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
iudgement hath at al times among the learned bene much esteemed with whom the Catholike writers D. Allen Cardinal D. Harding D. Sanders D. Stapleton c. vvhom he termeth the yonge Louâ—nian Clergy may not wel compare in the profound knowledge of the Doctors without blushing VVherefore this man so wel esteemed among the learned of so profound knowledge in the Doctors concerning this matter vvriteth thus Protesting his ovvne faith vz that he had rather be drawen in peeces then to become of Berengarius opinion and thinke of the sacrament as the Zuinglians do that he vvold rather susteine al miserie then to defile his conscience vvith so fowle a sinne therein depart out of this life the reasons of this his constant persuasion thus he yeldeth I could neuer be induced to beleeue otherwise then that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament for that the writings of the gospel Apostles expresse so plainly The body which is geuen The blud which is shed for that this thing so wonderful wel agreeth with the infinite loue of God towards mankind that whom he redeemed with the body and blud of his sonne those after an inexplicable maner he should also feed with the body blud of the same his sonne and by this secrete presence of him at is were with a sure pawne or pledge comfort them vntil he shal returne manifest and glorious in the sight of al. Thus for the scriptures the gospels and S. Paule and the cleare euidence of this faith touching the sacrament vttered by them vvhich vvas to him as he vvriteth an vnmoueable foundation to ground vpon Novv for the auncient fathers Councels of the church thus he procedeth Seing then we haue so manifest warrant from Christ and S. Paule whereas besides it is most evidently proued that the auncient writers vnto whom not without cause the church yeldeth so great credit beleeued with one consent that in the Eucharist is the true substance of Christs body blud whereas vnto al this is ioyned the constant authoritie of Councels and so great consent of Christian people let vs also be of the same mynd concerning this heauenly misterie and let vs in a darke sort feed of that bread and cup of our lord vntil we come to eate and drinke it after another sort in the kingdome of God And I wish with al my hart that they who haue folowed Berengarius in his error wold also folow him in his repentance Thus Erasmus a man of profound knowledge in the auncient Doctors vvith vvhom if the yonge Doctors of the Catholike Clergie may not wel compare without blushing much lesse may the yonge scholers preachers of the Scottish and English congregations vvho for sound learning substance of Diuinitie so long as they liue I suppose vvil not be vvorthy to carie the books after those former And therefore being content that on both sides such great peerles authoritie be geuen to Erasmê° as M. Ievvel chalengeth for him thereof I coÌ„clude that the auncient fathers according to the plaine scriptures alvvaies thought and taught that in the holy Eucharist is the substance of Christs body and blud that a Christian man vvere better to suffer any torment and most cruel kind of death then to be of an other opinion And vvith Erasmus I vvish and our Lord of his mercy graunt that those of our poore Iland both English and Scottish who haue folowed Berengarius in his impudent error for so Erasmus termeth it may also foloâ— him in his repentance execration of the same impudent error whereunto Erasmus persuadeth them OF BERENGARIVS HERESIE RENEVVED IN THIS AGE The Argument Luther is to be accompted in some sort the very original ground and cause of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our time But more precisely directly Carolostadius a wicked man and very familiar with the devil and altogether possessed of him To whom succeded Zuinglius and after him Oecolampadi agreing with Carolostadius in substance of denying Christs presence but differing in particular interpretation of Christs words touching the institution of the sacrament Diuers other interpretations of Christs words one against an other al which are iustified by Zuinglius for that they al concurre to remoue from the sacrament the real presence and establish in steed thereof a mere priuatiue absence As the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine in the primitiue church attribute the real presence of Christ in the sacrament to the vertue force of Christs words vsed in the consecration so the Sacramentaries by a contrarie opinioÌ„ account such consecration magical and therefore remoue the words of Christ teaching their Sacrament to be made as wel without them as with them Examples of the sacramentarie Communion practised without the words of Christ by the Protestants of England Scotland Zuizzerland and els where which they both by their practise writing iustifie as a very ful and perfite communion The resolution of the church of Geneua that the supper may be ministred in any kind of meate drinke as wel as in bread and wyne VVhereof is inferred that according to the Protestant doctrine that 2. or 3. Euangelical gossips meeting together to refresh them selues eating such vitails as they bring with them haue as true perfite a Communion as the Sacramentaries haue any both touching matter forme also a lawful Minister which ministerie or priesthod euen to preach minister their sacraments the Protestant-gospel alloweth to wemen no lesse then to men CHAP. 2. HAuing novv declared the truth of the Catholike beleef touching the blessed sacrament hovv the faith thereof vvas continued from the first primitiue church of Christ and his Apostles vvith very smale gainsaying in the first thousand yeres somvvhat more in the next 500 vntil the time of our fathers vvherein Luther certaine other vvith him began that vvhich novv is called the Gospel by the Protestants but an vniuersal gulph of heresie and Apostasie by Catholiks it resteth that I plainly sett forth hovv that heresie of Berengarius novv maynteyned in England Scotland began first vvhen Luther broched this nevv Gospel ¶ The original hereof is to be referred to Luther him self noâ— only in general for that he brake al order discipline of the church refusing the obedience vvhich by Christs ovvne precise ordinance vvas due vnto it the gouernors thereof so gaue free libertie by his ovvne craÌ„ple by vvriting arguing disputing to interpret the scripture as ech man listed vvithout regard to antiquitie vniuersalitie consent of al Christendom besides of al fathers Bishops auncient Councels vvhich example and behauiour vvas in general the cause and founteyne of al heresie Apostasie and Atheisme vvhich from such contempt self liking arrogancie must needs arise as vve see by experience but also in special the first origin and spring of this Berengarian
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
tranquillitie of his realme as in the storie hereof set forth by them selues at large appeareth Which iudgemeÌ„t of that king their notorious sauage and barbarous behauiour in many countries of Europe hath since that time continually more and more verified and the writings of the ministers for defense of their opinions which daily they invent hath much more abundantly iustified whereof this smale booke geveth also some proofe demoÌ„stration In publishing whereof vnder your Maiesties name if any man shal reproove me as bold presumptuous for my excuse laying aside the examples of most auncient fathers whose footesteps herein I haue folowed if former reasons satisfie not I appeale to your clemencie for pardon protesting before God that the cause which hath moued me hereunto next vnto his honour defence of the truth is my faithful dutyful and seruiceable hart to your Maiestie to whom I wish as large dominion and ample monarchie as ever had any king of that Iland for whom I pray that with them and aboue them yow may be victorious in warre fortunate in peace amiable to your subiects dreadful to your enemies that it may please our Lord to heape vpon yow your posteritie al blessings spiritual and temporal that finally hauing gouerned your subiects in such quietnes pretie godlines and rule of faith in which your worthy predecessors haue lead yow the way yow may at length with them to your eternal ioy felicitie render vnto God a comfortable accompt for the great charge which he hath committed to your hands Which that your Maiestie may happily persourme with al honour prosperous successe according to my bounden dutie I shal not cease continually to pray Your Maiesties Most bounden Orator and humble seruant VVilliam Reinolde A table of the chapiters Chap. I. The Catholike and Apostolike faith concerning the Sacrament pag. 1. Chap. II. Of Berengarius heresie renewed in this age pag. 36. Chap. III. Of Calvin and the Calvinists opinion concerning the Sacrament pag. 67. Chap. IIII. Of the vvord SACRAMENT and the Calvinists definition thereof pag. 117. Chap. V. The Scottish Supper compared vvith Christs Institution pag. 145. Chap. VI. Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 163. Chap. VII Of Christs body no vvayes ioyned nor deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 172. Chap. VIII A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter pag. 191. Chap. IX Comparison of the Sacramental signe vvith the word pag. â—07 Chap. X. Of the VVORD necessarily required to make a sacrament pag. 215. Chap. XI M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ pag. 233. Chap. XII Of names attributed to the Sacrament pag. 243. Chap. XIII Of the ends for which the sacrameÌ„t vvas ordeyned pag. 259. Chap. XIIII Of vertue remayning in the sacrament reserved of private Communions pag. 276. Chap. XV. That evil men receive Christs body pag. 287. Chap. XVI Of tuitching Christ corporally and spiritually pag. 309. Chap. XVII Manifest falsities vntruthes against the Catholike faith pag. 333. Chap. XVIII ArgumeÌ„ts against the real presence answered pa. 342. Chap. XIX Other arguments against the real presence answered pag. 357. Chap. XX. Answere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically pag. 366. Chap. XXI Of contradictions and the Zuinglians impietie in limiting Gods omnipotencie pag. 379. Chap. XXII A brief confutation of the last two Sermons concerning preparation to receive the Sacrament pag. 398. The Conclusion The conclusion conteyning certain general reasons vvhy the Calvinian Gospel now preached in Scotland can not be accounted the Gospel of Christ pag. 429. This is the summe and effect of the chapiters in general Ech one of vvhich in his place is divided in to several parts and braunches by considering vvhereof the reader may forthvvith perceive the particular discourse and matter of the vvhole chapiter ensuing A NOTE FOR THE READER WHEREAS M. Bruces SermoÌ„s are printed without any figures distinguishing ether page or leafe which no booke lightly omitteth I haue good reader for plain dealing the more easy notifying to others that which I cite out of him added figures to ech page beginning the first next after the Epistle dedicatorie so coÌ„tinuing on by pages 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. vntil the end of his booke which is page 296. Thus much I thought good to warne thee of that if thow please to see his words in his owne booke thow maist with so much the more facilitie find them THE CATHOLIKE AND APOSTOLIKE FAITH CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT The Argument Christ at his last supper instituted both a Sacrament also a sacrifice consisting in the true real presence of his pretious body blud This is proued partly by graunt of the aduersaries who confesse Christ in that supper to haue made his new testament partly by particular examining the nature of a testament and conferring the new testament with the old The same is proued by the Paschal lamb which was a figure as the aduersaries also graunt of Christs Sacrament finished in the same therefore this must needs be a sacrifice as that was according to the plaine scriptures al auncient fathers The same is most clearly proued by the sacrifice of Melchisedech which albeit most Protestants reiect withall reiect the whole primitiue Church of Christians as also the auncient synagogue of the lewes both which church sâ—nagogue confessed the same yet some acknowledge it thereof is the holy sacrifice real presence briefly inferred The same faith was reterned practised by the first primitiue church in the time of the Apostles The same faith was continued in all Christendom from tâ—e Apostles tyme without any great trouble or contradiction the first thousand yeres as appeareth by consent of the fathers general Councels stories of the church Berengarius the first notorious father of the sacrameÌ„tarie heresie conuinced by learning condemned in sundrie Councels gathered out of al Christendom abiured his owne wicked invention died penitent therefore from whose time to this age the Catholike faith hath bene clearly acknowledged and mainteyned by al Christians both in the Latin Church also in the Greeke Berengarius when he was a sacramentarie he was also a damnable heretike euen by the Protestants iudgement for sundry other heresies besides this So were all they which since Berengarius haue taught this heresie as Peter de Bruis the Albigenses Almaricus and Ihon VViâ—lef a pernicious heretike flatterer who yet recanâ—ed his heresies twise or thrise is condemned for an heretike by the Protestants Out of the premisse is gathered a generall sure rule the same confirmed by manifest scriptures to know an heresie to proue that Berengarius his opinion al that folow him is heretical And the summe of this chapiter touching the principal contents thereof is concluded with the authoritie of Erasmus a
circuâ—cised afterward received the signe of circumcision a seale of the iustice of faith which he had being yet vncircumcised that he should be the father of them thaâ— beleeue c. And vvhat maketh this for the sacrament of the Supper vvhat to our purpose here Certainly as much as circumcision resembleth the supper For first it vvâ—l not folovv in any reason ether humane or divine that vvhich is spoken of one particular streight vvays to be extended to al. The argument on the contraâ—ie side is good from al to some or any one But from one to al is as vvise as if I should say M. B. is minister eâ—go al men are ministers For questionles not al sacraments of the old lavv vvere such signes and seales of iustice For so al that vvere vvashed or purified Iudaically al that eate the Paschal lamb or vnleavened bread yea by the Protestant doctrine al that passed the red sea and eate of Manna or drunke of the vvater issuing out of the rocke vvhich the Protestants make as good sacraments as are the Christian should haue bene iustified vvhich iâ— flat against the Apostle and should from god him self haue received the seale and testification that they vvere iust before him Next if a man deny the sacraments of the old and new law to be of one qualitie as al Catholikes do ever did then againe the collection from circumcision to the supper is fond foolish Thirdly it wil not folow from this of Abraham to any sacrameÌ„t that it is a seale of iustice to the receiuer For albeit it were so in AbrahaÌ„ of whom the scripture testifieth that before this time he was iustified and afterwards receiving the signe of circumcision that was to him a seale and confirmation of iustice as the plain storie and sequele of the Scripture sheweth and S. Chrysostom expoundeth yet this signe can be no such seale to al others except they haue the like warrant and testimonie of their iustice from god out of his word as Abraham had which to affirme fighteth directly against the Protestants doctrine who teach that many were as then circumcised so now baptized who are not iust before god but remayne stil in their sinnes So nether baptisme now nor circumcision then could be to such men a seale and confirmation of iustice which they then had not nor novv haue Fourthly this vvas to Abraham a seale not of iustice only but also of an other promise as vvitnesseth S. Paule â—â— fiereâ— pater multarum gentium that he should become the father of many nations both of Ievves Gentilessuch as beleeved For as before his circumcision he vvas iustified by his faith to testifie that the Gentiles might be iustified if they beleeved and did as he did vvithout circumcision so after vvas he circumcised to testifie that in like â—ort the circumcised Ievv should be iustified as he vvas And as to him his circumcision vvas a seale of his iustice by â—aith so vvas it also a seale assurance that he should be the father of many natioÌ„s vvhich beleeved vvere they circumcised or no. Which both parts the Apostle in one brief sentence for this cause coupleth together And nether this Apostle nor any other nether Evangelist noâ— prophet ever calleth circumcision a seale but in this special place and that no doubt for this special reason So that this being a proper privilege and prerogatiue geâ—eâ— in singular sort to Abraham in testimonie of his obedience and faith as Beza also in part confesseth pecâ—liari ratione hoc convenit Abrahamo cui vni dictum est in â—ebenediâ—entur omnes gentes this saith Beza agreeth to Abraham after a verie special and peculiar sort vnto whom only it was said in thee shal al nations be blessed M. B. must learne as the laâ—v and common reason teacheth him that priuilegia paucorum non faciunt legem communem The priuileges of a few much lesse of one make no common'law for al. And therefore al sacraments can not be called seales although the sacrament of circumcision was so to Abraham Fiftly which is the principal in this place how soeuer that were to Abraham a seale of iustice whether as Origen interpreteth it because it shut vp the iustice of faith vvhich vvas in the time of the gospel to be plainly opened so that this carnal circumcision vvas a secret feale and presignification of the internal circumcision vvhich vvas to be vvrought spiritually after or as S. Chrysostoni interpreteth it vvas a kind of bond and obligation vvhich God tookâ— of Abraham to bynd him and his posteritie the more deeply to gods service for as vvhen vve distrust mens vvords vve take some pledge of them so god knovving the inconstancie of mens mynds vvould haue this signe and assurance from them saith S. Chrysostom or as some other vvil a signe and seale to put men in memorie of their dutie to god in vvhich soâ—t also our sacraments of baptisme and the Eucharist are signes and seales of Christs death his paâ—sioÌ„ and resurrection to the cogitation and remembrance vvhereof vve are induced by the vse of them or vvhat so euer good sense of this word is geuen by good men no good man ever expounded it to signifie that it is oâ— waâ— a seale to confirme the promises of god or gods woâ—d preached which is the point of our question here intreated Finally of this place amongst other let the Christian reader stil nâ—â—â— the frowardnes of our adâ—ersaries vvho in al the nevv Testament having this only tâ—â—t vvhere a sacrament of the old lavv is called a seale and that peculiarly in one man vpon that one place being so doubtful in deed not applicable to other sacraments wil needs reproue the vsual speech of the church vvhich though not found in scripture as they suppose yet can they not deny but it was vsed in the primitiue church from the beginning For so M. B. confesseth as a thing certain and out of question that the Latin Theologes who were most auncient did interprete the Greeke word 〈◊〉 by the word sacrament and applied it to baptisme and the Supper and vvith a litle study and humilitie he might fynd the vvord thus taken in the scripture it self Vpon this so vveake and pitiful a foundation that is vpon this one vvord of seales once vsed by the Apostle in one only place applied to one only man by special privilege never attributed to baptisme never to the supper that is to say vpon his ovvne mere fansie or at lest vpoÌ„ the fansie of Caluin a vvicked and proud heretike condemned not only by Catholikes but also by most of his felow heretikes of this age M. B. buildeth his entier definition of sacraments VVhich therefore if in this discourse I refute vvith any contemptible words or comparisons let the Reader vvel vnderstand me that In ever intend any such vvord or comparison
