times wrought so that al men desired to touch him because vertue proceeded from him and healed al that were present desired so to touch him at an other time vvhen his body was in like maner present to al the vertue thereof healed one only persone amongest a number At an other time it wrought the like benefite to persons many miles distant from the place where his body vvas at some other time it did no such benefite to many that vvere not only in one place vvith him but also touched and pressed and throng him vvho vvere neuer a vvhit the better therefore but perhaps the worse And yet forsooth is it al one to say the body of Christ or a vertue issuing from his body Or doth this man that thus speaketh in these most serious and diuine matters care vvhat he speaketh In the same place going about as it were to moderate his former plaine speaâ—â—es he repeateth that we receiue Christ remayning in heauen And this communication of Christ which is offered vs in the supper requireth nether local presence nether that he descend vnto vs nether that his body be infinitely extended nor any such matter but we receiue him though so far distant from vs as heaueÌ„ is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Al vvhich in his Institutions he expresseth more plainly by the similitude of the Sunne a similitude very familiar with Peter Martyr and others that as the Sunne with his beames shining ouer the earth doth after a sort communicate his substance with it to the engendring cherishing refreshing of the fruits thereof so the spirite of Christ by his illumination traduceth vnto vs the communion of Christs flesh and blud albeit the flesh it self enter not into vs no more then the Sunne leaueth his place in the heauen to descend dovvne to the earth In which words and al this maner of discourse there appeareth a very plain and sensible contradiction to his former talke There vve had in the mysteries of bread and vvine Christ truly deliuered I meane quoth Caluin his true body and blud which veritie is truly conioyned with the symbole here vve haue only a quickening vertue flovving thence There Christ bad vs vnder the symboles of bread wine to eate his body drinke his blud I nothing doubt saith Caluin very religiously but he truly reacheth it me I truly receiue it novv he not only doubteth of it but also plainly denieth any such ether deliuery on Christs part or receiuing on ours and in steed thereof placeth an irradiation or illumination as from the sunne by vvhich a certain grace and vertue out of Christs flesh as heate from the sunne is conueyed vnto vs. There Christ descendeth vnto vs the flesh of Christ entreth in to vs and notwithstanding so great distance of place the flesh of Christ penetrateth and cometh downe vnto vs in tanta distantia locorum penetrat ad nos Christi caro here al such â—enetration and application or coÌ„munication is vtterly refused condemned and Christ descendeth no more then doth the sunne out of his sphere no more as he other vvhere vvriteth then vve ascend vp in to heauen to him mary yet we draw life from Christ Christ froÌ„ the substaÌ„ce of his flesh remayning in heauen powreth life in to vs albeit his flesh enter not in to vs quamuâ—s noÌ„ ingrediatur in nos carâ— Christâ— There the matter vvas so incredible so mystical so miraculous far exceding al capacitie of man that Caluin him selfe so sing lar a prophete and instrument of the holy ghost as his scholers terme him could nether comprehend it by his wit nor declare it by his tonge here the matter is made so familiar and vulgar as for the sunne to shine in a sommets day and therefore nothing so profound hard to vnderstad as Caluin vvith his hipocritical retorike vvold make the case seeme For vvhat plain rural Caluinist can not comprehend this But the manifold manifest contradictions of Caluin to him selfe in this article vvil yet appeare more sensibly if vve continue to declare by vvhat other degrees he falleth from his first high and diuine description of Christs real presence in the supper to a plain Zuinglian and Carolostadian absence from the saine Let this stand for the first vvhere in steede of a true and real presence of Christs body and blud deliuered vs vvith the figure or sacrament vve haue not the true body but only a certaine vertue deriued thence in to our sovvles vvhich tvvo are as far different as is heauen and earth as is the body and sovvle of Cicero and his vvit or learning as is Caluins person and his heretical Institutions S. Peters coate and his shadovv a good feast and the smel thereof ¶ The second degree of abasing the supper and contradicting that his first and more true opinion is vvhen as he pulleth from the supper euen this communication of any such particular vertue and force and maketh the vvhole eating to consist in only faith and beleeuing For then al such deriuing of vertue by his conduit-pipe from the flesh of Christ is no othervvise deriued in the supper then in any other good action of praying or preaching vvhen so euer a ChristiaÌ„ man stedfastly beleeueth in Christ So he vvriteth more commonly and that according to the vulgar maner of al sacramentaries as for example VVe confesse that we eate Christ no other way theÌ„ by beleeuing Againe VVe eate truly the flesh drink the blud of Christ in the supper but this eating driÌ„king is only by faith sicut nulla alia fingi potest as no other kind of eating or drinking can be imagined VVhich eating by faith beleeuing vvhat it is vvhat he meaneth thereby he declareth in his Catechisme vvhere he geueth this definition of it In beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemptioÌ„ is risen for our iustificatioÌ„ our sowle eateth the body of Christ spiritually VVhich being so this maner of eating geueth no title of preeminence nor maketh any kind of difference betwene the supper and any other time place or action when so euer we beleeue in like sort Nether if al the eating consist in beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemption risen for our iustification is there any more vertue force or quickening power as Caluin speaketh deriued to vs from Christs flesh when we eate the Protestant supper then when we eate our owne dinner in case we beleeue Christ to be our redeemer iustifier which is the whole only way to eate Christ and then which there can be no other imagined The Protestant at this supper hath perhaps a draught of wine a bit of bread more then the stander by or then we at our dynner but our faith being as good as his we
This is very good sound doctrine For in deed such grace vertue haue sacraments of the nevv TestameÌ„t namely and especially these two principal baptisme the Supper vvhich as yet the Protestants accept for sacrameÌ„ts that they are signes exhibiting conserâ—ing and haue conioyned with them the thing vvhich they signifie as is the general doctrine of al Catholike wâ—ters yet so which also M. B. very wisely marketh that we always put a distinctioÌ„ betwene the principal efficient deliuerer which is God and the instrumental efficient which are the sacraments which not of them selues but by God are made p tent instruments to deliuer that same thing which they signifie Al which being true M. B. proceedeth very vvel against such Zuinglians Calvinists as make the sacrameÌ„t only a figure representing or signifying a thing absent For if that were so then any picture or dead image should be a sacrament For there is no picture as the picture of the king but at the sight thereof the king wil come to youre mynd So if the sacrament did no further al pictures should be sacraments But the Lord hath appointed the sacraments as hands to deliver exhibite the thing signified and for this deliverie exhibition chiefly they are called signes This doctrine I much commend in M. B. And would to god he could continue in it especially if as he very directly playnely and Catholikely describeth the nature of these sacramental signes so he can geue vs as true and sincere a description of the things signified vvhich by these signes are delivered And that also he performeth very vvel For against Caluin and some Calvinists that vvil haue the thing signified and received to be a vertue and grace flowing from the flesh of Christ and not Christs true real substance he setteth dovvne in plain and sincere maner that the things signified received by the bread wyne are not the benefits of Christ or the vertue that floweth out of Christ only but the very substance of Christ him self the substance with the vertues giftes graces that flow from the substance whole Christ god man without separation of his natures are the things signified For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I be partaker of the substance it self It is not possible that my stomak can be refreshed with that meate the substance whereof commeth not to my mouth So it is impossble that I can get the iuyce vertue that flowes from Christ except I first get the substance that is Christ him self And is it true then that with the sacramental signes is truly ioyned not only in figure vvhole Christ god and man yea his very substance Is this the special reason why the sacrament is called a signe because it exhibites and deliuers the thing that it signifies to the sowle and hart so sâ—ore as the signe is delivered to the mouth To vvhat end should this be and what need is there of such miraculous conâ—unetion vvhereas othervvise if Christs body be as far distaÌ„t from our bodies as is heauen from earth vve seeing the bread broken and vvine povvred out may remember Christs body and blud and so by faith eate him Again to vse Zuinglius common argument vvhich aftervvards M. B. him self vrgeth to the same purpose vvhereas the sovvle is a spirite and Christs flesh and blud things corporal hovv can these corporal things vvorke any benefite to that vvhich is altogether spiritual If they do not vvhy then are they conioyned vvith the signes by vvhich coiunction there cometh no good at al To the first M. B. ansvvereth and yeldeth great reason hereof To the end saith he that this sacrament may nourish thee to life everlasting thou must get in it thy whole Sauiour whole Christ god man with his whole graces and benefites without separation of his substance from his graces or one nature from the other Touching the second obiection though saith he Christs body flesh and blud be in it self true flesh and true substance as it was in the womb of the virgin yet in the supper it is called spiritual a spiritual thing spiritual foode in respect of the spiritual end where vnto it serues to my body and sowle because the flesh and blud of Christ serues to nurish me not to a temporal but to a spiritual and heavenly life and to a heavenly celestial and spiritual end In respect of this end the flesh of Christ and Christ in respect of his flesh is called the spiritual thing in the sacrament and also for that the flesh of Christ which is geven in the sacrament is receâ—â—ed by a spiritual and secrete maner which is not seene to the eies of men ¶ Here I haue to desyre the Christian reader that he marke vvel and carye avvay these good instructions in this place geven him by M. B. First that in the sacrament the signe hath the thing signified truly conioyned vvith it so that the one is not present in Edinburgh the other absent in London much lesse the one present in Edinburgh the other as far absent distant as the highest heauen is from Edinburgh but the thing signified is truly conioyned with the signe The next is that the thing signified is not Christs divinitie not the merits of his death and passion but his very flesh and blud the true natural substance thereof and therefore the true natural substance of Christs body blud being the thing signified is also truly conioyned with the signe and therefore present where the signe is and exhibited and delivered by the signe and vvith the signe vvhich is called a signe especially for this reason because it exhibits delivers the thing which it signifies Thirdly that this coniunction of Christ with the sacrament for our vse is hard to conceiue because it is a high and divine misterie it is a mystical secrete diuine and spiritual coniunction as the coniunction betwixt vs and Christ is ful of mysterie which is not possible to tel and expresse by câ—ular demonstration But who ever would vnderstand that coniunction his mynd must be enlightened with an heavenly eye to see this mystical and secrete coniunction that is betwixt the sonne of God and vs in the sacrament And except ye haue this heavenly illumination ye can never vnderstand nether your owne coniunction with Christ nor yet that coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament Fourthly albeit both the coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament be mystical and spiritual as likewise the very body and flesh of Christ vvhich is exhibited and ministred to vs in the sacrament and vvith the sacrament is called spiritual both because of the spiritual life and spiritual end of life everlasting and immortalitie
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
If the second so is there no more coniunction betvvene Christ and the sacrament then is betvvene Christ every creature â—nder the Sunne For that euery creature natural or artificial much more liuing much more reasonable yet much more spiritual and Angelical in some good sort resembleth and shevveth furth the grace goodnes povver maiesty of God his creator Such coniunction as here is spoken of there is betvvene God or Christ and a cap a govvne or coate a svvord a dish any beast much more my man c. For as a cap keepeth the head from rayne and fovvle vvether so God protecteth his from hel and damnation as a good govvne keepeth the body vvarme and in helth so God preserueth both body and sowle in grace to life euerlasting as by the svvord vve conquere our enemy so by Christ vve vanquish the deuil as the dish bringeth our meate to the table so Christ brought in to the vvorld the true foode and meate of immortalitie Much more such similitudes may be sound in beasts in vvhich as al Diuines coÌ„fesse there is vestigium dei a more lively footestep and marke of God For vvhich cause especially and particularly for that I say they in some special maner represented figured the Messias to come our blessed Sauiour in the sacrifices of the old testament there vvas appointed both of the one sort the other as oxen kine calves goates kids sheepe lambes doves pigeons c. and also bread cakes flovver fruits of the earth vvheate oyle a number of other things burnt rosted sod fried as vve read in Levitieê° Al vvhich vvere not takeÌ„ at randon by chaunce but by great special choise for special signification and relation vvhich in some point they had with the Messias to come the Sauiour of the vvorld I need not to make comparison of man though the vvorst that euer vvas be it Iudas or Caluin or Arrius or Iohn Knox vvho being created to the image and similitude of God haue a thousand times more likenes resemblaÌ„ce proportion and analogie to God and Christ then al the bread and vvine that is eaten and drunken at al the communions in Scotland and England So that this first part of Christs coniunction vvith their signe and Supper bringeth smale credit vnto it and maketh it a very pitiful signe betvvixt vvhich and Christ the coniunction is not only lesse theÌ„ betvvene Christ Arrius â—â— Caluin or Iudas lesse theÌ„ betwene Christ any liuing beast be it dog or cat but also as litle as betvvene Christ a cap or any the least sensses creature of Gods creatioÌ„ ¶ The second part of this coniunction vvere more to the purpose if it vvere true for thus he saith The second point of the coniunction standes in a continual and muâ—â—d coÌ„curring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and the thing signified are offered both together at one time and in one action the one outwardly the other inwardly if so be thow haue faith to receiue it Then the second point of this coniunctioÌ„ standes in a ioynt offering in a ioynt receiuing and this I cal the concurrence The same he aftervvards expresseth again thus If ye be a faithful man Christ is †as bissie in working inwardly in your sowle as the minister outwardly towards your body Looke â—ow †bissie the minister is in breaking that bread in powring out that wine in geuing that bread wine to thee as bissie is Christ in breaking †his owne body to thee in geuing thee the iuyce of his owne body after a spiritual inuisible maner These words may seeme to make some coniunction betvvene the bread in their Supper and Christs body but being truly vvayghed according to these mens doctrine they conteyne nothing but a mockerie and coosinage of the poore people besides much vvickednes prophane conceits manifest contradiction to their ovvne preaching and vvriting For to begin vvith the later what a prophanitie is it and irreligious impietie to flame Christ in heauen by their ministers paltring in earth and to tel the communicants that he doth there in his body as the minister doth here in the bread to inculcate in to their mindes and to wil them especially to consider and thinke when they are aâ— the table in sight of that Action that looke what thow leest the minister doing outwardly what euer it be a large worde Christ is as bissie doing al those things spiritually to thy sowle be is aâ— bissie geuing to thee his owne body as the minister is breaking dealing bread he is as bissie geuing thee his owne blud with the vertue and efficacie of it â— the minister is powring out the wine distributing it VVhy sir As yovv breake your bread in your Supper doth Christ so breake his body in heauen As the minister povvreth out the vvine doth Christ so povvre out and communicate his blud though after an inuisible and spiritual maner yet truly as yovv haue told vs sundry times And doth not Christ communicate his body blud ioyntly vvholy but thus parted and diuided not with facilitie but with labour and bissines for that yovv vvil the people to beleeue and marke and consider that Christ is as bissie which word yow so tediously inculcate in heauen as your minister is in earth VVhat a vile resemblance and comparison is this to make the rude people imagin that Christ is not in heauen glorious immortal impassible but after an earthly maner working labouring toyling bissying him self to ansvvere your Ministers breaking of bread povvring out vvine dealing diuiding it in earth True it is Christ in heauen doth ratifie concurre vvith the doings of his officers and servants in earth vvhether they baptise consume coÌ„secrate bynd or lose or do any thing els which he hath appointed For hovv so euer they instrumentally do their parts Christ is he qui baptizat in spiritu that baptizeth doth al the rest in the holy ghost by authoritie as S. Iohn saith But to speake as this man doth that Christ keepeth such a sâ—â—â—re coyle and is as bissie as the minister and breaketh his body and vvringeth out iuyce to geue to the good bretherne after example of the minister vvhom Christ resembleth and imitateth in euery thing what so euer this is no diuinitie nor yet humanitie but litle differing froÌ„ plain scurrilitie especially to men that know hovv bissilie and troublesomly oft tymes yovv minister your comunions VVhereof Clebitius a prelate of your order brawling with his cominister Heshusius about this ministring geueth vs some tast amongest a number of other faults charging him vvith these Diddest rot their in making ministers allow a publike communioÌ„ of one only person that before the whole congregation Did dest not thow commaund me superstitiously to number the breads of the Eucharist VVhen
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
