holdfast in their spiritual maÌ„â—ucatioÌ„ let vs retouâ—â—â— to our principal purpose And as by this vvhich hath bene said of this special Protestant faith I confesse M. B. hath a sufficient ground to chalenge such kind of eating by this faith I meane to him self and his companions Protestants and to exclude out al Catholikes be they as holy as S. Peâ—er or S. Paule vvho never had such a special faith and therefore could never thus â—aâ—e Christ so yet the blocke lyeth stil in M. B. vvay and the rest of his consâ—aternitie that by this saith evil Protestants receive Christ no lesse then good For among the Protestants the most detestable and most blasphemous heretikes have this assurance of their iustification and remission of sinnes no lesse then M. B. or Iohn Calvin or Luther him self vvho by the helpe of an old man whose name Luther expresseth not saith M. Fox but belike it vvas the same man vvho in an other forme frequeÌ„ted Carolostadâ—ê° instructed him first of al inveÌ„ted this special iustifying faith For as after Luther al Lutherans have it most assuredly and after Zuinglius al Zuinglians and after Calâ—in al Calvinists so the Anabaptists more then any of those former sects and Libertines Familie of love by vvord and deed by life and death most confidently chalenge to them selves this assurance that they in Christ have remission of their sinnes that Christ died for them that he shed his blud for them that they are spiritually vnited to Christ they are inwardly so fed by him and outwardly so clothed vvith him that as it is testified by sundry stories many such Protestants both men vvemen and maydens long sithence in Bohemia and of late in Holland at none dayes in the sight of thousands vvould vvalke naked thorough the streetes preaching the vvord of the Lord and could not be vvithdrawen from that furious vnnatural madnes by the terror of present death continually even to death and in death some crying Praise the Lord others Open your eyes ye blind Papists others Revenge O Lord the blud of thy servants and thus not by vvords as M. B. doth but by deeds and facts by patient suffering of death approved they their confidence and assurance of such special faith as M. B. teacheth and Luther the Calvinists describe If then the Anabaptists to make stay and exeÌ„plifie this matter by them vvhom Calvin condemneth for heretikes and vvhose martyrs though in shew marvelous holy and in number never so many he accounteth and calleth martyres diaboli the devils martyrs by vvhich name likewise the Lutherans cal the martyrs of Calvins sect have this sure faith that Christ dyed for them in special and that Christ shed his blud for them in particular and they in this sort spiritually eate Christ how vvith vvhat prohabilitie can M. B. deny such eating to al Protestants of his owne sect though evil livers vvho much more certainly have this faith and therefore much more spiritually eate Christ If an heretike can have a constant persuasion in the death of Christ and then al goes wel and he therefore truly receives Christ by faith according to M. B. definition how much more may a vvicked Calvinist vvhom M. B. accounteth no heretike reteyne this constant persuasion Hath an Anabaptist a â—â—â—th of the sowle apt for such receiving hath not a Calvinist Is evil life a greater bar to such receiving then naughty faith vvhereas this receiving is vvrought only by faith not by life And vvhat need I to rest exemplifie this by Libertines or Anabaptists vvhereas the best surest ground to refute M. B. in this point is the general doctrine of Calvin and Calvinists and the same preached at large by M. B. him self in these Sermons For as M. B. is sure that he is iustified he is elect he is saved he hath this special faith vvhich applieth Christ to him so properly and peculiarly as though no man had interest in Christ but him self alone so this faith vvhich is the right perfit iustifying faith and proper to the elect being once obteyned is never after lost nor never can possibly depart from them commit thy sinnes never so greavous and horible Thus teacheth Beza in the Confession of his Christian Geneva faith most plainly This Calvin in his Institutions
contradiction But he real presence of Christs body in the sacrament implies a contradiction making the body of Christ visible and invisible local not local at one tyme. Therefore God may not wil such a thing it is vnpossible to be true Let this then staÌ„d for one part of my example that god can not wil nor make Christs body really present in the sacrameÌ„t it is a flat contradictioÌ„ it is vnpossible to be true and as before he hath told vs God can no more wil this nor do this then he can lye be changed decay and become corruptible Next to come to the other part of my example and contradiction M. B. forgetting him self that he had fathered this false argumeÌ„t on vs before here repeateth it as new in these vvords Last of al they are not yet content but say Christ can make the bread his body and therefore his body is really present VVâ—â— be it graunted that thus vve say now last of al vvhich yow made vs say a good vvhile sithence and so geve a great signe that yow have a very vveake memory vvho much need a better for mendacem oportet esse memoreâ— suppose v. e last of al say thus vvhat is your answere Is it as before vvhen very reverently yow told his maiestie that he could not wil it and could not make it present no more then he could wil and make a lye No but of a cleane contrarie guise in these vvords That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being God can do what so ever he wil. Only let them shew that Christ of bread â—â—â— make his real flesh and then this controversie is brought is an end And is it so Is the controversie brought now to this end Surely then have yow spent much tyme paper and vvynd in vvast For hetherto al your speech and preaching hath bene to proove that God could not vvil nether could he do it And how chauÌ„ceth it that so suddeÌ„ly yow geve over your inuincible argument vvhich eveÌ„ now yovv held so fast so much extolled saing So this second ground holds fast The real presence implies a contradiction and there fore it is vnpossible for God to worke it But to omit this here yow may learne and so may the reader a right contradiction and thereby measure other God can no more make Christs body present in the sacrament then he can lye then he can be chaunged it is vnpossible it implies a contradiction Again for the other side VVe graunt Christ can make of bread his body so he can make his body really present and this is not vnpossible and then assuredly it implies no contradiction Here is a right perfit contradiction For it is yea and nay denying and affirming of one and the self same thing in one and the self same respect vvhich contradiction vvhen he findeth in vs in the Catholike vvriters touching this sacrament then let him hardly cry out that they persist in their opinion of very malice for mere coÌ„tradiction to the end only they may gainstand the truth found out of late by these Apostataes vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other and scarce any one vvith him self But in the meane time it is far more apparant that these vvords touch M. B. and his companions vvho against the faith of al Christendom against the first article of their Creed against al divine humane learning malitiously gainstand the truth deny that to Gods omnipotency being enforced so to do by the very drift of their vvicked spritish and Satanical doctrine vvhich them selves again graunt to Gods omnipotencie being driven so to coÌ„fesse as may be thought by the very instinct vvorke and operation of nature and natural reason vvhich in that it acknowlegeth a God acknowlegeth him to be omnipotent even in that vvhich these mens brutish and sensles Theologie if so I may cal it taketh avvay and vvithdraweth from him As for that he saith the question is not here whether Christ can make his body present but whether he wil if vve can shew that he wil so then this coÌ„troversie is brought to an end for probation hereof I vvil say no more then I have already For if Christs most evident and pregnant vvords set downe in the Euangelists and S. Paule This is my body the same which shal be offered and delivered for yow This is my blud which shal be shed for remission of your sinnes if the sense and meaning of these vvords testified by the practise of al Christian people that ever lived since Christs time in al places of the vvorld in Europe Asie and Africa if the vniforme consent of al Fathers and general Councels from Christs tyme vnto our age if in this miserable haruest of heretical corruption the authoritie of the most learned the most earnest and principal Gospellers vvho vpon the invincible clearnes and force of Christs vvords vvere in a maner against their vvils compelled to mainteyne the real presence of Christ in the sacrament may serue to prove vvhat Christs meaning vvas then have vve shewed and if vve be required vvil more amplie shew that this vvas Christs wil. And if this serve not then I know not vvhat may serve And I vvil not labour to fynd any demonstration more cleare vntil I may learne vvhat clearer demonstration M. B. desireth And yet I thinke more cleare thâ—â— this him self can not devise ¶ And how so ever he promise faire and say that if vve can proove that such vvas Christs wil he then is content to yeld this controversie is at end yet his discourse and preaching here sheweth the cleane contrarie Foâ— again he falleth in to his commoÌ„ place that Christs body must needs be bound to the rules of phisicke and nature A man may iustly suppose that he is scarce vvel aduised he so commonly gainsayeth him self and runneth vp downe backward and forward and forgetteth in one leafe vvhat he vvrote in the next before Two points yet remayne in this Sermon vvhich I vvil shortly dispatch because I have bene somwhat long in the former and these 2. depend altogether or very much of that vvhich hath bene now said VVhen saith M. B. they are dung â—â—â— of this that Christ by his omnipotencie can make his body present from vvhence he hath dunged vs out by graunting and confessing it him self they make their laâ—â— refuge and yet vve vvere at our last refuge before vvhere our last refuge vvas Christs omnipotencie to say that Christs body is exemed from phisical rules His answere to this is much like the former that is yea and nay graunting and denying For first he graunteth that Theologie is not subiect to physicke and yet Christs body the principal part of Theologie is subiect to phisicke For by by hâ— inferreth that if ye exeme Christs body from the law of phisicke which is the
this to good life by necessarie sequele faith decaieth vvith good life and conscience But how matcheth this vvith his former preaching that the best and most sincere Christians fal every day seuen tymes yea seuenty times seueÌ„ tymes and that in to grosse sinnes Is not this as much as if he said that the best Christians every howre of the day become infidels can not haue faith in the mercy of god to vvhom their coÌ„science vvitnesseth that daily hovvrely Gods wrath is kindled against them for that their conscience shewes then to be giltie of many offences against God and al those offences grosse deadly and damnable after the Calvinists Theologie Much more this doctrine repugneth to that vvhich Calvin Beza the vvhole church of Geneva and M. B. him self preacheth aftervvards in this self same sermon in these vvords It is sure certain that faith is never wholy extinguished in the children of God Be it never so weake yet shal it never vtterly decay and perish out of the hart where once it makes residence A weake faith is a faith and where that faith is there man ever be mercy Again Faith once geven by God can not be revoked again Faith when it is geven by God is constantly geven neuer to be chaâ—nged nor vtterly tane from them Again This gift of faith where ever it be and in what hart so ever it be it is never idle but perpetually working and working wel by love charitie VVhere ever it be it is not dead but lively How oppoâ—ite and most evidently repugnant is this to the former preaching If saith vvhere ever it be be never idle but perpetually working wel by love and charitie how saith he that they haue faith vvhich oppresse the poore keep deadly feid and so forth vvhich are no vvorkes of Christian charitie how soever they be esteemed among the Calvinists as vvorkes perhaps of their sole iustifying faith and hote love If vvhen â—aith is once geven it can never be lost never revoked by God never vtterly tane from them vvho are once possessed of it how saith he that it is lost by evil life and that God spoiles them of faith hope of mercy vvhich commit such mortal sinnes But a most vvicked barbarous sensibly false paradox it is to say that faith once had can not be lost the contrary vvhereof vve see by lamentable experience of thowsands vvho depart daily not only from Catholike faith to heretike in heresie from one to an other from Lutheran to Zuinglian or Calvinian from Caluinian to Anabaptistical from that to Triuitarian Antitrinitarian c. but also from the general name and pretence of Christian faith to plain Apostasie to Iudaisine to Mahoâ—â—ctisine to Atheisme VVith professors of vvhich gospel as by vvitnesse of my Lâ— of Canterburie the English church is vvel replenished so M. B. him self signifieth the like of his Scottish congregation of vvhich he vvriteth thus Alas we are come to sic a loath disdain ofâ—asting of this heavenly food he meaneth Gods vvord in this country that where men in the beginning would have gane some 20. myles some 40. myles to the hearing of this word they wil searcely now come fra their howse to the kirk and remayne one howre to heare the word but bâ—des at home This being true if as he in this same place teacheth faith formed in our harts by the holy spirit vvil decay except it be nurrished and if to the nâ—â—risâ—ing of this faith it be requisite that we heare the word of God preached and preached not by every man but preached by a lawful pastor by him that is sent vvhich point he doth inculcate diligently without which preaching it is not possible saith he that a man continue in the â—aith how can it be avoyded but vvhere this vvord is not thus preached as it is not in a number of places of England nor perhaps of Scotland there the faith among the bretheâ—â—e not only may but also must of necessitie decay vvhich vvithout this kind of preaching can not possibly continue And if there be no such preaching preaching I meane by pastors lawfully sent as in truth there is noâ—e nether in England nor yet in Scotland amongest al the ministers as of the English ministerie is best proved by the Puritanes by Caâ—twight by Calvin by Beza by Knox by the Scottish communion booke and election of ministers appointed there and for the Scottish ministerie to let passe my L. of Canterbury and the English Pontifical it is very clearly proved by Buchanâ—â— in his storie and the first original and foundation of this new Scottish kirk in our age layd by that seditions and infamous man Iohn Knox his comparteners in despite and against the vvil of both magistrates as vvel temporal as spiritual that I mention not Catholike vvriters vvho have made demonstration of this against both Scottish and English in sundry writings how can there be remayning any faith among them vvhere is no orderly preaching of the vvord by any such lawful pastor orderly sent vvho is so necesiarie to preserve this faith And how plentifully is this most barbarous fansie refelled in the holy scripture by a nuÌ„ber of examples facts and sentences vvhere vve find that Simon Magus beleeved Christs gospel as other Christians did vvho yet after became an Arch-heretike or Apostata as likewise did Hymeneê° Alexander vvhere the Apostle forewarneth that in the later dayes many Christians shal depart from the faith vvhereof vve see daily experience vvhere he reproveth the Galathians for that they receiving the spirite and for a vvhile continuing in the spirite afterwards gave over the spirite and ended in the flesh vvhere is declared that some vvho vvere sanctified by the blud of the new testament afterwards despised trode vnder their feete the sonne of God the same blud by which they had bene sanctified being washed from their sinne afterwards as vncleane swine returned and wallowed in their former filth vvhere the Evangelist vvriteth plainly and our Saviour him self teacheth vs that some there are vvho gladly receiue the word of God and beleeue for a tyme but vvhen trial and persecution cometh then they depart and geve ouer their faith And to vvhat purpose is it that the Apostles exhort Christians to stand fast in their faith that S. Paule threatningly vvarneth some Christians to become humble and thinke lowly of them selves and to feare lest God who spared not the natural branches the Iewes spare not them but cut them of also reiect theÌ„ as he reiected the Iewes If it vvere then an article of faith that faith once had can never be lost that God vvil never take faith from them on vvhom he hath once bestowed it vvhat vvit or vvisdom vvere there in these ether exhortations or threats As much as if M. B. should exhort his ministers