three or fovver bretherne eating and drinking their symbolical bread and vvine hovv can ether that confirme to vs the child to be saved or this that such eaters and drinkers eate spiritually Christs flesh and thereby shal haue eternal life Certainly if the minister out of the vvord did not tel them so much before the bread and vvine vvould neuer confirme nor scarce signifie such spiritual eating much lesse eternal life ensuyng thereof So that vvhereas ordinarily in common practise vvhence these men take their Theologie in this point seales confirme words and vvritings among men and vvithout a scale the vvord and vvriting is of no great force or value in lavv to make a bond and obligation the seale geuing al strength force thereto here it is cleane contrarie For al dependeth of the vvord and the vvord geueth strength vertue and force to the seale not the seale to the vvord and the vvord vvithout the seale is altogether sufficient carieth vvith it ful entier and perfit authoritie vvhereas the seale vvithout the vvord is nothing at al but as M. B. truly saith a common peece of bread so that truly to speake the vvord is rather to be accompted a seale to the bread then the bread a seale to the vvord Again these men in making such comparison vvaigh not the true nature and difference of vvords and seales as they are vsed in things diuine humane In humane because men are mortal and mutable and false so that vve can not take hold of their vvord vve are enforced to vse other meanes for our assurance and certification as first to put their vvords in vvriting and then to ratifie both vvord and vvriting by sealing But in God and things diuine it is not so But for so much as God is immortal immutable and constant vvhose vvord is vvorking and vvhose vvord once vttered is as sure certaine infallible and irreuocable as if it vvere vvritten in faire velem in a thousand exemplars confirmed by as many seales here can be no vse of any such seales as is amoÌ„g men because no such seale can add any more authoritie or certaintie to his vvord as it doth to ours How beit it pleaseth him some times to vse some kynd of confirmation vvhich may not vnfitly be compared to a kind of sealing as vvhere the Euangelist saith that vvhen Christ was ascended his Apostles preached euery vvhere our lord working with them and confirming their dostrine and preaching with signes and miracles of vvhich kynd of confirmation the storie of the Acts of the Apostles is ful But these were miraculous noâ— sacrameÌ„tal seales applied truly properly to speake not to coÌ„firme gods vvord or promises but to confirme vnto the heaâ—ers the authoritie and credit of the preachers the prophets Apostles and disciples of Christ as euery vvhere appeareth both in the old testament nevv And therefore as S. Paul teacheth such miraculous signes and seales properly are not for faithful men Christians but for faithles and infidels to dravv them to faith and Christianitie And this is a far different kind of seales from the sacraments vvhereof vve here entreat vvhich neuer any learned father or vvriter called seale in the Protestant sense For albeit sometime S. Augustin vseth the vvorde and applieth it to the sacraments as also do some other Doctors yet they neuer meane nor applye them as do the Protestants but cal them seales ether because they signe the faithful vvith such a marke vvhereby they are distinguished from the vnfaithful or because they conteyne in them a secret holy thing that is inuisible grace in vvhich sense the booke of the Apocalyps is said to be signed vvith 7. seales in both vvhich senses S. Austin S. Gregorie Nazianzene calle them seales or because they geue perfit and absolute grace vvhereby a Christian being vvashed from his sinnes and made the child of god in baptisme receiueth farther strength to persist and stand fast in his Christian prosession and fight constantly against the enemies of Christ and his church the deuil and his ministers is confirmed in hope and hath as it vvere a pledge of eternal life in vvhich sense S. Cornelius an auncient Pope and martyr and after him S. Leo the Great calle the sacrament of confirmation a seale The vvords of the first are VVhereas Nouatus the heretike was only baptised but afterward tooke not such other things as by order of the church he ought neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus suit nether was signed with the seale of our lord by the bisshop in the sacrament of confirmation how I pray â—ow receiued he the holy ghost to strengthen him in his Christian saith S. Leo in his 4. Sermon de natiuitate Domini Stand fast in that faith in which after yow were baptised by water the holy ghost yow receiued the Chrisme of saluation the seale or pledge of eternal life In these senses and perhaps some other tending to like effect the auncient godly fathers calle the sacraments seales as questionles euery sacrameÌ„t and especially that of the most blessed Eucharist is a most admirable signe and seale and confirmation and demonstration of gods infinite mercy and Christs infinite loue towards mankynd But the sense of the Protestants as it is foolish fond nevv vvithout al vvit and reason and not only so but also wicked impious heretical Anabaptistical as hath bene shevved neuer taught by the holy scriptures of god by any Apostle Evangelist auncient father or Councel so I can not greatly enuy at Bezaes glorious triumph vvhich he maketh to him self and his maisters for the first invention thereof wherein he so flattereth and pleaseth him self that hauing expressed the same in such sort as here M. B. doth and I before out of Beza haue alleaged he suddenly from explication of the scripture breaketh out in to admiration of him self and his companions in these vvords This my exposition coÌ„cerning circumcision a seale of iustice al other sacraments seales in like maner if a man compare with such things as not only Origenes but also sundry other of the auncient fathers albeit for godlines and learning most famous haue written vpon this place he shal doubtles find what greâ—â— abundant light of truth the lorde in this time hath powred out vpon vs of al other men most vnworthy thereof No doubt a vvorthy doctrine for such Doctors and in deed to be vvondered at vvhich being so necessarie for the church as these men make it for it conteyneth the true faith of the sacraments vvhereas Origen S. CypriaÌ„ S. Austin S. Ambrose S. Leo. S. Basil S Gregorie Nazianzene and sundry other for holines and learning most famous as he confesseth could neuer find it out and yet these men Caluin Beza and Iohn Cnox for learning not very famous and for horrible filthines and abomination of life not to be named and not heard
affirmeth the quit contrarie and in precise termes deâ—â—ieth the siâ—ne and thing signified to be deliuered in one action most directly reiecteth al such ioynt-offering and ioynt-receiving and concurrence and teacheth that Christ dispenseth the thing signified that is his body and blud not to whom the minister geveth the sacrament not when he ministreth the communion but to whom in respect of the persons and when in respect of the time be pleases The very like wherof he writeth afterward concerning the sacrament of baptisme that the minister washeth the child in water and baptizeth externally boâ— as for the vertue of regeneration that Christ hath to geâ—e â—â— whom and when he pleâ—â—es and not when it pleaseth M. minister And why so For that otherwise a marvelous great absurditie wil folow VVhat is that If a mâ—â— might geue Christs body he might also clense the hart and forgeue sinnes But only God forgeveth sinnes Therefore it is not possible for man to geue Christs body Graunting the sequele of the first proposition how proveth he the second that only God forgeveth sinnes and not man By Iohn Baptist Matth. 3. 11. For Says he not the ministerie that I â—â—â—e is of the element I am commaunded to minister the element of water only but as to the ministerie of the fier spirite that Christ hath reserued to him self Thus he for his first negatiue For answere whereof let vs take the affirmatiue on the contrary side thus If man haue power to clense the â—art by remitting of sinnes he hath or may haue power also to geue Christs body the thing signified in the sacrament These two M. B. maketh in like â—ort possible or vnpossible But say we a man hath poâ—â—â—â— to remit sinnes and so to clense the hart vvhich vve prooue cleerely by Christs vvords to his apostles VVhose sinnes ye remit they are remitted And here I vvish againe the reader to marke the rude ignorance and grosse barbarousnes vvherevnto this Calvinisme grovveth vvho recken that for a straunge absurditie obiect it as a matter irreâ—utable vvhich in the catholike church is so certain a veritie so vniuersally knovven and beleeved as any article of our Creed in vvhich as the church Catholike hath a principal notorious place next after God him self so ioyntly vvith the Catholike church vve are bound to beleeue Remission of sinnes vvhich men truly â—s Gods ministers and by authoritie from him geue to Christians in the vnitie of the same church as every auncient father Greeke and Latin that ever vvrote vpon the Gospels or of remission of sinnes in the church acknovvlegeth VVhich the Christian learned reader may see if he please to pervse S. Cyprian S. Austin S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Hilarius S. Pacianus al most auncient doctors in the places here noted Cyprian de lâ—psis sermo 5. Augustin Epistola 180. De doctrina Christiana lib. 1. cap. 18. In Eâ—chirid ad Laurent cap. 64. 65. 66. In Psal 101. Concio 2. In Ioan. cap. 11. â—oâ— 49. Contra adversarium legis et prophet lib. 1. cap. 17. Tom. 10. Hom 23. et 50. cap. 10. 11. Hieron in Ecclesiast ca. 10. et in Matth. cap. 16. Ambros in psal 38. Chrylostom de sacerdotio lib. 3. Athanafius Sermo in illud Iâ—e in vicum qui contra vos est in fine Basil in regulis brevioribus reg 229. Hilarius in Matth. ca. 18. Paâ—ianus â—arâ—inon in Parâ—nâ—â—â— ad paenitentiam Leo magnus epistola 80. VVith â—ehersing the several sentences of these Saintes I vvil not trouble the reader because I desire to be brief Only for satisfaction of M. B. vvho maketh it so straunge and absurde to suppose that a man may remit sinnes and if he could so do he might also geue to the Christian people Christs true body I vvil say that herein he is not altogether deceiued in part I yeld vnto him in such sort â—â— S. Ambrose doth to the Novatians heretikes of his time who in this matter were iust of M. B. his opinion and for defence of it argued much like as M. B. doâ—â— and therefore he may be contented with that answere which S. Ambrose so long since allowed to his betters and elders No minister no man can remit sinnes not yet geue Christs body saith M. B. I answere with S. Ambrose Both of these the one the other is lawfully â—â—â— in the church Nether of both is done in heresie cut of the church For this is a right geuen only to priests Duely therefore doth the church challenge it which hath true priests heresie heretical congregations can challenge nether which haue not the true priests of god Non vendicar do autem itâ—â— de se pronunciat quod cum sacerdotes non habeat ius sibi veâ—dicare non debeat sacerdotale And whereas heresie the Scotish ministerie challengeth not this right it geveth sentence against it self that whereas it hath no lawful priests it may in take and vsurpe that right of remitting sinnes which by Christ is geven to priests And forth with he inferreth with a sounder kind of consequence then is this of M. B. that such heretical synagoges for this self same reason aâ— quite void of the holy ghost For that the holy ghosts resident in the church to the end that by the ministerie of priests he may remit sinnes to Christians being penitent according to the articles of our Creede To which purpose he alleageth the words of our Sauiour before â—ted VVhose sinnes yow remit they are remitted And alter it seeme absurd and vnpossible to M. B. yet it is not absâ—â— saith the auncient learned archbishop S. Cyril that they forgeue sinnes which haue the holy ghost For when they â—â—mit sinnes ether in baptisme or in penance the holy ghost remitteth in them Against which whereas M. B. seemeth to stand by challenging this preeminence to the Diuie maiestie who only forgeueth sinnes he must learne tâ—â— as â—â—is conceit is stale and Iewish and perhaps proceedeth from some counterfeit hypocrisie which preteÌ„deâ— great iealousie of Gods honour where it is lest meet so our Sauiour hauing of old detected this hypocrisie â— error in the Iewes I could wish that M. B. would beâ— disciple of Christ and his church rather then of those other Christs adversaries crucisiers For when Christ forgaue sinnes in the gospel they vpon M. B. his ground said within them selues He blasphemeth VVho can forgeue sinnes but only God But Christ proved vnto them that â—â— only God in heauen but alâ—o the sonne of man in earth had power to forgeue sinnes and he proved it so that the multitude seeing it glorified god who had geuen such power to men and not reserved it peculiarlie to him self VVhich povver being in Christ as man he in most plaine and effectual words imparted to his Apostles and their successors as in the
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
fideles is ecclesiae sacrificio sciunt al which the faithful know how it is performed in the sacrifice of the church of which church sacrifice al the sacrifices of the old testameÌ„t were shadowes VVhich sacrifice of praise and thankes-geuing he in a number of places expresly calleth the sacrifice of Christs body and that it was offered not by al Christians a like but by a certaine order of priesthod as he plainly declareth in the same booke and proveth out of the scriptures ¶ VVhere M. B. saith that the name Masse came in vvhen the sacrament began to be perverted the Latin kirk to decay the Romane kirk to fal by this vve learne vvhen according to M. B. censure the Romane church fel. For euerie Protestant allovveth it a time of puritie integritie according to his ovvne humor fansie some 300. yeres some 400. some 500. And thus far our English Ievvel extended the puritie florishing estate of the Latine especially the Romane church some allovv it 200. yeres more But for the first 400 or 500. yeres fevv of the learned Protestant make any doubt but that the Romane church vvas pure and sincere in al parts of religion So taught one of our English Pâ—otomartyâ—s Ridley prelate of London in these vvords The patriarch of Râ—me in the Apostles time and long after was a great maynteiner and setter forth of Christs glorie and above al other countries regions there especially was preached the true gospel the sacraments were most duly ministred And as before Christs coming it was a citie so valiant that al the world was subiect to it and after Christs passion divers of the Apostles there suffered persecution for Christs gospel so after that the Emperors became Christians the Gospel there florished most S. Austin saith our M. Ievvel and other godly fathers rightly and wel in old time yelded great reverence to the see of Rome as for diuers other reasons so also for the puritie of religion which was there preserued a long time 600. yeres after Christ without spot For which puritie and constancie in the same that church was most famous aboue al others and might be a standard vnto them And Iohn Calvin vvriteth Because it was a thing notoriously knowen true without al questioÌ„ that from the Apostles age vntil theirs there was no alteratioÌ„ of doctrine nether in the church of Rome nor in other places the fathers tooke this for a principle and sure ground able to overthrovv al errors vvhich nevvly sprong vp that they gainsayd the truth vvhich had bene constantly preserued and maynteined by common consent from the time of the Apostles VVhich iudgement of Calvin and those other learned Zuinglians I note to control M. B. rash sentence in deputing the fal and decay of the Romane church to that time vvhen by these mens more sound more learned verdit that church vvas most pure perfit and withal hereby I can plainly convince him of falshod and heresie in preaching as he doth Touching the first the sacrament saith he began to be peruerted and turned in to a sacrifice with the falling estate of the Rom. kirke and them comes in this peruerse name of the Masse VVhen was this About 400. yeres after Christ For then vve find this name masse in the Councels Doctors vvritings applied more commonly to such signification as vve novv vse it S. Ambrose in Milan testifieth of him self that he said Masse missam facere caepi Ambros lib. 5. epist 33. â— Leo maketh mention of the same epist 81. ad Dioscorum 88. ad Episcopos Germaniae Galliae S. Austin sermo 91. de tempore 237. 251. Cassian lib. 2. Canon orat noctur ca. 7 lib. 3. canon diurn oral cap. 5. 6. 11. lib. 11. ca. 15. Yea some bishops martyrs of the Romane see far more auncieÌ„t then any of these vvriters vse the vvord though seeldoÌ„ as appeareth by S. Damasus in Pontificali in Alexandro 1. by Papirius Massonus de Episcop vrbis lib. 1. fol. 11. in Pio. 1. As for Councels in sundry very auncient as in Concilio Rom. sub Sil vestro 1. Concil Carthag 2. can 3. Carthag 4. ca. 84. Concil Agathensi ca. 21. 47. Concil 3. Arelaten cap. 3. Concil â— Aâ—â—â—lianenâ— ca. 28. Concil Milevit cap. 12. both the masse is plainly named and the distinction of masses vsed in the primitiue church is described the one called missa catechumenorum the other missa fidelium the masse of learners or novices in the faith to vvhich al indifferently vvere admitted Heretikes Iewes Paganes the masse of peâ—â—â—â—e baptized Christians from the presence and sight of vvhich masse not only the forenamed Heretikes Iewes and Pagans but also the vnchristened though otherwise favoring Christianitie yet for reverence of these dreadful mysteries vvere excluded Thus vve find that long vvithin 500. yeres after Christ the name of Masse vvas very frequent in the Romaine and Latin church vvhen as yet that church vvas far from decay and faâ— nay vvhen according to Calvin and those other famous Superintendents the church of Rome was most pure and had altered nothing of the doctrine received from the Apostles but for her constancie in reteyning the â—aâ—e might serue for a Standard and light to al other churches of Christendome ¶ By vvhich ground also and graunt of these excellent men I condemne secondly M. B. his preaching of heresie vvhereas he saith that when the sacrament was turned in to a sacrifice it was idolatrie and that forsooth began vvith the name of Masse For vvith this perverse name Masse the sacrament began to be perverted This collection I say is very foolish vvicked heretical For if in collecting the 4. names vvhich out of the auÌ„cient fathers he attributeth to the sacrament he had faithfully told his auditorie vvhat he had found he could not haue so blindly stumbled as to vvring idolatrie out of a sacrifice or preach that the sacrifice began vvith the name of Masse vvhereas the more auncient fathers cal the sacrament a true sacrifice some hundreds of yeres before the decaying and falling time of the church vvhich he signifieth that is before the name of Masse vvas practised And vvhen the name Masse began to grovv in vse even then they stil reteyned that other more auncient terme and caled it stil sacrifice both in preaching vvriting ten yea tvventie times for one more oft then Masse And therefore to make the name Masse any occasion of the sacrifice vvhich name and beleef of sacrifice vvas vniversal at lest 200. or 300. yeres before the name of Masse grevv in vse is as poore and peevish a devise as lightly might fall in to a sicke mans brayne This is to set the cart before the horse to make the river cause of his fountayne to make the child beget his father as much as to charge M. B. vvith the invention of heresies published
because the veritie thereof hangeth not vpon mens eâ—ting or not eating the sacrameÌ„t not vpon any mans action or table service as M. B. thinketh but vpon the povver of Christ and his vvord it self vvhich is eternal omnipotent and insallible And therefore vvhat hast so ever the minister maketh home to see his vvise or to his ovvne dinner and table service and for such cause maketh perhaps quicke dispatch of the table service in the church the sacrament of Christ leeseth not his holynes sooner or later vpon any such occasion This is a question betvvene the Catholikes Caluinists as also betvvene the Caluinists Lutherans Caluin and the Caluinists and such as are of that side supposing as here M. B. teacheth vs therevpon barre al sending of the sacrament out of the church to sick persoâ—â— and improue al private communions in church oâ— hovvse the Lutherans being of contrarie opinion allovving both the one the other The resolutioÌ„ vvhereof dependeth principally vpon a former question of the real presence vvhereof I vvil enter no nevv dispute here Only for contentation of the Christian reader I vvil say thus much that the most auncient primitiue church of Christ thought as the Catholiks do touching coÌ„tinuance of holines in the sacrament against M. B. therefore belike had such opinion of the real presence thereof as the Catholikes haue That the primitiue church thought as vve do and condemned M. B. for the first it is knovven and proved by a number of plain testimonies taken out of the most auncient vvriters S I 〈…〉 the martyr Apologia 2. prope finem S. Ireneus apud Eâ—â—â— Histor lib. 5. ca. 24. Dionys Alexandrinus ibid. lib. 6. â—â— 36. Tertul. lib. 2. ad vxorem and S Cyprian sermo 5. de lâ—â—sis c. By al vvhich it is evident that after the solemne sacrifice and participation of the sacrament in the church the same vvas privately sent to those that vvere absent or reserved communicated by several persons in private hovvses in the first and most pure age of Christs church and the grace or holines of the sacrament not vvithstanding vvas beleeved to continue stil and the sacrament stil to remaine a ful perfit sacrament VVhich custom aftervvards was in like maner reteyned vvith â—â—probation of the most learned fathers as appeareth by the practise of the church many vvayes in the first general Councel of Nice cap. 14. in S. Basil epistola ad Casaram Patritâ—am in S. Ambrose oratio de obitu Satyri fratâ—â— cap 7. in S. Gregorie Nazianzene oratio de Gorgonia sor 〈…〉 and others vvith vvhose authorities though cleer a 〈…〉 manifest for this purpose I vvil not charge this place because I vvil not stand long on that vvhich is but b 〈…〉 ly resolved by M. B. Yet for example assurance to hiâ— that such vvas the faith and practise of that most aunâ—enâ— and Apostolike church I vvil vvrite dovvne the â—â—â—fession of a learned Calvinist our first false Apostle 〈…〉 Oxford touching this matter Bishop Gardiner obiâ—â—â—â—th to Peter Martyr that S. Cyril bishop of Alexandria acknovvledged first the true presence of Christ in the sacrament thereon inferred that the sacrament being reserved after the communion in the church vvas ended remained stil a sacrament indued vvith Christs presence as in the time of the sacrifice or coÌ„munioÌ„ S. Cyrils words as I find them rehearsed by Martir are these Cast no doubt whether that which I affirme of Christs real presence in the sacrameÌ„t be true whereas Christ him self speaketh very plainly This is my body but rather receiue thow and embrace our Saviours words with faith For he being truth it self lyeth not Hereof thus he inferreth Insaniunt ergo qui dicunt mysticam benedictionem a sanctificatione cessare c. Therefore they are mad men out of their wits who say as M. B. doth that the mystical blessing that is the sacrament leeseth his sanctification or is vnavailable to sanctifie if any portion of it remayne vntil the day after For Christs holy body is nothing chaunged thereby but the vertue of benediction and lyfegeving grace vivificatiua gratia continueth stil in it For better vnderstanding of vvhich place that may be noted by the vvay vvhich I find in OEcolampadius concerning the cause vvhy S. Cyril vvrote thus The cause vvas as OEcolamp telleth it for that even then some began to cast doubt vvhether the sacrament or any portion of it if it vvere reserved vntil the next day after remayned as true a sacrament had like vertue of sanctification as vvhen it vvas first consecrated For certaine grosse heretikes named Anthropomorphitae thought the contrarie and were iust of M. B. the Calvinists opinion whom S. Cyril reproveth And here vpon in his epistle to Calosirius bishop of Arsinoe in Aegipt writeth as before is cited Vnto vvhom P. Martyr frameth this ansvvere VVhereas Cyril saith that a portion of the Eucharist reserved vntil a day after leeseth not his sanctification he as I suppose speaketh therein according to a certaine custom received amoÌ„g the auncieÌ„t fathers For as we may easely gather out of S. Cyprian Tertullian and Ambrose men were then wont when in the church the Lords supper was ended to cary home with them some portion of the Symboles and receiue it the next day before their meates thinking thereby to get some sanctification eâ—her to them selues or the sicke persons to whom they gaue it This custom all â—iâ— it was somwhat superstitious yet Cyril and other fathers approved it For even streightwayes from the Apostles time men began to degenerate from the old simplicitie of worshipping god Here is a plain confession that in the most auncient church for Tertullian and S. Cyprian are of the most auncient it was received and approved as a veritie that the holynes of the sacrament continued somwhat lâ—nger then the time of the table serviceâ— and therefore that M. B. is much deceived vvhen he resolveth the contratie ¶ â—ut against this â—aith of the Primitiue church and namely against sending or ministring the sacrament to private persons M. B. hath certaine obiections which â—e seemeth to account of as very strong therefore I may not omit them The first is If the sacrament be ministred to one privately it is not a sacrament And why Because the Apostle cals the sacrament a communion of Christs body therefore if ye minister it to one ye tyne the communion if ye minister it privately ye tyne the sacrament The second is for they are al of one qualitie and forme therefore they shal iun al together This sacrament meâ— be publikely ministred why Because Christ IESVS who is the thing signified in the sacrament perteynes not to any man alone but is a common thing apperteyning to every faithful man and woman Thirdly which is the last this sacrameÌ„t is counted a thanke gering to God Now it