This is M. B. his first general principle and ground vvherein are conteyned al his first kind of arguments in number 3. of vvhich one is here proposed already For out of this philosophical principle Euery humaine body must have these in separable qualities he argueth 1. that Christs body must be in a certain place 2. that it must be finit and circumscribed which as he vseth it is al one vvith the former and therefore I vvil ioyne them together The 3. that it must â—e visible and palpable Let vs now first a litle examine this his principle or philosophical rule and after descend to the particulars These 3. properties are inseparable to euery body saith he If he meane of al bodies vniuersally it is not true For nether the element of ayer vvhich is a true body is palpable and visible much lesse the element of fier above the ayer nor the vvhole vvorld it self nor the first heaven vvhich conteyneth in it al thing is in a certain place as common philosophie and Aristotle defineth a place and as al other bodies are in a certain place If he meane of humaine bodies as he seemeth and his discourse and application pretendeth then is it most false that these properties agree to the body of man quarto modo as the Logicians say For they agree to the body of a horse and an ox of every stone and tree as vvel as to the body of a man And therefore in so speaking he speaketh not like a LogiciaÌ„ nor like a reasonable man If he say at lest these are properties necessarie to everie mans body and vnseparable and so they are proper to it some way at lest secuÌ„do modo as the Logicians say as now he speaketh more truly and by ordinarie course of nature they are in deed necessarie and vnseparable so yet they are no more necessarie to the body of man then it is to the same body of man to eate to drinke to take rest to sleepe to encrease to decrease to tend to corruption to take the nature and frame of his body from a father and mother And the philosophers vvho knew nothing of faith nor the resurrection of humane bodies to life eternal and by humane reason and vvit assigned to humane bodies according to the drift of humane reason of the course of nature and this vvorld those 3. properties vvhich M. B. noteth vvould never haue denyed these other which I adioyne to be as necessarie and inseparable as those For albeit Adam and Eve vvere made vvithout father and mother vvhich both after vvere as other bodies finite in a certain place and so forth yet that creation is a matter of faith not of philosophie that very creatioÌ„ both of man beast vvas a greater miracle is more repugnant to nature then a body to be invisible or vvithout a certaine place or one body to be in two places and so that creation or production may stand vvith the rest for an exaÌ„ple able to control al that M. B. saith And if by these properties as necessarie to humane bodies or more then those of M. B. vve may not measure the divine and glorious body of our Saviour now sitting at the right hand of his father in heaven for there it nether eateth nor drinketh nor sleepeth nor encreaseth nor decreaseth nor tendeth to corruption nor vvhen it vvas framed in this vvorld toke it any part froÌ„ a father vvhich no humane perfit body euer vvanted much lesse may vve subiect that body to those other philosophical qualities And M. B. can never prove to me out of any probable vvriter that any man in this vvorld lived vvithout those qualities vvhich I specifie vvhereas if he vvil credit Plato and Cicero and some other both auncient and late vvriters he shal fynd that one Gyges of Lydia in Asia Minor lived there a long time as true a man as M. B. and yet vvhen he pleased invisible by vertue only of a pretious stone vvhich he had in a ring vvhereof came the proverbe Annulus Gygis wel knowen among the learned VVhich vvhether it be true or no as I vvil not dispute yet pretious stones and perfect magicians and naturalists can do perhaps as great a vvonder as this so hereof may be conceived that vvise and sober men thought not that to be a matter so vnpossible as now these great sacramentarie Theologes beare vs in hand And thus much being forewarned of the truncke of M. B. his phil sophical tree let vs come to take a better vew of the 3. branches vvhich spring thence The first is Christs body being the body of a man is so of necessitie limited to the â—eâ—â—en place that while it is there it can not be els where â—â—w prove â—ow this necessitie to folow the body of Christ by any Theological argument Reade Austin say yow writing to Dardanus and speaking of the same body of Christ Take away a certain rome from the bodies and they bal he in no place and if they be in no place they are not â—he same Austin writing vpon Iohn in his 30. treatise The body saith he in which the lord rose of necessitie must be in one place but his divine efficacie and nature is eâ—ery where And in his third epistle he sais how ever a body be great or smale he must occupie the bounds of a place And besides the historie of the Acts proves most evidently Christs body to be in a certain place Act. 3. 21. The wordes are VVhom the heauen must conteyne vntil the tyme that al things be restored Thus much for proofe of the first that Christs body is bound to a certain place For the second that Christs body being an humaine body is circumscribed leaving many doctors purposely I take me to Austin quoth M. B. who writing to Dardanus saith Christ to he every where as he is God but n only in heaven according to the nature of a true body And in his 146. epistle Beleeve Christs body to be in heauen o as it was in earth and when he ascended in to heaven VVhereof M. B. inserreth But it was circumscribed in the earth Ergo it is so in heaven and consequently it can not be in the masse both at one time This is al that M. B. alleageth out of Theologie for proof of his first principle vvhich albeit most sufficiently may be answered with one vvord that none of these places touch the purpose none of them speaketh of the matter here handled S. Austin in none of these places disputeth of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t vvhich every vvhere he acknowlegeth but ether of coÌ„mon bodies in general as in his third epistle or of the conditions of Christs body according to the ordinarie course of nature not of this divine mysterie according to the rules of natural creation and proprietie not of Christs vvil and omnipotencie yet because there is somvvhat more to be considered in
bread And therefore this opinion of real presence â—â—ghts directly against the articles of our beleef and the manifest place of scripture And is this al Then those articles of the Creed make not any other new argument but in effect and substance are the self same vvith the vvords of the Acts and therefore M. B. might have spared this but that he loveth to multiplie vvords and make a shew of some new thing of a second â—ort of argumeÌ„t vvhen the thing is stale and differeth nothing at al from his first sort of argument and both first and second is founded nether vpon any place of scripture as hath bene declared noâ— article of beleef as shal now appeare nor any authoritie of the church or general Councel yea or consent of the Protestants but only vpon a fantasie of Zuinglius and Carolostadius and their sectaries framed to them selves that Christs body being in heauen can not possibly be in the sacrament because forsooth a body of man such as is Ihon Caluin or Theodore Beza can not be in two places at once As for this article of our beleef of Christs ascension and sitting at the right hand of god his father it is so far from disprouing the real presence in the sacrameÌ„t that it much more establisheth it to any Christian yea to many Protestants And Luther writeth very flatly though vpon a wrong grouÌ„d that we are bound to beleeve Christs real presence in the sacrameÌ„t cum scripturae articali fidei constantissime id asseuerent for that both the scripture articles of our faith speaking of the self same vvhich here M. B. doth assure vs thereof most constantly And thâ—â— M. B. and those of his sect thinke otherwise it procedeth only hence as writeth Luther answering this argument in Zuinglius and Occolampadius for that they â—aâ—e a folish and childish imagination of Christ sitting at his fathers right hand as though hard by God his fathers throne Chrâ—â—â— sat in a golden chayre with a goodly crowne on his â—ead c. For saith Luther vnles they thought thus ignorantly and childishly of Gods right hand they would neuer herevpon dâ—â—y the body of Christ to be present in the supper Foâ— let vs take the meaning and explication of this article from Calvin him self and see vvhat argument can be deduced thence to M. B. purpose That Christ sitteth at the right hand of â—iâ— father saith Calvin thereby we must vnderstand that he is made Lord of heauen and earth and that by his ascension â—â— tooke solemne possession thereof which he shal keep and continue vntil the last day For so the Apostle declareth it whâ—â—as he saith that the father hath placed him at his right hand above al principalitie and power and vertue and domination and al thing not only in this world but also in the â—ther and that God the father hath subiected al things vnder his â—eet VVe see then what is the meaning of these words to wit that al creatures both celestial terrestrial hoâ—oâ— his diuine maiestie are gouerned by his hand obey his wil are subiect to his power And the Apostles have no other meaning when they make so common mention hereof then that al things are at his commaundement This now being the true sense of this article let vs draw thence M. B. his conclusion vvhich must stand thus Christ sitteth at the right hand of his father that is to say he is made lord of heaven and earth God hath placed him in supreme gouernemeÌ„t over al and al things in heaven and earth he hath subiected vnder him so that there is no creature but is obedient to his commaundement that is in one vvord He is omnipotent Ergo he can not make his body present at once in two places in heauen and in the sacrament This is M. B. his argument and this is that article of our beleef vvhich so directly destroyeth Christs real presence vvith vs. But vvil the reader see how M. B. vvhile he laboureth to multiplie his arguments and disgrace the Catholike faith as contrary both to scripture and the articles of our beleef disgraceth him self diminisheth and quit marreth his owne arguments and nothing impayâ—â—th the Catholike faith but rather establisheth and confirmeth it Let the reader take once againe a revew of that former text Act. 3. 21. vvhich as he saith proveth most evidently Christ to be locally so bound to one place in heaven that he can not be present in the sacrament For if vve shal geve credit to Calvin vvho in this â—ase deserveth more credit then M. B. both for the rare qualities and singular excellencie of the man as also for that he iustifieth his exposition by many places of scripture al truly alleaged against M. B. his one corrupted falsified peece of a sentence expounded by no authoritie besides his owne those words of S. Peter vvhich M. B. so â—oastâ—th of have no other meaning and sense then hath Christs sitting at his fathers right haÌ„d VVhich being al one then must that dreadful argument vvhich he so magnified as most evidently binding Christ to a certaine place so that he could not be in an other be framed as the former thus S. Peter Act. 3. 21. saith Christ is omnipotent and hath al power in heauen and earth geven vnto him Therefore being in heauen he can not be present in the sacrament ¶ The vanitie and peevishnes of vvhich ignorant sophistrie more fit for some rude cobler or taylour then such a minister as is M. B. Calvin knowing right wel in his later writings ether not at al or seeldom and sleightly vrged that article vvhen he disputed against his felow Protestants of this matter but rested cheeflly vpon such texts of scripture vvhich in deed vvere a litle more to the purpose as declare Christs absence from the world and leauing it as in S. Iohn once or twise But Christ in the same places and cls vvhere maketh his meaning plain inough vvhen he declareth that by the world he meaneth the state condition qualitie and conuersation vsual in this vvorld in vvhich sort he denyed him self to be of the vvorld vvhen yet he remayned in the vvorld and after his resurrection vvhen yet he talked vvith his disciples signified he vvas not then in the vvorld for that he vvas not vvith his disciples in such vvorldly maner as he vvas before his passion and so nether such places albeit they carie some more face and probabilitie then this article of Christs sitting at his fathers right hand any whâ—â— impayre the Catholike faith touching this sacrament And thus VVestphalus answereth Calvin rightly It is to be marked saith he that Christ telleth his disciples he wil leaue the world not that he wil leave his church For how could he leaue the church who promised to be present with the faithful for ever Therefore the meaning of these
by S. Cyprian and Bibliander 1. that in place of al the auncient legal sacrifices should succede in the new testameÌ„t an eucharistical sacrifice in bread wine 2. that that bread wine should be the true flesh blud of the Messias 3. that in such sacrifice should consist the priesthod according to the order of Melchisedech Al which might easelie plainely inough be deduced out of the scriptures for if Melchisedech so offered in prefiguration of Christ Christ must needes likewise so offer to fulfil that figure which being neuer by Christ accoÌ„plished but at his last supper most sure certain it is that there he offered after the order of Melchisedech were it not that the Protestants especially the Sacramentaries herein cheifly in the first original ground of all the rest that is in the sacrifice of Melchisedech meÌ„tioned in Genesis shew them selues incredible wranglers Sophisters in cauilling vpon the Hebrew letter without al reason ground heretikes beyond measure in trusting to them selues alone condemning al others who since the time of Melchisedech both Hebrewes Christians haue acknowledged in this place a sacrifice Amongst which heretikes the chief both Caluin Zuingli very saucely impudeÌ„tly shame not to say that in this matter al the auncient fathers writers wrote spake without iudgement more vainlâ— then vanitie it self not content with Christs institution the wisdom of god inuented the oblatioÌ„ of their owne heads They al erred in so belâ—â—â—ing writing deuised to them selues a sacrifice whereof Moses the holy Gost neuer thought They followed there owne inuentions saw lesse in the scriptures then the rude ignorant people And Illyâ—icus that they in so expounding the scriptures violently naughtely hunted after allegories as was always their fashion Although our English doctor doctor Iewel whose Theologie consisted vpon words phrases haue a farther shift peculier to him selfe beyond al other vz. that the Hebrew word vsed by Moyses is doubtful signifieth as wel a prince as a priest therefore nether priesthod nor sacrifice could necessarily be inferred thereof VVhich is a right way to checke reproue both the prophet Dauid Apostle Paule who long sithence determined the Hebrew word to one certain signification which I suppose they knew somwhat better then M. Iewel did The declaration of which matter to make it plaine to common capacities because it would require some longer time then I thinke needeful to spend for that it is somwhat obscure subtile dependeth vpon gramatical cauils of the Hebrew toÌ„ge I wil here omit especially for that otherwise sufficient seemeth to haue bene said of the words of Christs supper which are also so very manifest euident of them selues that the more learned gospellers from the first original of this new gospel haue stood in defence of the real presence do at this present against the tropical construction of the Caluinists VVherefore ceasing to speake any more hereof I wil procede on as I intended to shew the continuance of this beleefe if yet first I shal note in a word or two that Christs speach vttered in the institution of this sacrament cary such weight to induce establish a sactifice that so much in part is confessed graunted by Ihon Caluin him selfe who in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the words of the Apostle S. Paule Corpus quod pro vobis frangitur The body which is broken for yow writeth thus This is not lightly to be passed ouer For Christ geueth vs not his body sleightly or without any condition adioyned but he geueth it as sacrificed for vs. VVhere ore the first part of this sentence declareth that the body of Christ is deliuered or exhibited to vs the second part expresseth what fruit cometh to vs thereby to wit that thereby we are made partakers of the redemption wrought by Christ the benefit of his sacrificess applied to vs. VVhich words how soeuer he vnderstand them signifie wel truly that Christ in that his last supper deliuered his blessed body to his disciples in them to al Christians not as borne of the virgin not as conversant in this world not as risen from death ascending to heauen or sitting there on gods right hand but as offered to god sacrificed for vs to the end that by that coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice the fruite of Christs redemption procured vniuersally to al mankind by his death on the crosse might be really effectually applied to al faithfull Christians members of Christs catholike church who haue coÌ„munication in that sacrifice ¶ And thus with this opinion was this sacrament practised by the Apostles in the first Apostolical church immediatly after Christ as we learne by S. Luke the Apostle S. Paule by S. Luke when he noteth in the Actes of the Apostles that the holy Ghost chose out certaine of them as they were doing publike service ministerie to our lord ministrantibê° illis domino VVhere the word vsed by the Evangelist signifieth a publike ministerie service of the church such as properly the sacrifice is And therefore Erasmus translateth it according to the proper signification of the Greeke word sacrificantibus illis domino while they were doing sacrifice to our lord VVhich Beza also could be content to admit were it not it draweth to nigh to the church sacrifice But howsoeuer in that respect he refuseth it sure it is al the old fathers Apostolike men from thence in that sense called the christian sacrifice or masse the Liturgie as the Liturgie or masse of S. Iames the Liturgie or masse of S. Basil the Liturgie or masse of S. Chrysost as also Erasmus doth interprete it in this sense of a publike sacrifice doth S. Luke otherwhere vse the word S. Paule by this word properly expresseth our Sauiours priesthod and his most publike general sacrifice VVhich Apostle also mentioneth this the Church sacrifice when as writing to the christians of Corinth he dehorteth them from coÌ„municating with the Gentiles in their idolatrous sacrifices by an argument taken from the nature of al sacrifices the excellencie of this Christian sacrifice For the nature of al sacrifices is to ioyne the coÌ„municants with him vnto whom the sacrifice is offered whether it be god or the deuil As among the Iewes saith the Apostle they which did eate of the thing sacrificed were thereby made partakers of the sacrifice by such sacrifice did concrre to the honor of the true god in like sort they which take part of things ofsered to Idols thereby are made partakers of the Idolatrous sacrifice so together with idolaters honor the deuil Then how straunge a thing is it that yow who partake of the table sacrifice of Christ who there coÌ„municate receiue his pretious body and blud for the chalice there blessed is the coÌ„munication
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.