Caluinists with quit disanulling making voyd the testament of our Sauiour I thinke it good to make some more stay herein better examine the circumstance of this testament yet as nigh as I can euâ—ing no new questions but resting on such certayn verities as are confessed by the aduersaries them selues cleare by plaine scripture out of vvhich I meane to deduce such reasons as may iustifie our catholike cause disproue the contrary VVolf Musculus in his common places entreating hereof writeth thus S. Luke S. Paule attribute to the cuppe that it is the new testament VVhereby they signifie this to be the sacrament of the new testament in respect of the old the Paschal sacrament which Christ finished in this his last supper in place thereof substituted this new In the same supper being then nigh to his death he made his testament Thus Musculê° In vvhich fevv vvords he noteth tvvo things very important concerning the truth whereof I here entreate both deliuered in the scriptures both vrged by the Catholikes both coÌ„fessed not onely by the Lutherans but also by the SacrameÌ„taries as here we see The first that Christ in his last supper made his new testameÌ„t the second that Christ in the same his last supper ended the sacrameÌ„t of the Paschal lamb ordeyned in place therof the sacrament of his body Concerning the fâ—â—â—t vvhat a Testament is how Christ made his the same vvriter expresseth truly in this sort A testament is the last wil of one that is to dye wherein he bestoweth his goods freely geueth to whom he pleaseth To the making of a testameÌ„t that it be auayleable is required first the free libertie power of the testator that he be as his owne commaundement For a slaue a seruant a sonne vnder the power regiment of an other can not make a testament So Christ when he made his testament was free had power libertie to do it God his father gaue al in to his hands made him heyre of al in heauen earth God his father willed him to make a testament sent him in to the world to that end that by his death he should confirme this new testament which he had promised Next it is required in a testament that the testator bequeath his owne goods not other mens so did Christ 3. A thing can not be geuen in a testameÌ„t which is due of right So that which Christ gaue in his testament was geuen only of grace fauour 4. In a testameÌ„t it is required that certain executors of the testament be assigned Those Christ made his Apostles to whom he coÌ„mitted that office that they by evangelizing should ministerially dispense the grace of this testament 5. Finally to the confirmation ratification of a testament is required the death of the testator So Christ the next day after this testament was made died on the crosse there by his death blud ratified confirmed eternally established it Thus far Musculê° adding withal Christ saith this cup is the new testament in my blud or according to Matthew Marc this is my blud which is of the new testament The old testament consisted in the tropical figuratiue blud of beasts the truth whereof was to be fulfilled in the blud of Christ. The new testament consisted not in the blud of any beast but of Christ the true immaculate lamb For declaration whereof he said This cup is the new testament in my blud or This cup is my blud which is of the new testament Thus much being manifest confessed and graunted it must also be graunted of necessitie that this blud was delyuered in the supper not only shed on the crosse as Musculus the Zuinglians suppose First because our Sauiour Christ according to the report of al the Euangelists in precise termes so avoucheth This in the cup or chalice is my blud of the new testament Secondly because to the making of the new testament fulfilling the figure of the old true real blud of the sacrifice was required as appeareth in the figure which here the aduersaries coÌ„fesse to haue bene fulfilled For in that figure first of al was the sacrifice offered the blud thereof taken in the cuppes then the people sprinkled with the blud of the sacrifice these words vsed This is the blud of the testament c. Nether is it possible that the blud of the sacrifice should be deliuered or taken or any waies imployed by man or to man before the sacrifice were offered to god Therefore whereas Christ assureth this to be the blud of the new testament as that was of the old it is as certain sure that the sacrifice whereof this was the blud was before offered as vve are sure of the same in the old testameÌ„t Briefly vvhereas in that figuratiue sacrifice whereof this is the accomplishmeÌ„t perfect on 3. things are specified by the holy ghost 1. the publication of the law or testament to the people 2. the offering of the sacrifice whereof the blud vvas taken 3. the eating of the sacrifice sprinkling of the people vvith the blud and vsing of those words This is the blud of the testament vvhereas for exact correspondence of the first Christ at his last supper publisheth his lavv and testament A new commaundement geue I to yow that yow loue one an other as I haue loued yow promiseth the holy ghost to remayne vvith them and his church for euer iterateth that commaundement of mutual loue charitie as the summe of his new law perfection thereof which was to be wrought in the hartes of his ChristiaÌ„s by the holy ghost then promised vvho also vvas euer to assist them to teach them to leade them the vvhole Church for euer in to al truth so fuâ—th vvhereas thus in 5. vvhole chapiters having expressed his new wil testament such graces as apperteyne therevnto he in fine for correspondence of the third biddeth the executors of his testament to eate his body and drinke his blud vvith those same so pregnant so vrgent vvords This is my body which is and shal be deliuered for you This is my blud of the new testament which is and shal be shed for yow hovv can it othervvise be chosen but for ansvvering of the second part as that body and blud of beastes there vvas first offered to god in sacrifice so this body and blud here must be offered in like sort to fulfill and accomplish that figure So that it suffiseth not to say the blud of Christ vvas shed on the crosse vvhere he dyed though that also vvere necessarie for the confirmation and ratification of the testament as vve also graunt and common reason teacheth and the Apostle proueth for testamentum in mortuis confirmatur a testament taketh his absolute and ful perfection strength and
ratification by the death of the testator but vve say further that to make and perfite the testament as it vvas at the last supper blud also vvas by gods order requisite that blud to be first offered to god in sacrifice vvithout vvhich oblation first made to god it could not be receiued of men and the conference of Christs actions vvith those of Moses manifestly conuinceth the same as shal better appeare in the next paragraph For the present the only authoritie of Gregorious Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great may serue vvho vvriteth very plainly that our Sauiour after a secret and most diuine maner of sacrifice preuented the iudgement and violence of the Iewes and offered him selfe for vs being at one tyme the priest and the lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world And when was this done then when he gaue his body to be eaten and blud to be drunken of his frends the Apostles For a man could not eate the lamb except the immolation went before Quum igitur discipulis suis dedit corpus ad comedendum aperte demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam esse agni immolationem Christ therefore who gaue to his Disciples his body to be eaten euidently declareth that the oblation or immolation of that lamb was now past and performed Now already therefore by his almightie power was that body inuisibly and in wonderfull maner sacrificed The selfe same but more briefly therefore not so plainly vvriteth Hesichius bishop of Hierusalem Christ preuenting the sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse in violent maner sacrificed him selfe in the supper of his Apostles which thing they know who vnderstand the vertue of these mysteries ¶ To this argument the other mysterie of the paschal lambe which Christ also finished in his last supper substituting or placing this sacrament of his body and blud in steed thereof as Musculus truly auoucheth yeldeth great force For plainer declaration vvhereof vve likevvise wil accept that vvhich our aduersaries enforced by manifest scripture graunt thereof dravv a truer conclusion then they do This figure thus the same author expoundeth Christ saith this bread is my body the body of the true lamb which ere long shal be offered in sacrifice This cuppe or to speake more plainly as Th. Beza also teacheth vs that which is coÌ„teyned in this cuppe is not the old but the new testament in my blud the true lamb whose blud shal be shed for yow Therefore as this figuratiue lamb hath bene hitherto accompted the paschal sacrament of the old testament so this bread and cup shal hence forward be accompted in the new testament for the sacrament of my body sacrificed and my blud shed This I take to be the meaning of Christ in these words that as Moses the mediator of the old testament Exod. 12. toke order about that paschal lamb instituted of it a solemne yerely memorial before it was sacrificed that by the blud thereof â—e might turne away the Angel which killed al the first borne and so he appointed that for a sacrament of the old testament in like maner Christ meaning now to make an end of the old testament and to begin the new ordeyned this sacrament of the new true paschal I meane of his owne body and blud before he was to be offered on the crosse for the redemption of mankynd Againe in the same place Christ in his supper endeth the old testament and sacraments thereof by the succession of the new testament There he saith This is the new testament in my blud and so doth substitute the new testament in place of the old and withall ordeyneth a sacrament consisting of two parts which should correspond to the sacrament of the old Pasch which also consisted of two parts In that figuratiue Pasch was sacramental meate drinke so is it here etc. Briefly for I wil not stand vpon euerie his particular circumstance his conclusion is that the plaine text and order vsed by Christ declareth sufficiently that Christs mystical supper succeded in place of the old pasch which was a sacrament of the old law So here we see accorded that the plaine teâ—t of scripture and Christs owne doing proue the paschal lamb to haue bene a prefiguration of this sacrament instituted by Christ at his last supper vvhich as before is confessed was ordeyned by Christ to succede in place of that paschal lamb And this to be so appeareth by euery circumstance of Christs action compared vvith that auncient ceremonie That lambe vvas by God appointed to be sacrificed precisely the 14. day of the first moneth in the euening Christ in the same day and the same time of the day precisely instituted this sacrament That lamb was offered in memorie of our lords passe-ouer and deliuerie of the Iewes out of their Aegiptiacal bondage The Eucharist is offered in memorie of Christs passe-ouer vvhen by his passion he passed out of this world to his father also in memorie of our deliuerance from the power and bondage of Satan which benefite is procured vs by Christs death That lamb was first offered as a sacrifice then eaten as a sacrament as the viage-prouision for pilgremes and trauailers for which cause they who did eate it were then attired like trauailers with their loynes girded shoes on their feete staues in their hands as men being in their iourney tovvards Iewrie their land of promise So this to omitte the sacrifice first due to god is imparted to Christians as their proper viage prouision their viaticum by which they are strengthened comforted in this vale of miserie and peregrination wherein they trauaile towards heauen their eternal country and promised land That lamb could not be lavvfully eaten but in Hierusalem only the place which god had appointed peculiarly for his name to dwel in nor this but in the Catholike church with out vvhich who so euer eateth it he is prophane he is in the high way of damnation as saith S. Hierom. S. Augustin That was appropriated to those only that were Hebrewes circumcided and cleane so this to only Christians baptised of pure life and conscience for vvhich cause S. Paule willeth euery one to proue and tâ—ie him selfe before he presume to this table Finally as Moses coÌ„maunded the Israelites to keep the memorie thereof for euer so Christ vvilled his Christians to do this in memorie of his passioÌ„ death for euer vntil his second aduent VVhere as this then so exact a prefiguration of the Christian Eucharist and which was ended and fulfilled in our Eucharist before it was eaten was by Gods ordinance commaunded to be offered to him in sacrifice how can it be denyed but that the Eucharist was also sacrificed before it was eaten How was the figure fulfilled if the principal part and ceremonie most touching the honour of God were omitted And how is it credible that