apperteines not to one or two to thanke god only but as we are al partaken of his temporal and spiritual benefites so we ought al publikely to geue thankes therefore These are al his reasons against private receiving of the sacrament by several persons which reasons a man of common iudgment and sense might suppose to haue bene vttered in mockeâ—ic and derision of these mens learning and Theologie were it not that M. B. doth preach them to his audience so formally and thus setteth them sorth vvithout any other assistaÌ„ce helpe or authoritie to coÌ„mend or support theÌ„ For to begin with the last what prophane blindnes witles impietie is it to say that we may not make a private thankes geving for a publike benefite in which vve privately haue as great an interest as any Is it against the preaching and teaching of the Scottish ministrie for the brethrene privately in their chambers at morning or evening to geue god thankes for the publike benefites vvhich they receiue ether spititual or temporal for their creation for their sanctification for their rest by night or day for the goods of the earth for their peace by sea and land and so forth If because Christ is a coÌ„mon thing not private therefore the sacrament may not be received of one but al the brothers and sisters must meete together vvhy baptise they any one severally seing Christ signified by that sacrament is a common thing and the same thing vvhich is signifyed by the bread and drinke of their supper VVhy say they ever in private the Lords prayer seing god is a common thing not private and the very first vvord is not my father but our father VVhy doth M. B. severally enioy the light of the sunne the benefite of the ayer vvater land c. vvhich be al publike and general benefites not restrayned or limited to him or to any one in particular Are these men Christian reader in their right vvits vvho vvith such mad braynsick devises dare oppose them selues to the most auncient pure Apostolike church the Catholike church of al times ages But S. Paule calleth the Sacrament a Communion or Câ—munication of Christs body True And vvhat maketh this against private coÌ„munion vvhich it rather coÌ„firmeth For vvhy may not one man alone as vvel coÌ„municate receiue Christs body in this sacrament as one alone may coÌ„municate receiue remissioÌ„ of his sinnes in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme By what reason or shew of reason doth the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christ embarre any private man from the sacrament May a private man evermore and every vvhere by faith communicate Christ truly really and perfitely vvhich is the greater matter and may he not at the ministers hand priuatly receiue bread and wine vvhich is by many degrees the lesse May he commendably enioy the principal the body and must he be excluded from the accessoâ—e from the shadow How vehemently doth Caluin refute this in his disputation against the Anabaptists vvhen he argueth in this very sort Si pueri rei sigâ—â—tae sunt participes cuâ— a signo arcebuntur c. If children before baptisme and vvithout baptisme be partakers of the thing signified by baptisme why should they be debarred from the signe If already they pessesse the veritie why should they be kept from the figure And hovv rashly is it auouched by him that this seale man be ministred publikely otherwise it is no sacrament and the definition of it requireth that the seale be ministred publikely not privately in a societie and congregation of the faithful otherwise ye â—â—â—â— the communion vvhereas the next reformed congregatioÌ„ of his Genevian bretherne preach and practise the contrarie Knovveth he not the maner of the English Church is not there allovved communion of the sicke in their private hovvses Is it not there expreslely declared defined against his definition that in the time of plague sweate or such other contagious sicknesses the minister alone may communicate with the sicke person Do the English ministers tyne destroy the sacrament so abuse mocke the poore sicke brother vvho is novv to depart the vvorld Do they pervert Christs Institution for that they minister the seale not publikely in the coÌ„gregation in a societie of faithful â—â—â— privatly in a chamber to one alone vvhere to such societie of the faithful bretherne is assembled â—â—â—s iâ— M. B. Iohn Calvins vvisdom Theologie vvherein they resemble one the other very aptly that is not to caâ—â— vvhat they say nor vpon hovv â—nvoloâ—â— and 〈…〉 〈…〉 in they speake nor vvhom they condemne so that like vvise and grave Theologes they may 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 their ovvne inventions For even vpon these most vvitles and childish sophismes did Calvin condemne in the Lutherans such private receiving and ministration of the sacrameÌ„t as not agreing vvith the rule of Christ and disallowed by the nature and definition of a communion Vnto vvhom and iâ— him to M. B. thus answereth VVestphalus setting vvithal against his three trifling cavils twise as many substaÌ„tial reasons The summe effect of vhich in his ovvne vvords I vvil briefly comprehend because they serve also against a number of our English preachings pamphlets VVhereas Calvin obiected Christs rule vvhich requireth a multitude VVestphal demaundeth VVhere is any such rule any such law made by Christ Christ saith he never made any such law concerning tyme place or number He never commaunded that the whole congregation should meete together and in one time and place receive the sacrament Yow Calvinists are they who make such a law at your pleasure Christ never forbad that a few three two or one should participate this helthful foode He promised to be present in the middest of two or three gathered together in his name signifying that the church was where two or three godly disciples were And wil he not stand to his promise VVil he not be present to two or three or one when â—â— receiveth the holy Eucharist Thus much for that first argument For the second taken from the nature of communion vvhich M. B. also much grateth on vz. that it is a common supper and banquet and therefore not to be received privatly this learned Protestant vpon that they ground maketh an argument cleane contrarie Quid audio câ—nâ— non erit contra communicationis c. VVhat say yow shal it not be accompted a supper Is it against the nature of a supper of a communion or communication if one alone or with a few be refreshed at iâ— CHRIST mercifully ordeyned his supper to refresh hungry sowles He ordeined a communion By order of his institution no man that desireth it is to be excluded but by right of this common supper is to be admittâ—â— though he be alone And the very law of Communion requireth that no man be debarred from participation of this supper except by
his impenitence he debarre him self or commit some fault which deserveth excommunication And vvhereas Calvin as also many Calvinists much presse the vvord Communion as though it required a number present in one place one at an others elbow to receiue together he ansvvereth this erroneous conceit very vvel that albeit one man at home receiue the sacrament privately yet he communicateth with many in that holy supper from whom he is separated in place not in faith not in right and fruition of that common good He is by infirmitie by necessitie of busines or other occasion severed after a sort externally from the publike congregation whereas yet be remaineth a member of the church and by one faith and spirite he is in the congregation and communion of saints VVhich is as much to say as that such a man better observeth that vvhich in this communion is principal vvho communicating vvith other Christians in faith in spirite in charitie and ecclesiastical coniunction for some iust occasion receiveth yet this sacrament of vnitie alone then the Calvinists vvho being divided and distracted both among them selues from other Christians touthing al spiritual communion or communication yet forsooth care their signes and seales in great companies An other argument he taketh from Calvin him self vvhich is of like force against M. B. because he vseth the selfe same M. B. after Iohn Calvin saith the sacrament is nothing els but a visible word as the sermoÌ„ preached is an audible word Hereof VVestphalus stameth this argument If yow allow to private men the audible word why should yow deny them the visible word Yow count it lawful with the word of god privately to comfort the stike to strengthen their minds with promises of grace of remission of sinne and salvation purchased by Christ Christ comforted the man sicke of the palsie lying in his bed with most sweete consolation he absolved him from his sinnes he preached privately to Nicodemus to the woman of Samaria at Iacobs wel to the theeâ— on the crosse VVhy then may we not comfort the weake though several and alone by geving to them the sacrament of Christs body and blud This is of it self a most sufficient and firme demonstration against M. B. And his vvhole doctrine and preaching so many times repeated that the sacrament is a seale hunge to the evidence of Gods word c. proveth invincibly if there be any coherence in these mens doctrine that vvhere the word that is the euidence goeth before there the seale may folovv after vvhere the minister may preach the covenant of mercy and grace there this signe confirming and ratifying such covenant may be annexed and appeÌ„ded as M. B. speaketh Finally this to be lawful VVestphalus proveth by practise of the primitive church thus S. Cyprian counted them lawfully baptised who for cause of necessitie or infirmitie were baptised in their bed VVhy then should we be so preposterous and cruel as to deny in like case the most effectual medicine of Christs body and blud S. Austin was of an other iudgement lib. 2. de visitatio infirmoruÌ„ who wisheth and counselleth the sicke most carefully to receive that lifegeving sacrament for that it is a most wholesom vyage provision VVhereby appeareth that the auncient bishops condemned not priâ—ate communions The like witnesseth Euseb histor Eccles lib. 6. cap. 34. where Dionysius bisshop of Alexandria sendeth the sacrament to Serapion being alone and sicke in his bed VVhich storie after he hath rehearsed at large he inferreth Audis Calvine Dionysium iam olim sic iudicasse c. Hearest thow frind Calvin that Dionysius of old iudged that the sicke were defrauded of a great benefite by those who denyed them the communion of the Eucharist And thereof he concludeth that it is not the â—il of God as Calvin and M. B. say but a policie of the devil to deny the communion privâ—tly which is ordeyned by Christ to strengthen the faith of every privat man for every privat man to applie to him self the benefit of Christ and coÌ„fort him self with remission of his sinnes Thus then by this Protestants doctrine confirmed by so many textes of scripture so many good reasons vvith approbatioÌ„ of the primitive church one man alone may as vvel receive the sacrament as he alone may be preached vnto as hâ— alone may be comforted or looke to have remission of his sinnes by the death of Christ So that for these two points the first that holines and sanctification remaineth in the sacrament longer then the action or table service endureth the second that the same sacrameÌ„t may be communicated to one man alone M. B. is controlled by manifest reason by plaine and manifold scripture by the auncient fathers and primitive Catholike church and also by the late fathers of the primitive Protestant church And doubtles M. B. Caluins opinion is herein most blunt vvicked and voyd of al vvit or Christian sense Only in excuse of them it may be answered that those auncient fathers S. Dionysius S. Austin S. Cyprian Tertullian c. speake of sacrament vvhich according to Christs vvord hath in it Christs body vvhereas M. B. and Calvin speake of a Scottish Geneva seale of a late invention to vvhich Christs body is no more ioyned then the Sphere of Saturne is ioyned to the earth no othervvise then the body of Christ is ioyned to any other vulgar bread or meate signe or seale And therefore the fathers speach that the sacrament continueth vvith his grace sanctification after the communion or sacrifice and may be ministred to any Christian privatly is true as the fathers meant of the Christian sacrament and M. B. speaking of his Geneva â—oy vvhich hath only for some time a poore signification vvith it but never for any time any grace or power of sanctification in it is likewise true vz that after the table service is ended there continueth no holines in that vvherof it had in deed no dramme or iote before and therefore being ministred to one alone absent can do no good vvhich doth rather harme then good to the societie and congregation present That evil men receiue Christs body The Argument An argument which M. B. maketh for the catholike opinion out of S. Paule His answere thereto is fond and directly against the text of S. Paule which withal he fowly corrupteth The auncient fathers out of that place of S. Paule proue that evil men receiue Christs body in the sacrament so much is implied in the very forme of S. Paules speech being with indifferencie examined Another slender argumeÌ„t touching the receiving of evil men made by M. B. which yet he can not answere Against M. B. and the Calvinists denying that evil men receiue Christ in the Supper it is proved that according to the Protestants doctrine and M. B. his preaching Christ is there received of al sorts of men indifferently not
remit the reader Concerning the priest who only can say the masse one thing required in him that so necessarie as without it he can not be a priest is that he have power geven by the bisshop to consecrate which power is iustified by the vnction and shaving of his crowne as truly as the ministers power geven him by the Superintendent as in England or by the assembly of ministers and Elders as in Scotland is iustified by hauing a faire long beard and a sister in the lord to keepe him companie at bed and at bourd I omit a number of other falsities vttered in this place by him for that they are not particular but general agreing to him vvith the rest of the ministerie as that a priest hath no calling nor office now in the church of God that he â—ffereth sacrifice withâ—ut a commaund that he should speake out cleerly in â—knoweâ— language so forth these are coÌ„mon lies therefore I vvil not heâ—e lay theÌ„ to M. B. his charge Albeit he may take that to him self vvhich is an vntruth ioyned vvith ignorance and I thinke not avouched by any of the more learned Calvinists that sorsooth vve make two things necessaâ—iâ— to the actiâ—n without which the action can not be VVâ—â—h uâ— the lor â—â—â—â—â—ver it can not be without the â—ive words of the institution it can â—â—â— le For if he vnderstood vvhat is meant by the action in the masse he should find that vvithout the lords praier if by it he meane the Pâ—â—â—r noster the action mâ— le and tâ—erof â—re that he falsely and ignorantly coupleâ—h together as things of like necessitie the wordes of the Iâ—stituâ—ion and the Lordes praâ—â—r Touching the forme of consecration so far as I vnderstand of it saith he it standes in these 5. wordes Hoc est enim corpâ—â—â—eum and in the whispering of them For if ye whisper theâ— not ye tine the fashion of incantation For the thing that we câ—â— sanctifying they cal whispering Here is again vntruth vpoÌ„ vntruth only somwhat excusable for that he pleadeth ignorance adioyning to his assertion so far as I vnderstaÌ„d vvhich is almost as litle as nothing For nether do they sanctifie the bread vvine nor can they by their doctrine ioyne any sanctification vnto it and M. B. him self albeit he vse the terme of sanctification yet in this very place refuteth al true sanctificatioÌ„ of the bread vvine we cal not sanctifying whispering no more then they cal it gâ—pling or halowing as hunters do a fox because after Caluin M. B. requireth and urgeth very carefully that the minister preach proclame his sermon publikely with â— cleare lowd voyce As for the vvords of consecratioÌ„ whether by a lawful priest they be pronounced a lowd vvith an audible voyce as from the beginning vntil this present hath bene the vse of the Greeke church and of old it seemeth to have bene so likevvise in the Latin church or vvhether the vvords be pronouÌ„ced as novv the vniversal custom is vvith vs in a lovv voyce and in silence the effect is al one and no Christian of any vvit ever doubted but as of old in both churches so novv in the Greeke vvhere the vvordes are vttered alovvd as vvel as in the Latin church vvhere they are pronounced othervvise the effect of consecratioÌ„ folovveth in both alike That in the auncient church the priest spake the vvords alovvd vve find in S. Clement the Apostles felovv in S. Ambrose â—â— others and that the people vvere then accustomed to say Amen and by open confession to acknovvlege for true the priests vvords VVhereof vvriteth S. Ambrose thuâ— The priest saith it is the body of Christ and thow answereâ— Amen as much to say as truly so it is That thow confesseâ—â— with they tonge reteyne and hold fast in thy hart and mind For in vayne saith Leo the great do they answere Amen to the priests words who dispute and make arguments against that which is there received The like vsage of answering Amen by the people appeareth in the most auncient Masses or Liturgies of S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom and others And that at this present the same order stil continueth in the East churches it is testified by Bessarion Patriarch of Constantinople in his booke of the sacrament c. The priest saith he pronounceth the words of consecration with a lowd voyce iuxta orient â—is Ecclesiae rituÌ„ according to the maner of the East church and the people seuerally first at the consecration of the body then againe of the blud answere Amen truly so it is And by answering Amen to those words verily say they these giftes are the body and blud of Christ So we beleeve so we confesse Thus Bessarion And to ioyne hereto one 〈◊〉 example vvhich may serve in steed of many as being takeÌ„ out of the Liturgie or Masse called VNIVERSALIS CANON vsed vniuersally by al Christians in a maner over al Africa especially in the most large and ample kingdoms of Aethiopia at the consecration of ether part of the sacrifice the people likewise geve assent and approbation to the priest in this sort The priest speaketh Christ the night in which he was beâ—rayed tooke bread in to his holy and immaculate hands looking vp to heaven to thee O God his father geve thankes blessed sanctified it saying take eate ye al of this This is my body which shal be delivered for yow to remission of sinnes The people answere Amen Amen Amen truly truly truly so it is VVe beleeve and trust and praise thee O our God Hoc vere tuum corpus est This here is truly thy body The priest procedeth Christ likewise taking the chalice geuing thankes blessed and sanctified it and said to them Drinke ye al of this This is the chalice of my blud which shal be shed for yow and for the redemption of many The people answere we beleeve and trust and praise thee O Lord our God Hic vere â—â—us sanguis est this truly is thy blud This is the order of the Christian churches in the East and South in Asia Africa this vvas sometimes the custom in the VVest in Europe And if it vvere now reteyned it vvould not â—arme tyne or hinder the veritie of consecration or Christs real presence but it vvould harme hinder and discover perhaps many faithles godles and Christles Calvinists vvho now sometimes like hipocrites are present at the church sacrifice because they are not driven to make such Christian confession of their faith in this behalf as vvas the auncient custom in both churches East and VVest and at this present continueth in al churches of the East And therefore vvhen M. B. speaketh as here he doth every vvord he speaketh is a fowle vntruth It is a fowle vntruth to say that vve cal whispering that