his forefathers vvas lead by the same spirite by vvhich they vvere Philip Melancthon vvho liued in VVittemberg vvith him in his epistles vvriteth of him thus Carolostadius primum excitauit hunc tumultum c. Carolostadiut first of al in our memory made this sturre about the sacrament a rude sauage man without wit without learning without common sense who for ought we could perceiue neuer so much as vnderstood any office of ciuil humanitie so far of is it that euer any token or signe of the spirite of god appeared in him Thus Melancthon Luthet in the second part of his booke contra caelestes prophetas against the heauenly prophetes Martinus Kemnitius in his booke de caens Domini vvith diuets others testifie of him that he vvas instructed by the deuil and that him self vvas vvont to bost among his frends scholers that there came to him a straunge man vvho taught him hovv to interprete the vvords of the supper This is my body especially that first syllable This. This master Carolostadius supposed to be a prophete sent from heauen but saith Luther it vvas certainly the deuil or the deuils dame VVhich deuil aftervvards fully perfectly as they vvrite possessed Carolostadiê° So that Alberus a great doctor among the Protestants in his booke against the CarolostadiaÌ„s vvriteth expresly that the deuil dwelt in him corporally yea that he vvas possessed with many legions of deuils In like sort Luther verely beleeued that the deuil spake out of him For vvhich cause he calleth him a deuil incarnate diabolum incorporatuÌ„ and vsually vvriting against him so frameth his vvords and vvriting as though he dealt vvith a deuil in the forme of a man That I cal him Deuil saith Luther let no man marueil thereat For I make no rekning of Carolostadius I regard not him but that other deuil of whom he is possessed who also speaketh by him or thorough him To be short three dayes before his death the same deuil came to him in forme of a man cited him to appeare in fine tooke him avvay out of the vvorld as vvitnesseth the sorenamed Lrasmus Alberus and other Protestant vvriters This vvas that Carolostadius vvho among many other singularities vvherevvith he adoâ—ned the Protestant-gospel especially brake the ise before them and vvas then first Apostle and guide in tvvo chief points in incestuous marriage and denying Christs presence in the sacrament For he being a vovved priest first of al euen before Luther ioyned him self in pretended vvedlocke to a sister and vvithal vvith helpe of his familiar deuised that interpretation of Christs vvords vvhich before is noted After vvhom came diuers others vvho though differing from him in particular circumstance and maner of expounding that short text yet al buylt vpon his foundation and thereof raised one the self same conclusion that the sacrament vvas only a signe Christs true body blud remoued as far from it as the highest heaueÌ„ is from the lovvest earth as Beza spake in the assembly of Poissye is commonly found in al the sacramentarie vvriters ¶ The first that folovved Carolostadius vvas Hulderike Zuinglius made from a parish-priest a Minister and an Apostata vvho not condemning the exposition of Carolostadius liked yet better of his ovvne conceite as al heretiks do vvhich vvas to applie Christs words to the sacrament but to expound the second particle Est is by the vvord significat doth signifie so that the meaning of Christs vvords according to him is This is my body that is to say this being mere bread doth signifie my body And this Zuinglius supposed to be the true sense and meaning of the holy ghost vsually arresteth him selfe vpon that significatiue exposition of the second vvord is as Carolostadius preferred the turning avvay of the first vvord This and therefore in diuers vvorks treatises heapeth vp together a number of places vvhere the vvorde est must needs stand for significat and finally this interpretation he accompteth so sure and sound as that he boldly pronounceth it can neuer be refelled by any scripture Hovvbeit these tvvo Commentaries thus made vpon Christs vvords that of Carolostadius and this of Zuinglius Luther vvho wrote many books against them both comparing together If quoth he I should geue sentence in the question betwene Carolostadius and Zuinglius I wold boldly pronounce that Carolostadius exposition were the more probable for their heresie then this other of Zuinglius For in this there is no colour of truth Next folovved Oecolampadius first a frier after an Apostata like those other vvho inuented a third shift vvhich vvas to leaue the first vvord This and the second vvord is in their proper and vsual signification but to alter the vvord body in to a figure and so to yelde the sense as though Christ shold say This is a figure of my body And yet vvhich stil is to be marked thus did OecolaÌ„padius not disprouing that of Carolostadius no more then did Zuinglius but preferring his owne marie with free libertie licence to his gospelling reader to take vvhich he listed because both suffised vtterly to destroy Christs real presence VVhereof thus vvriteth Balthasar PacimoÌ„tanus head of the Anabaptists in his letters to Oecolampadius I am very glad to vnderstand that yow dislike not Carolostadius bookes of the sacrament This your iudgement wold I ful fayne haue wrong out before For I knew right wel or at least I supposed that your opinion and ours disagreed nothing at al. But yow alwaies answered me in obscuritie and surely it was wisdom so to do and the time required it But now the time is to preach on the howse top that which before was whispered in corners So that albeit Zuinglius and Oecolampadius made choise better esteemed as hath bene sayd ech his ovvne imagination yet they approued ful wel that of their first founder Carolostadiê° for that these three opinions vvere in substance al one and al tended to one scope and marke ¶ This licence of turning and tossing the sacred vvords of our Sauiour being once geuen forthvvith by like right taken and practised of euerie sectarie that had any colour of learning and vvit many more ensued about the same time one vpon an other vvho al building vpon the foundation of Carolostadius and tending to one end that is to remoue the presence of Christ from the holy mysterie yet by diuers sundry vvaies vvrought the same eâ—h after his ovvne peculiar fansie perverting vvresting the vvords of the Institution vvhose seueral corruptions manglings Luther in one place reciteth refuteth to the number of six one vvhereof to vse Luthers vvords set as it were on the racke cleane inuerted turned vpside downe the whole text transposing the first word This from his first place to the last thus expounding the sentence Take and eate my body That
infinite difference betvvene that antiquitie this noueltie that faith this infidelitie that sacrifice and sacrament of Christ and this sacrilegious bread and vvyne or perhaps some vvorse matter invented by Carolostadius his Sprite so if vve proceed on a litle farther to the practise and administration of this nevv deuised Communion vve shal yet somvvhat more throughly see in to the essence thereof and haue better helpe to iudge betvvene the one the other For before I come to Caluins opinion vpon vvhich I must lest most of al although in substance it be al one vvith these precedent I thinke it good for the better vnderstanding of the reader to let him see hovv the Protestants vse to administer this their supper vvithout superstition and most nighly to this order prescribed by Carolostadius Zuinglius Bullinger and the Tigurine gospellers after Zuinglius fasshion ¶ A Germane Protestant of this time in his booke vvhich he hath made conteyning 50. reasons vvhy one of his sect a Lutheran may not in any vvise become a Caluinist among other things vvriteth that the Caluinists or sacramentaries do so haâ—e the words of Christs Institution that they can not abide ether to see or to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them Ioachimus VVestphalus obiecteth to Caluin that the Ministers of his sâ—â—te in East Fâ—â—â—â—land minister the Eucharist vvith these only vvords Eate this bread beleeue and remember that the body of Christ offered on the crosse is the true sacrifice for your sinnes VVhich maner of administratio Caluin in his ansvvere iustifieth is as al men may perceiue very conformable to the assertioâ—s of Zuinglius of Bullinger of Oecolampadiê° those other before rehearsed The Anabaptists in this respect are perfite sacramentaries and Caluin in his booke against them vvhere he seuerally reciteth their errors and refuteth them confesseth that in the receiuing and administration of the supper they say nothing which we graunt not vnto them yea which we our selues teach not daily Nihil dicunt saith he quod ipsis non concedamus imo quod non quotidie doceamus So that in seeing the communioÌ„ of the Anabaptists vve see the communion of Caluinists and the forme and fashion of the one is a true and exact paterne of the other Novv that the Anabaptists vsually leaue out the vvords of Christs institution it is no lesse notorious to any man that knovveth their â—aith gospel and Communions whereof their practise in Munster the chief citie of VVestphalia where they began their kingdome the yere 1534 may seâ—â—e for a sufficient proofe One day as Sleidan reheaâ—seth the storie the king coÌ„maunded the brethern to meete in a certen place Being come thither some thousands in number they found their supper prouided beef mutton tost sod with such varietie as the country and time velded This supper being now almost exded the king him self reacheth bread to ech one vsing withal these words Take eate shew forth the death of the Lord. His Quene immediatly folowing deliuereth in like sort the cup saying drinke shew forth the death of the Lord. M. Fox our English Martyr-maker writing the storie of Anne Askew Iohn Lassels others in the end of king Henry the 8. his reigne setteth downe a long epistle writen by the said Lassels in which is conteyned their faith of the sacrament which faith also M. Fox seemeth wel to approue for that he saith This martyr confuteth the error of the Papists which are not contente with the spiritual receiuing also he doth câ—t oâ— tâ—e sinister interpretatioÌ„ which many make vpon the words of the institutioÌ„ Thus are the words of this martyr S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. saith That which I deliuered vnto yow I receaued of the Lord. For the lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread thanked brake it and said take ye eâ—e ye this is my body which is broken for yow Here me seemeth S. Paule durst not take vpon him his Lord masters authoritie he durst not take vpon him to say This is my body It was the Lord IESVS that made the supper which also did finish it and made an end of the only act of our saluation both here in this world also with his father in heaven Now if any man be able to finish the act of our Sauiour in breaking of his body and shedding of his blud here also to finish it with his father in heauen then let him say it But I thinke if men wil looke vpon S. Paules words wel they shal be forced to say as S. Paule saith The Lord IESVS said it once for al which only was the fulfiller of it For these words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM This is my body were spoken of his natural presence which no man is able to deny Thus these martyrs By which discourse it appeareth that they acknowledge first the words of Christs supper to be spoken of Christs natural presence and body which they say is so playne that no man is able to deny it Next that this so apperteyneth to Christ alone that he only and no man euer after him could minister this supper â—or so it foloweth The act was finished on the crosse as the storie doth plainely manifest it to them that haue eyes Now this bluddy sacrifice is made an end of the supper is finished This seemeth to agree in part with Carolostadius in that it denyeth the words spoken by Christ at his last supper to perteyne to our Eucharist But it agreeth much more with the sansie of Petrus de Bruis author of the sect of the Albigenses For he taught directly that only once to wit in the last supper which Christ made with his Apostles was his body truly geuen vnder the forme of bread but afterward neuer as witnesseth Petrus Cluniacensis who then liued and reâ—uted this error of his VVhereas then these gospellers wil haue the words of Christs institution quit remoued from the administration of the supper some perhaps would gladly know in what sort they would haue it ministred Forsooth as before the Caluinsts of Fâ—isâ—laâ—d and Anabaptists in VVestphalia vsed VVhich M. Fox declareth thus Here now foloweth the administration of the supper of the Lord which I wil take at Christs hands after the resurrection although other men wil not be ashamed to bring their wicked Councels or foolish inuentions for them And it came to passe as Christ satte at meate with them he tooke bread blessed it and brake it gaue it vnto them their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight and the Apostles did know him in breaking of bread Here we learne what is the supper not after the wicked Councels foolish inuentions of men for so I thinke it would be although by error the pâ—â—nter set it otherwise but after the Lords owne order
and therefore the Lutheran churches of the Counts of Mansfeld in Germanie in the Confession of their faith put a great difference betwene the old Sacramentaries the new saying that the old Sacramentaries that is the Carolostadians the Zuinglians the Anabaptists and such like alwaies taught the Sacrament of the altar to be nothing else but an external idle signe without the body and blud of Christ that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans whereas the new teach otherwise and Caluin to continue and mainteine such a conceite of al other seemeth to speake of this matter most diuinely and mystically and with straunge affectation of high speach may make vnlearned and vnstable sowles beleeue that he hath a wonderful deepe fetch in this case aboue the rest of common ministers writers whom M. B. in these sermons much foloweth yet who so thoroughly fifteth and examineth Caluin shal find in the end that he hath no other opinion of their supper then hath Carolostadius or Zuinglius or Occolampadius or the Anabaptists or the Scottish and English martyrs or who else so euer thinketh of it most basely and beggerly For let vs by articles consider how he runneth vp and downe praiseth dispraiseth maketh and marieth it at one time mounteth alost flieth in the ayer like a bird straight waies creepeth on the ground like a beast but in â—ine falleth headlong in to the coÌ„mon dongeon with the rest of his bretherne and whether in deed the very course and sway of their whole doctrine carieth them At some times he speaketh and writeth so supernaturally as though he were a very Lutheran defending the real presence as for example I say saith Caluin that in the mysterie of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered vnto vs I meane his body and blud to the end we may grow in to one body with him he thereby refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blud And although it may seeme vncredible that in so great distance of places as is heauen from earth he should passe downe to vs and become our food yet let vs remember how far the power of the holy ghost excedeth our sense and how fond a thing it is for vs to go about to measure his infinite power by our smale capacitie VVherefore that cur mynd or reason can not comprehend let our faith conceiue VVhat Lutheran wold require more then here Caluin coÌ„fesseth Or what more pregnant and effectual words can be desired to declare the veritie of Christs real presence not in figure trope or signification which wit and reason can castly comprehend but truly verely so as Christ I say Christs body and blud notwithstanding so great distance of place as is betwene the highest heauen this low vale is here truly deliuered by the inexplicable force and strength of the holy ghost which only is able to worke such a miraculous coniunction Againe If any man demaund of me how this is done I am not ashamed to confesse the mysterie to be higher then that I can ether comprehend it with my wit or declare it with my tonge to speake the truth I rather find it by experience then vnderstand it Therefore the truth of god wherein I may safely rest here I embrace without scruple He pronounceth his flesh to be the meate of my sowle and his blud the drinke To him I offer my sowle to be nourished with such foode In his holy supper he willeth me vnder the symboles of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and blud I nothing dout but he truly geueth it and I receiue it And that his meaning is Christs true body to be not sigâ—â—atâ—uely or tropically but most really and truly present vvith the bread he expresseth in his litle booke De caena domini by an apt similitude ExempluÌ„ valde propriuÌ„ in re simili habeâ—â—u c. VVe haue a maruelouâ— apt example in a like matter VVhen the Lord wold that the holy ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ â—e represented him vnder the figure of a doue Iâ—â—n Baptist rehearing the storie saith that he saw the holy ghost descending If we consider the matter wel we shal fynd that â—e saw nothing but a douâ— For the essence of the holy ghost iâ— inuisible Yet because he wel knew that vision to be ro emptie figure but a most sure signe of be â—resence of the holy ghost â—e doubteth not to affirme that â—e saw him because he was represented or made present in such sort as he could beare So in the communion of Christs body blud the mysterie is spiritual which nether can be seene with eyes nor comprehended bâ— mans wit Therefore is it shewed by signes figures yet so that the figure is not a simple bare figure but ioyned to his veritie aâ—d â—â—stance Iustly therefore is the bread called the body of Christ because it doth not only figure it but also present or offer it vnto vs. This is a plain declaration that novv Caluin vvil not separate Christs body from the Sacrament as far as heauen is from earth but ioyne it thereto as truly as the holy ghost vvas to that doue vvhere he vvas vvithout doubt present truly really substantially And this being so is it not a great shame vv â— some say to charge Caluin and the Caluinists vvith contempt of the Sacrament and to say that they haue no other opinion of it then Zuinglius Carolostadius and those other forenamed Protestants Doubtles so he complaineth The aduersarie slaunder â—e â— â—aith Caluin that I measure this mysterie with the squire of humaine reason and gods power by the course of nature But who so euer shal tast our doctrine herein shal be rapt into admiration of gods secrete to ver VVe teach that Christ descendeth vnto vs as wel by the external signe as by the spirite that the flesh of christ entreth in to vs to be our foode that Christ truly with the substance of his flesh and blud doth geue life to our sowles In the e few words who so perceiveth not many miracles to be â—onteâ—â—ed is more then a dolt These words and other to the same effect are common with â—aluin as that the symbole doth not only signifie râ— figure but truly also deliuer the thing which it figureth that it bath the veritie which it signifieth conioâ—ned with it vere exhibet quod figuraâ— adiunctam secum habet veritateâ— Vbi signum est ibi res signata vere exbibetur VVhere the signe is there also the thing signified thereby is truly deliuered Nether must we suppose the signe to be destiâ—uâ—e of the truth signified except we wil make god a deâ—eâ—uer â—or true it is and we must needs confesse that the sacrament compriseth the visible signe