our Sauiour who so diligently obserued euery lesser resemblance should neglect omitte that which was most notable important VVherefore as the ProtestaÌ„ts them selues confesse one part videlicet the sacrament of Christs body to haue bene foresignified in the paâ—chal lamb and that to haue bene fulfilled in our sacrament this our sacrameÌ„t to haue succeded in place their of so we must dravv them one foote farther and adde vpon like ground vvarrant that that sacrifice of the lamb foresignified also our Eucharistical sacrifice that it vvas fulfilled accomplished in this and that this Christian sacrifice hath succeded in place of that Iudaical VVhich conclusion the same comparison of the scriptures inferreth the office of Christs priesthod and fulfilling of the lavv enforceth the Apostle acknovvledgeth and the church of Christ from the beginning hath euermore beleeued as vve learne by Tertullian lib 4. contra Marcionem S. Cyprian de Caena Domini S. Ambrose in Luc. 2. S. Nazianzen oratio 2. de pascha S. Hierom in Matth 26. S. Chrysostom homil de proditione Iudae homil 23. in Matth. S. August contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. cap. 37. S. Leo Serm. 7. de passione Domini Hesich lib. 2. in â—euit cap. 8. lib. 6. ca. 23. S. Beda in Luc. 22. The summe of al vvhose vvords is briefly thus vttered by S. Chrysostom in the place before noted At one table both Paschal lambâ— were celebrated or offered first the figure then the truth And S. Leo The old obseruation is taken away by the new sacrament one sacrifice passeth into an other one blud excludeth endeth the other the legal ceremonie while it is changed is fulfilled Hesichius more shortly Christ at his last supper hauing first eaten the figuratiue lambe with his Apostles afterwards offered his owne sacrifice And albeit as saith S. Gaudentius in that shadow of the legal pasch many lambs were offered not one onely but in euery seueral howse one yet now thorow al churches idem in mysterio panis vini reficit immolatus viâ—ificat creditus consecraÌ„tes sanctificaâ— consecratus Haec agni caro hic sanguis est One the selfe same lambe in the mysterie of bread wine being sacrificed doth refresh vs al being beleeued reviueth vs al being consecrated sanctifieth al the consecraters This is the flesh of the lambe Christ this is his blud Thus these two parcels being true manifest and for such graunted by our aduersaties the one that Christ in his last supper made the new testament the other that then he fulfilled the auncient ceremonie of the paschal lambe and altered that in to this our sacrament these two being examined conferred according to the sense of euideÌ„t scripture and consent of the primitiue church manifestly establish a true sacrifice and real presence of Christs body blud in this sacrament of the new law testament ¶ And yet the figure of Melchisedech is more plaine cleare and irreâ—utable then ether of these Nether vvas there euer any learned christian man bishop Father Doctor or hovv so euer he be called that vvrote since the beginning of the church but he graunted as occasion of mentioning the same vvas offered committed also to vvriting that the sacrifice of Melchisedech foreshevved Christs sacrifice in his last supper and that there Christ exactly and most properly offered sacrifice according to the order and â—ite of Melchisedech as vvas foreprophecied of him This I say is the vniforme and vniuersal consent of al auncient fathers that euer vvrote coÌ„mentaries vpon scripture since the Apostles tyme and some few sacramentarie-protestans there are and more LutheraÌ„s which vnwares and indirectly to an other purpose confeâ—â—e so much Of vvhich number Andreas Fricâ—is sometime secretarie to the king of Pole and for a noble man as learned as any that hath vvriten for the sacramentarie gospel Christ saith â—â— as a feasâ—maker distributed to his gheasts bread wine â—e fulfilled the office of Melchisedech the priest of the most high god him selfe a most true priest For as he offered to Abraham bread wine so Christ gaue bread and wine to his Apostles And in an other place somewhat more to the purpose Christ after the example of Melchisedech offering bread wine gaue both to his disciples Therefore priests that sacrifice after the example of Melchisedech Christ should geue to Christs disciples both bread wine In which application this man much abuseth him self in that he maketh Melchisedech a priest in offering bread wine to Abraham his inferior whereas sacrifice is an office or dutie appointed to testifie the obedience of an inferior to the superior properly of man to god which was no part of a priestly sacrifice but onely of a regal or princely liberalitie benevolence as the Protestants coÌ„monly therein truly declare the matter And much more theologically S. Cyprian expresseth this figure wheÌ„ he writeth that Christ in his last supper as the priest of the hiest god offered sacrifice not to Abraham but to god his father offered the same that Melchisedech did id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say bread wine I meane his owne body blud And thus he being the fulnes plenitude of all accomplished performed the veritie of that figuratiue sacrifice which was foreshewed in the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech VVhich sacrifice in the same epistle S. Cyprian also deduceth to priests of the new testament that for so much as Christ being the priest of God his father first of al so offered sacrifice to god commaunded the same to be done in coÌ„memoration of him therefore priests ought in that same maner to offer true persite sacrifice to god almightie in the Catholike church as they see Christ to haue done before them This is the right application of that sacrifice offered to god by Melchisedech that this should so be practised in the new testament Theodorus Bibliander a famous man among the Sacramentaries testifieth to haue bene the general beleefe of al the auncient Hebrewes His words are Est apud Hebraeos veteres dogma receptissimum c. It is among the auncient Hebrewes a doctrine most generally receyued that at the comming of the Messias al legal sacrifices shal haue an end there shal be frequeÌ„ted only the Eucharisti cal sacrifice of praise coÌ„fession that shal be done in bread wine as Melchisedech king of Salem priest of the hiest god in the time of Abraham brought forth bread wine in sacrifice VVhereof the Christian learned reader desirous of the truth may see a verie good treatise out of sundrie the old most famous Rabbins before Christ gathered together by Petrus Galatinus in his tenth booke De arcanis Catholicae veritatis where he verie wel declareth the three special points here mentioned
by S. Cyprian and Bibliander 1. that in place of al the auncient legal sacrifices should succede in the new testameÌ„t an eucharistical sacrifice in bread wine 2. that that bread wine should be the true flesh blud of the Messias 3. that in such sacrifice should consist the priesthod according to the order of Melchisedech Al which might easelie plainely inough be deduced out of the scriptures for if Melchisedech so offered in prefiguration of Christ Christ must needes likewise so offer to fulfil that figure which being neuer by Christ accoÌ„plished but at his last supper most sure certain it is that there he offered after the order of Melchisedech were it not that the Protestants especially the Sacramentaries herein cheifly in the first original ground of all the rest that is in the sacrifice of Melchisedech meÌ„tioned in Genesis shew them selues incredible wranglers Sophisters in cauilling vpon the Hebrew letter without al reason ground heretikes beyond measure in trusting to them selues alone condemning al others who since the time of Melchisedech both Hebrewes Christians haue acknowledged in this place a sacrifice Amongst which heretikes the chief both Caluin Zuingli very saucely impudeÌ„tly shame not to say that in this matter al the auncient fathers writers wrote spake without iudgement more vainlâ— then vanitie it self not content with Christs institution the wisdom of god inuented the oblatioÌ„ of their owne heads They al erred in so belâ—â—â—ing writing deuised to them selues a sacrifice whereof Moses the holy Gost neuer thought They followed there owne inuentions saw lesse in the scriptures then the rude ignorant people And Illyâ—icus that they in so expounding the scriptures violently naughtely hunted after allegories as was always their fashion Although our English doctor doctor Iewel whose Theologie consisted vpon words phrases haue a farther shift peculier to him selfe beyond al other vz. that the Hebrew word vsed by Moyses is doubtful signifieth as wel a prince as a priest therefore nether priesthod nor sacrifice could necessarily be inferred thereof VVhich is a right way to checke reproue both the prophet Dauid Apostle Paule who long sithence determined the Hebrew word to one certain signification which I suppose they knew somwhat better then M. Iewel did The declaration of which matter to make it plaine to common capacities because it would require some longer time then I thinke needeful to spend for that it is somwhat obscure subtile dependeth vpon gramatical cauils of the Hebrew toÌ„ge I wil here omit especially for that otherwise sufficient seemeth to haue bene said of the words of Christs supper which are also so very manifest euident of them selues that the more learned gospellers from the first original of this new gospel haue stood in defence of the real presence do at this present against the tropical construction of the Caluinists VVherefore ceasing to speake any more hereof I wil procede on as I intended to shew the continuance of this beleefe if yet first I shal note in a word or two that Christs speach vttered in the institution of this sacrament cary such weight to induce establish a sactifice that so much in part is confessed graunted by Ihon Caluin him selfe who in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the words of the Apostle S. Paule Corpus quod pro vobis frangitur The body which is broken for yow writeth thus This is not lightly to be passed ouer For Christ geueth vs not his body sleightly or without any condition adioyned but he geueth it as sacrificed for vs. VVhere ore the first part of this sentence declareth that the body of Christ is deliuered or exhibited to vs the second part expresseth what fruit cometh to vs thereby to wit that thereby we are made partakers of the redemption wrought by Christ the benefit of his sacrificess applied to vs. VVhich words how soeuer he vnderstand them signifie wel truly that Christ in that his last supper deliuered his blessed body to his disciples in them to al Christians not as borne of the virgin not as conversant in this world not as risen from death ascending to heauen or sitting there on gods right hand but as offered to god sacrificed for vs to the end that by that coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice the fruite of Christs redemption procured vniuersally to al mankind by his death on the crosse might be really effectually applied to al faithfull Christians members of Christs catholike church who haue coÌ„munication in that sacrifice ¶ And thus with this opinion was this sacrament practised by the Apostles in the first Apostolical church immediatly after Christ as we learne by S. Luke the Apostle S. Paule by S. Luke when he noteth in the Actes of the Apostles that the holy Ghost chose out certaine of them as they were doing publike service ministerie to our lord ministrantibê° illis domino VVhere the word vsed by the Evangelist signifieth a publike ministerie service of the church such as properly the sacrifice is And therefore Erasmus translateth it according to the proper signification of the Greeke word sacrificantibus illis domino while they were doing sacrifice to our lord VVhich Beza also could be content to admit were it not it draweth to nigh to the church sacrifice But howsoeuer in that respect he refuseth it sure it is al the old fathers Apostolike men from thence in that sense called the christian sacrifice or masse the Liturgie as the Liturgie or masse of S. Iames the Liturgie or masse of S. Basil the Liturgie or masse of S. Chrysost as also Erasmus doth interprete it in this sense of a publike sacrifice doth S. Luke otherwhere vse the word S. Paule by this word properly expresseth our Sauiours priesthod and his most publike general sacrifice VVhich Apostle also mentioneth this the Church sacrifice when as writing to the christians of Corinth he dehorteth them from coÌ„municating with the Gentiles in their idolatrous sacrifices by an argument taken from the nature of al sacrifices the excellencie of this Christian sacrifice For the nature of al sacrifices is to ioyne the coÌ„municants with him vnto whom the sacrifice is offered whether it be god or the deuil As among the Iewes saith the Apostle they which did eate of the thing sacrificed were thereby made partakers of the sacrifice by such sacrifice did concrre to the honor of the true god in like sort they which take part of things ofsered to Idols thereby are made partakers of the Idolatrous sacrifice so together with idolaters honor the deuil Then how straunge a thing is it that yow who partake of the table sacrifice of Christ who there coÌ„municate receiue his pretious body and blud for the chalice there blessed is the coÌ„munication
as these men forsooth haue taken it euen at Christs owne hands and that is that 3. or 4. of the bretherne go together take bread blesse it and geue it one to an other without vsing any farther ceremonie or words of Christ or consecration But here arise 3. or 4. great difficulties One whether there must necessarily be other meate and prouision besides the bread of the Eucharist as was at this supper whence these men take the paterne of their coÌ„munion A second how it wil stand with the sinceritie of their gospel to blesse the bread which blessing they so generally detest the English and Scottish coÌ„munion bookes refuse a late English Doctor in a large treatise hath condemned as superstitious wicked magical which words truly must needs proceede from a very prophane and Paganical hart mouth considering that Christ our Sauiour him self vsed it as here these martyrs tel vs. Thirdly which perhaps is greatest of al how they can frame their coÌ„munion by this paterne where is no mention of drinke And very probable coniecture there is that Christ vsed none for that as here the storie is rehearsed after Christ had deliuered them the bread their eyes were opened Christ forthwith vanished out of their sight And ioyne for a fourth that if the breaking of this bread were but breaking of common bread as our M. Iewel wil haue it an act of hospitalitie then foloweth it that the paterne whereby they frame out their communion teacheth them a coÌ„munion of such common bread as is vsed at euerie hosterie at euerie Inne and ale-house therefore they can not with reason blame Catholikes if they make no more esteeme of it But how soeuer this â—al out M. Fox with his Martyrs proceedeth oh wil needs proue that as Christ in the place before noted so his Apostles had no other communion nor ministred it in any otherwise For it foloweth Here also it seemeth to me the Apostles to folow their maister Christ to take the right vse of the Sacrament also to teach it to those that were converted to Christ as mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles where it is said They continued in the Apostles doctrine felowship in breaking of bread and prayer they did breake bread in euerie howse c. By al which he laboreth to perswade that the Institution of Christ as it is described by the Euangelists Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. should quit be remoued from the administration of the supper and only bread broken by the minister VVhich if he do and withal tel pronounce to the coÌ„municants the Lords death he maketh vnto them a persite and absolute supper according as these men haue receiued it at the Lords owne hands And the verie same ministration of the supper I fynd practised by the Scottish martyrs as writeth their friend and patâ—â—â—â— Bucâ—aâ—an About the yere 1545. one George Seâ—â—â—carde was aâ— S. Andrewes to be burnt VVhen the day of execution came the keeper of the castle and his seruants ready to go to breakfast asked George whether it would please him to take part with them He answered he would with a very good wil. But first quoth he I request yow to sitte downe here at the table with me and geue me leaue to make yow a short collation that I may pray vpon the bread which as brethren in Christ 〈◊〉 to eate so bid yow farewel In the meane season the table was couered bread being set on George began to entreate shortly plainely of Christs supper his paynes and death about halfe an hower Then he exhorted them especially to mutual loue that they wold become perfite members of Christ who continually prayeth to his father for vs that our sacrifice may with him be auayleable to life euerlasting VVhen he had thus spoken and yelded thanks to god he brake a lâ—fe of bread reached to euerie one a peece of it and likewise wine after him self had drunke a litle prayed them al that now with him in this Sacrament they would remember the death of Christ Afterward saying grace he retyred him self in to his chamber By these examples we learne how the communion is rightly ministred namely without al words of Christs Institution only that bread be divided among the bretherne and sisterne they willed to loue one an other and remember the Lords death VVhich seemeth generally to be the forme of the coÌ„munion among the Zuinglians in Suizzerland For as Zuinglius him selfe and Bullinger his successor rehearse the maner of it The people â—it al a long in order vpon formes and geue â—are to one who readeth to them the 13. chapter of S. Iohns gospel In the meane season is bread caried about in baâ—keâ—s or paâ—iaâ—s and wine in glasses One man geueth bread to an other likewise of the wine Thus endeth this coÌ„munion or Sacrament of the supper as Zuinglius termeth it And Musculus earnestly disputing against S. Chrysostom for that he attributed great force to the words of Christ by vvhich there is made in the Sacrament a sanctification alteration far surpassing the power of man as S. Chrysostom thought among other things thus reproueth him It is not needful that Christ should now againe sanctifie by a second repetition that which once for al he hath sanctified by the deed word of his Institution For that Institution once done hath sanctified the Sacramental signes for the churches vse euen to the end of the world And that being once done by him is of force through al churches to the worlds end without any other repetition or iteratâ—on thereof Once for al he said This is my body This cuppe is the new testameÌ„t in my blud Do this in remembrance of me and by these words once for al he instituted sanctified this ceremonie turned the bread from a natural vse to a Sacramental By which words especially conferred vvith those of Bullinger and Zuingliê° before rehearsed the practise of that church a man may perceiue that al these English Scottish Geneuian and Suizzer Protestantes agree in remouing Christs vvords from the supper and accompt the supper very sufficiently gospellike administred if the brethern diuide bread drinke amoÌ„ng them selues in memory of Christ without any nevv mentioning of his institution vvhich being once done by him selfe serueth for al without any more a do or new repetition of the same And this is the very exact forme of the Scottish coÌ„munion or supper now in practise as hereafter shal be declared ¶ Here before I end this chapiter I thinke it good to informe the reader of the resolution of the church of Geneua about the matter of this Sacrament for that of the forme we haue sufficient knowledge by this which hath bene said hitherto Concerning the matter this is the determination of that