Thophilacte vvriting vpon this text likewise in S. Ambrose in Lucam capvltimo in Amphilochius apud Theodoretum dialog 2. Epiphan heres 64. Gregor Nazianzen in Christo patiente S. Hierom. ad Pammâ—chium de erroribus Ioannis Hierosolymit ini contra Ioviniâ—nuÌ„ ca. 21. in S. Leo epist 10. ad Flâ—rianuÌ„ cap. 5. in S. Gregorie homil 26. in Euangelia in Hildefonsus Sermo de partur B. Marie And albeit the fathers had great occasion otherwise to have shifted this place vvith som of these mens evasions if they had bene of their irreligion because herevpon the Marcionites Valentinians and such other Protestants or heretikes argued that Christs body vvas fantastical and no true real organical body yet because the Catholike vniuersal faith vvas then as now that Christ entred thorough the doores shut they confessing that truth defended vvithal that notwithstanding such supernatural and miraculous entrance Christs body became not a spirite but stil remained a true body though not bound to phisical limites and circumscriptions of place as other bodies are Thus speake and vvrite they to the confusion of Calvin his adherents vvho vvith those old damnable heretikes Marcion and Valentinus say that the Catholikes affirming vvith the Euangelists and al the auncient fathers and primitive church Christ to have entred thorough the doores shut there by make his body like to a spirite infinit c. vvhereof as the one is true most sure that Christ thus entring was not locally bounded circumscribed so the other is a maynelye For vve hold the body of Christ to be not a spirite but a true body this notwithstanding as hath bene said ¶ M. B. his last example vvhich vve as he saith alleage to prove that God can vvorke a contradiction is Nabuchodonosort oveÌ„ vvhereto he answereth If they caÌ„ prove the fier was both hote and cold then they say some thing to the purpose In deed much to the purpose it is to prove your grosse and shameful ignoraÌ„ce double and treble but to prove a contradiction it is not much to the purpose as sorth with shal be declared Your ignorance it notably discovereth first because yow see not that vvhich is plainly set dovne in the storie vz. that at one time this fier was hoâ—e and cold For the 3. children felt it as a cold blowing vvynd the Chaldeans found it exceeding hote burning saith the text Secondarily because yow consider not that this exaÌ„ple is altogether like to that which yow obiect of Christs body circuÌ„scribed not circuÌ„scribed For as this â—s an accideÌ„t to the body so was that to the fier as vvel may one body be compassed vvith a place and not compassed as the self same fier may be hote and cold that is hote and not hote Thirdly because yow forget your owne former resolution that God can not do any thing vvhereof he hath by a presupponed condition concluded the contrarie before in the first origin and creation and god hath no more concluded that al organical bodyes shal be bound to a certain place then that al fier shal be hoâ—â— And therefore this is a very sufficient example to disprove al your not natural philosophie but natural soke and heretical incredulitie vttered against Gods omnipotency that God can not make his body to remayne a body and yet be vvithout circumscriptioÌ„ of place which is evideÌ„tly refuted by this miracle VVhich blasphemous and damnable assertion taketh cleane away Christs incarnation is directly opposite to Christs pure nativitie of his mother she remayning stil a virgin is directly opposite to Christs resurrection and his entrance to his disciples VVhich 3. miraculous acts and 2. of them chief principles and greatest keyes of Christianitie require that vve beleeve the cleane contrarie and that God noâ— only can but also de facto hath brought Christ body both out of his mothers vvomb then in that very moment a virgin and also out of the sepulchre being then a most true most perfite most absolute and organical body vvhen yet it vvas not phisically circumscribed with the limites and bounds of a place ¶ Now vvhereas after al this long idle and heretical talke vttered by this man it appeareth he is ignorarâ— vvhat a true contradiction is vvhich the Protestant vvriters lying after their maner say vve maynteyne be teaching that Christs body is at one tyme in heaven and in every altar vvhere the priest offereth the sacrifice vvhich say they because it implieth a contradiction is the nature of a body God him self can not do he may vnderstand that a right contradiction such as here is spoken of requireth the negation of the self same thing â—â— one and the same precise respect as to say that one mâ—â— is learned and vnlearned false and not false but true ricâ— and not rich but poore in one particular respect relatioÌ„ and consideration For otherwise a man may say of M. B. that he is learned and vnlearned true and false rich and poore vvithout any contradiction or gainsaying of him self for that both parts shal stil be true For he is learned in respect of common ministers vnlearned in respect of Iohn Calvin Theodore Beza and such other Rabbines false because he vttereth many vntruths and corrupteth many places of the scripture and fathers true because he speaketh many truths and lyeth nothing so oft nor corrupteth scriptures and fathers so notoriously as our M. Iew. of Salisbury in preaching and vvriting vsed to do rich if he be compared vvith many inferior beggerly ministers yet poore if he be compared vvith some Superintendents of England Thus the fier in Nabuchodonosors oven though it vvere at the same time and moment of tyme hote and cold yet that is no contradiction because it vvas not so in one and the same respect or relation but hote and burning to the Chaldeans cold and myld to the Hebrewes And therefore to draw this to some conclusion albeit Christs body be at one tyme visible and not visible local and not local compast and not compast as yow say as the fier vvas hote and not hote cold and not cold at the self same tyme and place yet except it be so in one and the self same respect and relation or consideration it is a miracle of God it is no contradiction And though they be applied and referred to one and the self same singular body yet do they nothing impaire hinder or destroy the nature or substance because they are accidental conditions vvhich come after the nature and vvithout vvhich the nature is perfect ful and absolute And now to exemplifie this vvhich I say of a contradiction by a plain example vvhich M. B perhaps vvil better conceive of and cary it away I geve him the conclusioÌ„ summe of this his long discourse vvhich is this and in these vvords So my second â—round holds fast God may not wil that thing which implies a
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
so taught the new sacrifice of the new testament which the church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to god through the whole world Of which sacrifice the prophete Malachie foreprophecied thus I haue no liking in yow saith our lord almightie nether wil I take sacrifice of your hand o ye Iewes because from the rising of the Sunne to the going doune of the same my name is glorified among the Gentils incense is offered to my name in euerie place and a pure sacrifice The same argument and dedustion I haue noted before out of S. Cyprianâ— First that Christ our lord and god him selfe was high priest of god the father and he first of al offered him selfe a sacrifice to his father â—â—â—â—s last supper and commaunded the same to be done in commemoration of him Next that such priests occupie the place of Chist truly who do that which Christ did and then in the church offer they to god the father true ful sacrifice if they so offer as they see Christ him selfe to haue offered About some 100. yeres after S. Cyprian vvas gathered the first general Councel of Nice and about a hundreth yeres after that of Nice vvas the first general Councel of Ephesus in vvhich the bishops there assembled thus vtter their faith that is the faith of the vniuersal catholike church in this matter The vvoids of that most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice are On the diuine table let vs not basely regard the bread and cup set there but lifting vp our myndeâ— let vs by faith vnderstand that on that holy table is placed the lamb of god which taketh away the sinnes of the world who there is without effusion of blud sacrificed by the priests and that we truly receiue his preticus body and blud beleeuing these to be the pledges of our resurrection The vvords of the other general Councel of Ephesus are to the same effect thus VVe confessing the death of Christ according to his flesh his resurrection and ascension into heauen confesse withal and celebrate in the church the holy liâ—eâ—â—uing and vnbluddy sacrifice beleeuing that which is set before vs not to be the body of a common man like to vs as nether is that pretious blud but rather we receiue that as the proper body blud of the word which geueth life For common flesh can not geue life as him selfe witnesseth saying flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite that geueth life For because it is made the proper flesh of the word for this reason it is lifegeuing according to that our Sauiour him selfe â—aith As my liuing father hath sent me I liue by the father he that eateth me he shal liue by me This faith I say of Sacrament sacrifice in al sinceritie simplicitie thus passed on so vniuersally knovven beleeued that as vvriteth S. Leo in Italie S. Augustin in Africa very children vvere taught to acknovvledge the true flesh and blud of Christ to be offered in the sacrifice of the masse Tovvards 800. yeres after Christ one Bertram a litle before him one Scot â—s vvrote darkly of the truth of this sacrament Of the vvritings of the one of these nothing I thinke remayneth of the other a litle doth but the same vttered so doubtfully that as the Zuinglians vse his authoritie against the Catholikes so the Lutherans vse him to the contrarie yea they in maner reproue him as fauoring to much the faith of the Catholikes For of him Illyricus vvith his bretherne say that he hath in that his litle booke semina transubstantiationis the seedes original ground of transubstantiation But vvhat soeuer his priuate opinion vvere his publike speaches and vvriting â—ounded soâ—il in the eares of the Catholiks of that age that Paschasius an Abbat in France made a verie learned booke in refutation of him And al vvriters vvho about that age vvrote of this mysterie vsed more expresly to denâ—e the sacrament to be a signe trope figure image symbole c. in such sort as vvhereby the veritie of the real presence might be excluded as appeareth in the seuenth general Councel in Alcuinus scholemaister to Charles the great in Rabaâ—â—â— archbishop of Ments lib. de diuinis officijs Theophilact in Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Ioan. 6. Aâ—alarius Arch-bishop of â—reuirs lib. de mysterijs missae cap. 24. 25. Haymo bishop of Halberstat in 1. ad Corinth ca. 10. Remigâ—ê° bishop of Antissiodorum in Canonem missae Fulbertus bisshop of Chartres in epistola ad Adelman episcopum in lib. Paschasij Stephanus bishop in high Buâ—gundie Tom. 4. bibliothâ—cae Sanctorum patrâ—m and briefely al other that vvrote betvvene the time of Bertram Berengarius ¶ For after Bertram the next that appeared in fauour of this heresie vvas Berengarius vvho put forth him self a little after the yere of our lord 1000. vvhen as S. Ihon vvriteth in his Apocalyps the deuil was let lose to trouble the church This man as vvitnesseth our martyr-maker M. Fox like to those first heretiks in the Apostles tymes toke away the veritie of the body blud of Christ from the sacrament For vvhich cause he coÌ„mendeth him as a singular instrument whom the holy ghost raised vp in the church to ouerthrow great errors VVhat instrument he vvas vvhom he serued shal best appeare by his ovvne behauiour confession In the meane season this old heresie he published vvith greater industrie shevv of learning then his predecessors countenanced it with more credit assistance of many vnstable sowles and sinful persons as is noted by the godly and learned writerâ— of that tyme vvhich only kind of men ioyned them selues to him and that because his doctrine seemed to yeld them some quietnes securitie in their sinne from vvhich they vvere much withdravven by a reuerend feare and dread vvhich they had of Christs presence in the sacrament to the receauing vvhereof they vvere by order of the church at certaine times induced But as the heresie of this man spread farther then any of that kind in any age before so the church vsed more diligence in repressing the same by sundry publike disputations had vvith the same Berengarius by a number of most excellent vvriters against him among vvhom Lanfâ—ancus archbishop of Canterbury in England Guitmundus bisshop of Auersa in the kingdom of Naples Algerus a monke in Fraunce in that verie time excelled the supreme pastors of the church assembled sundry great synodes meetings of byshops and other doctors to discusse that opinion instruct those that erred after him first at Tours in Fraunce next at Vercellis in Italie then againe at Tours vvhere Berengariê° him selfe being manifestly conuicted 〈…〉 a solemne oth neuer to maintaine his former heresie VVhich oth vvhen as yet he performed not but returned to his former filth an other Councel vvas gathered in Rome of 113.
bishops in vvhich he againe vvas confuted and yelded so that with his ovvne hands he burnt the bookes vvhich he had made in defence of his heresie But not persisting in his faith and oth geuen after certaine yeres he vvas againe persvvaded to come to Rome there to defend his opinion by such learning as he could in a great synod of bishops gathered for that purpose vvhere being convinced by al maner proofe vvhich he desired by scriptures by fathers by Councels by vniuersal and vncontrolled tradition and vniforme consent of al Christians and christian churches that euer vvere since Christ be being then an old man hauing some more feeling feare of death of hel of his ovvne damnation then before acknovvledged his impietie requested pardon of the supreme Pastor and other bishops there present and as it may be credibly thought vvithout al fiction or hypocrisie abiured his heresie in these vvords Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor c. I Berengarius beleeue in hart confesse with mouth that the bread and wine is conuerted into the true propre and life-geuing flesh and blud of Christ our lord that after consecration there is the true body borne of the virgin which suffred on the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father the true blud which issued out from his side that it is present not only in signe or vertue but also in proprietie of nature and veritie of substance As here in this writing is conteyned as I reade it and as yow vnderstand it so I beleue wil neuer teach contrarie And aftervvards being at the point of death vvhich befel on the day of the Epiphanie vvhich is as much to say as the Apparition of our Sauiour remembring by his hererical preaching what numbers of poore ignorant sovvles he had seduced vvith great sorovv and repentance he vttered these vvords This day which is the day of Christ Iesus his Apparition shal he also appeare vnto me for my glorie as I hope because of my repentance or for my eternal punishment as I feare because of so many as I haue deceaued I verelie beleue that after the consecration those mysteries are the true body and blud of our Sauiour And I am induced so to beleue both by the authoritie of the primitiue church by many miracles shewed of late And â—o vvith great signes of sorovvfulnes and repentance died a true Catholike man as is recorded by good autentical vvriters From Berengarius tyme vntil this present albeit there haue not bene any such great numbers as vvere in Berengarius tyme yet scarce any one age hath missed some notorious heretike vvho among other heynous he resies hath vpholden also the heresie of BereÌ„garius As on the other side there hath not vvanted great Clerks and Saints of excellent holynes learning vvho haue maynteined the Catholike and Apostolike faith deliuered to them from their fathers Such vvere in the age of Berengarius besides those before named Adelmanâ—us bishop of Brixen Hugo bishop of Langres Iuo bishop of Chartres Hildebertus first bishop of Mantes after archbishop of Tours S. Bruno and sundry others After solovved S. Bernard Petrus Clumacensis Petrus Lombardus Hugo Richardus de S. Victore Euthymius S. Thomas S. Bonauenture the general Councel of Laterane vnder Innocentius in vvhich vvere present as vvitnesseth M. Fox 61. Archbishops Primates 400. Bishops 800. other men of great learning an other general Councel holden at Vienna item a third general Councel holden at Florence besides that of Constance vvherein the Greeke church and Latin professed their consent and vniforme faith touching the veritie of this diuine sacrifice and sacrament as likevvise many Greeke Bishops vvrote sundry treatises in iustification thereof Samonas Bishop of Gaza Nicolaus of Methone Marcus of Ephesus Nicolaus Cabasilas Bessaâ—ion the Cardina ' as likevvise of late they haue testified the same in their ansvvere to the ProtestaÌ„ts of Germanie vvho sued to enter in to some communion vvith them against the Romaine church But the Greekes vtterly refused them as condemned heretikes both for other their sundrie heresies namely for this of the sacrament vvhereof I speake vvherein the Greeks very constantly hold the same faith vvhich al Christians heretofore haue and euer ought vvhich is deliuerâ—d in the late general Councel of Tient ¶ Thus much is to be noted in this discourse that from Berengarius vnto Luther no one man hath bene a patrone of this opinion but he hath bene also defiled vvith some very sovvle grosie heresies beside such as the Protestants them selues hold for heresies count the defenders of them heretikes As for example to begin vvith Beregauê° him selfe vvhen he maynteined this sacramentarie heresie he his partakers denyed withal the grace of baptisme denyed that men coÌ„mitting mortal sinne cou'd euer obtayne pardon therefore Besides this he was an enemie to mariage and al stayned from meates which god had created and from fat as things vncleane VVhereby it appeareth that he vvas not only a Sacramentarie but also an Anabaptist a Ievv and vvhich in the Protestant gospel perhaps is greatest of al an enemie to mariage and good fare For vvhich cause Occolampadius though in the matter of the sacrament a right Berengarian yet iudgeth him to be an heretike vvorthely condemned Berengarium a Concilio Romano non iniuste condemnatum arbitror c. I saith he am of opinion that Berengarius was iustly condemned by the Councel holden at Rome For besides the matter of the Eucharist he defended some things against mariage the baptisme of children in the verie matter of the Eucharist he seemeth hoâ—ely to haue set him selfe a worke rather desirous of victorie and vaine glorie theâ— of opening the truth ¶ Next ensued one Petrus Brusius and Henricus author of the sect called Albigenses vvhich so horribly for many yeres tormented Fraunce as novv do the Caluinists and these in many articles agreed iust vvith the Sacramentaries of this tyme. For vvhich reason Ioannes Crispinus him self a sacrameÌ„tarie one that hath gathered together in to a storie the french sacramentarie mar tiâ—â— as M. Fox hath done the English the like vvhereof euerie sect especially the Lutherans and Anabaptists haue done for the Martirs of their peculiar Gospels this Crispinus of Geneua in his Martyrologe acknovvledgeth them for bretherne of his congregation and for martyrs those that dyed in defence of their opinions as also M. Fox in his Acts monuments greately aduaunceth them And vvhat men vvere they In matter of the Sacrament so far forth as now it is ministred in the church for in an other point they differed they vvere of Berengarius faith beleeuing that the body of Christ was present there no otherwise then it was in any other bread VVithal they denyed prayer for the dead and Purgatorie defaced Images brake downe