beneuolence Againe in the same booke and chapiter Circumcision geuen to Abraham the Iewish purifications and washings the sacrifices and such other rites of Moses law were then the Iewes sacraments in place whereof haue succeded in the gospel baptisme and the supper Both theirs and ours were referred to the same end and scope that is to direct men to Christ or rather as images to represent him and make him knowen c. The only difference betwene them is this that the Iewish figured Christ as yet to come ours notifie him already come and exhibited The like he hath in many other places and it is the general sense commentarie of al or most Caluinists sacramentaries writing vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians cap. 10. VVhich equalitie Musculus very exactly better to the vnderstanding of the reader explicateth in particular â—unning thorough al cases and points wherein these sacraments may be compared one to the other the summe of whose comparison in his owne words is this 1. If we regard that which is more principal in the sacramental signes of the old and new testament so there is no difference betwene them one and the selfe same god Christ Iesus the mediator of grace was author of both 2. Both the one and the other were geuen to be signes of grace 3. As in the old so in the new the signe and the thing signified differ For one thing is signified an other vnderstood 4. Touching the thing signified it was al one in both Circumcision was a sacrament of our nature to be regenerate and purified in Christ so is baptisme Circumcision was a sealing of the iustice of faith Râ—m 4. so is baptisme Circumcision was a signe of gods couenant so is baptisme The paschal lamb was a sacrament of Christ the immaculate lamb by whose blud we were to be redeemed so our bread and wine is a sacrament of the same VVe haue the same meate drinke which they had 1 Cor 10. So hetherto there is no differeÌ„ce betwene our sacrameÌ„ts and theirs But now cometh the greatest difficultie the efficacie or effectual working and conferring of grace whether in this also those sacrameÌ„ts were match vvith ours vvhich equality the whole course of scripture and state of the old and new testament seemeth to improue Concerning this question thus proceedeth this Euangelist I confesse that the auncient fathers he might and should haue added and with them the Apostles and namely S. Paul as out of him shal hereafter â—e declared in this point attribute more to our sacraments then to those other and far extol ours as though they did not only signifie but also geue and conserre grace and iustice euen to them that are in mortal synne and lacke faith where in he grossely belieth the auncient fathers as also al other Catholiks but this is an error vtterly to be reiected of al faythful For it fighteth directly with the doctrine of iustifying faith which is so necessarily required is that without it the sacrameÌ„ts are not only vnprofitable to the receiuers but also hurtful For sacraments as they are signes of grace so they signifie grace geue none as wel in the new testament as the old As they are seales of iustice of fayth so seale they and confirme it not only in the new testament but also in the old and they confirme it not as the spirite sealeth but as signes do seale As they are figures so by the external shape similitude they figure and represent the things signified as in the old testament so in they new In that they are memorials so in the mynds of the faithful renew they the benefites of heauenly grace no lesse in the old testameÌ„t then in the new If besides this we attribute any force to our sacraments that they worke grace iustice health in those that vse them we geue to them that which only is the worke of the holy ghost For our sacraments wash from synnes iustifie and sanctifie no otherwise then those did of the old testament c. and therefore in this respect we ought to put no difference betwene them Out of al which so diligent and exact comparison he dravveth this conclusion That sentence belike of Luther vvhom there he citeth for proof of this doctrine is verâ—e true that not the sacrameÌ„t but faith of the sacrament iustifieth that as wel in the old sacrameÌ„ts as in ours VVherefore there is no other vertue or efficacie in our sacraments then was in theirs and it was rasâ—y said by Austin in psal 73. that the sacrameÌ„ts Iewish Christian were not al one because other are the sacrameÌ„ts which geue health or saluatioÌ„ other that promise a sauiour The sacrameÌ„ts of the new Testament geue saluation those of the old promised a Sauiour This is very aâ—surdiâ— spoken c. VVherefore this being put dovvne as a â—aâ—e ground that the sacraments of Moyses and Christ of the law and the Gospel agreed were al one sauing that they pointed to Christ as afterwards to be incarnate ouâ—s point to him as being novv incarnate already hereof the reader meanely skilled in diuinitie ether Catholike of Protestant may quickly gather conclude that al these first thetorical gloses of Caluin touching the vvonderful supernatural incomprehensible inexplicable vvorthines of the Eucharist of Christs flesh truly ioyned with the bread of his blud truly and really deliuered vvith the cuppe beyond al reason and capacitie of man by the only omnipotent operation of the holy ghost c are nothing els but so many wonderful sensible palpable and impudent lyes and mockeries For both Protestant must graunt and Catholike doth conâ—eâ—â—e and the scripture convinceth that Christ vvas in no such vvise conioyned vvith the bread or vvine or oyle or vvaâ—â—ings and purifications or asâ—hes of a heifer or flesh of a calle in the old lavv For is there any Christian yea Caluinist or Anabaptist so meanely instructed in Christian saith that vvhen the Ievves did eate some such bread or a peece of calues flesh vvil say that vnder those signes of bread or calues flesh was deliuered to the Iewes the body and blud of Christ that the veritie of Christs flesh was conioyned with those signes that Christ truly gaue them his flesh blud to the end they might grow in to one body with him that Christ descended vnto them aâ— wel by the external signe aâ— by the spirite that his flesh did penetrate vnto them which thing albeit it seeme vncrelibâ—e in sâ— greaâ— distance of plaâ—es as is heauen from earth especially Christ being then not incarnate and so hauing nether flesh nor blud nether in heauen nor earthâ— yet by the holy ghost omnipotent power of god this was truly done this flesh and â—lâ—d was truly and â—eâ—ly exhibited as truly and really as the holy ghost vvas in the do eat Christs baptisme VVhich thing although our mynd and reason
can not comprehend vet let our faith beleeue For true it is though most miraculous in these sacramental earings of the Ievves who so perceiueâ—h not many miracles to be coÌ„teyned is more then a doâ—t vvere he not if not in vvit a very dolt asse yet surely in diuinitie a very simple one vvho vvould attribute such miraculous excellencie to the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvhich them selues notvvithstanding al their hyperbol cal lâ—ing florishes meane not to be true no not in the gospel And vvhat so euer they meane the vniuersal scope and drift of scripture denieth refuteth it in the old lavv most effectually For although the good men vnder the law which vnderstood their ceremonies and sacraments to be shadowes and darke presignifications of a Messias and by vsing them were kept in an obedience and orderly subiection and expectation of a Sauiour to come by such obedience faith pleased god and were therefore rewarded at his hands yet that those ceremonies and sacraments velded them any such grace as is here declared much lesse the participation of Christs true flesh blud which is the supreme soueraine grace of al that euer was or euer shal be in this world the old testameÌ„t it self and also the new in many places denyeth especially the Apostle S. Paule in whole chapirers of his epistle to the Hebrewes where he most expresly treateth discourseth of their sacraments and state of the old testament in comparison of ours and state of the gospel For to omit sundry textes apperteyning to this purpose in the Prophets Euangelists to rest only vpon S. Paule when he saith that circumcision the principal sacrament of the law was nothing of no effect to conferre grace and that Abraham him self vnto whom singularly circumcision was a sâ—â—â—e of the iustice of faith was not yet iustified in circumcision nor by circumcision but otherwise when he disputeth that no worke no ceremonie no sacrament of the lâ—â— was 〈◊〉 to iustification but only the faith and grace exhibited in the new testament when he calleth al those Iudaical sacraments infirma et egena elementa weake and poore elements or as the English bibles translate it weake and beggerly ordinances when he teacheth the vvhole lavv and al the ceremonies sacraments thereof to haue bene reiected and altered because of their weakenes and vnprofitablenes that those sacrifices baptismes and meates drinkes blud of oxen and goates were only iustices of the flesh sanctified those that vsed them no otherwise then in taking away legal pollutions and so purified men only according to the flesh and therefore were instituted by god not to remayne for euer but only vntil the time of correction or new testament and then other maner sacrifice and Sacrament should succede in their place briefly when he teacheth the law to haue had a shadow of good things to come not the very image of them much lesse the body which is geuen by Christ in the nevv testament that it vvas impossible for the blud of those sacrifices to take away sinne and purifie the comscience for vvhich cause also god foretold by his prophets that he vvold reiect those hostes and oblations sacrifices and that they pleased him not vvhen the Apostle thus vvriteth thus teacheth thus disputeth against those legal sacraments vvhat Christian man vvil say that vvith them vvas exhibited and conioyned the true flesh and diuine blud of our god and Sauiour as before according to Caluins first preaching the same is conioyned vvith the sacraments of the nevv lavv If vnder those elements of bread and wine as novv in the supper the body and blud of Christ were not only figured but also truly deliuered if vvhen they vvere eaten of the Ievves by the omnipotencie of god and miraculous operation of his holy spirite Christ Iesus I meane as Calvin teacheth me the flesh blud of Christ yea the very substance thereof as Beza also with the consent of a whole Caluinian Synode speaketh were receiued vvithal then truly S. Paul in calling such a Sacrament a weake and beggerly ordinance had bene a very vveake Apostle an vnfit instrument to publish Christs name before nations and Princes of the vvorld vvho of Christs diuine person of his pretious flesh and blud the price raâ—â—â—om of the world reconciliation of al things in heauen and earth had had so meane and beggerly aâ— opinion But because most sure it is that b. Paule was â—â—â—nom any such beggerly or rather beastly ethnical â—og 〈◊〉 the Calumâ—â— who in this deteâ—â—able â— aâ— pâ—â—mous conâ—cite â—oloweth Calâ—in know that tâ— hâ—m S. Paule speaketh and he shal once to his eterna payne vnlesse â—e in time repent â—â—ele true that which S. Paule threatneth in eueÌ„ for this particular blasphe â—â—â—s heresie of matching the base Iewish ceremonies with Christs most heauenly and diuine Sacraments A man making frustrate the law of Moyses is adiudged to death therefore by the verdite of 2 or â— witnesseâ— How much more deserueth he more extreme punishmentâ— which thus treadeth the sonne of god vnder foote and esteemeth the blud of the new testament polluted by making it nothing superior to the blud of beasts and so hath done contumelâ—e to the sp rite of grace beyond al measure abased most vily and contemptuously the diuine state and maiestie of the new testament Let the discreete reader know that against this Iudaisme the Christians euer from the begâ—nning of Christianitie haue had touching their sacraments a more excellent faith and diuine perswasion as who vpon warrant of Christs words haue euer beleeued that in the one sacrament was deliuered the body and blud of Christ the same in veritie and truth of substance that was sacrificed on the crosâ—e as before more largely hath bene deduced And for the other sacrament for I mention no more because thâ—se men acknowledge no more the holy scriptures and writings of the Apostles and the church ensuing haue yelded vnto it as to an instrumental cause higher grace vertue then to any sacrament of the Iewes law or al their sacraments and sacrifices ioyned in one For proofe whereof when Christ was baptized the heauens opened and the holy ghost descended to signifie that by baptisme the way to heauen shut before is made open to is the holy ghost powred in to vs as Christ him self by word and deed taught most manifestly except a man be borne of water the spirite he can not enter into the kingdome of god And to testifie that aâ—â—uâ—â—dly and that in baptisme Christians are made partakers of the holy ghost in the begin â—â—â—g of the church the holy ghost â—â—sibly deseended rested on them that were baptized by the Apostles and first preachers of our faith And the gospel Apostolical writings euery where teach that â—â—bert the baptisme of Iohn
spiritually far better then only bread and 〈…〉 much better then their vvater 〈…〉 oâ— such other leâ—â—er nourishing foode in vvhich the 〈…〉 aâ— supper may be ministred If 〈…〉 to take some one other or the Ievvish sacraments Maâ—â—â— for example this excellencie vvil yet appeare much more That was a sacrament of theirs saith Caluin and also Beza correspondent to our holy Supper the one eâ—uâ—l to the other say they but far surpassing ay I if these mens doctrine of sacraments hold for good P. Martyr vvriting vpon the same place of the Apostle gathereth out of Aâ—â—n â—â—â—a other Rabbines certaine miraculous qualities proprieties apperteyning to that sacrament of Manna vvhereof I vvil note some fevv 〈…〉 ing vvithal the present comparison vvhich I â—â—ue in hand That Manna saith Peter Martyr had many proprieties whereby it did most apâ—ly represent foâ—â—shew Christ as first in that it was geuen them without al labour paâ—ne of the Iewes VVherein it signified Christ geuen sent from god the father to men not for their works and deserts but of his mere goodnes and mercy The bread of â—aluâ—â— being procured by ordinary labour traualle of plovving â—oâ—ving reaping baking can signifie no such thing vvith Manna but rather the cleane contrarie 2. That raâ—ned downe from heauen after a very miraculous sort So Christ also had a celestial and diuine nature as god and as maâ— framed to him els a body of his mother a virgin without the seed of man by the diuine operation of the holy ghost In respect of vvhich his dâ—â—ine and celestial incarnation for that in this sort he tooke flesh the Apostle Paule opposeth him to the terrestrial and earthly Adam termeth him the second Adam celestial and heauenly from heauen and his body a spiritual body vvhose generation of a virgin quis enarrabit who is able to declareâ— saith the prophete I say Al this being signified by the Ievvish Manna miraculously coming from heaven no one iote is signified by the bread of this nevv Genenian Supper but the contrarie as vvhich hath a contrarie nature proceeding out of the earth not from heauen by mans labour and toyle not by any miraculous operation and therefore more fitly leadeth the coÌ„municants to thinke that Christ vvas begotten as other men are baâ—ely and carnally according to the old herâ—â—sâ—e of the 〈…〉 tes then by the diuine operation of the holy ghost as is the Christian beleefe 3. The Iewes wondred at Manna and therefore exclamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVhat thing is this vvhence also Manna had his name They vvendered partly because they knevv not the original of â—t paâ—â—y because they saâ—â— vvonderful effects in it In like maneâ— Christ was designed so to come that alâ—â—â— in general al the levves knâ—â—â— that he vvas to come from the sâ—ocke of Abraham and 〈…〉 yet in special from vvhat liâ—e in vvhat maâ—â—â—â—e by vvhat meanes vvhat perâ—on he should be thâ— was vnknowen to them and therefore they â—y Christ the Meâ—stâ—â— vvhen he shal come nâ— man shâ—l know whence he is 〈…〉 as the â—evves vvondered at Manna for the stâ—aâ—â—ge effects thereof vvhereof one vvas that he vvho gathered most had no more then â—e tâ—â—â— gathered leâ—â—â— contraâ— vvâ—se he vvho gathered leâ—t vvas as abundaantly satisfied as he that gathered most vvhich is also dâ—â—â—â—ly fulâ—â—led in the blessed Sacrament so Christ did shevv â—orth many vvenderful effects miraculous vvorks for vvhich al the people continually vvondered at him â—eth in his vvords and in his vvorks as the â—â—oâ—e of the â—ospâ—l euery vvhere recordeth Al vvhich being so aptly represented by Manna vvhat one title or point of like signification is found in this bakerly Communion of the Caluâ—â—â—is vvhere at none of the bretherne them selues vvonder say MAN HV VVhat â—â— this because they â—novv it to be nothing but ordinatie commoÌ„ vulgar bread â—â— their owne doctors charge them to make nâ— diuine or â—â—gâ—â—â— esteeme of â—t VVhereof Muscul ' vvriting 〈…〉 eth S. Chrysost for that vpon Mat. how â—3 â—â— saâ—tâ— It is not mans power to make these â—iuine mysteries Christ â—eâ—u that maâ—â— them â—n that first upper he also maketh them at this present VVe oâ—â—u â—e the place of seruants but he â—â—s qui sanctificat et immutat that sanctifieth and châ—unâ—eâ—h the â—hese vvords of Chrysost sa â—â— Muscul ' are spoken rather râ—etorically then truly â—atâ—er as became a 〈…〉 then aâ— honest plain man as the truth of the maâ—ter required and if he respect Christs câ—mâ—â—◠〈…〉 Hâ—â— facâ—â—e do this iâ— iâ— altogether false For Christ bad vs nether anctiâ—e nor chaunce bread and wine but to â—â—eaâ—â— bread and part it amongst vs and with thankesgeuing to eate and drinke it as a sacrament or signe of his body and blud in memorie of him quae sacramentalis câ—remoniâ— humanam virtutem non superat which sacramental ceremonie exceedeth not the power of man VVhich is most true For euery man can make such a ceremonie and euery tankardbearer and good wife can as wel minister such a Communion of breaking bread and drinking wine with thankes-geuing in memorie of Christ by vertue of their vocation as the minister by vertue of his So then this Caluinian bread and drinke is nothing like to Manna here is no admiration no wondering at it therefore nothing coÌ„parable is it to that Iewish bread for representing Christ most glorious and wonderful in al his doings from his first conception to the last howre of his being here in earth and ascension to heauen 4. 5. Manna nourished abundantly it had diuers very sweet and wonderful kinds of tast suaâ—es et admirandos sapores to signifie that Christ should suffise to nourish al the world and that the fruition of him was most ioyful and delectable of whom it is written Tast and see how sweet the Lord is This Geneua bread nourisheth no more then other doth it hath no better tast then other bread if it haue so good so in this it nothing figureth Christ like to the Iewes Manna 6. Finally omitting a number and euery one very sufficient to preferre that sacrament of the Iewes before this of the Caluinists that Manna of the Ievves was very white the scripture specially mentioneth that colour not without misterie for thereby was signified saith P. Martyr Christs immaculate puritie innocencie who neuer committed sinne nether was there found guile in his mouth according to the prophet This puritie can not be signified by the Caluinian bread which as by the English order should be taken of such common bread as men vse ordinarily at their tables so my self and diuers other haue some times seene it so browne or rather blacke that as Clebitius the chief Zuinglian minister of Heidelberge writeth of Heshusius their Lutheran Superintendent that when the siluer pixes there