a man his vvise a seruant no farmar no Inholder no taverne or vittayling hovvse but the common tables haue ordinarely if they be Christian men vvho eate there as good substantial coÌ„munions as any are practised in the most solemne meeting of the bretherne in any congregation through out al Scotland England Zurike yea or Geneua it selfe vvhether ye regard the matter of the Sacrament vvhich is though not vvhite bread and good vvine yet brovvne bread smale drinke which suffiseth or the forme which is nothing certaine but only privatiue that the presence of Christ be assuredly remoued Christ in cogitation at the most thought vpon or the minister for which the good man or if she be better tongued his wife may seâ—â—e as wel as any minister in Scotland or Geneua OF CALVIN AND THE CALVINISTS OPINION CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT The Argument Caluins high speaches amplifications of his supper VVherein is shewed by a number of plaine testimonies that he acknowlegeth at the lest as his manifest words import a true and real presence of Christ body and blud in the Sacrament in as plaine and cleare maner as any Lutheran Caluin notwithstanding such high and counterfait speaches which he of purpose affecteth to deceiue his reader yet stil thinketh of the Sacrament as a mere Zuinglian and by 5. diuers crafty special degrees besides a sixt more general against the words and sentences before cited induceth his Sacramentarie heresie The first is that he denieth to the supper Christs body and blud in steed thereof putteth some real vertue deriued from his body and blud by the holy ghost which serueth as a canduit-pipe to that effect wherein he many wayes contradicteth him self The next degree is that he denieth as al old Sacramentaries commonly do euen this deriuation of any such vertue alloweth no other communion of Christs body to the supper then is had out of the supper by only beleeuing In which sort Christs flesh and blud is receiued as wel or better in hearing a sermon then in receiuing the supper Only there is in the supper ioyned to such receiuing an external signe of bread and drinke A third degree is that Caluin and the Caluinists teach not only that Christs body and blud is better receiued cut of the supper then in the supper better by a sermon or reading the scripture then by their Sacramental bread and wine but also acknowlege no maner communication of Christs body ether real or spiritual as proper to the supper VVhereof because it would fâ—low that their supper were altogether superfluous they vsed a new point of doctrine that the Sacramental bread and wine serued for seales testimonies or ratifications of Christs body and blud receiued before by the meanes of faith For that the doctrine of seales is daungerous in deed very false Caluin and the rest proceed on and that their supper be not altogether friuolous he saith it is ordeyned for to helpe weake memories And this is the true conclusion of the Sacramentarie doctrine generally to make no more of the Sacrament then a mere rude picture or signe of Christs body and blud absent voyd of al grace and vertue Besides the former points Caluin the Caluinists the more to disgrace the Sacraments of baptisme the supper coÌ„pare them and make them no better then the Iewish ceremonies VVhich doctrine besides that it is most directly opposite to Caluins first preaching wherein â—e so highly magnifieth the supper is also aâ— directly opposite to the whole course of the new testament which euery where denyeth al grace to the Sacraments of Moyses law and attributeth al grace to the Sacraments of Christ gospel and the contrarie doctrine vnworthely confoundeth the gospel of Christ with the law of Moyses The Caluinian coÌ„munion is particularly conferred with a like ceremonie vsed of old among the Iewes and against Caluin and Beza it is by plaine demonstration out of their owne doctrine and writings proued that their supper is nothing better then a mere graceles Iewish supper or ceremonie Bezaes preferring of their supper before the Iewish is declared to be vaine and Sophistical Answere made to Caluin who with other Protestant writers match the Christian Sacramentâ— with the Iewish vpon a falsified sentence of S. Paule The definition of Caluins supper Because the Zuinglians and Caluinists sticke not to graunt the comparison bandled in the last paragraph it is here farther declared that the Sacrament after Caluins doctrine is much inferior to the like Sacrament ether the Paschal supper and especially Manna of the Iewes VVhich thing is shewed by manifest reason and particular conference of those Sacraments together cut of the writing and teaching of the Caluinists which also proue both their Sacraments baptisme and the supper to apperteyne rather to the law of Moyses then to the gospel of Christ CHAP. 3. AGainst the premisses it wil be replyed I suppose that how so euer I ether vpon pretence of Luthers authoritie or of myne owne conceite disgrace and abase the Zuinglian coÌ„munion yet it is wel knowen that their writers and Doctors much amplifie advaunce the worthines thereof as in sundry their bookes Apologies and Commentaries is manifest VVhere vnto I answere that true it is some such places in some of their writers are sound but in such sort as litle coÌ„mendeth their coÌ„munions For as rebels when they haue withdrawen them selues from their lawful king appointed them by gods ordinance and framed to them selues one of their owne crue in the beginning or so long as he please them they much extolle magnifie him but vpon the first displeasure and discontentment he is pulled downe againe and brought to his old roome or perhaps serued a worse turne and as tyrannes vpon the sodayne advaunce their minions favorites heaping on them al riches and honors whom afterwards vpon better consideration of their smale deserts or some other light occasion they despoyle abase despise and perhaps hang out of the way in like sort these gospellers hauing reiected the Sacrament which Christ ordeyned and in place of it invented a toy of their owne for some tyme and in some place against their adversaries or for some other occasion much praise and magnifie it But after when the heate is past and they by learning come to examine it or by other force of truth are driuen therevnto or without contention speake of it as it is and as they thinke then are they constrayned to put away al those former borowed fethers and leaue it as pild as Aesopes daw that is they are then driuen to confesle it to be as poore and beggerly a bitte of bread and suppe of drinke as any vsed at common tables And this the reader shal find not only in the old Sacramentaries but also in the new ¶ For albeit it be a common opinion among many that Caluin and the later Sacramentaries haue some what fined the grossnes of their forefathers
and therefore the Lutheran churches of the Counts of Mansfeld in Germanie in the Confession of their faith put a great difference betwene the old Sacramentaries the new saying that the old Sacramentaries that is the Carolostadians the Zuinglians the Anabaptists and such like alwaies taught the Sacrament of the altar to be nothing else but an external idle signe without the body and blud of Christ that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans whereas the new teach otherwise and Caluin to continue and mainteine such a conceite of al other seemeth to speake of this matter most diuinely and mystically and with straunge affectation of high speach may make vnlearned and vnstable sowles beleeue that he hath a wonderful deepe fetch in this case aboue the rest of common ministers writers whom M. B. in these sermons much foloweth yet who so thoroughly fifteth and examineth Caluin shal find in the end that he hath no other opinion of their supper then hath Carolostadius or Zuinglius or Occolampadius or the Anabaptists or the Scottish and English martyrs or who else so euer thinketh of it most basely and beggerly For let vs by articles consider how he runneth vp and downe praiseth dispraiseth maketh and marieth it at one time mounteth alost flieth in the ayer like a bird straight waies creepeth on the ground like a beast but in â—ine falleth headlong in to the coÌ„mon dongeon with the rest of his bretherne and whether in deed the very course and sway of their whole doctrine carieth them At some times he speaketh and writeth so supernaturally as though he were a very Lutheran defending the real presence as for example I say saith Caluin that in the mysterie of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered vnto vs I meane his body and blud to the end we may grow in to one body with him he thereby refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blud And although it may seeme vncredible that in so great distance of places as is heauen from earth he should passe downe to vs and become our food yet let vs remember how far the power of the holy ghost excedeth our sense and how fond a thing it is for vs to go about to measure his infinite power by our smale capacitie VVherefore that cur mynd or reason can not comprehend let our faith conceiue VVhat Lutheran wold require more then here Caluin coÌ„fesseth Or what more pregnant and effectual words can be desired to declare the veritie of Christs real presence not in figure trope or signification which wit and reason can castly comprehend but truly verely so as Christ I say Christs body and blud notwithstanding so great distance of place as is betwene the highest heauen this low vale is here truly deliuered by the inexplicable force and strength of the holy ghost which only is able to worke such a miraculous coniunction Againe If any man demaund of me how this is done I am not ashamed to confesse the mysterie to be higher then that I can ether comprehend it with my wit or declare it with my tonge to speake the truth I rather find it by experience then vnderstand it Therefore the truth of god wherein I may safely rest here I embrace without scruple He pronounceth his flesh to be the meate of my sowle and his blud the drinke To him I offer my sowle to be nourished with such foode In his holy supper he willeth me vnder the symboles of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and blud I nothing dout but he truly geueth it and I receiue it And that his meaning is Christs true body to be not sigâ—â—atâ—uely or tropically but most really and truly present vvith the bread he expresseth in his litle booke De caena domini by an apt similitude ExempluÌ„ valde propriuÌ„ in re simili habeâ—â—u c. VVe haue a maruelouâ— apt example in a like matter VVhen the Lord wold that the holy ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ â—e represented him vnder the figure of a doue Iâ—â—n Baptist rehearing the storie saith that he saw the holy ghost descending If we consider the matter wel we shal fynd that â—e saw nothing but a douâ— For the essence of the holy ghost iâ— inuisible Yet because he wel knew that vision to be ro emptie figure but a most sure signe of be â—resence of the holy ghost â—e doubteth not to affirme that â—e saw him because he was represented or made present in such sort as he could beare So in the communion of Christs body blud the mysterie is spiritual which nether can be seene with eyes nor comprehended bâ— mans wit Therefore is it shewed by signes figures yet so that the figure is not a simple bare figure but ioyned to his veritie aâ—d â—â—stance Iustly therefore is the bread called the body of Christ because it doth not only figure it but also present or offer it vnto vs. This is a plain declaration that novv Caluin vvil not separate Christs body from the Sacrament as far as heauen is from earth but ioyne it thereto as truly as the holy ghost vvas to that doue vvhere he vvas vvithout doubt present truly really substantially And this being so is it not a great shame vv â— some say to charge Caluin and the Caluinists vvith contempt of the Sacrament and to say that they haue no other opinion of it then Zuinglius Carolostadius and those other forenamed Protestants Doubtles so he complaineth The aduersarie slaunder â—e â— â—aith Caluin that I measure this mysterie with the squire of humaine reason and gods power by the course of nature But who so euer shal tast our doctrine herein shal be rapt into admiration of gods secrete to ver VVe teach that Christ descendeth vnto vs as wel by the external signe as by the spirite that the flesh of christ entreth in to vs to be our foode that Christ truly with the substance of his flesh and blud doth geue life to our sowles In the e few words who so perceiveth not many miracles to be â—onteâ—â—ed is more then a dolt These words and other to the same effect are common with â—aluin as that the symbole doth not only signifie râ— figure but truly also deliuer the thing which it figureth that it bath the veritie which it signifieth conioâ—ned with it vere exhibet quod figuraâ— adiunctam secum habet veritateâ— Vbi signum est ibi res signata vere exbibetur VVhere the signe is there also the thing signified thereby is truly deliuered Nether must we suppose the signe to be destiâ—uâ—e of the truth signified except we wil make god a deâ—eâ—uer â—or true it is and we must needs confesse that the sacrament compriseth the visible signe