condemned them as appeareth by these vvords of his reâ—ocation set dovvne in M. Fox I desyre my lord god of pardon and forgeuenes And now againe â—s before also I do reuoke and make retractation most humbly submitting my self vnder the correction of our holy mother the church c. the yere 1377. After vvhich time he made yet againe an other reuocation the yere 138â— as in the same author appeareth Albeit al this notvvithstanding M. Fox reciteth as a verie great argument of the gospel that VViclefs sect increased priuily and daily grew to greater force truly so great that they made traiterous conspiracies against the king him self as is recorded in the Acts of Parlament and common stories and in part â—auntingly noted by M. Fox vvho vvriteth that king Henry â— decreed most cruel punishement against such as should hereafter solow VViclefâ— doctrine against whom he held a Parlament at Leâ—ester the which peraduenture saith theâ— had noâ— bene so wel holden at London because of the fauourers of the Lord Cobham and other VViclefs solovvers But to returne to my purpose of VViclef and to end his storie although most Protestant vvriters as I haue said recken him for one of their chief most reuerend Apostles namely M. Fox vvho placâ—th him in redd letters first in his Calender Ihon wiclef preacher martyr though he dyed in his bed searce an honest man yet some other ProtestaÌ„t vvriters there are of a more sincere vpright iudgement vvho for the reasons aboâ—e noted recken him as he deserued in the number of ranke heretikes Amongest vvhom Ioachimus Vadianus of Zurich a right Zuinglian vvriteth of him that albeit he saw somwhat in matter of the gospel yet in nounullâ—s foe le lapâ—us est in sundry points of religion he vvas fowly ouerseen much more geuen to scoâ—fing prating then became a sober Diuiâ—e And Pantaleon a sacramentarie likevvise in his Chronologie accounteth him for an heretike as he doth also his scholer Ihon Husse though canonized by M Fox for a martir as likevvise he is in the Scottish Calender of vvhom he saith further that by vvarrant of that great Apostle Martin Luther that quibusdam bonis multa pestifera admiscuit amongest a few good things he mingled a number of wicked pestiferous And these are the principal vvhich since Berengarius time haue bene publishers of the Zuinglian faith touching Christ not present in the sacrament ¶ Out of al vvhich before I conclude this chapiter one general infallible rule I vvil sett dovvne coÌ„monly geuen by al Diuines to proue any sect or opinion heretical and the rule is that VVhensoeuer there ariseth any preaching or doctrine in the church to the Christian people nevv and straunge and vvhich the Pastors and Bishops of the church reproue and disallovv as false such preaching doctrine certainly is heretical This proposition is iustified by the vniuersal tenor and drift of the vvhole testament old nevv in al places vvhere it entreateth of the Catholike church of the nevv Testament for so much as of that church it vvas of old prophecied by Christ performed that it should be put in possession of al truth and by the meanes of Bishops Prelates and Pastors held in the same truth by vertue of the holy ghost and continued vvithout error vntil the end of the vvorld The knovvledge of truth in this Church shal be abundant as the waters of the sea God shal be therein a perpetual teacher God shal make vvith that church such an eternal couenant that the truth once deliuered to it shal be continued from one to an other from seed to seed from generation to generation for euer so long as the vvorld endureth god shal set vpon the vvals of this church right true vigilant pastors and vvatchmen which neuer at any time day nor night shal cease from preaching the truth Thus the prophetes foretold For performance of vvhich Christ promised to be vvith them for euer al daies vntil the end of the world He promised them the holy ghost the spirit of truth to abide with them and their successors for euer to teach them and leade them in to al truth vvhich spirite he sent at the time appointed in the day of Pentecost finally for this purpose before his departure out of this vvorld he placed in his church Apostles prophetes pastors doctors to rule gouerne maynteine preserue in truth that his church so dearly purchased vvith his blud vntil his second comming to iudgement Thus much for the profe of this first proposition Ioyne thereto for a second But the doctrine of BereÌ„garius vvas nevv and strange to Christian people and condemned generally by al Bishops and Pastors then liuing in vnitie of Christs church ouer the vvhole face of Christendome The proofe of this is gathered out of al historiographers liuing about those tymes and out of the practise of the church For as before is noted a number of Councels some general many particular vvere essembled against it and condemned it at Rome at Vercellis at Tours in Italie in France in Germanie and other parts of Christendome as the Histories record Berengario illiuâ— temporis Theologi bellum omnes indixere The Diuines of that time euery one bad warre and defiance to Berengarius so soone as be durst publish his new opinion of the Eucharist Here of the conclusion folovveth plaine and most assured that Berengarius opinion vvas heretical therefore the contrary that is the Catholike opinion vvhich holdeth against Berengarius is the true doctrine of Christ and his Apostles deliuered by theÌ„ to the church in the church conserued and continued in al ages in al times in al Catholike countries and realmes vntil our age VVherefore to end the argument of this chapiter vvithal to stoppe the vvrangling of certain English Diuines vvho more like Grammarians and sophisters then vvise or learned men very childishly thinke to auoid vvhat so euer is alleaged for Christs presence in the Sacrament by conâ—erring together certaine vvords and phrases by vvhich kind of Diuinitie they may and some of their brethern do inferre Christs presence on the crosse to be tropical and figuratiue no lesse then in the sacrament to proue I say that the church and al auncient fathers according to the scriptures vvrote and meant as I haue before declared I vvil shut vp this matter vvith Erasmus vvords vvherein also I vvil comprise the summe in a maner of al that hitherto hath bene declared vvhose authoritie I vse the rather for that the Protestants somtimes much extolle him as a great profound Diuine deepely seene in the Fathers and no enemy to their side to vvhom among others the chief proctor of the English church M. Ievvel yeldeth such high praise as that he calleth him a man of famous memorie whose name for learning and
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
in the church VVherefore the ministerie of the word is not coÌ„mon to them al Christians Here vnto he answereth I confesse that it is not permitted to women to speake as nether to men that be dumbe For I beleeue that albeit this right is common to al yet no man can nor ought to practise it but only he who is fitter then other to him other are bound to yeld place that order comlynes may be kept And to speake in publike assembly besides the spirite there is required a good voyce eloquence memorie other natural gifts which who so wanteth he must yeld his right to an other So Paule forbiddeth wemen to speake not altogether but in the church that is to say where are men able to speake that for order honesties sake For a man is more fit then a woman and the spirite doth more inspire men then women this is the meaning of Paules place Otherwise how should Paule alone withstand the holy ghost who saith Ioel 2. your daughters shal prophecie and Act. 21. Philip had 4. daughters that prophecied Out of al vvhich much more to like effect he draweth this conclusion Order therefore honestie requireth that men speaking wemen should hold their peace But where men speake not there it is necessarie that wemen speake By al which we see that the word of god forbiddeth not wemen to prophecie that is in the new gospel to preach no not amongst men much lesse amongst wemen which is the highest office consequently nether to minister the communion baptisme which is a great deale lesse if so be that they haue better learning vtterance then men haue as oft tymes it chaunceth or if the minister through negligence and ignorance be not able to preach the word which perhaps in Scotland England is very common And of this same opinion with Luther are Pèter Martyr and Huldrike Zuinglius Of the same opinion were the first reformers of our English church M. Horne bishop so called of VVinchester others who of this matter write thus There is so much required in a spiritual minister that al men be not meete for the office therefore with good reason wemen be debarred from it Albeit at some time it pleaseth god to vse their Ministerie VVherefore me thinke euen in this point we must vse a certain moderation not absolutely in euery wise to debar them herein as it shal please god to serue Christ I pray yow what more vehemency vseth S. Paule in forbidding wemen to preach then in forbidding them to vncouer their heads And yet yow know in the best reformed churches of al Germanie al the maydes be barehedded which the preachers learned men make no great accompt of As much to say that it is a thing indifferent for wemen to preach minister the Sacraments may wel be suffered no lesse then it is that maydes go with their heads vncouered which S. Paule forbiddeth with like vehemencie as he doth their preaching yet the best reformed churches of al Germanie with the learned men ministers there make no great accompt of it It were very easie to proue this by a number of other Protestant writers authorities especially English where a womaÌ„ being supreme head of the church from whence al ecclesiastical power authoritie is deriued to bishops and ministers who hauing in her as writeth my I. Archbishop of Canterbury the supreme gouernemeÌ„t in al causes ouer al persons as she doth exercise the one apperteyning to matters ciuil temporal by the Lord Chauncellor so doth she the other concerning the church religion by the Archbishops what reasonable man can deny or doubt but that a woman in whom is the fulnes of al ecclesiastical gouernement may geue vnto a woman some inferior peece thereof no lesse then she geueth the excercise of many parts vnto the Archbishop who receiueth al his order power from her And whereas king Harry imparted the exercise of his like supreme ecclesiastical regiment to my L. Crumwel Erle of Essex his subhead in the church of England and vicegerent for and concerning al his iurisdiction ecclesiastical who can with any probabilitie of reason yea without incurring manifest treason deny but that as K. Harry a man gaue vnto my Lord of Essex so the Quene a woman may geue vnto my Lady of Essex or any other al her iurisdiction ecclesiastical especially for that it is by supreme authoritie so precisely defined that the Quene may assigne name and authorise whom so euer she shal thinke meete and conuenient and for such so long time such persons being naturally borne subiect as Ladies vvemen are to vse and execute vnder her al maner of iurisdiction spiritual or ecclesiastical And if the pattie thus assigned named authorised be also vvel spoken and learned then not only mans lavv but also gods as Luther and the English doctors haue before taught iustifieth such wemens both preaching al other ministring For if they may haue the greater authoritie to preach and yet to be supreme head of the church is much more then al inferior offices belonging to the edification of the church aâ— baptizing ministring the coÌ„munion binding losing calling Synodes c. may much more be exercised by them as Luther disputeth manifest reason convinceth and our English Iewel together vvith the Qâ—ea ler of this new Divinitie in Cambridge teacheth VVho by authoritie of S. Fabianus an auncient Pope and Martyr 1400 yeres sithence and also of S. Bernard vvil needs proue against D. Harding that in the Primitiue church wemen no lesse then men made the sacrifice of the altar and that of bread wine after the order of Melchisedech VVherefore to returne to our matter of making vp an euangelical communion hereof it appeareth I suppose sufficiently that 3. or 4. Euangelical gossips meeting together and eating and drinking in such â—oâ—t as hath bene said make a very true real perfect and absolute coÌ„munion touching al substance required by the Protestant doctrine And therefore I vvish them selues to iudge vvhether Martin Luther that reuerend Father as M. Fox calleth him vnderstanding throughly their meaning and sense had not some cause to say that Christ had bene very vnwise he vseth a more vvicked terme vvhich I vvil nor English to haue instituted a peculier supper whereas otherwise the world is ful of such suppers quum caenarum huiusmodi totus mundus alioqui plenus sit vvhich after they haue turned and tossed so many vvaies as they can vvil proue nothing but as Luther affirmeth it a poore and vulgar banquet or rather a rustical compotation For if 3. or 4. vvemen so meeting and gossiping make such a coÌ„munion then 3. or 4. men vvemen consequently as many men boyes may serue to do the like so there is no rustical cortage where there is
spiritually and effectually and touching al deriuation of vertue from his flesh as profitably eate Christ if so be at least we beleeue his death resurrection as fully and sufficiently as doth the Protestant which is easie to do VVherefore let this stand for a second degree of retracting his first iudgement that here not only the true and real presence of the body and blud but also al true and real deriuation or participation of any vertue or force to be obteyned in the supper is vtterly remoued for so much as the supper conteyneth nothing singular aboue vsual Christian beleefe and then doubtles no more real vertue is traduced from Christs flesh vnto vs supping then to a child saying his beleefe to a preacher preaching a good sermon or his audience attending him to a rich man geving his almes or a poore man saying his Pater noster or if that phrase be better liked the Lords prayer Al which beleeving Christ to haue dyed for their redemption and risen for their iustification as wel as doth a Caluinist and so beleeue they or else they are no Christians eate Christ as truly effectually really as doth any Caluinist vvhen he communicateth after Caluins guise And this maner of eating is most frequent in the bookes of Caluin and al Caluinists as when Caluin writeth that we haue perpetually a spiritual and ordinarie communication eating of the flesh of Christ out of the supper as wel as in the supper this eating is wrought only by faith Mary in the supper there is a figure adioyned besides As when Beza with a whole troupe of ministers defineth in the synode of Rochel that albeit the upper be particularly appoynted for our mystical piritual communication of Christ â—et Christ is receiued as fully cum omnibus suis donâ—s â—tiam in simplici verbo with al his gifts blessings yea in a simple word or sermon As when our English Iewel a true disciple of Caluin Zuinglius writeth that Christ 6. Ioan. speaketh of the spiritual eating by faith by which his very flesh very blud in deed verily is eaten drunken Notwithstanding we say saith he that Christ afterward in his last supper vnto the same piritual eating added also an outward Sacrament or figure In which senteÌ„ces Iohn Caluin Beza with his Synodical ministers and M. Iewel teach according to the true opinion of al Caluinists and Zuinglians that in the supper Christs flesh or presence is no otherwise then out of the supper at any other time saue that then there is a peece of bread in figure thereof ioyned to the spiritual eating VVhich as Caluin truly accompteth among Christians to be very ordinarie because it is nothing els but to beleeue â—o it is so far from reâ—uiring any miraculous descent of Christ to vs that according to Caluin his folowers vve rather vvorke the miracle in ascending vp in to heauen to Christ For the right way to find Christ receiue him in the supper say they is that our minds stay not in earth but mount ab fâ— in to the celestial glorie where Christ dwelleth there â—â— embrace him For the body of Christ is not infinite but in one certaine place aboue the heauens And so we enioâ— his presence as wel as if he descended vnto vs. And generally albeit Caluin after his maner affecting an obscuritie in vttering his mynd partly for that he vvould seeme to attribute much to the Sacrament because of the great force of Christs vvords and al the auncient church partly for that he coueteth to blind and circumvent his ignorant reader partly also and perhaps principally for that he knevv not vvel vvhat vvas his ovvne opinion or was neuer setled stedfastly in any one and therefore wist nor not verie wel how to expresse the same as him self confesseth may seeme somwhat to differ from other Sacramentaries yet his doctrine in most places agreing with them maketh no difference at al betwene eating of Christs flesh in the supper and out of the supper acknowlegeth no other eating but spiritually by only faith of vvhich spiritual eating the Sacramental bread as he writeth in the supper is a figure a seale confirmation And he is greatly deceiued saith Caluin what so euer magnificence and statelines in words I vse who supposeth that in the Sacrament anything is bestowed on him more then is offered in the word of God in hearing a sermon and he receiveth with true faith So writeth also Peter Martyr a right Caluinist VVe attribute no more to the words of god then to the sacraments nor more to these then to them I adde withal that touching the deliuery obteyning of Christs body blud if ye respect the thing substance it self we haue it no more by the sacraments then by words Nihilo magis habetur ex sacramentis quam verbis VVhich thing also Caluin setteth downe as a sure rule and infallible Fixum maneat non alias esse sacramentorum partes quam verbi Dei c. Let this stand for a sure ground that there is no other office or action of the SacrameÌ„ts baptisme the supper then is of the word of god vz. to offer set before vs Christ in Christ the treasures of grace Againe P. Martyr agreeing iust with Caluin before cited That which Christ promised in the sixt of S. Iohn where according to these meÌ„s coÌ„mentaries he spake only of spiritual eating his flesh by faith that he performed in the last supper but not only there For now also he performeth it when so euer we truly beleeue that he dyed for vs. Mary in the supper be ioyned therevnto bread wine as it were seales of his promise And this he hath in a number of places besides whereof I wil note one more because it may serue for a farther points and fuller declaration of that which I haue in hand and whereof I shal haue cause to entreate more hereafter The body of Christ saith this martyr is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of god as it is in the sacraments But sacraments or symboles are ioyned thereto as it were certaine external seales by which the promises of god are confirmed For the promise and graunt of a prince is first to be obteâ—ned by word before it be confirmed with the seale Let Gardâ—ner striue and writh him self so much as he wil this hath alwayes bene the nature of sacraments ¶ VVhich phrase maner of speaking and discourse of Caluin and Peter Martâ—r iâ— we note exactly we sâ—al perceiue that it conteineth one other degree to remoue yet farther away from the supper al coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christs flesh and blud then hetherto hath bene spoken of to remoue I say from it not only the substance â—or only the real vertue which by the conduit pipe was conâ—eyeâ— to vs in the supper but alâ—o the very spiritual eating For albeit
against any sacrament of the church of Christ mentioned in the gospel and practised among Christians but only against the inventions of that pernitious Apostata vvhich hovv soeuer he terme by the honorable name of the church sacraments as likevvise he every other heretike calleth his proper devised heresie by the name of Christs gospel yet I esteeme them no othervvise then the devises of the poorest carter in Scotland then the devises of Robin Hood and litle Iohn auncient rank riders in the borders of Scotland and England yea much vvorse for that their deuises ended only in robbing mens purses and at the farthest in killing temporally their bodies vvhereas these SacrameÌ„tarie devises tende to robbe men of their Christian faith and to kil eternally vvith their bodies their soules also And therefore vvhereas I esteeme them such as such also vvil I speake of them and vvith gods assistance by the gospel of Christ and doctrine of Christs Catholike church refel them And for distinction sake and to separate their toyes from the true sacraments I vvil so far as commodiously I can cal them by the names vvhich M. B. and the Sacramentaries better allovv that is signes and seales not sacraments vvhich is the churches word and not so meete to be applied to the signes and seales of their congregations albeit oftentimes especially in this first Sermon I shal be constreyned to cal them sacraments as they do His definition of sacraments taken from Caluin is this The sacrament is a holy signe and seale that is annexed to the preached word of god to seale and confirme the truth contayned in the same word This definition thus he more at large declareth I cal not only the seale separated from the word a sacrament For as there can not be a seale but that which is the seale of an evidence and if the seale be separated from the evidence it is not a seale but what it is by nature no more so there can not be a sacrameÌ„t except it be hung to the evidence of the word But looke what the sacrament was by nature it is no more VVas it a common peece of bread it remaines a common peece of bread except it be hung to the evidence of the word Therefore the word only caÌ„ not be a sacrameÌ„t nor the elemeÌ„t only can not be a sacrament but the word the element coniunctly That to the making of a sacrament is required the word is out of controversie among al Catholikes But vvhat meane yovv by the word not that vvord of god vvhich the Catholikes do For that is in these mens Theologie magical but they meane by the word the vvord of a minister a sermon preached by him For so it solovveth By the word I meane the word preached For the word preached distinctly and al the parts of it opened vp must go before the hanging to of the sacrament and the sacrament as a seale must folow and be appended there after Then I cal a sacrament the word and seale coniunctly the one hung to the other But here some vvil perhaps obiect vvhat need such hanging of seales to the vvord vvhereas the vvord of god is by it self of sufficient autoritie and needeth no such seales for confirmation thereof To this M. B. answereth with Calvin that the seales be annexed to the word for our cause For there is no necessitie on gods part but the necessitie cometh of vs. There is sicke a great weakenes in vs and inhabilitie to beleeue that to helpe this wonderful weakenes whereby we are ready to mistrust god in every word he hath hung to his sacraments Thus much for the general nature of sacraments as they are vsed in the Scottish congregation vvherein there is scarce any one vvord vvhich carieth not vvith it very sovvle absurditie even against the first principles of Christian faith For to examine a litle the definition vvhereon dependeth al I demaund hovvamong Christians can bread or wine or vvater vvhich be the signes of baptisme and the Supper confirme the faith of the preached vvord Is it in respect of the vvord it self or of Christians to vvhom the vvord is sent Not of the vvord it self For that vvere iniurie to god vvhose vvord it is therefore of sufficient credit vvithout such confirmation as Caluin first next M. B. here graunteth Then it remayneth to be in respect of Christians and here againe I must demaund in respect of vvhat sort of Christians strong or vveake perfit or vnperfit â—â—r so vve find them in scripture and in the church generally divided Truly of nether sort if they be right Christians and setled in their Christian faith For is there any true Christian a Christian I say rightly brought vp in the faith of Christ that beleeveth in one god almighty maker of heauen and earth a god vvhom every peece and parcel of his faith teacheth to be most iust most potent most true yea truth it self vvho possibly can not vtter any salsitie is there any Christian thus beleeving and thus he beleeveth or els he is no Christian for vvhom only the sacraments are appointed vvho beleeveth the vvord of god any thing the more for that he seeth bread and vvine and vvater in the ministers hands The Apostles first disciples Martyrs of the Primitiue church replenished vvith the holy ghost vvho being most assured of every vvord and sillable that Christ had taught them vpon confidence and warrant of such invincible and vnmoveable faith ventered them selues in a thousand dangers and perils of death perils on the land perils on the sea perils among Iewes perils among Gentiles c. vvho 300. yeres space together suffered al kind of prisons of miseries of banishments of torments of rackings of fier of being torne in peeces cast to beasts devoured of Lyons c. of vvhom it is vvritten that some thus vvished and prayed Come fier come gallowes come wild and savage beasts breaking of my bones renting in sunder of my quarters come on me al the torments of the devil so that at length I may enioy Christ they who being condemned to be devoured of beasts vvhen they heard the Lyons and Tigres roring for greedines of their pray exclamed VVe are gods wheate let vs willingly be grinded with the teeth of these beasts that we may be made cleane flower these men vvho as S. Paule speaketh died every day for Christs gospel and the truth thereof vvhen they resorted to the sacrament resorted they for this end that vvhereas othervvise they mistrusted god by receiuing these seales of bread and vvine they might confirme their faith towards him vvhich vvas alredy a thousand tymes better confirmed then it could be by any such vveake seales Doubtles as Calvin saith of them that they are signes memorials to helpe weake memories if a maÌ„ were otherwise myndful inough of Christs death this helpe of the supper