Vniuersitie who saith he by good reason proved that the word Sacrament and Sacramenâ—ally were not to be vsed in treating of the Eucharist because of their divers and doubtful signification This may serue for a very notable example to the Christian reader to teach him vvith vvhat impretie vvicked conscience and iugling al bent to circumvent and coosen their poore folovvers these ministers handle the sacred vvord of god They confesse the vvord Sacrament not to be vsed of their supper nether by Christ nor his Apostles they dislike it them selues they acknovvledge it to be ambiguous doubtful they protest to reverence the vvords of Christ the true sease vvhereof they solemnly protest to geue to their scholers and in â—ine after al these preambles like most detestable hipocrites mockers of god man they make their resolutioÌ„ vpon the same vvord Sacrament vvhich they haue so improved vvhich they can not be ignorant that to Luther is as much as bread and the real body of Christ present vvith the bread to Calvin in some places bread vvith a vertue of Christs body in others a signe in others a sâ—ale But generally to the Zuinglians and Calvinists and this self same expositor is nothing but bread vvith a tropical signification of the body of Christ vvhich in truth and really they account no more ioyned vnto it then heaven is ioyned to earth or the North pole to the South And this self â—ame is M. B. his determination behaviour For so he preacheth Come on How is the body of Christ coÌ„ioyned with the bread He answereth VVe can not crauâ— any other sort of coniunction nor may stand with the nature of the sacrameÌ„t Againe There can not be here any other sort of conâ—unctiâ—â— then the nature of the sacrameÌ„t wil suffer Againe The nature of the sacrament wil not suffer but a sacramentâ—â— coniunction Thus M. B. after the example of Caluin Musculus forgetting his manifold sober admonitions geuen before forgetting him self and his ovvne teaching that this word sacrameÌ„t was not vsed in scripture forgetting that it was inuented by the wit of man which is mere folly forgetting that it was and is the cause of much strife coÌ„tention digladiatioÌ„ forgetting the Apostolical vvord of signes seales vvhich should be vsed in steed thereof briefly neglecting his ovvne Euangelical rule that nâ— flesh should presume to be wiser then god but should stoupe keepe the names appointed by god him self vvil novv prâ—sume to be wiser then god and leauing the names which gods vvisdome appointed and resting vpon the vvord which mans folly inueÌ„ted teacheth his auditors to beleeue sacramental coniunctions vvhere as he should be plain and preach to vs that Christs body being as far from vs as heauen is from earth is conioyned with the bread and vvine in the supper as vvith a signe significatiuely oâ— as vvith a figure signâ—atiuely or as vvith a rude image imaginarily he stil doth inculcate his sacramental coniunction that Christs body is in the sacrament conioyned therewith sacramentally and vve can haue no other coniunction then the nature of a sacrament wil suffer Al vvhich as I graunt it is very true the Catholike euer hath confessed the same so these men very shamefully abuse such speeches as I haue said to blind the eyes and vnderstanding of the poore sovvles that trust them others that reade them so as nether vve nor they can lightly tel vvhere â—o find them For if a man go no farther then to these vvords the vvords may seeme to be vttered by a Catholike man Againe they may wel be the vvords of a Lutheran although in deed they be spoken in the sense of a sacramentarie or Caluinist vvhom both Lutheran Catholike detesteth I omit here to speake of this coniâ—nction vvhereof somvvhat hath bene sayd already more shal be hereafter For the present the Christianâ— reader careful of his salvation is to be warned that he haue diligent regard to these mens words and maner of speeches for that never as I suppose any other heretikes vsed more craft and false meaning in their words â—â—hen these do They for the most part wil not stick in speech in preaching in writing to vse the very same words and maner of vtterance as the Catholike church doth when as yet they being heretikes haue no part of the meaning But as some man that inteâ—deth to poison an other tempereth his cup with pleasant suckets or sweetneth the brim of it whence it must be drunken vvith some delitious confiture in like maner these impoisoners of mens sovvles because their heresies proposed in their ovvne rude termes vvould not so soone be swalovved of their hearers therefore they coÌ„mend set them forth vvith the sacred and holy vvords vsed by the Catholike church as vve haue had some examples in Calvin before and a number vve haue in our English Ievvel a perfit Zuinglian vvho yet vvil not let to say vvrite that by this sacrament Christs body dwelleth in ours and that not by way of imagination or by figure or fantasie but really naturally substaÌ„tially fleshly in deede VVhich his Cambridge interpreter rendereth in latin very Catholikely Christus per sacramentum corporis sui habitat in corporibus nostris idque non tantum imaginatione figura aut cogitatione sed realiter naturaliter substantialiter carnaliter eâ— reipsa VVhereas yet M. Ievvel as likevvise his interpreter meaneth that Christs body by the bread vvine of their vvorshipful Supper is communicated to vs and received in to our bodies nether in deede â—or substantially nor naturally nor really but only figuratiuely by imagination for that forsooth by their broken bread our mynd is moved to remember Christ crucified and so as the church of Zurick declareth the matter in their Confession albeit the thing signified be corporally absent yeâ— a faithful imagination and sure faith renewéth or remembreth that worke once done ¶ Let vs novv returne to M. B. vvho having disliked and condemned the vvord Sacrament because it is not in scripture preferreth the vvord seales and signes for that so the Apostle calleth them VVhere In vvhat Epistle In vvhat chapiter The devise being so nevv straunge vvhy is not the place quoted Truly I know no such place in any Epistle of those that be extant in our Catholike church And therefore except the Scottish Seignone haue some secret Apocâ—phal Epistles and chapiters of the Apostle I verely beleeue that he findeth no one place or sentence in the Apostle Paule or any Apostle vvhere the sacraments of baptisme or the supper are called signes and seales No â—aith M. B Looke in the Apostle to the Romanes chap. 4. v. 11. there shal yovv find both signe and seale True it is there I find them in that only place of the Apostle vvhere he vvriteth that Abraham by his good and fruitful faith being iustified before â—e was
where vnto it nourisheth our body and sowle as also because it is received by a secret and spiritual maner not apparant to the eye of man yet therefore we must not deny nor doubt but that the true flesh and blud the true substance of Christ god and man is there geven vs in the sacrament Fiftly the reason why it is thus geuen â—s in the sacrament vz. to nourish vs both in sowle body not to a temporal life but to a spiritual and heavenly life to nourish I say body and sowle to a heauenly celestial and spiritual end that is to life eternal to eternal ioy and resurâ—ection as Christ him self declareth this is a wâ—ightie motiue besides al the premisses to establish a true real corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament which also M. B. very wel declareth thus VVhat availes it to see my health in a box standing in the Apothecaries booth what can it work towards me if it be not applied So it is not enough to see Christ in heaven by faith but he must be geven vs oâ— els he can not work health and salvation in vs c. VVhich similitude ioyned to two other going before in this sermon and formally repeated again in the next haue this plaine and direct meaning if vve regard the plain direct vvords and stand to them As it is not possible that my stomake should be refreshed with that meate the substace where of I receiue not into my mouth nether possibly can my drouth be slaked with drinke which never cometh within my body nether can the medicine in the Apothecaries shoppe do me any good or helpe my disease if I regard it only standing in the shoppe and applie it not vnto me in like maner if vve vvil haue benefite by Christs flesh blud if we vvil cure our spiritual diseases purific our sovvle comfort both body and sovvle and make them capable of resurrection and immortal life vve must not thinke it sufficient to regard him by faith in heauen having besides meanes to receiue him really in earth But seing for our good and to vvorke vs such benefites he hath truly conioyned his body vvith the holy sacrament made that a potent instrument to deliuer and exhibite his divine body vnto vs as the Apothecaries box doth deliuer and exhibite vs the composition or medicine vve must truly and really receiue the one as vve do the other if vve looke for helpe to our body and sovvle to come by the one as vve hope to recover helth of body by the other Othervvise looke how vnpossible it is vnto thee to be fed with that fâ—od that neuer comes into thy mouth or to recouer helth of that drâ—ge which was neuer applied nor came never out of the Apothecaries booth it is as vnpossible for thee to get thy helth of the body of Christ except thow first eate his body and drinke his blud Thus M. B. And to this very end purpose did the most auncient fathers applie these and the like similitudes shevving most excellently that as in humanitie many good thing vvere vvrought for the body by the sovvle and many thinges for the sowle by the body so in divinitie many good vertues graces of God proceede from the sowle to the sanctificatioÌ„ and glorification of the body as faith hope charitie patience c. many also as consession of Christs name suffering of afflictions almes geving fasting praying baptisme confirmation c. vvere wrought by the body to the beautifying and more sanctification of the sowle Among vvhich the receiving of Christs diuine body in the sacrament was one vvhereby the body fust and consequently the sowle is indued with grace of resurrection of life eternal So writeth that most auncient martyr S. Ireneus As a grain of corne falling in to the earth and dying ryseth in his tyme by the power and spirit of God so our bodyes nourished by the Eucharist which is the body blud of Christ though they be buried in the earth and resolued into dust yet shal rise in their time the word of god that is Christ geving them resurrection to the glory of god the father Again with what face say the heretikes that our flesh perisheth neuer to rise again quae a corpore et sanguine Domini alitur which is nourished to eternal life by the body blud of Christ VVhich is the argument also of Tertullian in his booke de resurrectione carnis Gregotius Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great disputeth altogether in like soâ—me As a litle leauen saith he maketh the whole masse of dow like to it even so the immortal body of Christ entring into our body altereth chaungeth it And as a poison mingled with that which is wholesom marreth and corrupteth it so the immortal body of Christ maketh that where in to it is received like to an immortal nature And a litle after in the same place The body of Christ is ioyned to the bodies of the faithful to the end that by such a contunction with an immortal body man also maybe made partaker of immortalitie The very like comparison vseth S. Cyril archbisshop of Alexandria Aâ— asparkle of her put in straw or hey seueth al on fier so Christ IESVS the word of God by meanes of the Eucharist ioyned to our corruptible nature causeth it wholy to rise immortal Much to like purpose writeth S. Chrysostom alluding yet rather to M. B. similitude of the Apothecaries shop and receit Let vs al that are sicke saith he go for remedie to Christ with great faith For if they which only touched the hem of his garment were forthwith healed how much more shal we be strengthned if we receiue him wholy in to vs And to be brief nothing is more vsual in the auncient fathers then to argue and proue the resurrection of the body to life eternal by this reason for that we receiue Christs immortal and glorious body in the blessed Sacrament For this cause the auncient and general Councel of Nice calleth the sacrament a pledge or symbole of our resurrection S. Athanasius a defence and preservatiue to the resurrection of eternal life S. Optatus a pledge of eternal life and hope of resurrection The like whereof is found in many other fathers namely S. Hilarius Al vvhich reasons speeches and comparisons are grounded vpon that sentence of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud hath life eternal and I wil raise him vp in the last day VVhich place the fathers interprete of receiving Christ in the blessed Sacrament Namely to allege one in steed of many S. Cyril writeth that not only our sowles were to be elevated by the holy ghost to life everlasting but also this rude grâ—sse terrestrial body of ours is to be reduced to immortalitie by eating the agreeable food of Christs body And when Christ saith I wil
any food in general vvhereby man liveth as vvel herbes rootes apples yea flesh fish as our kind of bread vvithout vvhich as then doubtles men might live vvel so at this present it is sure and certain that both in Africa and in America there are vvhole nations vvho liue far longer then vve do vvho vntil this time never knevv nor savv ether bread or vvine and now they knovv both yet preferre they their rootes siuit vvhich they of old vsed iâ— steed of bread vvine before ether the one or the other And since the ChristiaÌ„ faith was published in the world hovv many good men of longest life as for example â— Antonie S. Paule the first Eremites of vvhich the one lived 105 the other 113. yere haue perpetually absteyned from vvine yet vvanted not for al that ful perfite nurriture or els they could neuer haue liued so long And the holy scripture vvhen it vvil describe sufficiencie and fulnes requisite for mans sustenance sometimes yea commonly expresseth it not by bread and vvine but otherwise somtimes vseth those 2. but ioyneth other things vnto them VVhen God promised to the Hebrues a land where they should find no vvant but haue plentic of such nurriture as M. B. telleth vs os generally it nameth a land not abounding vvith bread and wine but vvith milke and hony as appeareth in the old testament every vvhere Sometime it mentioneth bread alone sometime vvith bread ioyneth not wine but water that vvas to thovvsands as ful and perfite nurriture as vvine from vvhich among the Ievves many for very religion absteyned yet had their ful and perfite sustenance At other times it rehearseth corne wine and oyle And yet after al these ful and perfite sustenance and nutriment is made by flesh fish and other such commodities no lesse then by the premisses vvhich therefore God in like sort gave to the hand of man saying al birdes of the ayer al fishes of the sea al beasts of the earth shal be to yow for food and nurriture VVherefore if M. B. in saying that bread and vvine is ful and perfit nurriture and therefore may signifie Christ vvhich nourisheth vs persitely speake of bread vvine in such sense as the scripture doth vvhich vnder the name of bread and vvine compriseth al food as I confesse he speaketh truly so in that sense bread by it self or bread and vvater or mylke and hony or flesh or fish is a ful perfite nurriture and may signifie Christ as vvel and so serue as vvel for a sacrament If he speake as he seemeth after the vulgar sense of men namely of our countrymen in Scotland England vvhere bread signifieth one special and particular kind of food and vvine an other then is his vvord false then doth not his sacramental bread and vvine represent Christ as a perfite and ful nurriture of our sovvles for that only bread and vvine are not ful perfite nurriture of our bodies according to our speech fashion and dyet and so is his sacramental signe a false signe and seale vvhich sealeth a false doctrine as not having a perfite representation of ful and perfite nurriture And albeit against the right sacrament of the church vvhere the principal part of the sacrament is an other maner of grace vertue and sanctification vvhereof this significative qualitie dependeth as an accident of the substance as an accessorie of the principal this argument be vveake concludeth nothing yet against them who make not any spiritual effect and operation but such