the 〈◊〉 also thereof both which the Iewes vâ—â—d nâ—their solemne paschal ceremonie And this bread and drink without any consecration or sanctification or alteration other then vvas vseâ— among the Ievves saue only that it should eâ—â—e for a signe of a thing novv passed as before it signified the same to come he made according to these mens doctrine the sacramental bread of the nevv testament So that if no â—vve can orderly as hath bene declared procced by legrecâ— first to remoue from the sacrament the true body and blud of Christ and leaue yet a real qualitie vertue derived thenge then to take avvay that real qualitie descend to a spiritual eating only by faith and make no other presence of Christ in the supper then in hearing a sermon or reading a chapiter of some good booke after to take aâ—â—aâ— that also make the supper to serue only for a seale and testimonie that vve haue receiued Christ by faith in the next place to make the supper a bare signe of Christs body and finally a mere â—â—vviâ—h ceremonie causing vs to remember the Messias â—ovv fistene hundred yeres since incarnate â—â— the Ievves communion put them in mind of the same Messias who was to be incarnate many yeres after it besides specially and principally we haue a singular rega◠〈◊〉 vvith the Scholemen Catholikes we imagine not any secrete vertue to be hid or annexed to this 〈…〉 bread no more then vvas in that breaâ— of the Ievves or is novv in other common bread vseâ— at the vulgar suppers of religious Caluinists vvho in their suppers and dinners thinke of Christs death then come vve nigh to haue a right apprehension and concene of 〈…〉 communion And to this very conclusion as the vvhole doctrine of Calâ—m and the right sacramentaties tendeth so Z 〈…〉 us Prince of the sacramentaries vvhich excellent mans doctrine vvas ever agreable to Caluins concerning the sacraments expresseth the same in most plain and â—lat termes For speaking of the first sacrament of baptisme vvhich â—e calâ—â—tâ— the chief and principal signe of the new testament VVhaâ— is â—aith heâ— the condition and vertue thereof Iohn declareth Matth. 3. I baptise yow in water to repentance Iohn taught them to amend their liues and to repent And whâ—â—râ—â—eâ—ued his preaching these he marked with the external element of water nec tamen iâ—circo aliqua ex parte melâ—â—res eraÌ„â—â— and yet for their baptisme they were neuer a whit the better For what let was there but that they might haue repented as wel without baptisme Therefore baptisme is only a ceremonie and signe c. And in the next leaâ—e The baptisme of the Apostles was al one with that of Iohn For they also as wel as Ihon gaue nothing elsâ—buâ— the external signe of baptisme â—uapropter illorum quoque baptismis non â—â— uâ—fuit quam signaâ— purâ—daÌ„ initta e externâ—â—remonia VVherefore their baptisme also waâ— nothing els but a certain entring signe and external ceremonie And a litle after It was a great error of the old Doctors that they supposed the external water of baptisme to be of any valew towards the purging of sinne For it is most assured that the external baptisme in water is of no force or vâ—eâ— to the cleansing of our sowles And therefore this veâ—â— baptisme vvhereof the Doctors make â—o great a matter is nothing els but a ceremonie I meane an external signe whereby a man professeth that he wil now folow Christ Al which in his ansvvere to Luthers confession he applieth in like maner indifferently to the Eucharist and to the sacraments of the old lavv For this saith he is the office of every sacrameÌ„t that it signifieth only c. So did circuÌ„cifioÌ„ so â—â—â— the paâ—châ—l lamb So baptisme maketh not men the sonnes of god but these which before were the sonnes of god receiue by baptisme a testimonie a signe or badge thereof the like iâ— dâ—ne in â—he supper of Christ Yea this he reckeneth for so suâ—e a principle that of the two he thinketh the sacrameÌ„ts of Christs gospel more voyd of al spiritual grace and vertue to sanctifie then those of the old lavv For so he disputeth Iâ— in the old Testament the carnal and external sacrament could not bring any puritie or cleanesse to sinâ—ul and deâ—iled consciences how much lesse can such sacraments do vâ— any like profite in Christ in the new testament where only the spirite geueth life and worketh al ¶ Against al which if perhaps the good reader thinke that in Bezaes words before cited there is some secrete force and pith to aduaunce his supper aboue those other because his â—upper he termeth a solemne holy institution whereby we are put in possession of Christ or els in Caluins obiection taken from the Apostle let the reader be warned that this of Beza is nothing els but a solemne kind oâ— lying hipocritical feyning vsual to him the rest of his bretherne as before bath bene sayd For he meaneth nothing more but that by their holy and solemne bread our faith is stirred vp to beleeue Christ by which faith we feed on Christ and so apprehend and possesse him euen as did the Iewes in their communion And the very self same holy and solemne apprehension and possession Beza in like maner attributeth to the Iewish ceremonies thereby discovereth his couÌ„terfeit solemne hipocrisie vsed here For expounding that word of S. Paule where he calleth circumcision signaculum iustitiae Beza falleth out in to a wondering exclamatioÌ„ Quid magnificentius de vllo sacramento dici possit VVhat can be spoken more highly or amply of any sacrament what so euer ether old or new Before the Apostle called it a signe which is the common nature of al sacraments for that they are external signes and ceremonies Nâ—â— he expresseth the substance and effect thereof that it is ordeyned not only to signifie but also to sâ—ale the iustice of faith by which we are put in possession of Christ him selfe quatenus sâ—ilicet spiritus sanctuâ— reipsa id intuâ—â—raeâ—â—aâ— quod externa câ—remonia praelicationi verbi coniuncta oculis repraesentat I meane so far forth as the holy ghost â—â—th performe that within which the external ceremonie ioyned to the preaching outwardly representeth to the eyes This is the precise and true forme by which he meaneth that we are put in possession of Christ by his holy and solemne supper for that by the breaking of bread and preaching of the minister our external senses if we wel atteÌ„d the breaking and preaching are moued and consequently by meanes thereof our faith and mynd erected to beleeue so the holy ghost working in our harts we possesse Christ which possession as he graunteth was in like sort and as largely geuen in the Iewish sacraments as in the Christian As for the obiection taken from the Apostle
vsed by Caluin Beza Martyr Musculus and lightly euerie other sacramentarie that the Iewish Manna vvater out of the rocke their passing ouer the sea and baptisme in the cloud vvas as good and effectual as our sacraments of baptisme the Eucharist and that the Ievves in those figures receiued the self same foode in the one spiritual benefite in the other as vve do in these sacrameÌ„ts of ours the ansvvere is that they al sovvly corrupt and peruert the Apostles vvords and sense The Apostle saith not that the Ievves had the self same spiritual foode which Christians baâ—â— as though he compared Ievves and Christians together but that the Ievves amonge them selues good bad iust and vniust receiued those benefites there mentioned For the Ievves al alike passed the redde seaâ— they vvere al directed alike by the cloud they al alike did eate of Manna vvherein the evil men had as great preeminence as the good they did al alike so did their beasts drinkâ— of the water which issued out of the rocke albeit most of them were wicked men in whom god was not pleased This is al that the Apostle saith These vvere temporal benefites bestowed vpon the Iewes which in no place of the Scripture haue annexed vnto them spiritual grace or remission of sinnes as haue the Christian sacraments wherevnto they are impiously opposed And therefore S. Basil with great zeale mueâ—gheth against them which make such odious comparison as men who vtterly disgrace and extenuate the maiestie of the nevv testament For saith he what remission of sinnes what regeneration or renouation of life was geuen by the sea what spiritual gift was geueÌ„ by Moyses what mortificatioÌ„ of sinne was wrought by his ceremonies or sacraments As for the vvord spiritual applied by S. Paule to Manna the vvater he calleth it spiritual partly because it proceeded from a spiritual diuine miraculous cause as in the storie is noted partly because it signified as did almost al things in the old lavv euen the very stones and timber of Salomons temple spiritual things which vvere to be exhibited in the nevv testament in Christ and his church For that of it self it vvas not ordeyned for a spiritual foode but for a corporal the very text proueth which assigneth the vse of it to al indifferently no lesse to euil men then to good yea no lesse to beasts then to men and our Sauiour him self vvho plainlie separateth it from the diuine Manna of the nevv testameÌ„t directly affirmeth it to haue bene geuen for a corporal foode to differ as much from his diuine body geuen in the sacrament of the nevv testament as doth any vulgar bread or flesh And thus do the auncient fathers agreably to Christs words expound it acknovvleging it for his proper and peculiar vse to haue bene an earthly foode though besides it vvere a signe a figure an image a shadovv and signification of Christ the spiritual Manna and heauenly bread vvhich in deed came from heauen in vvhich first vvord of the definition of our sacraments for every sacrament is a signe that Manna and water of the rocke agree with our sacraments and therefore some times so far forth they are by S. Austin compared together but touching the effect of grace never made equal And now if it shal please the reader to conferre these last 6. rules or obseruatons gathered out of the doctrine of Caluin and the Caluinists with that his first magnifiing of Christs real presence in the Sacrament of the Supper he shal very easely discouer him to be a vvicked hipocrite and also find everie parcel point of that whole paragraph gainsayd and refuted by ech one of these 6. obseruations ensuing vvhich if a man vvould gather in to a table after the example before shevved he should fil a great deale of paper and find at the lest so many contradictions in these later against that first as be sentences perhaps lines in that first He shal vvithal be able to frame to him selfe some certaine and sure knovvledge to sure at lâ—st as may be gathered out of the vvritings of such vvethercockes vvho according to the Apostles vvords are tossed vp and dovvne vvith everie nevv conceite as a light clovvde is caried here there vvith every puffe of vvind vvhat the Caluinian supper is to vvit after his ovvne description bread and vvine or some like nutriment voyd of Christs body and blud or any vertue thereof or any other grace instituted for this only purpose to put vs in remembrance of Christ in no respect or comparison better then the significatiue bread or sheeps flesh vsed by the Iewes in their Paschal suppers ¶ And thus much touching the equalitie of their sacrament with the Ievves as they graunt vve accept so herevpon a litle farther we proue vvhich perhaps they vvil deny that the Ievvish sacraments vvere better then thens not only for that the Ievvish had their Institution from god and his holy prophets vvhereas this supper proceedeth directly from the deuil his Ministers but also for that comparing the sacraments thus by them described in them selues the Ievvish much excelled VVhereof this only reason in their diuinitie is a most sure demonstration The preper vse institution and end of the sacrament is this and in this confuteth the benefite thereof that it stiriâ—th vp our â—aith moveth ouâ— external and internal 〈…〉 to consideration of the thing signified that is Christ his death VVhereof â—â—â—â—lâ—vvâ—th that where this 〈…〉 is most â—ound where a signe is most lâ—â—â—â—y 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to moue ouâ— senses 〈…〉 iy to quicken ouâ—â—aith and excite our mynds to the consideration of Christ his death that â—gâ—e hath in it so much the more singularly and in a more high and excellent degree the nature of a sacrament But this was saâ— better and more effâ—â—â—â—ally wrought by 〈…〉 ng a lamb by pâ—wâ—â—g out the â—lud thereof then by 〈…〉 bread and drinking beare 〈…〉 or wine I or both the lamb is a more noble câ—eatuâ—e then is bread therefore more apt to â—gâ—â—â—â—c Christs body the noblest creature that euer was the innocency of a lamb to signifie Christs innocencie that lamb killed that flesh that blud was a more lâ—â—â—ly signe or this lamb of god killed for â—s of his body of his blud giuen for â—s then breaking of bread drinking of any wine or beare be it neuer so strong Therefore in that wherein consiâ—â—eâ—â— the proper nature of a sacrament the â—ewâ—â—h excelled ours Againe an other saâ—â—â—mental signification and the same very principal 〈…〉 they in this that as the bread and wine nourisheth our bodies corporally so Christ caâ—e by faith nourisheth our sâ—wâ—es spiritually But that Iewish supper hauing in it yong tender nourishing flesh of a lamb together with bread and vvine nourished corporally and so signified Christ body nourishing
is ten thousand times greater then the worke of our first creation then to worke this our new creation appointeth for a meanes this wonderful coniunction of Christ with the sacramental signe and addeth farther that except he be not only receiued but also both deuoured for so he speaketh and digested he can do vs no good and yet in fine to procure and worke our second creation ten thousand times greater then our first creation assigneth for the meane such a graceles bit of bread ten thousand times yea ten thousand millions of times of lesse force then vvas the vvorker of our first creation to speake the lest a man may iustly deeme of him that he very negligently considereth the greatnes of these creations ether the first or second and that he vttereth these vvords rather like a mery iester or player on a stage then a sober preacher of gods vvord from the pulpit A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter The Argument M. B. to the more disgrace and abasing of their supper proposeth certain questions with their answeres which as they are partly true in the Scottish or Geneua supper so are they false in the Sacrament of Christs church The first two are 1. VVhether one man geue the signe the thing signified that is Christs body 2. in one action which he denieth land therein manifestly contradicteth him self because saith he no man hath such power no more then he hath to remit sinnes Against which it is proued that man hath pover to remit sinnes and therefore may haue that other power also VVithal is shewed the great difference betwene Christs baptisme and S. Iohns which M. B. ignorantly wickedly confoundeth M. B. his first question is plainly answered and resolued by S. Chrysostom against him and therein is conteyned an answere to his second question The third assertion that Christs body is not promised nor geueÌ„ to be receiued corporally is likewise refuted by plain scriptures which teach a real and corporal eating and not only by faith Such corporal receiuing of Christ M. B. can not auoyd but by foolish and shameful peruerting of Christs words whereof he geueth in this place a faire example to the manifest abasing of the Scottish Communion CHAP. 8. ANd yet as though hetherto he had not sufficiently against his former words disgraced abased his poore tropical bread he goeth much farther folovving the right principles of his ovvne Theologie vvhere sacraments signifie as vvords do vvhich euery natioÌ„ may alter as they list so he likevvise falleth more and more to chaunge and abase their Communion bread and drinke and in deed vseth it altogether as a signe of their ovvne inuention For vvhich as hetherto he hath alleaged no one text or syllable of scripture to proue I meane the thing in questioÌ„ betvvene him and the Catholiks touching this sacrament for impertinently one or tvvo places he hath quoted otherwise so here he somvvhat more dravveth from it al estimation due to a sacrament of Christ and his church though vvhen he hath left it at the vvorst it is good inough for the ministerie of Iohn Caluin and Iohn Knox and their congregations 4. questions he proposeth ansvvereth the first VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to the communicants by one man or no He ansvvereth No. Next VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to them in one action He answereth No. Thirdly VVhether it be geuen to one instrument The ansvvere is No. Fourthly VVhether the signe and thing signified be offered receiued after one maner The answere likevvise is No. Al thâ—se he vvilleth his auditors to marke diligently then saith he litle difficultie shal â—e find iâ— the sacrament vvhich I confesse For al these negative ansvveres standing for true there is no more difficultie in their sacrament then in any other moâ—sel of bread or meate vvhich vve eate euery day And these ansvveres being restrayned to their Scottish and Geneua signes I admit for good and so let them passe But that the Christian reader be not deceiued and thinke likevvise of the sacraments of Christs church in that respect I wil severally shevv the vanitie and falsitie of them especially the first three and examine his reasons if he bring any to iustifie these negatiue