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
no other truth then is coÌ„teined in the word Yet because it is a seale annexed to the word it perswades me better of the same VVhereof having said before sufficieÌ„tly I vvil not stand to repeate or make any nevv discourse here Only thus much wil I vvarne the reader that this nevv found doctrine of seales to confirme gods vvord and promises vvhich these extraordinarie ministers so much inculcate never before heard of in the vvord of god of the old testament or nevv never in the Gospels or Epistles Canonical noâ— yet in general Councels or auncient fathers or practise of Christs Catholike church seemeth to haue had his first original roote from the corrupt maners of these ministers and their scholers VVho continually boasting of their only faith without vvorks and hauing as false a faith as euer had any Carthaginian or Greeke because they coÌ„monly lye dissemble and circumuent and vvhen they looke most simply meane most traiteiously vvhen they counterfeite much grauitie â—obrietie and religion then are ful of craft guilefulnes falsitie as also Caluin truly vvitnesseth of them they finding this in them selues and that they can not trust one an other vpon vvords and promises but must haue seales and obligations besides from their ovvne corrupt behaviour dravv this to the church of Christ and make like reckening of Gods vvord and sacraments as they do of their ovvne vvords vvritings and obligations and as they applie seales and bonds to coÌ„firme their ovvne graunts promises because othervvise no man vvil trust them they induce like opinion vpon God his vvord as though the credit thereof depended in like maner vpon seales and obligations But as at this present there is many a simple people in the vvorld that hath not the vse of seales but trust one an other as vvel vpon their â—â—â—e word or vvriting without farther assurance and many a good plaine and honest man I knovv vpon vvhose vvord a man might veÌ„ture as much as vpon his seale and as truly infallibly vvould he performe it so much more do al true Christians make like accompt of gods word vvhich as it infinitely overpeiseth the vvord of the best man so infinitely is it lesse holpen by these fantastical seales of bread vvine VVhich vvord of God albeit M. B. tel vs that his bretherne beleeue the better by the seales of bread drinke yet shal he be hardly able to persvvade that to any vvise man For first it is a very bad and miserable faith to say no more that fully perfitly absolutely beleeueth not God vpon his only vvord that vvord vvhich he knoweth questionles to be gods and to proceed from him Again it is as vveake miserable a faith to speake plainly litle differing from vvitles foly and infidelitie vvhich casting any doubt of the vvord vvhich he acknovvlegeth to be gods is any vvhit any iote confirmed therein or mooued to beleeue it the more for these sophistical signes and seales as sure certain as vvethercocks for that as they turne here and there north south east and vvest in to euery quarter and corner of the world vvith the turning of euery vvind euen so these seales hauing al their strength grace authoritie from the ministers sermon vvhich geueth life sowle to them may be applied by the minister to signifie that is to seale things as contrary as the east is to the vvest or north to the south as hath bene in part touched before and here cometh somvvhat more to be spoken of in this place Of the VVORD necessarily required to make a sacrament The Argument Of the word which M. B. and the Calvinists require to be ioyned to their bread wine water to make them sacraments By the word they meane a Sermon VVhich opinion is refelled as wicked and vtterly false The nature of this word is farther examined and refelled by the example of Christ and manifest reason drawen thence ioyned with the authoritie of the English congregation which in this part of faith reproveth the Scottish ministerie as plainly Anabaptistical This opinion concludeth most of the communions and baptismes vsed thorough out England and Scotland to be no sacraments as is declared by 4. sensible demonstrations 5 It is the high way to abolish al vse both of Sermons and also of Sacraments CHAP. 10. HAving hetherto spoken of the general consideration of the elements saith M. B. it restes that we say somwhat concerning the word which I cal the other part of the sacrament I vnderstand and take the word for that thing which quickens this whole action which serves as it were a sowle and geveâ— life to the whole action For by the word and the appointement of Christ in the word the minister knowes what is his part the hearer what is his part and every one is prepared the minister how to deliver and the hearer how to receiue Of this vvord vvhich is principally to be attended in the sacrament and vvhich as M. B. truly speaketh if he rightly vnderstood his ovvne vvords applied them as he ought is the life of the sacrament and geveth al force and grace vnto it he afterwards somwhat more at large discouâ—seth â—hus As the Papists we agree that the word man concurre to the nature and constitution of a sacrament so when we come to know what is meant by the word we differ much Let the Papists opinion vvhereof yovv sceme to haue litle skil-as shal appeare hereafter in place conuenient â—est for this present and helpe vs to vnderstand your ovvne opinion concerning this word vvith vvhich yovv are better acquainted By the VVord necessarily required to make this sacrament we meane saith M. B. the whole institution of Christ Iesus what so euer he said what so euer he did or commaunded to be done And this whole institution ought to be intreated after this maner First there ought a lawful pastor who hath his calling from god to intreat it And this lawful pastor ought to intreat it lawfully VVhat is that He ought to preach it to proclame it and publikely with a cleare voyce to denounce it He ought to open vp and declare the â—ail parts of it what is the peoples part and what is his owne part â—ow â—e ought to deliuer and distribute that bread and wine and how the people ought to receiue it and how they ought to receiue the body blud of Christ signified by it This â—e ought to do in a familiar and homely language that the people may vnderstaÌ„d him For except ye heare Christ in such a language ye can â—â—â— vnderstand Except ye vnderstand it is not possible for â—oâ— iâ— beleeue and without beleef there is no application of Christ This is the sâ—mme of M. B. preaching touching this point the effect of al cometh to this that the Sermon of the minister to whom yet he prescribeth somvvhat like a Superintendent
in it besides common bread because to passe ouer the former 11. points prescribed by M. B. of which very probable it is that in most CoÌ„munions many of them were omitted 12. by very order of their communion booke some words which Christ spake in deed were most importaÌ„t concerning the sacrament are purposely least out Fourthly I conclude that in most of the Caluinian Communions the communicants do more commonly according to their ovvne doctrine eate the flesh of their lavvful Superiors to vvhom God hath subiected them then the flesh of Christ and so consequently their table is rather the table of Devils then of god they at that table coÌ„municate ten tymes more vvith the Devil then with God For vvhereas among that rayling generation no one argument is more common then to rayle at the Pastors of Christs Church at the Catholike doctrine vvhereas nothing is more vsual and frequent with them then to slaunder Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests the Catholike church of al ages vnto vvhose obedience Christ hath bound theÌ„ vnder paine of damnation when after such raylings and slaunders they eate their tropical bread and vvine they eate as truly to speake the lest the flesh of Popes bishops Catholike Princes and people as they ever do the flesh of Christ and after such a raylative sermon the breaking of their bread and povvring out of their vvine signifieth as directly and autentically the flesh and blud of the Popes and bishops which they not spiritually but spitefully not by right faith but by grosse and froward infidelitie and detraction teare rent pul in peeces spilâ—as at an other more sober sermon if any such be it signifieth the flesh blud of Christ And the bread and vvine being appended afterward serue as aptly in the one sermon time place to seale and confirme the malicious and slaunderous eating of the flesh of Bishops and Christian people as in the other sermon time and place it serueth to seale and confirme the spiritual eating of Christs flesh and the vvord of the one sermon determineth and limiteth as wel and perfitely the general signification of the bread and vvine to the one sense as the vvord of the other sermon restrayneth it to the other sense Finally I conclude that this doctrine is the high way to remove from the CoÌ„munion al vvord of God one or other ether preached or not preached For let vs suppose vvhich may be very easely that halfe a dosen Euangelical bretherne knovv as vvel as the minister vvhereto the signe of bread and vvine is referred that the one signifieth Christs flesh the other his blud that as by bread they are nourished temporally so by the other they are nourished eternally item that by oft frequenting the communion they know their owne dutie they knovv the ministers dutie and so forth if such bretherne come to supper vvhat need is there of a sermon Nether let M. B. deny my supposition For it is a thing most easie facile and no doubt many there are vvhich by reading his booke and perhaps this or by hearing it so oft told them out of pulpits without any â—ers sermon haue it stil fresh and deepely imprinted in their memorie Here in this case what need a sermon To geue life to the action The life is geuen alredy To quicken it It is quickened alredy To put them in remembrance of their dutie I presuppose they remember it vvel inough To keepe the fashion and custome of the church That is not spoken like a Minister And if I graunt that order is good and so not to be neglected for regard of other ignorant men yet hereof it folovved that the vvord preached after your owne fashion often tymes geveth not life to the action but the action the sacrament is as lively as quicke as ful of sovvle without it as with it And to this coÌ„clusion M. B. him self bringeth the whole effect and drift of the vvord preached and his so diligent explication thereof Al vvhich saith he must be done in a familiar language that the people may vnderstand that vnderstanding they may beleeve that beleeving they may applie Christ to them which is to eate him by faith Then if these communicants of vvhom I speake vvithout such a sermon vnderstand as I presuppose already and beleeue and so applie Christ to them vvhich is to eate him spiritually what necessitie is there of the vvord and preaching at al vvhich serveth only for novices or infidels to make them vnderstand and beleeve in Christ and not for faithful such as vnderstand Christ already So that M. B. word preaching thereof so necessarily required to make their supper or signe presupposeth in deed al the bretherne and sisterne vvhich come to receiue to lacke faith and vnderstanding of Christ to be faithles without beleefe of Christ vntil the minister by the vvord preached engender faith in them VVhich defects being not in these communicants of whom I speake for I hope al Caluinists be not in so short space of a few yeres by the preaching of the word become plain infidels though they may be in a good degree towards it what vse or at lest what necessitie is there of the word to be preached vvhen that effect is present before hand to the vvorking vvhereof the preaching serveth VVhat needeth a candle vvhen the Sunne shineth VVhat foly it is to vvater a vvel grovven tree vvhich hauing deepe roote in the earth is able to nourish it self VVhat nurse vseth to feed the child vvhich is 10. or 12. yeres old and able to feed it self If these fevv brethren being of good memorie and hauing zeale to the vvord remember these points of the vvord vvhich maketh the bread to haue life and become a signe if they vnderstand Christ and believe in him by vertue of old sermons vvhich they haue heard of this matter before vvhat needeth this Battologie this idle repetition of one and the self same thing this casting of vvater in to the sea this bringing of a sevv sticks in to the maine vvood This is the islue of this nevv devised vvord to induce contempt neglect of both vvord sacrameÌ„t to make every prophane eating drinking as good as the SacrameÌ„t VVhich thing as before â— haue shevved by other arguments of theirs so here the very vvord whereof they vaunt most and glorie in ten deth to the same scope induceth the same conclusion For it can not be denied but according to this theologie and explication of the vvord 3. or 4. such brethern as I require vvithout preaching of the vvord at any commoÌ„ table at any common breakfast haue a communion a sacramental signe and seale as good effectual as they should haue and others haue with the minister in the church VVhich being very true that their breakefasts at home be as good and sacramental as their suppers in the church it were wel done
primitiue church yea consequently the Apostles them selves for that he condemneth that church of idolatrie vvhich nether in this point nor in any other had departed from the Apostles doctrine but stil reteyned most constaÌ„tly that vvhich by Christs Apostles vvas delivered vnto them as Ievvel Ridley Calvin to their ovvne eternal condemnation according to S. Paules most true sentence confesse If M. B. thinke any great force to be in these his words that vvhereas vve should take the sacrament from the hands of Christ we contrariwise offer it to him which Luther counteth vnansvvereable and in his rayling libel against king Henry the 8. calleth it his principal strength and capital argument let him knovv that in vulgar Theologie it is so childish as nothing can be more For if vve may not offer to god that vvhich god mercifully geveth to vs vve must offer to him nothing at al not the sacrifice of thankes-geuing not of praise not of an humble spirite not of speaking a good vvord or thinking a good thought for every good thought proceedeth from him and is raised in vs by his holy spinte and then doubtles the English communion is very idolatrous in vvhich the minister in the behalfe of al the bretherne doth offer and present vnto the lord him self his and their sowles and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice which can no ways stand for Evangelical Theologie if that we have taken from the hand of god we may not geve to him And perhaps for feare of such idolatrie the Scottish coÌ„munion taketh so diligent heede that it doth not so much as mention any such offering But if this be most peevish sensles if the prophet David speake far more divinely Tua sunt omnia quae de manu tua accepimus dedimus tibi al things are thine o lord and that we haue receiued of thy hand that render we and offer to thee in sacrifice if it be most true that vvhich hath bene sufficiently declared that this is not only a sacrament for the vse of men but also a sacrifice to the honour of God if this have bene alvvayes the faith of Christs Catholike church then to vse the sacrament as a sacrifice vvhich Christ at the first made a sacrifice and Christians ever vsed as a sacrifice this is no idolatrie on the churches part but rather atheisme impietie blockishnes on the heretikes part to suppose that that vvhich vve take from the hand of God in Christ may not be geueÌ„ to god againe seing that vvhich vve receiued from god in our first creation that is tight and povver over al beastes and creatures of the earth vvas yet rendered backe to god in sacrifice in the vvhole course of the old testament both in the lavv of nature and also in the lavv of Moyses Of the ends for vvhich the sacrament vvas ordeyned The Argument The 4. ends appointed by M. B. why this sacrament was first instituted are for the most part false The sacrameÌ„t was not ordeyned for mutual bene volence among men much lesse to testifie to the Pagans in what sort we worship god VVhich conceit is against the general practise of the primitiue church which kept this sacrament secret and hid from the knowlege of Pagans The chief end of the sacrament is not to figure or represent our spiritual nurriture which we haue in Christ The Scottish â—â— Geneus signe signifieth vnperfitly such nurriture the scripture yeldeth many other signes as good and effectual to signifie as that and therefore as good sacraments It is in the power of man to institute signes as good as this and every vulgar repast vsed among Christians is as good a sacrament M. B. his preaching ioyneth Christs body as nighly effectually sacramentally to every meate and drinke vsed in coÌ„mon howses as to the bread and wine vsed in their communions His resolution how long the holines such as it is of their communion bread endureth CHAP. 13. This hetherto conteyning those few appellations of the sacrament M. B. calleth the first head general of this his second sermoÌ„ The next head general is why the sacraments were appointed VVhich endes he maketh to be 4. The first vvhich is the principal he declâ—reth thus This sacrament was instituted in the signes of bread and wine and was appointed chiefly for this end to represent our spiritual nurriture the ful and perfit nurriture of our sowle That as he who hath bread and wine lacks nothing to the ful nurriture of his body so he who hath the participation of the body and blud of Christ lacks nothing to the ful and perfite nurriture of his sowle To represent this ful and perfite nurriture the signes of bread and wine in the sacrament were set downe and instituted Thus much for the first The second end wherefore this sacrameÌ„t was instituted is that to the world to the princes of the world who are enemies of our profession we might testifie our religion maner of worshipping god and that we might also testifie our love towards our bretherne Because I meane not to make any great stay vpon these in several I vvil therefore ioyne them al together after in fevv vvords shevv vvhat is amisse in any of them The third end is to serue for our special comfort and consolation to serve as a souerain medicine for al our spiritual diseases And when we find our selues ready to fal or that we haue fallen by the world the flesh or devil and wold fayne flee away from god god of his infinite mercy hath set vp this sacrament as a signe on a high hil to cal them again that haue run shamefully away The fourth and last end is that we might render him thankes for his benefites These are the endes for which M. B. teacheth vs this sacrameÌ„t was ordeyned vvhich as they conteyne some truth so yet are they very vnperfite and omit that vvhich in this sacrament and every sacrament of the nevv testament is principal Of the fourth end hath bene spoken before in the name of the Eucharist and therefore I vvil passe it ouer here The second is in part true in part false but no vvay proper or peculiar to this sacrament as he affirmeth True it is as S. Austin writeth that men can not be gathered together in to any fashion of religion ether true or false except they be vnited with some societie of visible signes or sacraments And therefore both among the faithful faithles Iewes and Pagans as likevvise Ievves and Christians the sacraments are some signes of mutual love and benevolence and by them we testifie our religion as Christians towards the true god so infidels to the false But as this is a proprietie or qualitie incident to sacraments of al sortes be they Pagan or Ievvish or Christian so to make it one special end why this sacrameÌ„t was ordeyned is cleane wrong