tropical figuring and representation the chief effect and substance of the sacrament the argument standeth strong forcible sufficient to destroy the vvhole entier sacrament because it destroyeth the perfit signification vvherein the sacrament principally chiefly consisteth Furthermore if the chief point and part of this sacrament is to be dravven from that vvhich geveth ful perfite nurriture to our body then that meate vvhich best fullest nourisheth our body is the best sacrament as fittest to signifie our ful nurriture vvhich vve haue in Christ and so if to bread vvine we ioyne a good peece of mutton a fat capon vvhich questionles nourisheth better then bread vvine alone this because it nourisheth the body best shal be fittest to signifie and so to make the Scottish sacrament For this sequele can not be denyed nor avoyded that if vve measure and define the sacrament as he doth by feeding the body and so consequently representing spiritual foode if it be true as vvith M. B. our English Iewel vvriteth that the substance of the sacrament iâ— to shew vs that like as material bread feedeth our body so the body of Christ crucified eaten by faith feedeth the sowle then that vvhich in this kind excelleth the same is most significatiue most sacramental so vve shal be everyday varying our sacraments according as the Phisicians â—nforme vs vvhich meate is most nourishing And thus in fine vve shal proceed to take our sacraments from the kitchin or from Galen and Hippocrates rules of fatting the body not from Christs gospel his Apostles order of feeding the sovvle And breefely hereof it ensueth that every man and vvoman can make as good a sacrament as this For vvhat man or vvoman that hath a litle skil in phisike or cookery can not geue to every dish of meate sod baked rost fried to every banqueting dish every good restoratiue every good vvine beere ale or vvhat so ever is nutritiue this signification and say to her ghests that as this capon this venisoÌ„ nourisheth your body so Christ in heaven or crucified nourisheth your sowle VVhich being so that truly such meate nourisheth the body as vvel as bread wine it consequently may represent the nurriture of the sovvle as vvel as the bread and vvine vvhich is to be as good a sacrament as is their bread vvine If he replie that Christ ordeyned the one not the other and therefore the one is so much to be preferred before the other because it is appointed by Christ to signifie represent so that is holy bread it is holy wine a holy signe seale for that it signifieth by Christs institution I ansvvere first that it is more agreable to the Protestant doctrine that Christ instituted it not but only vsed it being in practise long before among the Ievves And as he first instituted not baptisme but tooke it from S. Iohn so did he not first ordeyne or appoint this but left it as he found it a mere Ievvish ceremonie vvith this only difference which the course of time gaue vnto it that it should thence forvvard signifie a thing past as of old it had signified a thing to come I ansvvere next supposing that Christ did institute it that albeit in deede betvvene Christ man there is infinite difference so yet betvvene this signe of
his vvit and memorie be but very indifferent especially vvhen he is first vvarned by the minister and after seeth the bread and vvine conceive thus much as vvel as the most honest man in the congregation For let M. B. marke vvel vvhat it is to eate Christ spiritually in their sacrament By his ovvne definition and the coÌ„mon consent of his maisters this eating hath no relation or dependence of charitie of honestie of vertue of good life but only of faith Bring with yow to the table saith M. B. not one mouth only of your body but also the mouth of the sawle VVhat is that A constant persuasion in the death of Christ and al goes wel This persuasion my Protestant of vvhom I speake vvanteth not For I presuppose him to be no apostata though I graunt him to be an heretike and therefore he doubtles hath this mouth of his sawle and therefore eates Christ and so al goes wel Again As the mouth of thy body takes the bread so them â—â—â— of thy â—awle takes the body and blud of Christ by faith For by faith and a constant persuasion is the only way to eate the body and drinke the blud of Christ â—nwardly Then inwardly doth this evil Protestant eate Christs body and inwardly doth he drinke his blud For being a Christian though a bad one he must needs have a faith and constant persuasion of Christs death Christ saith Peter Martyr in the 6. of S. thou promised to gâ—ve his flesh to be eaten And that which he then promised he performed in his lâ—st supper But not then only He also performeth it now so often as we truly beleeve that he hath dyed for vs. VVhat need I repeatâ— that vvhich is most evident that the vvicked have this faith of beleeving Christs death therefore eaâ—e spiritually the flesh of Christ Calvin goeth one point further requiring that they beleeve Christ not only to have died vvhich only M. B. and Peter Martyr vâ—ge but also that he beleeve Christ to have risen again VVhâ—â—â—as I sinâ— in Beza is a question of great 〈◊〉 and not beleeved of many Protestants But yet I presuppose â—â—â— Protestant not to be proceeded so far but â—esting in the vulgar heresies of Calvins Institutions or the Scottish confession of faith not to deny Christs death or resurrection and then nothing yet is said but that he eateth Christ truly by faith be his life never so detestable And thus vvhereas M. B. saith that no evil receive Christ I must conclude rather that al evil receive him after their doctrine as now appeareth But yet remaineth one farther subtilitie vvhich M. B. afterwards toucheth and greatly magnifieth Learne me saith he to applie Christ rightly to thy sowle and thâ—w hâ—â— wonne al thow art a great Theologe Let vs in the name of God learne this high mystical point Is there any other applicatioÌ„ of Christ then by faith by beleeving his death and rejurrection No doubtles as Calvin Beza Martyr M. B. him self have often told vs. Then this is not so mystical a point nor able to make so great a Theologe except every â—inker and cobler that beleeves his Creed be among the Protestants a great Theologe because perhaps most of their chief Ministers and preachers beleeve not so much Na saith M. B. there is yet a farther degree deeper mysterie in this eating and application Let vs once have a plaine descriptioÌ„ thereof that we may know vvhere to rest and vvherevnto vve shal trust That M. B. geveth in these vvords The eating and drinking of the sowle is no other thing but the applying of Christ to my sowle the applying of his death and passion to my sowle Yet this must be made somwhat more plaine and intelligible For as M. B. obiecteth afterwards Christ him self his body and blud can not be geuen or applied to thee seing that looke how great distance is betwixt heaven and earth as great distance is there betwene the body of Christ and thy body or sowle even so touching Christs death passion that is now long sithence past and as the Apostle teacheth he being risen from death dieth no more but liveth at the right hand of God â—â—â—nally and how then applâ—e yow his death and passion to â—â—â—â— sowle Thus and this must vve take for the chief last resolution vvhich this man here geveth vs and vvhich 〈◊〉 learned maketh vs great and profound Theologes The eating of the sawle is no other thing but â—â—e applying of Christ to the sawle that is to beleeve that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes for me This as being the very key and summe of that he preacheth concerning this matter in his next sermon he enlargeth thus VVe eate the flesh of Christ by faith and drinke his blud chiefly in doing two things first in calling to remembrance Christs death and passion how he dyed for vs. The second point of this spiritual eating stands in this that I and every one of yow beleeve firmely that he died for me in particular that his blud was shed on the crosse for a ful remission and redemption of me and my sinnes In this staÌ„ds the chief principal point of eating Christs flesh VVel then now vve know a thorough perâ—ite definition and explication of this spiritual eating and drinking to vvit that every man in particular is bound to beleeve that Christ died for him for so I interpret M. B. his meaning and not that every man is bound to beleeve that Christ died for M. B. shed his blud for M. B. and purchased remission of sinnes for him as his vvords sound to conclude my purpose I say vvhat Protestant if he be a Christian doth not thus applie Christ vnto him self doth not thus eate the body of Christ and drinke his blud except he be in desperatioÌ„ or as hath bene said be an Apostata so no Christian For no man can have the name of a Christian â—â—cept he beleeve the death of Christ vvhich vvas suffered according to Christs owne teaching his Apostles both for the sinnes of every particular Christian also of the vvhole vvorld He is the lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world He came in to the vvorld and vvas incarnate to save his people from their sinnes To Christ al â—he prophetes geve testimonie that al receive remission of sinnes by his name vvhich beleeve in him He is the raunsom and propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours only but also for the whole world and so forth in every Gospel Epistle and almost in every chapter of ether Gospel or Epistle so plainly that no creature having the name of a Christian can doubt but Christ died for him and by his death purchased remission of his sinnes therefore every Christian be he never so evil applieth Christ
illis and was â—â—edient to them and therefore somwhat esteemed them Before he tooke flesh of his mother he replenished her vvith al grace and made her blessed among al women vvith this prerogative that al Christian nations and generations vvhich vvere to be borne should ever honour her and account her for blessed in a singular sort Here vvas some esteeme of carnal cognation VVhen the Angel from God said to her Tâ—ow hast â—ound grace with God Ecce â—â—ncipies in vtero paries filiâ—â— behâ—ld thow shalâ— conceive in thy woâ—â—â— and beare a sonne accounting this verie conception and childbearing a great grace here vvas some reverence and regard of carnal band VVhen Christ hanging on the crosse in the extreme anguishes of death commended his mother to S. Iohn it vvas a signe he had some esteeme of her Briefly vvhereas he said in his law vvhich he gave to Moses Maledictuâ— qui non honoraâ— patrem suâ—â—â— matrem suaâ—â— Cursed is he shal esteemeâ—â— â—â—â—â—reth not his father mother vve may assure our selves that this is a cursed collection whereby this propnane minister gathereth out of Christs vvords that he honored not noâ— reverenced not esteemed his mother or the carnal band vvhich he had with her which if he had done or had bene ashamed of her he vvould sever have bene borne of her as noteth S. Chrysostom vpon that place of S. Matthew ¶ An other of his collections as good and Christian â—â— this foloweth in these vvords Saith not Christ him self Ihon 6. to draw them from that finister confidence that they had in his flesh only My flesh profiteth nothing it is only the spirite that quickens In these few vvords M. B. sheweth 2. or 3. very heretical trickes First in perverting the sense of this question like a Capernaite or Nestorian and drawing it to the flesh only as though vve reasoned of Christs flesh only to be geven in vulgar and grosse maner as the Capernaites imagined or as though we conceived it to be the only flesh of a man separated from the spirite Jivinitie the founteyne of life and so vnable to geve life vvhich vvas the sense and meaning of the Nestorians Next he plaieth an heretical part in geving to Christs words vvhat interpretation and meaning him self pleaseth expounding that of Christs only flesh vvhich the very drift circumstance of the place proveth not to be meant of Christs flesh or any flesh at al but only of fleshly and carnal vnderstanding of Christs spiritual vvords according to a common phrase of scripture For after these vvords The flesh profiteth nothing it foloweth immediatly The wordes that I haue spoken to yow are not flesh but spirite life But there are certaine of yow which beleeve not Therefore did I say to yow that no man can come to me vnles it be geven him of my father VVhich vvordes have this plaine and necessarie coherence My wordes are spirite and spiritually to be vnderstood and so geve they life They are not flesh nor to be vnderstood after a fleshly sort as do these Capernaites For so they are not life They are to be vnderstood comprehended by faith not by sense or reason which faith because yow want and folovv your sense and carnal conceites therefore yovv are offended at them So true that is vvhich I said to yovv that no man can come to me and in this sort eate my flesh except it be geven him of my father except my father draw him and illuminate his vnderstanding For flesh and blud hurnainâ— vvit discourse and intelligeÌ„ce can not reveale these matters but only my father vvhich is in heaven This is a plaine evident and true sense of Christs vvords and thus every part aptly ioyneth iustifieth one another vvhereas if in the first ye take flesh for Christs flesh the spirite for Christs spirite there vvil be made ether no sense or a very hard sense of the vvords folowing as the Christian reader by diligent conference of the place may perceive And thus the auncient fathers interprete the place S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Austin Theophilact and others of vvhich S. Chrysostom to alleage one in steed of many as it vvere of purpose writing against M. B. The flesh profiteth nothing saith he Christ speaketh not this of his flesh Absit God defend we should so thinke but he speaketh of those who vnderstand his words carnally The flesh profiteth nothing is not meant of the flesh it self but of the fleshly vnderstanding And in the same place flesh fleshlynes here is spoken of them vvho make doubt move questioÌ„ Quomodo possit carnem su on nobis dare mandâ—candam Hoâ— Christ cangeve vs his flesh to eateâ— But Christâ— words are spirite and life that is are spiritual conteining no carnali ie or natural consequence in the maner of geving his flesh but are free from al earthly necissitie and the lawes of this life as declaring the true geving and receiving of his flesh to be after a divine mystical supernatural vvay The suÌ„marie sense of it is geven in these vvordes of S. Paule Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus the sensual and carnal man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirite of God for it is foolishnes to him he can not vnderstand them But the spirite of God it is vvhich revealeth them A third heretical part and the same vvorse then ether of these two is that he addeth to Christs vvords thereby most vvickedly corrupteth them Christs vvords are as he telleth vs It is the spirite only that quickens and my flesh profiteth nothing But vvhere hath Christ these words VVhere maketh Christ any such opposition betwene his flesh and the spirite VVhere saith he that it is the spirit only that quickens VVhat impudent sawcines vvickednes is this to thrust in of your owne this particle only and to ioyne it to the spirite thereby to take from Christs flesh al force and vertue of quickening vvhich Christ in this same chapter ascribeth to his fâ—esh most expressely Again VVhere saith Christ my fâ—eâ—â— profiteth nothing vvhat a vvicked and execrable and double iniquitie is this First to say that Christs flesh is vnprosirable and then to father this blasphemous â—â— truth vpon Christ him self Saith not Christ him â—â—â— again and again the cleane contrarie Saith he not a the chapiter by yow noted I am the living bread which came downe from heaven If any man eate of this bread he â—â—â— live for ever and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh â—â—â— I wil give for the life of the world Saith he not in the same place He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud haâ—blâ— everlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day Are â—â— these Christs owne vvords my flesh is meate in deed â—â— my blud is