answeres For the first thus he argueth The signe and thing signified are not both geven by one man and this ye see clearly For the bread and wine ye see your self that the ministers offers he geues yow the sacrament As that signe is an earthly and corporal thing so an earthly and corporal man geues it Now the thing signified iâ— spiritual and heavenly incorruptible the geving whereof Christ hath reserved to him self only Therefore there are two geveâ—â— in this sacrament This first reason how strong so ever it seeme in the Caluinian Synagoge touching their signe yet is it but weake anb slender in the catholike church where the veritie of the sacraments is not tried by the clearenes of the eye sight for so sometimes the ministers dog that standeth by him seeth perhaps more in the sacrament then he yong men that haue good eyes more then old whose eye sight is dim therefore need spectacles but by Christs ordinance the cleareâ—es of faith And this being vvith vs more sure and certaine M. B. his Therefore folovveth not very vvel that Therefore there be two gevers of this sacrament To this phisical reason which yet is the very ground of al the rest â—or from phisick and philosophie and sense and their â—iesight proceedeth al their â—aith or rather infidelitie against this diuine mysterie he ioyneth certaine theological as The minister geues the earthly thing Christ keepes the ministerie of the heauenly to him self and he dispenses his owne body and blud to whom and when he pleases For why â—f any man in the world had power to geue Christs body and â—lud no question that man should haue power to clense the hart and conscience for the blud of Christ hath that power with it and consequently should haue power to forgeue sinnes Now it is only God who may forgiue sinnes and therefore it is not possible that the ministerie of the heauenly thing can be in the â—over of any man In these vvords the reader may first â—â—cal to memorie M. B. contradiction to his former â—â—ords vvhere he taught hovv the sacrament signifing and the thing signified that is Christs body were coâ— ioyned For the second part of that coniunction he there made to consist in a continual mâ—â—â—al concurring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and thing signified were both offred together receiued together at â—â—â— time and in one action c. And immediatly after The second point of this coniunction stands in a ioynt-offering and ioynt-receiuing and this I cal a concurrence Here he
here in the end iterateth againe and affirmeth as a most irrefragable and vndoubted veritie In the beginning he told vs that in the sacrament are two sorts of signes signes elemental as bread vvine signes ceremonial He told vs vvithal that there was neuer a ceremonie which Christ instituted but it was as essential as the bread and wine VVhat ever Christ commaunded to be done what ever he spake or did in that whole action it is essential it must be done and no ioâ—e can be omitted but ye pervert the whole institution Here for a conclusioÌ„ he saith VVhen the sacrament is spoyled of the essential forme it is no sacrament There is an essential forme in baptisme and there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the vse of the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is I baptize thee in the name of the father of the sonne of the holy ghost Leave out any of these 3. or do it in the name of any one of the three persons only ye tyne the essential forme of baptisme In the supper if ye leaue â—uâ— the least ceremonye ye tine the essential forme and so it is no sacrament This being true that euery ceremonie that Christ did euery word that Christ spake every action of his vvas so essential that no iote thereof may be omitted but vve destroy the sacrament hereof I conclude that their Scottish sacrament is no sacrament of Christ for that it lacketh many of these so necessarie signes and essential ceremonies First because Christ before the delivering of his sacrament vsed a ceremonie signifying the lovvlines of hart the puritie and cleanes of conscience required in them vvhich come to receiue the sacrament After he gaue them a very diuine instruction and commaunded them in most effectual vvords to do the like vvhich coÌ„maundement according to the tenor and maner of speech carieth vvith it as precise severe an obligatioÌ„ aâ— any vvords of Christs supper to a Protestant it should vveigh as deepely binde as much For that precept Do this in remeÌ„brance of me examined in coÌ„mon iudgement and according to the sound and poise of the vvord bindeth no more nor so much as being vttered vvith lesse circumstance fevver vvords importing a necessarie coÌ„maundement then vvhen Christ saith after that vvasshing I haue geven yow an example that as I haue done to yow so yow do also Amen Amen I say to yow a servant is not greater then his lord nether is an Apostle greater then be that sent him If yow know these things yow shal be blessed if yow also do them Here is one ceremonie which Christ did many wordes which he spake at the InstitutioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t Nether this ceremonie vse the Scottish ministers at their supper nor speake they these vvords ergo they omit somvvhat vvhich Christ did and spake Al vvhose doings and speeches being essential so essential that in omitting any one ye tyne and destroy the sacrament hereof it folovveth that their Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ Next Christ 3. taking the bread in to his hands gaue thankes to his father and vvithal 4. blessed sanctified the bread after he 5. tooke the cuppe in like maner and geving thanks to his father 6. vvithal blessed sanctified the cuppe as both the Evangelists S. Paule Caluin Ievvel and Beza confesse The Scottish supper hath no such blessing no such sanctification of the bread vvine but purposely omitteth it and therefore here are 2. more essential ceremonies tvvise vsed by Christ and yet neuer at any time vsed but neglected and contemned by them in their ministration therefore their supper vvanteth somvvhat perteyning to his essence and so is no sacrament Further more 7. Christ did not once only breake the bread tooke to him self a portioÌ„ willing them to breake the rest and distribute among them but him self did distribute and breake it to them and delivered it with his owne hands signifying by that action that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except him self gaue it In the Scottish supper the minister breaketh not the bread to everie communicant he delivereth it not with his owne hand as Christ did and so he leaveth out a very important ceremonye and therefore their supper can not be accompted Christs Sacrament After Christ had taken the bread geven thankes blessed broken so forth finally for declaration that they might vnderstaÌ„d where vnto al the premisses tended he spake these words which were most essential and concerned the substance of the sacrament This is my body which is geven and broken for yow This is the new testament in my blud which is shed for yow These vvords of Christ vsed by Christ in the Institution of his sacrament the Scottish ministerie vseth not in the ministration of their supper Ergo their supper is no Sacrament of Christ To M. B. his supposed reply that the vvords of Christ are not omitted for that before the sermon the minister historically out of the pulpit mentioneth Christs institution ansvvere is already made that this nothing helpeth them but much more shevveth their infinite pride and contemptuous breach of Christs order For Christ first of al tooke the bread in to his hands blessed it brake it after pronounced those vvords they cleane contrary first of al reherse those vvords out of the pulpit vvhere there is no bread high them much lesse haue they the bread in their hands as Christ had I ansvvere furthermore that such historical narration being told an hovvre or 2. before the coÌ„munion and the entier Sermon coming betvvene can haue no relation to the blessing or sanctifying of their Supper For as M. B. here telleth vs there is an essential forme in baptisme there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is saith he I baptise thee in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost And according to the order of the communion booke the minister as he speaketh these words taketh water in his hand layeth it vpon the childs forehead VVhereby vve see that the essential forme is to haue the words ioyned with the element if the minister speake the words at one hovvre lay on vvater the next vvithout the vvords he tyneth and destroyeth the essential forme of baptisme and so it is no sacrament Ergo by like reason vvhereas the sacrament of Christs body hath a like essential forme as baptisme hath the Minister making a narration of Christs vvords before the sermon as it vvere at 9. of the clocke and after an hovvre at ten delivering bread and vvine vvithout the vvords of Christ tyneth and destroyeth the sacrament of the supper and so the Scottish supper is no sacrament of
Christ These fevv instances and exceptions for example sake I geue to the Christian reader vvho may find a number of this sort if he please advisedly to consider that vvhich bath bene said of this matter heretofore And if novv according to M. B. his resolution a man leaving out the least ceremonie vsed by Christ in his supper perverteth the whole institution and marreth the sacrament so as it becommeth no sacrament vvhat horrible prophaners perverters and destroyers of gods sacraments are these vvho leaue out so many and those not the least but the greatest vveightiest ceremonies And if they haue no sacrament vvho lacke in the administratioÌ„ any signe elemental or ceremonial any material part because they be al substaÌ„tial how far are these men from having any shew colour pretence or similitude of Christs Sacrament who lack so many signes ceremonial substantial besides vvhich is the head top leaue out cleane al the vvords of Christ vvhich in deed is the formal therefore the chief soveraine and principal part of the sacrament hovv soever it please these proud ministers to take that honour froÌ„ the vvord of Christ attribute it to their owne vvord Truly as the Catholike for sundry other reasons hath iust cause to abhorre their bread and vvine as polluted as schismatical as heretical as leading the high vvay to Gods vvrath and indignation to hel damnation so these arguments and reasons geven published by them selues suffise to proue as much to proue their communion a schismatical communion cleane divided from Christs communion a perverting a corrupting and destroying of his holy sacrament vvith vvhich it hath no more resemblance by this their ovvne confession then hath an ape vvith a man copper vvith gold heresie vvith religion and an angel of darknes vvith an angel of light Yea many times spiritually sprites of hel doubtles counterfeit Saints and Angels and many apes or munkeys sensibly counterfeit the actions of men vvith more likelihood colour and probabilitie then these mens apish and spritish communion resembleth the Divine Sacrament ordayned by our blessed Saviour Of names attributed to the Sacrament The Argument Of names by which the blessed Sacrament is called in the scripture It is not there called the Lords supper as M. B. falsely supposeth nor yet the Communion Toat it is called mensa domini our Lords table maketh nothing against the sacrifice but rather for it Of names by which the B. Sacrament according to M. B. opinion is called in the auncient fathers It is not called a publique action as by any proper name nor yet a banquet of loue VVhy it is called the Eucharist It was also called the Masse in the Primitiue church when that church generally and especially the church of Rome was most pure and therefore that name savoureth nothing of Idolatry as M. B. ignorantly concludeth But most commonly it was named the sacrifice of Christs body and as a true and real sacrifice was offered vnto God in the church euer since Christs time and first institution of it M. B. argument made to the contrarie answered CHAP. 12 Many of the things which M. B. handleth in these later Sermons or as he calleth them lessons and exercises are by him particularly vttered and entreated of so far furth as concerneth the Sacrament in the first sermon or lesson likewise so much hath bene said of them by me as I thinke convenient ether for proofe of the truth or confutation of error For which cause I shal when they occurre hereafter passe them over in silence or touch them more sleightly The first nevv matter mentioned in this lesson is about names geven to the SacrameÌ„t in holy scripture auncient fathers wherein he speaketh some truth which therefore I gladly embrace as that it is called in the booke of god The body and blud of Christ and never the figure trope signe or seale of that body and blud and therefore belike that being the proper name conteyneth also in proprietie of speech what it is Also it is called the coÌ„munion and participation of Christs body and blud vvhich implieth the former truth It is also called saith M. B. the supper of the lord not a prophane supper not a supper appointed for the belly for Christ had ended the supper that was appointed for the belly or ever he began this supper which was appointed for the sowle In this M. B. is somewhat deceiued as likewise in his explication of the next vz that it is called also in the bible The table of the Lord. It is not called the altar of the lord but the Apostle calâ— it a table to sit at and not an altar to stand at a table to take and receiue and not an altar to offer and propine That M. B. supposeth S. Paule to name the sacrament dominicâ—â— caenam our lords supper it is his error and not S. Paules meaning For albeit at the same time and in the same place whereof S. Paule speaketh Christs sacrament was also communicated vnto the faithful for which cause and also in regard of the time when Christ first instituted it some auncient fathers sometimes inscribe their treatises of the Sacrament De caena domini yet that the booke of god that is the bible and scriptures of god geue not this appellation to it it is plain inough by that place of S. Paule where only in al the scriptures of god that word is vsed For S. Paule mentioning that at these suppers of our lord some devoured al and had to much some could get nothing and rose a hungred some were drunke c. declareth thereby that this place can not directly be vnderstood of Christs sacrament except M. B. be of the opinion with some Puritans whom my self haue heard vpon this place to argue that at their Lords supper there should be not only bread and drinke but also varietie of other meate flesh fish rost and baked wine and beere according as it is in other suppers and feasts Vnto vvhich conceit M. B. by his discourse after ensuing seemeth somewhat to incline But the common opinion of learned men is otherwise that this place meaneth the church-feasts of old time termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were called dominicae caenâ— our lords feasts or suppers because they were kept at night in churches which were in the primitive church and also after called Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our lords howses whence I suppose our name kirke cometh to vvhich feasts the rich sort contributed liberally for the benefite and relief of the poore Before vvhich as S. Chrysostom supposeth though others thinke after the Sacrament vvas also received But that the vvords of S. Paule meane not the sacrament S. Chrysostom is very plaine the circumstance of the place proueth sufficiently This supper saith S. Chrysostom might rather be called humaine then divine potius humana quam dominica rather