and vvithout al apparence of truth there is no sentence or vvord in the vvhole scripture vvhich insinuateth any such matter whereof more shal be said when I come to talke of the first and principal end The Ievves for that they vvere circumcised loved doubtles one an other the better and this vvas some cause of mutual loue yet vvas not this the reason vvhy circumcision vvas ordeyned Like vvise the eating of their paschal lamb together was one good occasioÌ„ to mainteyne love vnitie yet was it no cause or end why that sacrameÌ„t was instituted much lesse vvhy the sacrameÌ„ts of the nevv testameÌ„t were ordeyned which haue more diuine causes of their institution and worke more diuine celestial effects then did those carnal Iewish sacrameÌ„ts The like is to be said of that other part vz This sacrameÌ„t was instituted to the end that to the princes of the world who are enemies of our religioÌ„ we might of enly â—vow testifie our religion For which opinioÌ„ there is never a word or sillable in al the new testameÌ„t it is spokeÌ„ without al learning sense or reasoÌ„ Doubtles in the primitiue church vvhen the Saints martyrs Apostolical men were most abundaÌ„tly endued with gods holy spirit most perfectly knevv the vse of this sacrament if this had bene any end vvhy Christ ordeyned it that by the vse of it they should testifie and openly avow their religion to Christs enemies they would not so diligently haue excluded al Pagans and infidels from the presence of this sacrament as before is noted It should not haue bene so carefully provided against not only Pagans and infidels but euen the very Christians in mind yet vnbaptised that al such should be debarred from seing this sacrament as we find they were by the order of al the auncient Masses or Liturgies amongest which that of S. Iames the most auncient hath this precise rule when after certain general prayers they approched to the celebration of this dreadful mysterie Nullus Catechumenorum c. let none of the learners or novices in Christian faith let none of them which are yet vnbaptized to which number the other Apostles adioyned by witnesse of S. Clement nulluâ— infidelis nullus hareticâ—s let no Pagan or infidel let us heretike let none of them which may not lawfully pray with vs enter in Recognoscite vos invicem haue regard and consider wel one an other The like whereof we find practised 400. yeres after in the masse of S. Chrysost VVhere after the gospel when began that masse which was called missa fidelium the Deacon speake as before in S. Iames masse Quicunque Catechumeni recedite Al yow that be novices or learners in the faith depart Let no novice but only the faithful remayne If this had bene one end why this sacrameÌ„t was instituted what meant the most auncient fathers bishops and doctors both in the first church vvhen al was ful of Pagans enemies of Christ and also many yeres after even in the time of S. Austin when Christians vvere far more multiplied and the governement of the world was in their hands yet so long as Pagans lived among Christians stil to conceale the knowlege of this sacrament from the eye and vnderstanding of the enemies of Christs religion which they did so diligently and so generally that in S. Athanasius it is obiected as a great impietie and straunge act to his adversaries the Arrians that they talked of such matters in the audience of infidels For thus he chargeth them Thorough the iniquitie of these Arrians inquirie and examination was made of church matters of the chalice and table of our lord in the presence of the civil governour and his troupe of soldiars in the audience of Iewes aâ—d Pagans quod nobis incredibile atque admirable visum est which to vt seemed a straunge case and very vncredible For what man wil not count it detestable before a foreyne iudge in the presence of novices and greene Christians and that worse is of Pagans and Iewes to make disputes of the body and blud of Christ Did these blessed saints thinke one end of this sacrament to be that they might openly testifie their religion and maner of worshipping to the Infidels enemies of Christ vvho would not speake of their maner of worshipping of this sacrament of the chalice of the altar in the hearing of infidels and enemies of Christ And this same closenes we find coÌ„tinually in the fathers writings in such sort that coÌ„monly when they wrote preached they vsed secret speaches as it were watch words to signifie their meaning to the end they might conceale this sacrament from Pagans infidels make the knowlege of it proper and peculiar to Christians whereof to omit the more auncient writers whose vvritings every where shew fâ—ith such their vvarines and circumspection even in S. Austin vve find that the same secret maner of speaking and preaching vvas yet continued As for example to note a fevv places out of one of his bookes Then saith he that sacrifice of Christes body and blud was not quod norâ—â—â— fideles which the faithful know wel inough VVhich sacrifice is now in practise thorough the whole world Again Christ â—coke in to his haÌ„ds quod fideles norunt that which the faithful know Again It is a true sacrifice quod fideles norunt as the faithful know Again VVhat is that which in the church is secret and not publike The sacrament of baptisme and the sacrament of the Eucharist Opera nostra bona vident Pagani sacraments vero illis occultantur The Pagans them selues see our good workes but as for our sacrameÌ„ts they are â—id froÌ„ them Again Thow art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec fideli bus loquor I speake to the faithful If the no vices Catâ—chumeni vnderstand me not let them shake of their slouth let theÌ„ make hast to knowlege It is not convenient to vtter our mysteries to them And so â—â—â—th in a number of like places VVhereby we see the old Christians did not account this to be one end why this sacrameÌ„t was ordeined For doubtles if they had the first primitiue Christians most constant mattyrs in the citie of Rome vvould never have sought out those crypâ—a those hid secret gâ—ottes vaultes vnder the earth those desert solitarie places they vvould never so studiously have mett in the nights in out-corners far of from the sight concourse presence of the Pagans notwithstanding never so many proclamations made by the persecuting Emperours If Christs ordinance had bene to the coÌ„trarie the Apostles vvould not haue ministred the sacrament in private hovvses but in the open streetes And as in the temple of Salomon and places of most resort in synagoges and publike consistories they preached Christ in the face of Christs enemies and enemies of Christian profession so there
laboureth to prove very earnestly and diligently This M. B. out of Calvin and Beza preacheth very directly and expressely and by scripture wickedly perverted seeketh to establish It is sure saith he and certain that the faith of Gods children is never wholy extinguisted Though it be never so weake it shal never vtterly decay â— perish out of the hart Howsoever it be weake yet a weake faith is faith and such a faith that the lest parcel or drop of â—ssureth vs that God is fauourable frindly and merciful â—â—â— vt Minima fidei gâ—â—ta facit was certo inâ—uiâ—â— contemplari fâ—ciem Dei pâ—acidam sereâ—em nobisoâ—e prâ—pitiaâ— as writeth Caluin M. B. hauing run a good vvhile in this veyne concludeth For conformation of my argument howsoever 〈…〉 bodies â—e 〈…〉 â—o al dissolution â—et after our effectual calling within our sewles suppâ—â—e the fier be covered with â—shes yet it it â—ier therâ— wil no man say the fier is put out suppose it â—e covered No more is faith put out of the sowle supâ—ose it â—â— so covered that it shâ—w nether how nor light outwardlâ— Finally he repeateth as a most sure principle It is certaine that the faithful have never the spirit of God taâ—e from thâ—â— wholy in their greatest dissolutions though they 〈…〉 〈…〉 thâ—rers adulterers c. VVhereas then every Calvinist vvho once hath tasted of Calvins iustifying faith as hath M. B. can never possibly leese that faith but must of necessâ—â—â—â— reteyne it perpetually though he fal into never so great dissolution and filthines of life become he a murtherer an adulterer a robber of churches a sinke of iniquitie as many such iustified and elect Calvinists are vvhereas I say al that notwithstanding he is not forsaken of the spirit of God nor deprived of this special and singular faith vvhich M. B. so oft hath told vs is the only mouth of the sowle the only meane to eate and fâ—â—d oâ— Christ how can he possibly vvith any face or modestie vvith any learning or reason deny that vvicked men receive Christs body vvhereas he alloweth and that infallibly to the most detestable men the spirit of God and this special faith this month of the sowle by vvhich most truly effectually spiritually the body of Christ is eateÌ„ let him vvith better advise marke this his owne preaching and doctrine of Iohn Calvin and his Geneva church and conferre it diligently vvith his other fansie of evil men not receiving Christs body in their signe he shal find this opinion to be altogether false vnprobable and vnpossible to be conceived or beleeved and â—â—â— against their owne preaching and teaching And doubtles besides this special point of Calvinisme vvhich is so pregnant and direct to prove against M. B the general sway of their doctrine induceth the same which is it provoketh men to licentious and dissolute life in that it preacheth only faith to serve for Christian iustice so the verie issue of that solifidian iustification is this vvhen men in life are become most beastly and vitious then to make them most vaunting and glorious for this â—â—stant persuasion that by only faith in Christ they are saved and iustified for that as Luther taught nothing but only infidelitie could 〈…〉 such faithful Protestants of his sect as Zuinglius wrote al such if they beleeve as he preached they forth with were in as great favour with God â—â— Christ Iesus him self and God would no lesse deliver them from â—el no lesse open heaven to them then to his only begotâ—â— soâ—â—e as our first English Apostles and martyrs taught and â—ealed vvith their blud whâ—â— we labour in good workes to come to heaven we do shame to Christs blud For having that particular persuasion vvhereof is spoken if we beleeve that God hath promised vs everlasting life it is impossible that we should perish VVe can not be damned except Christ be damned nor Christ saved except we be saved VVe have as much right and as great to heaven as Christ vvhat soever our life or vvorks be For al they erre that thinke they shal be saved when they have done many good workes For it is not good life but alonely a stedfast faith and trust in God that may bring vs to heaven be our sinnes never so great and that it seeme vnpossible for vs to be saved c. This is the very pith substance of the Lutheran Zuinglian Calvinian English and Scottish Theologie touching only faith this inferreth cleane contrarie to M. B. that vvicked â—nd instructed in the Protestant schoole may have and by coÌ„mon reason and discourse have as constant persua 〈…〉 to be iustified in Christ as men of more honest life And therefore vvhereas M. B. saith that such bad Protestants lacke a mouth of the sowle that is lacke a constant per 〈…〉 in Christs death vvhereby Christ is eateÌ„ he speaketh l 〈…〉 man that lacketh a face that lacketh a forhead or 〈…〉 that lacketh vvit that lacketh knowledge that hath no skil in his owne Theologie in his owne religioÌ„ which by plaine manifest reason and proofe yea by expectence ocular demonstration assureth vs the contrarie The rest of this Sermon vvhich is principally in coÌ„mending and magnifying the vertue of faith that by faith vve have an interest title and right in Christ by faith we possesse Christ that true faith is a straunge ladder tâ—â—â— wil climb betwixt the heaven the earth aâ—cord that gâ—â—â— betwene heaven and earth that couples Christ and vs together c. al this and much more as it is wel spoken of â—â—â— Christian and Catholike faith so being applied to the Lutheran Calvinian Anabaptistical and Scottish presumption that rash and brainsick imagination 〈…〉 described vvhich the Protestants cal faith never I vvord of it is true By that vve have no right title oâ—â—â—terest in Christ but the devil hath a right title 〈…〉 in vs. By it we possesse not Christ but are possessed of his enemie It is no ladder reaching to heaven no cord that goes thether but it is a steep breakeneck downefal sending to helâ—a rope or cable of pride by vvhich as the first Apostata Angels vvere pulled downe from heaven to hel and there tied vp in eternal darknes so by the same pride arrogancie presumption albeit these men baptise it by the name of faith al prowd schismatiks and heretikes Apostataes from Christs Catholike church despisers of that their mother and therefore true children of that first Apostata Lucifer their father must looke to have such part and portion as their father hath vvhose example and as it vvere footesteps in this arrogant and Satanical presumption and solifidian confidence they folow Of tuitching Christ corporally and spiritually The Argument M. B. guilefully magnifieth the spiritual manducation by faith to exclude the spiritual manducation ioyned with corporal manducation in the sacrament The definition of faith geven by S.
they are the children of God and his â—eyrâ—s And by this firme hope vvhich the Apostle significantly calleth the confidence and glory of hope not of â—aith they patiently expect and attend that which yet they see not Thus vve speake and thinke of Christian and Catholike faith and never cal this imagiâ—ation or fansie But if yow aske vvhether we make so light account of the Protestant â—aith that vvhich was invented by Luther vvith the help of his old man after received by Zuinglius and set forth by Iohn Calvin this in deed vve account a very imagination and fantasie or rather a most vvicked presumption and damnable arrogancie And what can yow say to the contrarie or reprove vs for thus thinking and thus saying Mary say yow the Apostle describing it Hebr. 11. 1. cals it a substance and a substantial ground Looke how wel these 2. agrees an imagination and a substantial ground They cal it an vncertaine opinion fleeting in the brayne and fantasie of man he cals it an evidency demonstration in the same definition Hereof M. B. concludeth See how plat contrarie the Apostle and they are â—â—â— the nature of faith If a man should aske yow in vvhat Apostle yow find this definition of â—aith I suppose your answere would be in the Apostle S. Paule vvhom by the name of the Apostle we commonly meane and who is vniversally of Catholikes esteemed the author of that epistle If yow answere so as of necessitie yow must then by the vvay yow may note and hate the rashnes of your felow-ministers of England vvho in their late editions of the new testament have taken away S. Faule or the Apostles name from that epistle Yow may note and condemne the wickednes and impietie of Beza vvho in Calvins life making a register of Calvins Comments vpon the new Testament â—aith that he hath written Vpon the Actes of the Apostles Vpon al the Epistles of S. Paule Item Vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes as though this vvere none of S. Paules so both Calvin Beza labour to persuade both in the argument also in their comments vpon the same Epistle But let this passe Come we to the Apostles definition vvhich is this Faith is the substance or substantial ground of things which â—â— to be hoped for an argument or sound firme probation and persuasion not as M. B. wil have it an evidence and demonstration for evidence and demonstration is against the nature of faith of things which appeare not noâ— are comprehended by reason and therefore are not evident as demonstrations are to reason and vnderstanding and yet for obedience to God and his vvord which passeth al humaine evidence and philosophical demonstration we frame our wil to obey it and by the same make out vnderstanding to geve firme assent and beleefe vnto it how so ever humaine reason or argument suggest the contrarie As for example in the Catholike Church vpon Christs vvord assuring that in the sacrament is his true natural body the same vvhich was delivered crucified for vs to al Catholikes how so ever they live wel or il faith is a substance ground and foundation of this veritie a â—ound firme and vnremoveable probation and persuasion that thus it is although it appeare not evident to them nether can they prove it by any demonstration or manifest reason if they be once removed from the word of God authoritie of â—aith By such faith â—aith the Apostle we beleeve the creation of the world and al things vvhich are therein By such faith Abraham and Sara old and barren received power to have a child because they beleeved he was faithful who had promised vpon vvhich promise and word of God they so rested that they hoped against hop For which cause of one man even dead by common estimation there rose thousands in multitude like the sand of the sea This faith vvas the right cause why Abraham at Gods vvord was fully resolved to have offered in sacrifice his only begotten sonne Isaac in vvhom the promise of such infinite posteritie and the Messias to come was made And though he could not see by ordinarie reason or discourse how the performance of that promise could stand vvith the death of that his only sonne in whose life and by whose life the promise was to be fulfilled yet thorough this substantial ground of â—aith he persuaded him self that albeit he could not reconcile those two points which seemed to him contrarie yet God vvas able to do it vvho could rayse him vp after death and so after death make him to beget children and multiplie as he had promised To this end the Apostle Paule referreth his examples and discourse of faith that by it as by a sure certain and infallible rocke ground worke or foundation in al adversities we are susteined borne vp and confirmed in assured beleef of vvhat soever God hath said promised ether touching this life or the life to come And vvhat maketh this for the Lutherish or Scottish special faith vvhereby every Protestant Lutheran Zuinglian Anabaptist or Caluinist vvarranteth him self that his sinnes are remitted that he is an elect he is iustified he is the sonne of God and as sure of heauen as Christ him self VVhat one sentence worde or peece of vvorde findeth he ether here in this place of S. Paule or in the whole corps of scripture to coÌ„firme this special faith S. Paule a 100. times speaketh of faith of diuers fruits effects of â—aith but among theÌ„ al what one place is there where faith signifieth that every particular man is bound thus to beleeve that such beleef is necessarie as an article of his Creed vvithout vvhich he can not be iustified nor communicate vvith Christ Let any such text of Apostle or Euangelist be shewed and I yeld If there be no such place as questioÌ„les there is none and this kind of faith being but lately inuented by Luther and his old man and never heard of before and lest of al among the Apostles therefore can not be mentioned in any part of the Apostles vvritings it is as vnfit to applie the Apostles speaches of the Catholike faith to this Lutherish CalviniaÌ„â—aith as it is to applie the EuaÌ„gelists words spokeÌ„ of Simon Peter prince of the Apostles to Simon Mag prince of al heretikes or to interprete of Beelzebub the god of Accaron the duties honors sacrifices appointed for the God of the Hebrues the creator of heaveÌ„ earth And this place which M. B. meÌ„tioneth is so far of froÌ„ approving that Lutherish faith or presumption that it cleane overthroweth and destroyeth it not only in the iudgement and verdite of a Catholike man but even of M. B. him self For the faith whereof the Apostle speaketh is a sure substantial grouÌ„d for that it is built vpoÌ„ gods word which is most certaine infallible and so vvith that there can
drinke in deed He that eateth my flesh and â—â—keth my blud abideth in me I in him If these be Christ owne vvords and if to have life everlasting to be raised that life in the last day if to abide in Christ and Christ â—â— abide in vs be some profite and al this Christ him â—â— ascribeth directly to his flesh which is the chief and principal instrument conioyned vvith the diuinitie vvhereby God vvorketh these effects vvhat Iewish impudencie â— infidelitie is it to say that Christs flesh profiteth nothing which flesh geveth life to the whole world Doubtles â—â— Christs flesh had profited nothing Christ vvould neâ—â— haue takeÌ„ flesh nor come in to the world vvhich he diâ— to this end that in his flesh by his flesh he miâ—hâ— coÌ„dâ—â—â— sinâ—e that by his flesh he might make an end of that â—â—â—â—â— vvhich vvas ether betwene Iew and Gentil or â—â—â— and man and in the body of his flesh â— as the Apostle speaketh â—â—â—ght reconcile man to God and by the some 〈…〉 ouen for vs the vvay to heaven And therefore M. â— denying Christs flesh to be profitable vvere as goodâ—â—â—â— vvith our Familianes that Christ never came in 〈◊〉 but only in spirite and mystically and so al Christi 〈…〉 may say to him and of him vvith S. Iohn that he in not confessing that Christ came in slesh vvhich by plaine consequence he flatly denieth is roâ— of God but of the devil he is a very seduâ—er and an Antichrist A third collectioÌ„â—e maketh of like qualitie vvith the â—ormer in these words Suppose Christs body be not â—uâ— in the band â—â— mouth of thy body And wherefore should it Hâ—th he not appointed bread wine for the nurriture of thy body and may not they coÌ„tent â—ow Are they not sufficient to â—uâ—rish yeâ— to this earthly temporal life God â—ath appointed Christ to be deliuered to the inward mâ—uth of the sowle The flesh of Christ is not appointed to nurrish thy body but to nurrish thy sowle in the hope in the groweth of that immortal life And therefore I say suppose the flesh of Christ be not delivered to the land of thy body â—et is it delivered to that part this is should nurrish Here a man might demaunde of M. B. how he caÌ„ match these words vvith the last If Christs flesh profite nothing how nurrisheth it the sowle to life immortal If it may nurrish the sowle vvhy not the body or â—ow is Christ potent to profite the one and impotent to benefit the other Nay if it profite nothing how can it be beneficial ether to body or sowle Next the reader may marke how directly his vvords tend to denial of the rosurrectioÌ„ of our bodies which in deed is an opinion already much spread among these bretherne and this denial of our corporal communication vvith Christ helpeth it forward excedingly For as though there vvere no difference betwene the body of a man and of a beast both vvhich once dying should lie rotte eternally vvhat need Christs flesh saith he for the nurriture of our body May not bread and wine and flesh fish such other good cheere as vve have in Scotland content yow Are not the sufficient to nurrish yow to this earthly and temporal life Yes truly And if vve had no more to looke for but this earthly and temporal liâ—e vvhich belike is al that M. B. and his â—elow ministers care for then earthly and temporal vitailes vvould serve and suffise vs abundantly But vvhereas Christians have an other life vvhich they expect besides this earthly and temporal vvhereas they hope that not only their sowle but their body also shal enioy life immortal they can not content them selves vvith bread and wine and flesh and fish and such other belly cheere vvith vvhich these Sadduces and Epicures can nurrish their bodies to an earthly and temporal life there with wel content them selves looking no farther but they require such food such meate as feedeth both body and sowle to life eternal VVhich seing Christ promised and promised that to that end he vvould geve his owne body the bread of life vve therefore in respect hereof contemne this Geneva bakers bread and tapsters vvine and tel M. B. that in thus preaching he preacheth like an â—picure like Marcion like Cerdon like a number of his felow ministers and Gospellers of this age vvho vpon pretence of the immortalitie of the sowle deny the immortalitie resurrection of the body both vvhich our faviour by imparting his pretious body to both nurrisheth to life immortal and these vvicked and prophane Sadduces by denving that grace vnto the one take from it so great a help and instrument of eternitie immortalitie vvhich in time also they vvil doubtles deny and take from the other Hereof hath bene spoken before vvhere vvas shewed that the auncient fathers drevv from this coÌ„munication of Christs body vvith our body a very common and very effectual argument to prove the resurrection and immortalitie of our bodies Here let it suffise to vvarne the reader thus much that as of old in the primitive church Cerdon Marcion Basilides Carpocrates and such other Archheretikes denyed the resurrectioÌ„ of our bodies the Catholike fathers S. Ireneus S. Gregorius Nyssenus Tertullian S. Hilarie and others argued against them out of this Catholike veritie that our bodies being made partakers of Christs body in this B. sacrament vvere thereby assured of resurrection life eternal so in our daies not only Catholike vvriters bisshops but even Luther also the Lutherans accuse and condemne the Calvinists and Sacramentarieâ— as gilty of those damnable heresies because against the general faith of al the auncient fathers they denie to Christian men the corporal and real participation of Christs body VVhen as Zuinglius had reproved Luther for vvriting that Christs body cateÌ„ corporally nurrisheth and preserveth our bodies to the resurrection Luther at large defending this proposition both by the authoritie of Christ and of the auncient fathers in fine concludeth thus According to the old fathers our bodies are nurrished with Christs body and blud to the end our faith and hope may rest vpon a more sound foundation that our body naturally receiving the sacrament of Christs body shal also in the resurrection become incorruptible and immortal And for that cause Christ wil be naturally in vs saith Hilarie both in our sowle and also in our body according to his word Ioannis 6. VVhich thing because Zuinglius and OF colampadius denyed he therefore pronounceth sentence against them as plain infidels These gentil Sacramentaries saith Luther make a faire way to deny God Christ and al the articles of our Creed and for a great part of them they have begon already to beleeve nothing And certain it is that they tend to a verie Apostasie in this article of the resurrection Certum