these places and M. B. his dealing in them is very corrupt and heretical and the sacramentaries vvho vsually care not for a thousand Austins nor a thousand Cyprians vvhen they make against them here make much of one Austin vvhen he seemeth to speake for them especially for that these places are in a maner the only vvhich these men have as very important are obiected by P. Martyr by Bullinger by Beza by Iohn Calvin I vvil briefly set downe in particular vvhat answere Calvins adversarie the Lutherâ—â— Protestant maketh to them Thus vvâ—iteth he The place of S. Austin to Dardanus I expound by very many plaine places of S. Austin wherein he declareth that the body and blud of Christ are geven and received in the sacrameÌ„t And both those many places of S. Austin and this one to Dardaâ—â— I examine and trye by the rule and touchestone of Christs word therefore I hope the indifferent reader wil iudge that I expound S. Austin a right Next he answereth that S. Austin in that epistle to Dardanus as likewise in his third ad Volusâ— axum in his 30 treatise vpon S. Iohn talketh not nor entreateth of the sacrament therefore his words are perversely applied against the real presence therein Against vvhich answere because Calvin stormed as Ioachimus writeth rayled most barbarously he iustifieth it by the authoritie of Philip Melanchton Calvins special frind and a frind of the sacramentaries and so a close favourer at lest no great enemy of M. B. his opinion and vvhom therefore Peter Martyr calleth a fingular incomparable man adorned with al kind of learning vertue VVestphalus words are these Before me even thus wrote that most famous maâ— Philip Melancthon in one litle booke geving thrise warning to the reader that Austin in that 30. treatise vpon S. Ithe where he saith the body of our Lord may be in one place corpus Domini in vno loco esse potest maketh no mention of the Lordes Supper It is a great matter and importeth much to marke in what place vpon what occasion a thing is spoken For we speake otherwise wheÌ„ we talke of any thing by chanâ—e by the way accidentally then when we entreate of it directly and of purpose and our words cary with them one sense in the one place which they do not in the other VVhere by the way let the reader note the intolerable coâ—â—uptioÌ„ of S. Austins words made by M. B. the Calvinists For where S. Austin saith Christs body may wel be in one place M. B. maketh him to say the body of Christ must of necessitie be in out place VVhich differ as much as these two propositions M. B. an heretike a corrupter and falsifâ—er of the fathers and scriptures to as shal appeare may become a Catholikâ—â— and M. B. such an heretike c. must of necessitie be a Catholike Again VVhere S. Austin to Dardanus vvriteth that Christ as man is in heaven and not every vvhere as he is according to his deitie M. B. for his better aduauntage maketh S. Austin to say that Christ it only in heaven and that according to the nature of a true body as though otherwise it vvere no true body vvhich is far from S. Austins vvords and being referred to the sacrament much farther from his meaning And now to retourne to Melanchton he saith further that he can never be persutded that Austin in that place here cited meant so to tye Christ to one place that he could not be in another especially for that the scripture never so teacheth and nothing can be brought to bind Christ to one place besides the iudgement of humane reason In an other place he affirmeth that he had rather suffer present death then say with the Zuinglians that Christs body can be but in one place And the self same is the effect of my answere to the place of Dardanus For Calvin or M. B. sindeth not in al that Epistle or any place of S. Austin that the truth of Christs body or nature is denyed if the veritie of Christs words be credited and his body beleeved to be received in the sacrament S. Austin never saith as Calvin doth that Christs body is only in heaven and not in the sacrament He never denieth the presence of Christs body there Let Calvin or M. B. bring furthâ— so much as one place where S. Austin affirmeth Christs body to be absent from the sacrament whereas we shew many in which S. Austin clearly teacheth and assureth vs that the body and blud of Christ is present is giuen and received there Concerning the last place taken out of S. Austin Epistola 146 that Christ is in heaven as he was in earth as he ascended vvhereof Calvin concludeth as doth M. B. But in eâ—rth and when he ascended he was circumscribed Ergo he iâ— likewise in heauen albeit the right answere be short plaine that these words must needs be vnderstood in respect of the substance only not of other properties and qualities for here he did â—aâ—e drinke sleepe as in heauen he doth not yet VVestphalus enlargeth it som what and iustifieth it by the vvords of S. Austin in the same place and sentence next eusuing and therefore telleth Calvin as I do M. B. that these words are nothing against vs. For we teach not that Christ is in the Eucharist visibly and localy of which forme S. Austin speaketh as appeareth by thâ—â— be citeth the words of the Angel As yow have seene him go in is heaven so shâ—l he come And S. Austin him self interpreteth that particle of similitude sie so of the substance and forme of Christ affirming that the same Christ which then ascended iâ— to heauen shal in the end of the world come to iudge in visible forme And this is a true plaine very sufficient answere to these places of S. Austin and S. Austin never speaketh otherwise if we take his sentence according to the general tenor forme of his writings agreably also to Christs owne words as this Protestant truly testifieth and not by peeces and quillets and snatches as do the sacrameutaries therein so filthely and shamefully as Luther writeth mâ—â—gle him for defense of their venemous heresie as nothing câ—â— be more tam foede contumeliose deformant vâ—â—ihil supra ¶ The text of the Acts yet resteth which as he telleth vs proveth most evidently that Christs body can be but in one place And vvhat are those vvords vvhich prove this so euidently These of S. Peter that heaven must conteyne Christ vntil al things be restored This perhaps proves that Christ must be in heaveÌ„ vntil that tyme but that he can be no vvhere els how is this proued by these words save only in the blind and reprobate sense of a sacramentarie who evermore stumbleth vpon this condusion that vvhen Christ is said to be in oue place he can
vve conclude so from the sense of a vvord in one only place yet because this special place suggested by such a night-doctor vvas so ioyfully accepted by this patriarch of the Sacramentarie heresie and by this place especially the citie of Zurick vvhich first of al long before Geneva openly received and professed this heresie vvas confirmed therein let vs learne of Martin Luther that reuerend father as M. Fox termeth him Zuinglius his coaâ—osâ—le but of greater learning far and for labour and vvriting to â—et forth this gospel triple oâ— quadâ—â—ple more famous then Zuinglius how deeply this argument is to be vvaiphed Luther answereth it many vvays 2. â—â— 3. of vvhich I vvil briefly note that if one serue not for this so doughly an obâ—ection vvhich M. B. so much accounteth of an other may First I may answere saith Luther that Zuinglius M. B. peâ—â—erteth the scripture For Mâ—ses saith not Eate hastely for it signifieth Phase the Lords posseouer but he saith thus Eate hastely for it is the Lords posseouer If Zuinglius M. B. reply that this is the meaning I bid him prove that For it is not plaine that Moyses so meaneth And therefore now he must take a new labour to prove this interpretation of this place in Moyse no lesse then before he was required to prove his like interâ—retatioÌ„ of the words of the Supper Children in scholes are taught to answere such Sophistical obiections with Nego câ—â— equentiam quia est petitio principij His second answere is to the same effect vvich I gave before But because it coÌ„teyneth also a reâ—uâ—ation of M. B. his vvhole argument and carieth vvith it more grauitie and authoritie vvhen it cometh from the mouth or pen of that reverend father â—â— at man of God that fist Evangelisâ— sent from God to illuminate the whole world as our English congregation profesâ—eth I vvil note it also This it is Let vs learne saith Luther to frame the like argumeÌ„t I much doubt I am not able it is so â—â—l of art cunning How be it for once I wil geve the venture And I wil vndertake to prove that Sara or Lia the great mother of many children matâ—iaâ—cha remaâ—ned stil a virgin after her child bearing VVhich I prove thus Luke writeth that Marie brought forth her sonne and remayned a virgin Then necessary it is that Sara and Lia did so is Take an other I wil prove that Pilate was an Apostle of Christ and thus I argue for it Matthew tesâ—ifieth that Peter was an Apostle of Christ Then doubtles Pilate was an Apostle to c. If any â—il answere me that I must prove by plaine scripture the virginitie of Sara and Apostleship of Pilate as I do the like of Marie and Peter is not Zuinglius as wel bound to prove thâ—â— in the wordes of the Supper est is as much as significat Finally the sense of the place alleged he geveth thus VVhen Moyses saith Eate hastely for it is Phase the lords passeouer Zuinglius nor M. B. can never prove that Moyses in that place meaneth the lamb to be the passeouer For the phrase â—â— like to our ordinarie speach when we say Eate flesh for it is sunday drinke water for it is friday Hereof no man can wring out that flesh signifieth sunday or water friday And euen so it is here Eate hastely for it is the Pascha the paschal dry wherein God wrought those benefites for our delivery passing out of Egipt Thus Luther and a great deale more in that place In the end of vvhich discourse after he hath constantly assured vs that the Sacramentaries can never iustifie their tropical exposition of Christs vvords by any â—ound argument and that they bring nothing for them selves in that point praeter frigida commenta monstrosâ— somnia deliranâ—ium but bald devises and monstruous dreames of doting men he vvith indignation breaketh out and exclameth against the devil vvho in the night time vvith so light a toy could seduce Zuinglius and his folowers of Zurick as he doth at this day M. B. and our Scottish and English Sacramentaries Increpet te Deus O Satan Quim acerbe nobis illudis The lord rebuke thee and put thee to silence O Satan How bitterly and scornefully doest thow ride vs vvho vvith such patched and beggerly Sophisines can dravv innumerable sowles to damnation Of contradictions and the Zuinglians impietie in limiting gods omnipotencie The Argument M. B. ignorance in talking of contradictions He denieth that God can alter the order which he hath established in nature or that he can make one body it be without place or in two places whereby he quit destroyeth al scripture old and new and razeth the very principles of Christianitie Other false examples of contradiction Of Christs entring among his disciples the doores being shut VVhich one fact disproueth al the Sacramentaries false Theologie in binding Christs body to the necessitie of a place So doth the fiery fornace of Nabuchodonosor which M. B. ignorantly alleageth for example of a contradiction M. B. shameful and true contradiction to him self about the article of Christs presence That Christ can and can not make his body really present in the Sacrament M. B. again vrgeth that Christs body is to be iudged of and limited according to rules of Phisike VVhich ethnical kind of argument and disputation is fully answered by Luther and VVestphalus Albeit glorification of our bodies maketh them not to lâ—â— in many places yet Christs body is so CHAP. 21. AFTER this to shew a litle subtilitie he falleth in to a dispute vvhich him self vnderstandeth not about contradictioÌ„s taking the ground from a grosse vntruth of his owne thus Now when they Papists are dung out of this â—ortresse that Christs vvords are to be taken properly from vvhence M. B. thinketh he hath dung vs by such sweete and mightie argumeÌ„ts as now vve have heard they flie saith he to Gods omnipotencie and say God may make the body of Christ in heaven and in the bread both at one time Ergo it is so This is the first vntruth and ground of his wicked disputation vvhich ensueth consisting altogether of falshod and ignorance Catholikes make no such scald arguments vvhich prove as vvel every rakehel heretike to be as good as the best Catholike every Turke as good as any Christian black vvhite durt gold fish flesh and vvhat not For God can make of an heretike a Catholike of a Turke a Christian of durt gold and so forth The Catholikes sometimes against the heretiks vvhich deny as doth M. B. Gods omnipetencie to extend thus far prove that God can do it VVhich is not to make arguments that because he can do it therefore he doth it but to refute such blasphemous speeches vvhich detract from God and deny the first article of their Creed that God is omnipotent In answering of this argument vvhich he fathereth on vs albeit he
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
prove that Christ can not be at one tyme iâ— heauen and with his church in earth VVhich if he coâ—â— not he would never so have promised So long as they bring sorth no such scripture to prove this sequele or consequent their impertinent allegation of peeces of the holy scripture proving the antecedent nothing excuseth them but that they ground their faith altogether vpon Aristotles philosophie and Galenes phisicke saith this Protestant The Arians the Donatists the Pelagians ciâ—â—l many sentences of scripture yet can any man deny but they drew their arguments from the dregs of philosophie The Anabaptists in like â—oâ—t against Christs incarnation of his mother a virgin â—uddle vp many places of scripture yet shal â—â— graunt that they fetch their doting opinion from the oracles of holy scripture and not from the ayde of prophane philosophiâ— And thus much for M. B his phisicke or philosophie ¶ The other argument taken from the qualities of a glorified body 1. Cor. 15. 42. M. B. prosecuteth in many pages That to be in many places at once is not by S. Paule assigned as any qualitie of a glorified body and therefore â—t may not chalenge it to Christi albeit glorified This argumeÌ„t Calvin in many places vrgeth and much better especially for that he concludeth by conference of S. Paule in an other place that Christs body can not have such prerogative more then the glorified bodies of other Saints for that as the Apostle vvriteth Christ shal make our bodies like to his owne and therfore if ours can not be in many places nether can Christs To this obiection although many answeres may be made and al true as that God if it so plealed him might make any glorified body in many places at once That Catholikes put not the glorification of Christs body to be the only cause vvhy Christs body is in the sacrament for so the blessed virgin his mothers body should be there also vvhich we beleeve to be in heaven most glorious glorified Christ before he vvas glorified gave the disciples his true body yet not immortal nor glorified though he gave it after an immortal and impassible maner only Catholiks shew by the supernatural excellences of a glorified body that Christs body is not subiect to the base rules of this corruptible life of humane reason and phisical prescription c. yet for brevities sake I vvil content myself vvith that one plain answere vvhich is made to Calvin obiecting the same argument vvhich is this This argument taken from the qualities of a glorified body in Christ and vs proveth nothing lesse then that Christs body can not be geuen in many places Only it proveth that our bodies shal be conformed or made like to the body of Christ in glorie but not in equal glorie That likenes or conformitie is not the cause why our bodies must after the resurrection be in divers places because Christs body is dispensed in diuers places at the ministration of the holy Supper Christ hath primaâ—ie in al things he hath more excellent glorie beyond his felowes His flesh hath this glorie which we want that it is meate geving life eternal Likewise this prerogative of glorie agreeth to his flesh that whereas it is geven for foode of life to the members of his church which are dispersed over the whole world he is present in many places which glorie our flesh lacketh Christs body sitteth advaunced and exalted at Gods right hand The conformitie of our bodies with Christ reacheth not so far that our bodies also shou'd obteyne such place at the right hand of God VVherefore the true answere to his argument is that we shal be like to Christ in conformitie of â—lâ—râ— but not in equalitie VVhich answere a meane Christian might learne of him self vvere he endued vvith a litle faith vvhich teacheth that the body of Christ is the body of God and man a body assumpted in to vnitie of person vvith God vvhich albeit it take nothing from the nature of a true body yet putteth it an infinite difference betwene the excellencie of such a body and the body of any other creature be it never so much glorified A brief confutation of the last tvvo Sermons concerning preparation to receive the sacrament The Argument M. B. straunge vncoherent and contradictorie doctrine especially concerning faith and workes in his last two sermons which is manifested by a number of particular examples Of Christ despayring Faith is not geven only to the elect Once had it may be lost Scripture abused to prove contrarie assertions His more general contradictorie preaching concerning preparation for receiving the sacrament There is no comparison betwene the sacrament and the vvord in this respect of preparation for receiuing ether Vnder pretence of preparing his auditors to worthy receiving by holy life he frameth them to most vnworthy receiuing and with manifest and direct opposition to the Apostle S. Paule setteth them headlong to all filthines iniquitie and securitie in finne geuing tâ—â—m assurance and warrant before hand that they shal never be damned but be saued iâ—â—allibly whatsoeuer their life be CHAP. 22. ANd thus much concerning the veritie and substance of the sacrament vvhich is the principal subiect of the first â— sermons There remayne yet the later 2. apperteyning to preparation requisite in those vvho are to receive the sacrament on vvhich I vvil make no long stay as for other reasons so partly because the argument is different and for some part such as a Christian man may vvel approve Only thus much I thinke good to vvarne the reader of that vvhether it be the vveaknes of the man as perhaps or course and sway of his doctrine vvhich is probable â—nough he here as in other parts of these sermoÌ„s pulleth downe with one haÌ„d as fast as he buildeth vp vvith the other He gainsaieth him self as fully and directly as possibly any his adversarie can vvhile he pretendeth to fâ—ame in his auditory vpright coÌ„science sincere life that they may vvorthely receyue the sacrameÌ„t he setteth them in the broad vvay to al iniquitie al losenes of life presumptuous coÌ„tinuance therein For to prosecute these points a litle how can these instructions stand together Thy affection and action must be examined and tried by the square of Gods law yow must see how far they agree with his law or how they dissent from it This is the rule to know sinne which severs thee from God The God of heaven he can have no societie nor can keepe companie with the sowle which is alwayes vncleane This is true Catholike doctrine delivered every vvhere in the scripture And hereof it foloweth that good men in vvhom God dwelleth are voyd of grosse and mortal sinnes vvhich sever from God and vvith vvhich so long as a man remayneth desiled so long remayneth he deprived of gods holy spirite which thing M. B. by many propositions proveth hereafter