of al languages and al Ecclesiastical and holy vvriters bearing equally both senses most assured it is that it signifieth so in that place of S. Paule as hath bene proued And from this vse of scripture al holy fathers both Greeke and Latin al auncient Liturgies and our common Masse-booke vvithout any such imaginarie scruple of sitting name the place of our Christian sacrifice at some times an altar at some other times a table albeit for ech name the church can yelde a more special and seueral reason for that it is first an altar to offer and propine to god and afterwards a table to take and receiue for our ovvne benefite Both vvhich S. Austin very divinely conioyneth together thus Mensa quam sacerdos noui testamenti exhibet de corpore sanguine suo c. The table which our sauiour the high priest of the new testament prouideth of his body and blud is that sacrifice which hath succeded in place of al sacrifices which in the old testament were offered in shadow and figure of this to come for that in place of al those manifold sacrifices and offerings his body is now first offered to god then delivered to the communicants VVhere vve see S. Austin an other maner of Theologe then M. B. not to oppose an altar and a table offering and receiuing as though one destroyed the other but to couple and conioyne them as coherent one to the other declaring plainly that in the church Catholike there is an altar for the honour of god there is also a table for the commoditie and consolation of Christians first to do sacrifice to god next for Christians to participate of the same sacrifice And that from the Apostolical age vsage the first primitiue Christians evermore vsed altars to sacrifice on vve find recorded by the most auncient Christian vvriters vvhose monumēts are yet extant as namely S. Martialis S. Denis Areopagita Origen Tertullian and S. Cyprian to omit al later fathers as Eusebius Optatus S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Chrysostom S. Austin by al vvhich it is most cleere that then altars vvere every vvhere buylt in Christian churches to this very vse of offering sacrifice to God So that M. B. collection from a table to inferre denyal of sacrifice to improue standing and iustifie sitting is very vveake to say the least prophane as vvhich proceedeth from one vvho seemeth to measure and define the table of gods church by the order vvhich him self his vvife and domesticals vse at their ovvne table besides it conteyneth a certaine scorne and disgrace of the English Comunion in which although they haue nought els but a bourd or table as it is there called yet al sitting is quit barred and the bretherne which communicate are commaunded to kneele humbly on their knees and the minister him self some time to stand some time to kneele but neuer to sitte ¶ Amongest the auncient fathers 4. names he findeth attributed to the sacramēt They called it saith he a publike action this was a very general name 2. Sometimes they called it a thankesgeuing 3. sometimes a banquet of loue and 4. at the last in the declining estate of the Latin kirke in the falling estate of the Romane kirke it began to be perverted with this decay there comes in a perverse name and they called it the Masse This last word he most of al dislikes and vvhy for that by processe of tyme corruption hath prevailed so far that it hath turned over our sacramēt in to a sacrifice and where we should take fro the hand of god in Christ they make vs to geue This is plaine idolatrie And therefore where the word was tolerable before now it is no ways tolerable To speake a litle of these 4. names although the sacrifice be a publike action yet vvhere the fathers vsed to cal it so as by a particular name is hard to find In the church of Christ catechizing before baptisme baptisme it self is hath bene vsed as a publike action so hath the geving of orders and making priests confirmation preaching and diuers other sacraments and ecclesiastical offices yea in some respect these haue bene far more publike actions then the sacrament for that many vnchristened vvere publikely admitted to catechismes preachings vvhich vvere carefully excluded frō being present at the celebration of the sacrifice or sacrament both in the Greeke also Latin church And therefore this name is il applied by M. B. In deed the Greekes called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich vvord among prophane vvritiers signifying any publike ministerie or office by the Apostles and aunciēt fathers vvas restreyned to the publike Christian sacrifice that is to the masse as hath bene more at large declared before Priests of the new testament celebrate the mystical liturgie or sacrifice mysticam liturgiam vel sacrificium peragunt saith Theodoretus And the Greeke fathers in this sort made the vvorde liturgie as proper to the sacrifice in the Greeke church as the very vvord masse signifieth the same sacrifice in the latin church vvhen as in the meane season al those forenamed sacraments and other functions vvere publike actions and yet not liturgies The terme banquet of loue is somvvhat more straunge as I thinke more seldom vsed True it is the sacrament is a banquet of love as vvhereby vve are moved first to loue god and then one an other as likevvise it is a banquet of faith of peace of mildnes of patience of modestie of sobrietie of chastitie of al vertues vvhich gods holy spirite especially by meanes of this blessed sacrifice vvorketh in the receivers But yet to say it vvas so named by the auncient fathers is somvvhat avvry And I suppose M. B. by his banquet of love so to speake like a Protestant or rather after the old fashion the banquet of charitie meaneth the church feastes called charities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof I haue spoken before VVhich banquets of charitie albeit they vvere charitably made for relief of the poore and that about the time of ministring the holy sacrament yet the fathers vse not by that name to expresle this sacrament The name of Eucharist Thankes-geving is far more common Mary M. B. must note what the fathers meant thereby not as the Zuinglian Protestants would perswade the simple as though it were nothing but a verbal thankes-geuing to the Lord for Christs passion resurrection vvith a remembrance thereof by eating bread and drinking vvine or beere but they called it so for that in the church sacrifice principally most effectually thankes are gevē to god for his infinite benefites according as S. Austin vvriteth VVhat is a more holy sacrifice of praise thē is geving thākes to god And wherefore are more thākes to be gevē then for his grace which we haue receiued by Christ Iesu our lord Quod totū
by his father Iohn Calvin or his great grandfather Iohn VViclef For in S. Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian vvhich vvere 200. yeres before S. Ambrose S. Austin and S. Leo vve find in a number of places mentioned no lesse the sacrifice then the sacrament of the Eucharist as properly a sacrifice as a sacrament a sacrifice not metaphorical or general for al Christians to offer in faith and spirite but peculiarly and specially to be offered in the church by a certayne order of priests And vvhere M. B. found the sacrament called a banquet of loue or a publike action if ever he found it he might haue found it a hundred times more commonly called a sacrifice if his eyes or vvil had bene as indifferent to haue seene and marked the one as the other S. Ignatius scholer to the Apostles calleth our Eucharist or Sacrament a true sacrifice even the flesh of our Saviour S. Ireneus the new oblation or sacrifice of the new testament S. Cyprian a true perfite and ful sacrifice which Christ commaunded to be offered Dionysius Areopagita the healthful sacrifice offered by a priest according to Christs ordinance Tertullian the sacrifice which only men offer no wemen as also after Tertulli an Epiphaniê° teacheth more at large S. Hippolitê° martyr who lived in Tertullians time the pretious body blud of Christ which sacrifice bishops purely offered to God vvhich sacrifice should be taken away and suppressed by Antichrist S. Laurence that most glorious martyr the sacrifice which the blessed pope Sixtus was wont to offer S. Laurence serving him as his deacon Finally the most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice the sacrifice host which taketh away the sinnes of the world offered to god by priests who only and not deacons haue power to offer the same Now if from these vvho al lived before S. Ambrose S. Austin vve shold shew the like of the doctors writers of that age it were easie to fil a booke vvith most cleer testimonies proving this vndoubted veritie For euery vvhere in every famous Catholike vvriter this sacrifice is in vvord and deed with such evident pregnant circumstances described as no sophistrie and cavillation of out aduersaries no not of M. Ievv him self the veriest vvrangler of al can serue but they must needs acknovvledge that such vvas the faith of that pure primitiue church The general councel of Ephesus calleth it the holy lyfe-geving and vnbluddy sacrifice The great general councel of Chalcedon of 630. bisshops the vnbluddy host offered in the church the vnbluddy and dreadful sacrifice The first councel of Toledo the daylie sacrifice S. Hierom the daily sacrifice of Christs body which Priests haue power to offer Hieron Tom. 2. lib. 3. contra Pelagia pa. 305. lib. contra Luciferianoâ— pa. 136. Eusebius Caesariensis the ful most holy dreadful sacrifice the pure host sacrificed after a new fashion according to the order of the new testament Euseb lib. 1. demonstratio Evangel ca. 10. S. Chrysostom the cleansing sacrifice the same which Christ our high bisshop first offered Chrysostom ad Hebraeos ca. 10. Homil. 17. Theodoretus the immaculate lamb not such a one as the Iewes offered void of reason but that helthful lamb which taketh away the sinnes of the world Theod. questio 24. in Exod. in psal 97. S. Austin in a number of places The true only singular sacrifice of the new testament lib. 3. de baptismo contra Denatist cap vltimo De spiritu litera ca. 11. Contra Cresconium lib. 1. ca. 25. The sacrifice which Christ ordeyned of his owne body and blud according to the order of Melchisedech Tom. 8. in psal 33. pa. 157. A true sacrifice and cleane offered according to Melchisedechs order from the east to the west psal 39. pa. 238. psal 106. pa. 863. As true and real a sacrifice as any was in the old testameÌ„t Tom. 2. epist 49. quastiâ— 3. and vvhich hath succeded and vvas appointed by Christ in steed of those auncient legal and Iudaical sacrifices De Civitate dei lib. 6. cap. 20. lib. 16. ca. 22. Contra adversar legiâ— prophetarum ca. 20. S. Ambrose VVe priests offer sacrifice for the people VVe offer albeit weake in respect of our private life yet honorable in respect of our sacrifice because our sacrifice is the body of Christ him self Ambros psal 38. pa. 527. Of vvhich sacrifice S. Ambrose had so reverend a regard that he durst not offer it if Theodoâ—ius the Emperour being excommunicate vvere present lib. 5. epist 28. And so forth in every Doctor vvriter of that age VVith more rehearsal of vvhose sentences I vvil not trouble the reader the thing being knowen and manifest and confessed by our more learned and lesse impudent adversaries For thus much Calvin him self graunteth and vnto al these and such like authorities of the most auncient pure and primitiue church he maketh this rude blunt ansvvere VVhereas the Papists obiect that the anncient fathers according to the scriptures professe that in the church there is an vnbluddy sacrifice in the one part they erre in the other they lye For scriptures they haue none As for the authoritie of the fathers it skilleth not nether is it reason that we depart from gods eternal truth for their sake And therefore that vnbluddy sacrifice which men haue devised let them hardly reserue and take to them selues And in his Institutions he confesseth that the very maner of ministring the supper as it vvas vsed by the auncient fathers had nescio quam faciem renovatae immolationis I knowe not what forme and fashion of a sacrifice reiterated And els vvhere he saith he can not excuse the custome of the auncient primitive church for that in their very behaviour and church maner they expressed a certaine forme of sacrifice vsing almost the very same ceremonies which were vsed in the old testament VVherein al be it he go somvvhat to far yet this maketh a plaine demonstration that the auncient fathers never doubted of a true real sacrifice vvhich they vttered in most plaine significant termes vvhen they vvrote or preached and expressed by the very forme rite and maner of sacrificing when in the church they ministred it And thus much being true and for true confessed vve see the vanitie of M. B. his deduction that the sacrament vvas perverted to a sacrifice vvhen it began to be called masse vvhereas it vvas called vsed as a sacrifice both among the Greekes vvho vntil this day never called it masse and also among the Latins so long before the name of Masse came in vse in deed ever since Christ and his Apostles time as hath bene declared And therefore whereas M. B. maketh it idolatrie to vse the sacrameÌ„t as a sacrifice he thereby very heretically condemneth as idolatrous the first the most auncient and Apostolike
also vvould they haue ministred the sacrament VVhich although M. B. his vvise ministers in quiet times can speake of and say so they should have done yet I vvâ—â—ne both he and they vvould haue bene better advised before they did it if them selues vvere put to the trial ¶ His third end is true if it vvere spoken and applied to Christs holy sacrament but being applied to the Scottish signe or Geneuian seale is very fond and ridiculous vvhich because it dependeth on the first end vvhich is the principal therefore by shewing the vanitie of the first I shal consequently vvith one labour declare the baldnes of the third In the first he saith that this sacrament was appointed chiefly for this end to represent our spiritual nurriture VVhere vve learne that the chief grace of these mens sacraments is to figure represent vvhich end M. B. proveth vvith no other reason then his ovvne only bare vvord and authoritie And therefore as before so here every vvhere perpetually let the reader marke hovv these men having of them selues invented coyned vs a definition of sacraments and â—iamed the nature and vse of this sacrament especially in their ovvne forge brayne stil confirme it by their ovvne only vvord never mentioning S. Paule or S. Peter or Gospel or Epistle or any sacred authoritie of god or man For in vvhat chapter of al the gospel or al S. Paules epistles find they that this sacrament vvas chiefly instituted to represent to signifie to figure our spiritual nurriture being in deed instituted for this end to nourish to feed and actually to preserue vs to life spiritual and eternal as Christ came in to this vvorld not chiefly to signifie to represent to figure to teach our redemption and reconciliation but truly to vvorke it performe it Not that I deny the sacrameÌ„ts this namely to figure to represent and signifie for that is the first word in euery sacrameÌ„t both old and nevv both Iewish and Christian that it be a signe and signifie but this is not the chief but meanest not highest and supreme but lovvest and lest accountable vertue incident to this sacrament and vvhich if it be made chief quit deâ—aceth and destroyeth the nature of a sacrament in the nevv testament For this signification not only addeth nothing to these sacraments above the Ievvish but also it addeth to them nothing aboue the force and abilitie of man and any good man may make many a sacrament as good as this and better to if such signification be the chief and best part of it But that we deceiue not ourselues misconster M. B. his meaning let vs heare him more at large declare this chief end of his sacrament vvhich he doth in this maner Nothing is so fit as bread and wine for this sacrament as nothing is so fit for baptisme as water VVhy so for that as nothing is meeter to wash with then water so nothing is meeter to wash the sowle then the blud of Christ And the reason why in baptisme is but one signe that is water alone is this because water is sufficient inough to do the whole turne But in the other sacrament it is not so there must be two VVine can not be sufficient alone nor yet bread For he that hath bread only and wine only hath not a persit nurriture corporal Therefore that they might represent a persit nurriture Christ hath geuen vs both bread and wine for the persit nurriture corporal stands in meate and drinke to represent the ful and persit nurriture of the fowle Here is the chief and