vvhich they cal sanctifying It is a fowle vntruth to sâ— that without whispering vve account the vvords of Christ to lacke their force And vvhen he calleth consecration incantation that is an vntruth Sâ—â—â—â—ical blasphemous because it reacheth not only to aâ— the auncient primitiâ—e church as hath bene shewed but also to Christ him self For vve vse the vvords of Christ as Christ did and vve vse them no otherwise to no other end vvith no other intention or effect then Christ did and commaunded to be done and the church of Christ first and last old new in the East and VVest in Europa Asia and Africa vsed vniversally vvithout control vntil these vvicked and prophane mockers of Christ and al religion set a vvorke by Satan brake lose in to the vvorld Besides al vvhich falsitie impietie heresie blasphemie and ignorance â— true religion this man seemeth to be ignorant of common learning and philosophie for that he supposeth â—â— magike and incantatioÌ„ to depend of vvhispering vvhere as such inchanters and impostors play their parts no more by whispering then by speaking vvith a cleare voyce as M. B. byndeth his ministers to speake vvhen they eate their supper ¶ The seuenth vntruth vvith vvhich I vvil end â—oâ— if I vvould note al I should be to tedious euery sentence almost conteyning nought els but such grosse and palpable falsities and the same accompanied vvith a number of folowers is vvhere he preacheth thus After the words of consecration are this way whispered they presâ—pâ—â—â—â— such a hid and monstruous vertue to be inclosed in the sillables one blasphemous vntruth that the vertue and power which flowes from the words there is two are able to chase away wholy the substance of bread there is a third and that the power which flowes from these words is able to rug pul downe the flesh and blud of Christ that sits at the right hand of his father there is 4. at lest This ministerlike kind of speech that is to say this vvitles and frantike kind of railing and blaspheming and lying that vve suppoâ—e such hid vertue to be inclosed in the sillables and flow from the words he continueth and thus repeateth to make good his former raylative speech of incantation against vvhich he disputeth very gravelie and the more gravely the more ridiculously because he disputeth against the false conceit of his owne fansie and not against any faith of ours His argument is this VVe deny that any vertue is inclosed in the sillables For if there were such a vertue and power inclosed in the sillables by that reason there should be a vertue in the figure and shape of the letter that makes vp the word Now there is no man wil thinke that there is any vertue in the figure or shape of the letter ergo c. Doubtles a profound argumeÌ„t vvhich if M. B. could have vsed vvel towards Iohn Knox that famous incestuous adulterer and Apostata M. B. his predecessor the chief Scottish Apostle of this age the Scottish ministers vvhich now rule he might perhaps have much refrayned and vvithdrawen both him them from their vsual magicke familiar coniuratioÌ„ of spirites For of Knox it is testified that even in Geneva vvhere he vvas to pretend a litle honestie he vvas much geven to such kind of study and of the Scottish ministers it is publikely witnessed by one vvho speaketh of his certaine knowlege that no other science and so belike not the Iustitutions of Iohn Calvin nor yet the vvord of the Lord is more ordinarle and 〈…〉 liar there or more diligently studied or had in mor◠〈…〉 and esteeme then magicke and witcheraâ—â— As for the 〈…〉 liks any creature that is not bereft of common 〈…〉 may soone perceive that this point of incancatioÌ„ â—posâ— pose any vertue or power to lye inclosed in the sillables no more toucheth them then the man in the moone For they know and professe that vvho soever pronounceth these wordes or sillables be he man vvoman or child be he King or Keisar or of vvhat degree and state soever if he be not lawfully called in the church of Christ to the office of priesthod the words and sillables pronounced by any such haue no more vertue and power then if they vvere pronouÌ„ced by a minister of the Scottish or Geneva creation Againe they know prosesse that if a lawful priest or bisshop pronounce them as many do both in their studies vvhen they reade S. Paules Epistles or the Gospels and in the church vvhen privatly they say their service and among other parts of scripture rehearse these vvords there is no more power or vertue in them then in any other vvords or sillables or sentences of the Gospelâ— and yet if there vvere any power or vertue included in the sillables the sillables being stil one like power and vertue should ensue of theÌ„ And therefore M. B. may soone perceive that vve have no such magical imagination of these or any like vvords Mary vvhen a lawful priest or bisshop pronounceth them as the substitute of Christ to that end and vvith that intention and meaning to do as Christ appointed now in this case that these vvords or any other of like effect substance have power vertue to vvorke that vvhich Christ ordeyned to be wrougâ—â— by them vvhat should I go about to prove vvhereas M. B. him self in the next page immediatly confesseth it For I vvil not trouble the reader vvith any distinctions vsual in Catholike vvriters because the simplicitie of this man is such that him self in this very page yeldeth as much to consute him self as I desire or the reader needeth to require For thus he vvriteth VVe deny there is â—â—y vertue inclosed in the sillables or resident in the word But we say there is a power conioyned with the word and vve say no more but al power is resident in the eternal word whereof tobe 〈◊〉 mention in the first of his Euangel Let that stand for 〈◊〉 that yet yow remeÌ„ber your owne words in your first sermon that as the Euangel is a mighty and pâ—tent instrument to our everlasting saluation so the sacrament is a potent instrument appointed by God to deliver and exhibite to vt the thing signified that is Christ Iesus And therefore vvhereas yow say There is not a drams weight of this vertue power resident in any creature but it is only in Christ Iesus vvhich no vvise man denieth so long as yow speake of this vertue to vvit such and in such sort as it is resident in our Saviour the fonteine origin author of al grace and vertue both in vvord and sacrament so yet if yow consider the vvord and sacrament as mighty and potent instruments ordeyned by Christ instrumentally to deliver vs Christ yow must allow vnto them some drams and some ounces to of vertue and power or
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
shew him self to ignorant so that in deed he seemeth not to know vvhat a contradiction meaneth yet he so behaveth him self as that he may plainly learne it by his owne answere to this supposed argument For vnto it he geveth 3. answeres two of vvhich are directly contradictorie one to the other the third hangeth in the middest betwene both and may take part of ether If saith he I denyed their consequent vvhich they never made they would be wel fasshed to prove it But the question standes no here whether God may do it or not but whether God wil it or may wil it And we say reverently that his maiestiâ— mâ—â— not wil it This is his first answere vvhich I account as a middle betwene two extremes not directly denying nor yet plainly graunting that God can do it but by a thoritie as it vvere of the Scottish 〈…〉 vvhich commaundeth in matters Ecclesiastical god is in manerly and reverent termes charged not to vvil it For his maiestie may not wil it saith M. B. But good Sir that we may vnderstand your further resolution let vs put the case as the church ever hath that God may wil it for that Christ vvho is true God did wil it as not only al Catholikes that ever vvere but also most Protestants and those the first founders of this new gospel beleeved Answere now directly and plainly yea or no can he performe it M. B. answereth no and that so Turkishly absurdely as vvithal he overthroweth the vvhole body of scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Reuclation For saith he many things God may not wil and then most assuredly he nether may nor can do them and they are reduced to two sortes First he may not wil things contrarie to his nature as to be changeable to decay Secondly he may not wil some things by reason of a presupponed condition as such things whereof he hath concluded the contrarie before of which sort this is For seing God hath concluded that al humane bodies and therefore the body of Christ should consist of organical parts and therefore be comprehended and circumscribed within one proper place therefore God may not wil the contrarie now and consequently can not make it vvithout quantitie vvithout place vvithout circumscription for this vvere to make it no body And to wil these things which are plaine coÌ„tradiceÌ„t in them selues god may not no more then it is possible for him to wil a lye Here is the conclusion that God can no more make Christs body remaining a body to be in 2. places then he can lye then he can be chaunged thâ—n he can decay be corruptible But to lye to be chaunged to decay are simply and flatly vnpossible for God Ergo it is simply beyond Gods power and abilitie to make the body of Christ in the sacrament This is his conclusion which if vve let to rest for a vvhile and examine the ground thereof a man shal quickly see that it is the very foundation of al Atheisme and Barbarisme For if God may not nor can alter the conditions and qualities of his creatures vvhich conditions he hath framed in them and so by such prosupponed condition concluded the contrarie before vvhereas he hath thus concluded the vvater to be liquid or fluent the fier to be hote and burne the S 〈…〉 to move perpetually and geve light creatures vvhich vve eate or vse in eating or vsing to consume and diminish vvaters not to flow out of thy and hard rocks and flints but to have other original beasts by nature dumb not to speake and so forth in a number of like incident every vvhere in the old and new Testament vvhat foloweth hereof but that by sentence of the Scottish coÌ„fistory and Seignorie God may not wil and God can not vvil nor do these things and therefore the red sea stood not stil and firme as a vval nor yet the river Iordan to yeld passage to the children of Israel the fier in the fornace of Nabuchodonosor vvhich so furiously burnt the Chaldeans could not be to Daniel and his 3. felowes according to the English translations as a cold wyel blowing so that one heare of their head vvas not burne the Sunne in the element at Iosuas commaundement did not stand stil nor vvas cleane destitute of light aâ— Christs passion the oyle of the vvidow of Sarephta vvas not every day eaten by Elias the vvidow and her sonne vvithout diminishing as nether for 40. yeres together in the vvildernes could the Israelites vveare their apparel vvithout vvasting consuming it it could not possibly be that a hard rocke in the vvildernes should yeld such abundaÌ„ce of vvater as satisfied many hundred thousands that Balaams asse spake c. For these be such things whereof God hath concluded the contrarie before in his general creation determining and binding them to other certain natural conditions and qualities as he hath the body of man to be visible local and circumscribed in one certain place And therefore God may no more wil these things which are plain contradicent in them selues one as much as the other then it is possible for him to wil a lye and then the scripture must lye downe right vvhich telleth vs al these lyes by M. B. his conclusion for vndoubted verities VVhat shal I speake of the new Testament vvhere this appeareth infinitely more VVhere every one of Christ his Apostles miracles are things done against the general order condition and qualitie vvhich God hath limited to his creatures Let the Christian reader carie away this only that this Satanical rule so vile and horrible that a Turke vvould never have put it downe quit destroyeth the two very fouÌ„dations heads and principal articles of the new Testament the incarnation of Christ and general resurrection vvhich Mahomet in his Alcoran confesleth most constantly For that every man consisting of body and sowle should to his humane nature have ioyned a particular a singular or individual subsistence vvhich Theologie calleth a persone or personalitie is far more necessarie more nigh more intrinsecal by gods special ordinance general creation more required to man then any thing that this ignoraÌ„t Calvinist obiecteth be it the conditioÌ„ of place or localitie or circumscriptioÌ„ or any other qualitie mentioned hetherto And yet our christian faith teacheth vs that Christ assumed the true nature of man a true sowle and body vvithout the persoÌ„ of maÌ„ And if M. B. know ought he knowes it to be Nestorianisme that is a denyal of Christs incarnation of the redemption vvrought by Christ God and man in one person to say that vvith the nature of man he assumed tooke the person of man Againe that one the self same man vvho died vvas resolved in to ashes 100. or 1000. yeres since shal in the end of the vvorld returne receive his perfect body
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
Apud VVhite gift pa. 57â— 2 Before pag. 205. Most Scottish sacraments voyd for vvâ—â— of the VVord â—â—â— before pa. 178. 179. 280. Toâ— right vvord VVanteth iâ— most Scottisâ— Sacraments Bâ—fore pa. â—â— 19. â—â— pag. 139 3 VVhat be the essential parts of the VVord necessarie to make the sacrament 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Before pag. 146. 1. Corinth 7. 2â— No Scottish communion is the SacrameÌ„t of Christ See before ca 5. num 4. 4 1. Corint â—0 21. Matth. 11. Hebr. 13. The flesh of Popes and bishops eaten in the Geneva supper At truly as the flesh of Christ 5 The Geneua Sacrament perfit vvithout the vvord Before pag. 216. The VVord supâ—â—sâ—uous in many coÌ„munions The Geneva communions rather to be called breakefasta then suppers â— Corinth 11 â— â—0 Martyr in 1. Corint ca. 11. pa. 293. 294. Videtur dâ—â—eÌ„â—â— prandâ—um Forma dat esse â—es The Geneva Signe no sacrament of Christ Beâ—ore câ—p 3. â—â—m 2. The first contradiction Before pag. â—64 â—65 Pag. 177. 178. 179. The second Before pag. 164. 165 166. Pag. 165. 168. Pag. 126. 127. 128. The third Before pag. 1â—â— In his 3. Sermon pâ— 117. The fourth Before pag. 1â—5 1â—7 Pag. 7â— The fist Before pag. 1â—7 Before pa. â—9 Before pag. 174. The seâ—â—â—th Before pag. 1â—2 Pag. 19â— Ibid. Pa 11â— Pag. â—64 â—67 Matter and forme â— distinguished by M. B. Before pag. 146. â—fany defectâ— in the Scottish Supper Before pag. 147. 14â— 1 2 The Scottish supper no Sacrament of Christ Before pa. â—50 151 3 4 5 6 Before pag. 155. â— 8 Vbi sup Before pag. 156. 160. Pag. 11. The Scottish communion booke Pag. 51. The Scottish Supper vvicked and sacrilegious Before pag 217. 216. 218. Pa. 55. 56. Pa. 56. Pag. 57. 1. Corinth 11 The Sacrâ—niÌ„â— not called the Lordâ— supper by S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 20. 21. Dominica cana vvhat is meaneth in S. Paule Tertull. iâ— Apologet. â—â— 3â— Chrysost in 1. Cor. homil â—7 in initio Sedulius in 1 Cor. cap. 11. Chrysost hom in hac verba Oportet â— aâ—â— seâ— esse 1. Cor â—1 v. 19. Theodoret. in â— Corint cap. â—1 Calv. in 1. Cor cap. 10. v. 7. Ibi cap. 11. v â—1 Beza in Acta Apost cap 2. v. 42. Beza in 2. Pet. 2. 11. Idem in Iud. â—â— 1. Cor. 11. v. 20. 21. The sacrameÌ„t not called CoÌ„munion in the scripture Beza in Acâ—a ca. 2. v. 42 Calv. Iustit lib. 4. cap. 18. â—uâ— 12. Exod. ca. 37. ca. 39. ca. 40. â— Reg. 7. Proverb 9. â— Malach. 1. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Altare Mensa Isas 65. 11. Annâ— 1552 Annâ— 1560 1. Cor. 11. â—â— Before pa. 1â— 19. In the church an Altar and a Table A Sacrifice and a Sacrament August dâ— Civitate lib. 17. ca. 20. Altars in the primitiue church Martial in â—â— epistola ad Burâ—â—gal ca. 3. Dionys Ecclesiast Hierare ca 3. Origen in Leoâ—â—â—c homil 4 Tertull. lib. de pamtentia Cyprian lib. â— epist â— The English communion pa. 57. 5â— pa. 58. Chrysest ad Ephes hom 3. See chap. 13. num 1. Before pag. 17. Theodoret. ad Hebrae ca. â— Galat. 5. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before pag. 245. 246. VVhy the Sacrament is called the Eucharist August lib. contra adversar legis et prophet ca. 1â— Ibid. ca. 20. Vide â—undâ—m dâ—â—iuitate deiâ—â—â— 1â— ca. â—5 â—â— lib. 19 cap. 23. Praise of the Romane â—â—â—rch Fox Act. and monuments pag. 1â—59 Ievv repliâ— cont'â— Harding aâ—t 4. Diuis 14. â—â—â—1 pa. 24â— 2â—â— Calv. Institut lib. 4. ca. 2. num 2. â— Name of Masse in the 〈◊〉 church Catecâ—â—eni Sacrifice vsed before the naâ—e of Masse 〈◊〉 knovveÌ„ Sacrifice in the church ever beleeued professed Before pa. 20. â—1 Dionys ecclesiast Hierarch cap. 3. Tertull. lib de veland virginib lib 〈◊〉 exhortatio castitatiâ— EpiphaÌ„ hares 79. Hippolit oratio de Antichristo apud Ambros lib. 1. Officiorum ca. 41. Concilium Nicen cap 1â— Sacrifice of the church ouer beleeued and professed Before pa. 22 Concil Chalcedon Act. 3. pa. 112. Concil Tolâ—ta â— cap. 5. Hieron Eusebius Chrysost Theodoret. Augustin Ambros Calv. lib. dâ— vera ecclesiâ— reformaÌ„da ratione Contempt of the auncient fathers primitiue church Calv. Institutio lib. 4. cap. 1â— â—um 11. Idem lib. dâ— cana Donuâ—â— Sacrifice offered in thâ— primitive church Chap. 1. Tiâ— 3. 11. Obiection of M. B. and Luther Tom. â— lib. de Captiv Babylon Robur meum principal â—â— argumentum capitale Ansvvered 2. Corinth 3. 5. The English communion 1. Paraâ—â—p â—â— 14. Genes 1. â—â— cap. 4. 3. â— â—ndâ— 1 pa. 60. 2 â—a 6â— 3 4 pa. 61. The fourth Before pa. 251. 252. The second August Toâ—â— 6. contra â—aâ— stuÌ„ lib. 19 â—â— 11. 12. A manifest falsitie The SacrameÌ„t kept from the sight or knovvledge of Infidels Pag. 254. Missa D. Iacobs Clement Constitutâ—â— Apostolic lib. â— â—â— 15. Chrysâ—â— â—n Mâ—â— cap. 7. â—â—â— â—â— Reverence of the â—â—â—â—â—enâ— father tovvards the Sacrament Athanasâ—â—â— in 2. Apolog. pa. 296 297. â—gust â—om â— in psal 33 Ibid. Ibid. in psal 39. Ibid. in psal â—03 Ibid. in psal â—09 Act. â— 46. Act. 3. 11. ca. 4. â— c. 〈…〉 SacrameÌ„tâ— not â—rdeyned chiefly to signifie SacrameÌ„tuâ— est signuâ— Pa. 68. Pag. 69. Before pâ—g 59. 60. Iâ—vv defence of tâ—◠〈…〉 paâ— â— â—â— 10. pag. 205. Before pag. 61. 62. 63. 64. Scottish sacrament vnpersâ—â— Ierem. 2. 22. Malach. 3. 2. Vid. Plinium natutalâ— hast lib. 31. ca. 10. lib 20. ca. â— â—â— 13. Genes 3. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfit nurriture vvithout vvine Maiz. Athanas in vita Antony â—icion in vita Pauls a Exod. 3. 8. 17. 33. 3. Levit. 20. 24 Numer 13. 28. 14. 3 Deutero 6. 3. 11. 9. c Ierem. 11. 5. 32. 22. Ezechiel 20. 6. 15. c Genes 3. 19 ca. 28. 20. ca 31. 54. cap. 37. 25. 2. Reg. 9. 7. m Deut. 9. 9. 18. 23. 4 3. Reg. 13. 8. 9. 16. 17. 18. 19. 22. n Leuit. 10. 9 Numer 6 3. Iudic. 13. 7. Ierem. 35 6. o Psal 4. 8. Ierem. 31. 12 †Genes 9. 2. 3. Note Many better sacramentâ— then that of Geneva Ievv defence of the Apol. â— par ca 10. paâ— 20â— Obiâ—ction Before pag. 103. 104. â—â—5 The point of this quâ—stion The definition of the Geneus sacrament Pag â—4 Exed â—0 Matth. â— Numer 20. Numer 10. Genes 17. â—udâ—â— 13. â— Reg. â— Exod. â—â— â—â—sâ—â— 4. Things equal in their â—â—â—ne nature Differ in our estimation â— number of sacraments as good as that of Calvin Before pag. 260. â— Before pag. 174. 178 179. Coniunction of Christ and the Geneus sacrament Pag. 77. Before pag. 176. 177. 178. 179. Pa. 7â— Amen Ioan. â—â— â—6 Pa. 71. 7â— Christ ioyned to the Geneua sacrament Pa. 79. No more thâ—â— to any kind of coÌ„mon â—â—â—â—â— Hovv long the Scottish signe rerâ—aynetu holy Pag. 71. The sacrameÌ„t sent
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