it refuting it in sundry his vvritings by a number of places and examples of scripture calleth it an horrible error of the Anabaptistical sectâ— a Sâ—oical and exeâ—rable disputation Stoica est execrandâ— disputatio he nameth it furorem Antinomorum â—â—â—rious opinion of the Antinomians a sect of Protestants vvho reiected contemned the law by vvhich the vvhole law of God is made frustrate Finally he coÌ„deÌ„neth it as a most filthy heresie repugnaÌ„t to the whole body of scripture froÌ„ the very beginning for beginning at Adam Eva who had the spirit of God lost it by sinne he runneth thorough al the old new testamâ—t by both at large disproveth it to the ending as nothing can be more Thus it sensibly may appeare that this doctrine of M. B. of Calvin the Calvinists is the very bane poison as before of good life so here of true faith namely especially such articles of faith vvhereon good life and holy conuersation is principally builded If leaving these 2. later sermoÌ„s of preparation we shal a litle looke back revew 1 or 2. chapters of the former Seâ—moÌ„s namely such as more directly apperteyne to faith alone coÌ„cerne the priÌ„cipal heads of our beleef Christs incarnatioÌ„ his divinitie his omnipotencie it hath bene plainly declared that this maÌ„s preaching nether meane I as it is his properly alone but according as he draweth it froÌ„ Calvin the CaluiniaÌ„ schole disanulleth his in carnatiâ— denyeth any benefite to have come thereby denieth the omnipotencie of god most Antichristianly disproveth al miracles vvrought by God in the old or new TestameÌ„t by inâ—vitable coÌ„sequeÌ„ce destroyeth the faith of Christs pure nativitie resurrectioÌ„ destroyeth the vnitie of his divine person in two natures Al which depeÌ„de vpoÌ„ such verities as these wicked prophane godles meÌ„ reiect and condemne as being in their new Theologie vnpossible beyond gods reach and abilitie vnpossible I say for him in al his maiestie and omnipotencie to effect performe And vvhat ChristiaÌ„ is there be he not to far gone in the liceÌ„tious course of this new Gospel that is to say be he not in maner a plaine Apostata if he reteyne any sparkes or spoonkes of his old Christianitie vvhen he considereth these issues and sequeles of the Calvâ—nian doctrine vvhat Christian is there I say but he may and ought iustly to stand in horror of such a Gospel and such Gospellers vvho by so plaine and evident coÌ„clusion pul from him al forme and shew of old Christianitie vnder a grosle and impudent pretext of a reformed Gospel wrap him in a Iewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran I meane such a gulf of Paganisme and infidelitie as hath lesse resemblance and affinitie vvith the old auncient Catholike Christian and Apostolike faith then hath an ape vvith a man then copper vvith gold or Mahomets prophets Homar and Halis vvith S. Peter and S. Paule the Apostles of our Saviour Certainly as for that former Calvinian article of faith in the elect never lost and the holy ghost never departing from them in al their sinnes Melancthon vvith many Lutheran Gospellers coÌ„demneth the Calvinian Gospel of extreme impietie as hath bene said so two or three of these other articles defended likewise by the Calvinists and M. B. seeme to other Protestant preachers and vvriters so grosse and inexcusable that Lucas Osiander sonne to Andreas Osiander the first Protestant-Apostle of Prussia in his answere to Sturmius the Caluinist alleageth them for great reasons vvhy every Christian ought to abhorre the Zuinglian doctrine as erring in principal matters of the Christian faith For so are his vvords Nos ZuinglianuÌ„ dogma merito damnamus c. VVe Protestants of the Germane faith profession iustly condemne the Zuinglian religion for that it erreth in maximis rebus ad verae religionis conseruationeÌ„ aeternaÌ„ Ecclesiae saluteÌ„ pertinentibus in most weightie matters such as concerne the preservation of true religion and eternal saluation of the church And forthwith amonge most vveightie errors of the SacrameÌ„taries he reckeneth these 1. The Zuinglian or Caluinian doctrine gainsayeth the words of Christs testament For whereas Christ saith expresly This is my body This is my blud the Zuinglians reprove Christ God and man of a lye affirming the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Supper as is the highest heaven from the earth 2. The Zuinglian doctrine taketh from Christ his omnipotencie and affirmeth that it is vnpossible for God to make a true body to be in many places 3. The Zuinglian doctrine leaveth vs in the Supper nothing but bread and wine bare tokens without the body and blud of Christ and with those biddeth vs confirme our faith For these vvicked assertions or rather horrible blasphemies for so he termeth them this famous Gospeller together vvith a number of Protestant congregations and pastors ioyning vvith him al endued vvith the right Protestant faith and therefore elect as vvel as M. B. and so as sure of Gods favour and assistance of the holy spirit as he do vvil coüseil al men to detest the Calvinian sect for that it maynteyneth so fowle heresies so opposite to Christianitie And if thus they iudge and persuade in respect of 3. or 4. articles maynteyned also in these Sermons by M. B. how much more ought vve to detest the same Calvinian doctrine being able to lay to these few many other as wicked and execrable so many as that vve can make manifest demonstratioÌ„ that a man embracing Caluinisme renounceth in a maner the vvhole body of Christian faith the intier symbole or Creed of the Apostles for that beleeving the Calvinists or this preacher he can not possibly beleeve rightly nether in God omnipotent nor in Christ Iesus his incarnate sonne God man in one person nor his pure natiuitie of his mother a virgin nor the redemption vvrought by him in his flesh nor his descension in to hel nor the Catholike church nor remission of sinnes obteyned in the same nor the resurrection of our bodies to life eternal nor generally any peece of scripture old or new as hath heretofore bene noted incidently and shal hereafter vpon more occasion be layd open and confirmed more abundantly If Protestants vpon so good grounds abhorre Caluinisme as a poison of Christian faith can Catholikes be blamed if they folow the conseil of Protestants and vpon the same and other as substantial grounds detest Caluinisme from vvhich their owne bretherne so earnestly dissuade If Luther that man of God and first father of this Gospel canonized for a Confessor in the English and Scottish Kalenders and sent by God to illuminate the whole world as vvitnesseth the English congregation professe protest that he had rather be torne in pieces or burnt to death a hundred seueral times then to agree in
28. 77. 78. pa. 78. Christs body lesse ioyned to the Scottish sacrameÌ„t then to a vvord pa. 27. 28. Pag. 6. Pag. 1â— Pâ—ag 4. The Scottish signe signifieth vncertainly Before pag. 88. 89. Any picture a better sacrament then the Scottish supper Pag. 11 Pag. â—9 One signification of a picturs Diuers significations of bread and vvine 1. Reg. 20. 24. Ezech. 16. 49. 3. Reg. â—â— 27. Genes â— 1â— Before pag. 11â— 114. The Scottish signe superstuous And ridiculous Pag. â—9 Pag. â—0 Many things signifie Christ aâ— vvel as the Scottish signe Sâ—oâ—â—ish sacraments Levitie ca. â—â— â— 4. â— Christs coÌ„iunction vvith the Scottish signe Pag. 30. Pag. 43. b c d Christ breakâ—s his body in heaven d Pag. â—3 Prophane impretie Matth. â—â— Iean 1. 33. Devout Communions 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 veritatis c. â—â—â—â—â— 4. argument 5. Nonne vinum vesiduum in â—anth â—â—m reinsundâ—re prâ—â—â—buiste Striâ—e for the CoÌ„munion cup Nonne caluiÌ„ vtraque manu â—ortiter â—â—nus Before pa. â—56 c. d. Pap. 10. M. B. contra 〈…〉 other Calusnests See before pa. â—7 Caluin ad â—phâ—s ca. â— v. 20. Zuingl Tom. 2. Comment de vera et falsa religio ca. de sacramentis Musculus in l 〈…〉 communiâ—us â—a de baptisme pa. â—0â— Bullinger De â—â—â— 5. Sermo 7. See the sa 〈…〉 Caluin instâ—â—utâ—â— lib. 4. â—â— â—◠〈◊〉 â—â— M. B. contrarie to al Protestant Theologie Before pa. â—0 â—1 Before pa. 11. â—9 â—25 c pa. 48. Before pa. â—5 pa. â—1 Christ no other vvise receiued in the Sâ—â—â—tish supper â—â—em in any vulgar dinâ—â—r Ephes 5. 20. Before pa. 7â— 79. Christ bettâ—â— received vvith â—ut the supper then vvith â—â— Before pa. 78 79. â—0 c. â—uâ— 2. 3â— Ioan. 1 â— Ioan. 4. 14. ca. 7. 39. Before pa. 1â—◠〈◊〉 lib. â— cap. â— Christ not receiued aâ— al iâ— the Genâ—â—â— Supper Pag. â—â— Pag. â— Calv. Institu lib. 4. ca. 17. num 4. See before pa. â—5 Ievvel Reply contra Hard. artic â— Diâ—iâ—iâ— â—â— pa â—â— M. B. doctrine â—ot uvel sraâ—â—ed Pag. â—5 Pag. â—1 Pag. â—â— M. B. 4. questions Pag 37. 1 2 3 4 Pag. â—â— Pag. â—â— The first question Pag. â—â— â—â—â—â—râ— pag. â—â—â— Manifest contradiction Pag. â—â— Pag. 4â— Sinnâ—â— remitted by man Ioan. â—â— â—â— Creâ—â—â—â—â—lesâ— Catholicaâ—◠〈◊〉 peccatâ—râ—â— Cyprian Augustin Hieron Ambros Chrysost Athanasâ— Basil â—â—lar Paâ—iaâ—â—â— Sinnes remitted by priest in the church Ambros de panitentia lib. 1. ca. â— Ioan. â—0 Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12 â—a 56. Obiection of M. B. Ansvveâ—ed Matth. 9. â— â— Marc. 2. 7. 10. Matth. 2â— 1â— Matth. 16. 19. ca. 18. 18. Ioan. 20. 2â— Ambros lib. 1. de panâ—tiâ— cap. 7. It is to Gods honor that man forgeueth sinnes Ibid. M. B. bad argument Ignorance â—saâ— 11. â— Hebr 9. 11. 15. cap 12. â—4 cap. 10. 16. Heresie Difference betvvene Christs baptisine and S. Iohns Concil Tâ—ideÌ„t Seâ—s 7. ca. 1. Origen Athanas Basil Nazianzen Chrysostom Cyril lib. 2. in Ioan. ca. 57. Tertullian Cyprian Optatus Hilarius Ambros Leo. Gregor Hieronyâ— Augustin Hieron dialog contra lucife riâ—nâ—s August lib. â— contra literas Pâ—tilians ca. 37. Calv. Instituâ— lib 4. ca. 1â— num 7. Grace geuen by the baptisme of Christ Act. ca. 2. 10 â—â— 19. Matth. 3. 1â— Marc. 1. v. 5. â—uc 3. 16 Ioan. 3. 5. Act. 11. 16 ca. 19. 4. See before pâ— 97. 98. Pag. 41. pa. 4â— Before pa. 193. Tâ—e true ansvvere to M. Bâ—sâ—â—st questioÌ„ Christs body geuen by man in the church sacrament Chrysost in â— ad Timoth. â—â— mil. â— The sacrifice of the church is the saâ—â— vvhich Christ offered Ansvvere to M. B. second question Pag. 41. Ansvvere to the third question Matth. â—6 â—6 Marc. 14. 22 Luc. â—2 19. â— Cor. 11. â—4 Ioan. 6. â—â— Christs body receiued really corporally â— Cor. 10. 16 Matth. â—6 27. â—3 Marc. 14. â—â—â—4 Luc. 22. 20. 1. Cor. 11. â—â— Real presence â— Cor. 10. 1â— Chrysostom in â— â—er 10. hom â—4 August Confessio lib. â— â—â— 10. Leo Sermo 6. de â—eiunâ—â—â—â—ptim◠〈◊〉 Before pa. 174. Marc. 14. â—â— Real presence Before pa. 41 Christs vvords vvon 〈◊〉 y expounded Before pa. 46. 47. Pag. 45. M. B. exposition of Christs vvords Calv. Institâ— lib. 4. ca. 17. num â—7 Psal 50. 15. Caluins mad exposition of Christs vvords Christ as present in every repast of Christians as â—â—â—â—e Geneua supper Before cap. 6. 〈◊〉 1. Chap. 7. â— Before cap. â—0 Luc. 6. 45. Caluinian preachers enemies of Christ Matth. â—4 11. 2. Pâ—tâ—â— â— 3. 2. Timoth. â— 5. Philip. â— 1â— M. B. very vnconstant in his doctrine Ecclesiastâ—â—s â—7 v. 1â— Esai â—7 2â— Before chap. 3 Chap. 6. Chap. 7. Chap. â— Before pa. 14. Pag. 45. 4â—â— Tertul. â—â— Apologeâ— ca. â—â— M. B. Paradox Pag. 46. Before pag. 7â— 79. Christ not possess dâ—ett â— by the bread then by the vvord M. B. paradox refuted by al Calâ—iâ—â—sts Before pa. 78 79. 80. Pag. â—1 32. Before pa. â—74 Before pa. â—3 Before pag. 177. â—â—â— 200. Rom. â— â—â— Hebr. 4. 1â— M. B. vvithout al reason preferreth the Geneus signe before Gods vvord Before pag â—â—4 M. B. reâ—uted by him self Zuingl Tom. â— responsio ad Confesâ—io Lutheri fol. 477 Before pag. 105. 106. 87. 88. 185. 186. 189. Pag. 47. Before cap. 4 num â— The doctrine of seales borovved fron the corrupt maners of meÌ„ Calvin prâ—lectiâ— in Daniel cap. 11. fol. 1â—â— Pâ—â—â— sunt per fidia â—â—lâ—â— câ— fraâ—dâ—â—â—s Faith nothing bettered by â—hâ—se Seales Before pag. 176. 177. 178. 179. Pag. 44. Sermo 3. pag. 132. VVhat vvord â—â— necessarie to to make the Sacrament Ibid. pa. 133. Ibi pa. 136. 137. Hovv the minister must preach this vvord The ministers good opinion of their ovvne vvords Iâ—vv Râ—pliâ— centra Hard. Artic. 1 Diâ—isâ—o 1. pag. 19. Bulâ—inger decâ—â—â—â—â— Sermo â— Calvin Institutio lib. 4. â—â— 17. num 15. Colv. Institutio â—â—â— â— ca. â— 7 num 15. Before pag. 51. 52. No vertue in the vvord of Christ â—ut much in â—â—e vvord of a minister A Sermen no vvays necessarie to make a Sacrament Chap. 5. num 3. Ioan. ca. 14. 15. 16. 17. Before pa. 5â— Of the vvord preached vvhich is the vse of the Scoâ—tish Signe â— VVigandus dâ— boâ—â—s et malâ— Germania mal 6. Vide Surium in Chronico Anno. 1566 Arch. HamiltoÌ„ in Demonstrat Calviniara Confusio lib. 2. ca. â—â—â— Pag. 6. Pag. 136. Calv. Institutio lib. 4. â—a 14. num 4. Clara vâ—ce Pag. 1â—â— The Scottish Supâ—â—â—â— sacrament of â— Christ Before pag. 200. The English clergy against the Scottish VVhitegist do sense of the ansvvere tracta â— pa. 565. Ibi. pa. â—66 M. B. preaching 〈◊〉 â—nabaptistical Ibi. pa. â—â—6 M. B. preaching Anabaptistical Ibi. pa. 568. Before pag. 115. 197. 198. Christs Sacrament had no such vvord as hath the Scottish 1 Many baptismes voyd for vvant of Sermons The. Câ—â—t iâ— his 2. Râ—pliâ— pa. 164. Idem in his first Replie pa 110. T. Cart vbisâ— pra pa. 127.
Calvinists Aâ—irâ—istâ— They deny the resurrection Villagagnon de 〈…〉 ist contra M◠〈…〉 Cal. in p 〈…〉 lib. â— et in Epistola ad Magistratum Gene â—â—nâ—em Ibid. â—â— cap. 71. Defenâ—iâ— 3. Ioan. Pâ—ppâ— coÌ„tra D. IoaÌ„ Stâ—rmiuÌ„ pa. â—04 anno â—580 The Calvinists Creed â—bi pa. 105. Pag 119. Pag. â—â—â— M. B. streyneth the texâ— against Christ Pag. â—â—â— Pag. 128. Marc. â—a â— 5. 6. VVhat faith vvas in tâ—â—m vvhom Christ healed Matth. 9. â—â— Matth. â— 2. â— 3. Marc. 1. 40. Ibi. 9. â—â— Matth. 9. 2 â— Marc. â— â—â— â—uâ— 8. 47. â—â—sore pag. 303. 304. c. Impious collictio against Christ Corporal touching of Christ profteth Marc. 5. â—â— Marc. 5. â—â— Corporal touching of Christ proiteth Marc. â— 40. Matth. 8. 3. Luâ— 5. â—3 Mat 20. 30. Ibi. v. 34. Pag. 328. Marc. â— â—0 Luc. 6. 1â— Marc. 6. 56. Pag. 2â—â— Pag. 12â— Christ corporal â—â—â—â—â—ing 〈…〉 profitable yea vvithout â—aith Mat. 8. â—5 Rom. â—0 â—7 Marc. 7. â—â— â—5 Luc. 7. 14. Matth. 6. 2â— Luc. 8. 54. Loc. 2â— 51. Real presencâ— of Christ in â—â—â—â— B. â—â—craâ—unt Chrysostom in Mattâ— homil 51. Cyril in Ioan â—â—b 40 ca. 14. Vntruthes grosse and manifest 1 Pag. 114. Pag. 1â—4 2 â—â—l 1. 4. 2. Cor 1. 1â— Coloss 1. â—0 3 Ignorance Before pag. 258. 259. 4 Pag. 135. Pag. 138. Pag. 139. 5 Pag. 1â—6 6 Pag 14â— Of pronouncing â—â—â— vvords of coÌ„secration See before pa. 151. 152. 153. 154. Pag. 137. See before pa. â—16 22â— â—â—â— The real presenâ—â— ever beleeved in al Christâ—ndâ—â— Clemenâ— Constitutio Apostolic lib. â— cap. 17. Ambrosâ—â—e sacram lib. 4. ca. 5. â—â— De â—â— qu◠〈…〉 myst cap. 9. Lâ—â— de 〈◊〉 7. mensis Sermo 6. Vide bibâ—â—â—â—â— caâ—â— sanctorum Patrum Tom. 4. â—â— initio Bessarion lâ—b de Eucharistia â—â— veâ—â—â— consecratiâ— Mâ—ssâ— â—â—â—â— Canon vniversalâ— Tom. 4. Bibliothecâ— pag. 1â—1 Christ gâ—â—â— thankes blessed and sanctified the bread Râ—â—l presâ—â—â—â— Real presâ—â—â—â— Vntruthes no 〈…〉 Before pag. 49 50. 51. Before pag. 41. 42. Plâ—nius natur â—â—stâ—r lib. 2â— ca. â— 7 Pag. 145. Vntrutheâ—â—â—torious M. B. argument Pag. 146. Arc. Hamâ—â—â— Câ—lv CoÌ„suâ—iâ— Demonstratiâ—â—â— 2. â—â— 34. pag. â—5â— Arch. Haâ—â— vâ—i supra lib. 2. cap. 4â— pag. â—â—◠〈…〉 M. B. orgument ansvvered by him self â— 147. Pag. 11. Pag. 147. VVhat vertue is in the vvords of câ—â— secration Pag. 147. Luth. Defensio vâ—râ—orum cana se 397 Christs body at one tyme present in heaven and in the SacrameÌ„t Chrysost de Sacerdotâ—â— lâ— â— Basilâ— in Liturgia Ambros in Psal â—8 Aug. apud Peâ—â—â— in 1. Corint ca. 10 Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 17 Luther Zuinglius Protestants Martyr Bullinger Beza Calvin against Protestants Brentius Heshusius Illyricus VVestphalus Pag. 148. Ibid. M. B. obicetions Ansâ—â—â—â— Qualities necessarie to human bodies Bind not Christs body Plato de Reâ—ub dialog 2. Cicero dâ— oâ—â—icijâ— lib. â— â—rassmuâ— in Adâ—gijâ— Victoria in â—â—â—ct 1â— de 〈…〉 6. Vid. Nâ—â—iaÌ„â—â—â— in Monodâ—a â—â— Oratâ—â— 2 〈…〉 ij Pag. 149. a a c c â— m m Pag. 150. Ansvverâ— to the places of S. Austin VVhetaker against â—aynâ—l cap. 3. Calvin in vltima Admoâ—â—tio â—â— Institutio lib. 4. ca 17 num 24. 2â— a n VVostphalus in Apologia contra Calv. pag. â—15 c â— â—â—yâ—hica 〈…〉 deâ—ac chatâ—â— Martyr conâ—ra Gardiner dâ— Eucharisâ—â—â— partâ— 4. pag. 70â— VVestphalut â—â—â— supra pa. â—â—â— 8. Austin corrupted by the Calviniâ—â—â— Potest Oportet Vâ—i supra pa. 217. Melanâ—thou condemneth the Câ—lviniâ—â—â— Ibi. pa. â—â—â— â—â—â—â—5 â—â— pag. 2â—9 Sic in visibilt forma Ibâ— S. Austin foâ—â—â—ly corrupted by the Cavinists Luther Tom. 7. Definsio Verboâ—um Cana c. fol. 405. Pro sua veneâ—â—ta har â— m S. Peters vvords corrupted by the Calvâ—nâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 155â— â—â—â— 1561. Calv. against M. B. Calvin in Act. ca. 3. v. â—â— Illyric in Aâ— Apost â—a â— 2â— Pag. â—â—â— Calv. â—â—â—â—itu â—â—b 4. ca. 17. 〈◊〉 â—9 Aâ— argumeÌ„t of M. B â—â—â—r◠〈◊〉 Cap. of the ministers Pag. â—â—â— pag. â—â—â— Maâ—â—â— â—â— Maâ—â— â—â— Lâ—â— â—â— Iâ—â—â— â— â— Câ—â— â—â— M. B. argument Pag. â—â—â— Ansvvered By Luther Luther Tom. 7. Defensio Verbâ—ruâ—â—â—aâ—a c. â—ol â—94 Luther â—bid â—ol â—â—â— Calv. against M. B. Calv. Insâ—â—â— lâ—â— â— â—â— 16. num â—â— Ephâ—s â— 2â— Philip. â— â— Ephes 4. â—â— Act. â— â—â— â— â—â— Hâ—br â— â—â— M. B. argument Before pag. â—47 Ansvvered by Calvin M. B. argument Calv. Institâ— lib. 4. ca. 17. num 26. in Admonitio vltima ad VVestphalum Ioan. 16. â—8 Other arguments ansvvered Ioan. 14. â—6 Ioan. 17. 11. Luc. 24. 44. VVâ—stphalus vbi supra pa. 27â— 27â— Matth. 2â— Ioan. 14. Hovv Christ is not in the vvorld Mat. 26. 11. Mat. 26. Luc. 7. Ioan. 1â— 2. Cor. â— â—6 VVestphalus vbi supr pag. 274. â— ArgumeÌ„t pa. 153. Ansvvere â— ArgumeÌ„t Ansvveres many Before pag. 264. 165. â—6â— c. â— Substance of bread not necessarie to the sacrament Num. 21. 9. Ioan. 3. 14. 3 4 5 1. Cor. 10. 17. August in IoaÌ„ tract 26 Cypr. lib. 1. epist 6. â—â—â—â—â—â—â— 6 M Bâ—â—rgâ—meÌ„t ansvvered by the coÌ„sistorie of Geneva Before pag. â—9 60. Geneva communions vvithout bread â—â— vvine Beza in epist Theolog. â—â— â—â—â—â— â— 3. ArgumeÌ„t pag. 154. See before ca. 1. â—â— ca. â— num â— 4 pag. 155. Before pag. 40. â—â—â— â—34 3 Lib. â— contra aduersdâ—gâ— propâ—â—â— 1. Cor. 11. Memorie of Christs death siâ—â—â—â—th vvil vvitâ— his râ—al presence Aug. contra Fausâ—â—â— Manich lib. 20 ca. 1â— Real sacrifice of the church Hovv it is â—â—â—â—ible to â—ate Christs flesh Cypâ— dâ— cana August tractat â—7 in â—â—an in psal 9â— de ver bis Apostols Sâ—rmo 2. Cyâ—il mystagâ—g oratio 4. Real presâ—â—â—â— Cyâ—â—â— apud S. Them â—â— Lâ—â— â—â— Ambros dâ— sacrâ—m lib. 4. ca. 4. Tâ—eophila in Maâ—â— 14 in Matt. 26. August â—â— 2. ca. 9. contra aduersaâ— legis prophet Fidâ—li corde â—â—â—re Christ â—â—â—â—â—ved corporâ—â—â— Before pag. â—â—2 Fideli corde â—re Aug. â—pâ—st â—â—â— â—â— 6. Aug. contra â— austum lib. â—3 â—â— â—â— â—â— pag. 156 A sacrameÌ„tal speech D. Thom. part â— quest 60. artic 7. Before pag. pag. 120. M. B. il argument to prove Christs vvords tropical Pag. 1â—6 â—57 a a c c l l m m n n Difference betvvene Christ vvords and those other pa. 40. 1â—â— 124. Ioan â— Cyril Caâ—tâ—â— 4. mysâ—agâ—g de Euâ—harist Real prosâ—â—â— Examination of M. B. exaÌ„ples in particular a Gen. 17. 11. Mat. 20. 27. â— â—â— Matth. 20. â— 2â— Christs vvords corrupted by the Caluinists Beza in Matth. ca. â—â— v. â—â— m Christs blud in the 〈◊〉 Beza ibid. Luc. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vâ—p Hic est calix qui pro vâ—biâ— eâ—â—â—nditur Christâ— blud the nevv 〈◊〉 Matth. 26. Marc. 14. n Hovv the rock vvas Christ 1. Cor. 10. 4. The Caluinists knovv not vvhat iâ— mâ—ant by the rock literally Calv Instituâ—â— 4. ca. 17. num â—1 2â— Calv. in 1. Corinth ca. 10 v. 4. Bez in â—â—â—deâ—â— lecum Num. ca. â—1 v. 5. 16. 17.