supreme sacramental grace of the Scottish and Geneua signe Hereof he coÌ„cludeth thus Looke how ful persite a nurriture he hath to his body that hath store of bread and wine so he that hath Christ hath a ful and persite nurriture of his sowle This is M. B. discourse touching that which he accompteth the chief end of this sacrameÌ„t VVherein let the ChristiaÌ„ reader first of al note the true ground of the Geneva resolutioÌ„ for altering the matter of this sacrameÌ„t For when they coÌ„clude that it may be very wel ministred not only in bread and wine but also in bread beer in ale flesh fish or any thing els which bodily nourisheth for that such bodily food aptly represeteth the food of the sowle this resolutioÌ„ hath his ground hence that to signifie figure is the chief end why the sacrameÌ„t was instituted and therefore where this significatiâ— is reteyned there is the substance of the sacramenn sufficiently coÌ„served as our M. Iewel also expresly affirmeth And nâ—w to come to M. B. Theologie who vpon this simple g 〈…〉 bulldeth his sacrameÌ„t what if a man deny al his ground both in the one signe in the other what if a maÌ„ deny that as Christs blud washeth away the spots staynes of sinne so this is best represented by water as Christ is the persit nurriture of our sowle so this is best represented by bread and wine For touching both the one and the other both washing and feeding not only his laundresse or wife if she be demaunded the question and wemen having by the gospel such power and sway geven to them in ecclesiastical matters as hath bene declared doubtles their sentence in such cases is greatly to be esteemed wil answere in both negatively that nether only water washeth and clenseth best nor only bread and drinke be it wine or ale is ful and persit nurriture but also reason common experience and the scripture it selfe wil iustifie this their negatiue For everie one that vseth to wash and scoure cleane knoweth that water alone is not of best force so to do And the scripture when it wil signifie persite and best washing requireth somewhat els as where the prophete saith If thow wash thy selfe with nitre and multiplie the herbe Borith or after Malachie the fullers herbe yet thow art stil vncleâ—â—e VVhich Nitre as likewise many other natural liquours or herbes to be of greater power to scoure out spots and steynes then is running water daily practise philosophie teacheth vs. And on the other part the coÌ„mon diet thorough out Scotland and England assureth vs the contrarie of that M. B. so confidently affirmeth every man and woman I say wil deny that who soever hath bread and drinke hath by by ful and persit nurriture as on the contrarie side some times and in some places countries ful persit nurriture hath bene without ether of them ether bread or wine In the first age before the deluge when men lived 700. 800. yea 900. yeres they had persite ful nurriture yet never knew what wine meant perhaps nether bread For albeit the scripture vse once that vvord bread in our vulgar translations yet it is wel knowen to al vvhich knovv ought that the hebrew word especially in that place signifieth
many In the same chapiter Christ vttereth his death and suffering by a parabolical phrase of drinking his cup vvhich is the only cup mentioned there but this is nothing to the purpose In S. Matthew cap. 26. v. 2â— vvhich I thinke M. B. meaneth as Beza translateth the text the cup is called Christs blud But that text is a wicked text of Bezaes making and not of S. Matthews putting and Beza as gilty in conscience vvarneth the reader before hand that men vvil cry out vpon his sacrilegious boldnes for so corrupting the text VVhich although he go about to excuse but straungely Protestantlike by heaping one sâ—crilege vpon an other yet to omit that for brevities sake both Beza playeth the part of a horrible corrupter in so translating and M. B. of ether a bold and vvicked heretike or at lest of an ignorant heretike in folowing Beza and in telling vs that S. Matthew calleth the cup Christs blud though in a good sense that is true in Bezaes sense it is starke false but how soever it be it vvas never in one sense or other so vttered by S. Matthew For S. Matthews vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic est sanguis meus This is my blud in the second place can no more import the material cup to be called blud then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est corpus meâ— This is my body in the first place import that Christ called the material table his body That S. Luke calleth the cup the new Testament is a figure I graunt but litle to M. B. his help or iustifying his figure For in vvhat sense can he make the cup to signifie the new testameÌ„t VVhat resemblance or representation is there betwene the one the other Therefore questionles by the cup S. Luke meaneth not the material cup but the thing conteyned in the cup. And herein I graunt is a figure but a figure so vulgar vsual and common to al tongues and nations vulgata trita omnibus linguis consuetudire loquendi as Beza also confesseth that it litle differeth from a very proper and literal speech VVhich thing conteyned in the cup vvhereas S. Luke determineth and restreyneth by vvords most pregnant and effectual and irreâ—utable to Christs owne blud then this is the proposition vvhich M. B. vvil haue to stand for one of his figures This coÌ„teyned in the chalice that is This blud of Christ is the new testament And now vvhat figure findeth he here to serue his turne That the cup is placed for the thing conteyned in the cup This is nothing to his purpose Nether hath it any resemblaÌ„ce vvith the rest of his examples his vvords in this place intend it not That the cup vz Christs blud conteyned in the cup is the new testament is this his figurative and tropical speech VVil he thus expound it that the blud of Christ figureth signifieth or representeth the new testameÌ„t This in deed he must say But in so sayng he speaketh vvickedly heretically and damnably and quit disanulleth maketh voyd and disgraceth the blud of Christ the blud of the new testament And the blud of an ox of a goate of a calf in the old law may serve M. B. for his figurative tropical speech For so that vvas tropically in deed the new testament vvhich it signified and figured But the blud of Christ is more truly and properly after a more divine sort called the new testament ether for that it is the special and principal legacie and gift bestowed on vs by Christ in his new testament or because it is the very founteyne of grace vvhich is likewise geuen properly in the new Testament and vvhereby vve have right to glorie and life eternal which is the consequent of grace and effect thereof in the new testament For this and such like cause is Christs blud as in the chalice called the new testament the confirmatioÌ„ of vvhich testament consisted in the death of Christ effusion of the same blud on the crosse As for figuring and signifying that is no cause of this appellation And therefore to say This is the new testament that is This signifieth or figureth the new testament is to make the blud of Christ no better then the blud of a beast vvhich is a proposition fitter for a beast or a minister vvho in so speaking litle dissereth from a beast then for a ChristiaÌ„ man If against this M. B. vvil stil cavil to find out here a figure let him take this for a final answere that this speech of S. Luke most effectual and significant though not so proper or common is properly expressed by S. Matthew and S. Marke This is my blud of the new testament vvhich is a sufficient commentarie to expound S. Luke and quite excludeth al his tropes and figures except he alleage as plaine sufficient authoritie to make those vvords of Christ This is my body tropical vvherevnto he reserreth al these his examples The last example of S. Paule calling Christ a rocke is a figure like to this former A figure there is one vvay but not as M. B. meaneth That the vvorde rocke is applied to Christ is a metaphore and figure as vvhen he is called a lyon a lamb a doore a vine c. But vvhere he saith that vve are specially compelled here to graunt his sacramental that is his tropical and significative speech more then in the rest surely herein he is very specially deceiued For vvhen S. Paule saith the rock was Christ vve are not compelled to expound him thus the rock signified Christ but the true sense may be the literal that the rock vvas Christ S. Paules vvordes are They drunke of the spiritual rock which folowed them and the rock was Christ That rocke which folowed the Hebrewes in the desert vvhich guided directed and susteined them can not probably be expounded of a material rocke although some of the Hebrew Rabbines have such an imagination but of the spiritual rocke vvhich spiritual rocke did not signifie Christ but vvas Christ And thus S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Theodoretus and others expound it and the rocke in S. Paule referred to the vvord spiritual vvhich goeth next before iustifieth this plaine and literal interpretation And so nether this special place vvhich M. B. maketh such accompt of compelleth vs to his trope and figure And yet I must tel him besides for an overplus that he is to rash so specially and peremptorily to charge vs vvith this place as though the case vvere plain cleere and vve must needs confesse that here the rocke signifieth Christ spiritually vvhereas them selves are not yet agreed vvhat the rock here is literally nor vvhat it meaneth or signifieth historically VVhich literal and historical sense must first be resolved vpon before he can so specially presse and beare vs downe vvith his spiritual sense and figuring The common exposition namely of Zuinglius Oecolampadius
a lamb p. 10. 11. 12 Exod. 12. 11. It is phase that is the passeover of our lord pa. 375. 376. 377. 378. Exod. 16. 15. Mauha what thing is this pa. 111. 112. Exod. 24. 8. This is the blud of the covenaÌ„t or TestameÌ„t which God hath made with yow pa. 5. Psal 109. 4. Thow art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec pa. 13. 14. 15. Daniel 3. 22. 50. The fiery fornace burning to the ChaldeaÌ„s cold to the. 3. children 387. 388. Mat. 3. 11. I baptise yow in water but he shal baptise yow in the holy ghost and fier pa. 198. 199. Mat. 9. 6. The sonne of man in earth hath power to forgeve sinnes pa. 196. 197. Mat. 12. 48. VVho is my mother who are my brethreÌ„ 318 Mat. 26. 26. Christ blessed the bread pa. 152. 153. 154. 159. 337. Ibidem This is my body pag. 123. 124. 369. 370. Ibidem v. 29. I wil not drinke of this fruit of the vine pa. 158. Marc. 2. 7. He blasphemeth VVho can forgeve sinnes but God pa. 196. 197. Mar. 6. 5. 6. He could not do any miracle there because of their incredulitie pa. 327. 328. Mar. 5. 28. If I shal touch but the hem of his garmeÌ„t I shal be safe Pa. 327. 328. 329. 330. 332. Mar. 16. 19. Christ assumpted in to heaveÌ„ sitteth at the right hand of God pa. 353. 354. 355. Luc. 22. 20. This chalice the new testament in my blud vvhich shal be shed for yovv pa. 5. 6. 7. 8. 371. 372. Luc. 24. 39. Handle and see For a spirit hath not flesh and bones pa. 352. Ihon. 6. 14. And I wil raise him vp in the last day pa. 170. Ihon. 6. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing et c. pa. 320. 321. 322. Ihon. 13. 5. Christ vvashed his disciples feet pa. 147. 148. Ihon. 14. et 16. 28. I leave the vvorld 356. 357. Ihon. 20. 19. The doores being shut Christ stood in the middest of his disciples pa. 384. 385. Ihon. 20. 23. VVhose sinnes yovv forgeue they are forgeuen pa. 195 196. 197. Act. 3. 21. VVhom heaveÌ„ must receive vntil et c. pa. 350. 35â— Act. 13. 2. As they vvere ministring to our lord pa. 17. Rom. 4. 11. He received circumcision a seale of iustice pa. 130. 131. 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. Al did eate of the same spiritual food and al drank of the same spiritual drinke pag. 107. 108. 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock vvas Christ 372. 373. 1. Cor. 10. 21 Yovv can not be partakers of the table of our lord and of devils pa. 17. 18. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eate our lords supper pag. 244. 245. 246. 1. Cor. 11. 27. VVho soever shal eate this bread or drink the chalice of our lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the body blud of our lord pa. 288. 289. 290. 294 Hebrew 9. 20. This is the blud of the Testament et c. pa. 5. Hebrew 11. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for â—t c. pag. 314. 315. FINIS Errors some in al copies some in certain only are thus to be corrected Pag. 17. Lin. 9. Deest in margine 5 Pag. 42. Lin. 1. in margin obseus obsessus Pag. 31. Lin. 11. 138r 1381. Pag. 57.  in marg remo remoued Pag. â—1  in marg 710. 71. Pag. 150. Lin. 4. 21. 12. Pag. 236. Lin. 19. in marg deest The fift Before p. 167 Pag. 237. Lin. 4. in marg deest The sixt Pag. 265. Lin. 4. in marg deest The third first end Pag. 327. Lin. 31. in marg Marc. 5. 5. 6. 6. 5. 6. Laus Deo ANNO 1553. Narrati 〈…〉 de dissipa ta Belgan ecclesia caet Acta apu 〈…〉 regeÌ„ Daniae a pa. 24. vsque ad 110. Heb. 7. â— 1â— 1 Cor. 10. 1â— Christ in his last supper iâ— stituted a true sacrifice Genes 4. â—â—â— et cap. â— â—â—â— Exod. 24. Malâ—ch 1â— Christs body 〈…〉 in his supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Cor. 11. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â— â—â— 20. Maâ— 26. 28 Maâ— 14. â—â— Gal. 1. 4. 1. Tim. 2. 6. Tiâ— 2. 14. Ioan. 19. 33. 36. Chrysost in 1. 〈…〉 â—â— Christs blud in the chalâ—câ— Exod. 24. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Luc. 22. â—â— Leo â—â—â—m 7. de passione Domini August â—pist â—6 â—â—â—â—â— l. Chrysost â— â—â— ad N oplytoâ— hom 45. in Ioan. â—â—â—â—m 61. ad â—oâ—ul Aâ—tioch Magdeburg Câ—â—t 4. in pâ—â—sâ—t Plane â—â—â—câ—ant testamentum Domini Muscul in â—o â—â— commun cap. de canâ— Domini nu 〈…〉 2. Pag. â—â—2 Christs testaâ—â—â—t made as â—â— last supper VVhat vvas required to â—he making thereof 1 â—â—ber ac sui 〈…〉 Matth. 11. 27. Hebr. 1. 2. Hebr. 8. â—â—â—â—â—om â— 1. 2 3 4 1. Cor. 4. v. â— 5 Ibi. pag. â—â—â— Christs blud deliuered in his last supper Exod. 24. 6. 7. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper â— 3 â— Ioan. 13. 34. cap. 14. 16. cap. 15. 9. 10. â—â—c Cap. 16. 12. Cap. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Hâ—br 9. 17. Christ offered him sâ—lf at his â—â—â—t supper Greg. Nyssenus orat 1. de ` Resurrectione Hesiâ—hius 〈…〉 Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 4. â—â— lib. 6. cap. 23. Muscul vbi supra pa. 3 â—4 Beâ—â— annot â— Mattâ— â—â— 26. v. 28. The sacrameÌ„t in steed of the Paschal lamb Musâ—â—l vbi supra 3 23. Comparison of our sacrament vvith thâ— paschal lamb Num. 9. 5. Exo. 1 2. v. 6 Matth. 20. v 17. 20. Exo. 12. 11. est enim phâ—se 1. transâ—tus Domini Luc. â—2 19. Ioan. 13. 1. Exod. 12. v. 6. 8. 11. Deuteron 1â— v. 5. 6. Hieron tom 2. epist ad DamaiuÌ„ Papam Aug. sermo 18 1. de teÌ„pore cap. 12. Num. 9. 5. Exod. 1â— 43 45. 1 Cor. 11. 28 Exod. 12. 42. 1 Cor. 11. 25 26. Exod. 12. 6. Christ sacrificed at his last supper 1. Cor. 5. â— Tertullian Cyprian Ambros Nazianz. Hiâ—râ—nâ—m Chrysost August Leo. Hesichius Beda Marc. 14. 12 Hostia â—n â—â—stiam transit Gaud. tract â— in Exod. Mâ—lâ—â—isedâ—â—â— sacrifice Gâ—â—â—s 14. Psal 109. Vide Vâ—â—â—â— Râ—gium responâ—â—â—â—â—â— Eâ—â—â— dâ— Missa cap. 13. Fâ—â—câ—as Mâ—dâ—â—â— de â—â—â—â— siâ— lib. 4. ca. 19. Ibid. lib. â— â—e Ecclâ—siâ—â—â—act 11. dialog 1. pa. â—1â— Christ in his â—â—sâ— supper offered after Melchisedeâ—â—s order Cyprian libr. â— epist 3. Melchisedeâ—â— sacrifice in the nevv Testament Bibliander de summa tâ—â—n lib. 2. pa 89. Galat. de arcanis Cath. verita lib. 10. Cap. 4. Cap. 6. Cap. 5. Genes 14. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ConteÌ„pt of the auncient fathers Caluin dâ— vera ecclâ—sia reformanda ratione â—psâ— vanitatâ— vanius Idem ad Hebra ca. 7. v. 9. Zuingâ— â—â— â— Epichir de canone Mâ—â—sâ—â—ol 183. Thyr glâ—sâ— iâ— Hebra â—7 v. 1. Ievv Defence of the A 6. logic part poâ—a 11. pa. 650. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 9â— 6. Genes 14. 18. Psal 109. 4. Helra 7. 1. Luther Vrbanâ— Reg. M 〈…〉 n Pomeranuâ— Biâ—â—rus Brentius Kâ—mnâ—â—â—us â—â—â—yrâ—cuâ— Caluin in