not be in an other vvhich is their only fantastical imagination not S. Peters or any good mans asseâ—tion And vvhat if I deny that S. Peter ever spake these vvords ot S. Luke ever wrote them but that they are vvords spoâ—en and writen by M. B. or some fanâ—â—ical brother of his sect Tâ—uly in our Testament I find them not nether in the English Latin noâ— Greeke In the English Testament autoâ—ized in the English Church vnder king Edwarde S. Peters words are these Iesus Christ which must receive heâ—ven vntil the time that al things be restored In the Testament printed vvith special privilege and appointed to be read in the churches in the beginning of the Queenes M. that now reigneth it is even so Christ Iesus which must receive heaven vntil the tyme that al things be restored If yow reply that Beza translateth it othervvise yow must vnderstand that Beza hath no authoritie to make scripture For this is no translating but a new forging and making And Bezaes rashnes is so much the more reproveable for that Bezaes maister Iohn Calvin distiketh it VVho alâ—eit as favouring your opinion say that the vvord of S. Peter may beare such a sense as yow after Beza geue yet he confesseth the word to be indifferent to the other sense vvhich those English testaments render The maner of speach here vsed saith Calvin is doubtful For we may vnderstand it that Christ is conteyned in heauen or els that he conteyneth and holdeth the heauen VVherefore he vvilleth his scholers not to make stay sorupulously vpon one word which may be taken in a double signification And therefore yow are the more to blame vvho make so great stay and artest vpon it and say that it proves most evidently Christs body to be in a certaine place and that vvith such restraint as being in that one certaine place it can not be in any other For so your self describe define your certaine place And if yow vvil take the paynes to reade the glose of M. Flacius Illyâ—icus vvho for advauncing this new gospel hath vvâ—â—tren as much as lightly any Protestant of this age vpon this place he vvil tel yow that the vvordes and sense vvhich yow and Beza geve are quit opposite and contrarie to S. Peters meaning For vvhereas S. Peters purpose is to preach to the Iewes the glorie and power the maiestie and omnipotencie of Christ thus to fasten him to one place that he may not be in an other is rather to note in him a vveakenes and imbecillitie So writeth â—llyricus To say Christ is conteyned of the heauen in such sort as after Beza M. B. doth is against the sâ—â—pe of the Apostle and should â—et foâ—â—b 〈…〉 the insirmitie then the power and glorie of Christ For so of Angels yea of devils it may be sâ—â—d that they â—â—â— râ—â—eived and conteined in heauen because the word Culum heaven somtime in the scripture signifieth the â—yer So that this place of the Acts being in deed not so much taken oâ—â— of the Acts of the Apostles as out of the acts and coâ—â—â—ptions of Theodore Beza an Apostata or some such loâ—â— companion proveth no vvavâ—s Christs body to be conteyned in one onâ—y place so far of is it from prouing iâ— most evidently as M. B. oueâ—reacheth ¶ The last reason â—aith M. B is this Every humane bâ—ly is visible and palpable Therefore Christs is so This proposition I prove by Christs owne words Luc. 24. 39. VVhere to prove the veritie of his body he vseth this argument taken from these two qualities visible and palpable as if he would say If I be visible and palpable ye may be out of doubt that I â—â—â—e a true body For as the Poet saith which Tertullian cites to this purpose Tangere enim tâ—ngi nisi corpus nulla potestres Of this he concludeth that this doctrine of Christs real presence in the sacrament may no wayes stand with the veritie of Christs body This last argument albeit as the rest so this also be made by Calvin yet is it much vâ—eaker then the rest Our sauiours reason to prove the veritie of his body and that he vvas not a spirite is good and forcible For that vvhat soever is visible and palpable is questionles a bodie therefore this vvas a very sufficient probation able to put the Apostles out of doubt that he had a true body and a true bodie it vvas vvhich he shewed them But whereas M. B. argueth not as our sauiour did affiâ—â—â—tively to proue a body but negatively to denie a bodie his argumeÌ„t is vveake and our saviours vvords do no vvayes iustisie it nor yet Tertullian nor any vvise maâ— ether For to exemplifie in the like If I make this argument Such a one A. B. is a Minister and preacheth heresie ergo vvithout al doubt he is an heretike This argument is good taken from 2. qualities of a right heretike to be a Minister and to preach heresie But yet if M. B. vvil turne it to the negative and say such a one is no minister nether preacheth heresie ergo he is no heretike this argument is false and M. B. him self vvil disprove it for that I am sure he vvil confesse many lay men and vvomen are heretikes vvho yet are no Ministers nor have their lawful vocation by the congregation as in the Scottish communion booke to preach heresie ¶ His second mayne principle by vvhich he doth refute Christs presence in the sacrament is for that it repugâ—es directly against the articles of our beleef How so For in our beleef vve professe that Christ ascended out of this earth into heauen where he fits at the right hand of the father whence he shal come in the last day to iudge the world This in deed is our beloef But how repugâ—es this directly to the presence of Christ in the sacrament For that here we see that Christ hath â—â—eeted his dwelling which he had among vs here in the 〈◊〉 He is ascended in to the heavens where he â—â—ts at the right hand of god and shal remayne there according to the testimonie of S. Peter which I cited out of the Acts vnto the last day Let this stand for good as we deny it not that Christ is ascended that he sits in glorie that there he shal remayne and thence he shal come to iudge vvhat is the argument taken from any of these parcels vvhich is able so directly to overthrow an other article of Christian faith the true presence of Christ in the sacrament though not specially expressed in the Creed yet in the new Testament expressed more specially then some principal articles of the Creed The argument is this If he sit at the fathers right hand and be to remayne in heaven til the last day as S. Peter sa is that he is coÌ„teyned in the heavens vnto the last day then is he not corporally in the
private then publike of private miserie rather then publike charitie because everie man devoured vp his ovvne supper and gaue no part to his poore neighbour vvho had brought nothing But Dominica caena the supper of our Lord vvho is charitie it self the supper of charitie should be common to al. In an other place he called this supper coÌ„mune praudiuÌ„ a coÌ„mon feast For examining the coherence of the Apostles vvords he obiecteth to him self hovv to vvhat purpose the Apostle bringeth in the storie of Christs Institution of the b. sacrament v. 23. Qualis est haec consequentia what maner of sequele is this saith S. Chrysostom Thow hast hitherto disputed of a common feast or banquet and doest thow new come in with Christs sacraments VVhich question he ansvvereth very vvel as also doth the learned Greeke doctor Theodoretus in his coÌ„mentaries vpon this same place that he brought in the storie of Christs sacrament for examples sake docens eos facere communes mensas in ecclesiâ—s ad sacram illam mensam respicientes teaching that it vvel became them to make their church feasts common to the poore by regarde and consideration of Christs holy table that seing he vvithout respect or choise or such distinguishing betwene rich poore indiffereÌ„tly gaue to al his ovvne most pictious body aud blud it might wel become them vvith like equalitie and indifferency â—o coÌ„municate their earthly and fleshly bankets And thus much is after a sort confessed both by Calvin and Beza though they yet cal the sacrament by the name of the Lordes supper For Calvin graunteth that as among the Iewes and also Gentils it was a custome to accompanie their sacrifices made in the honour of god with frindly banquets amoÌ„g themselues so the first Christians brought the same fashion of banquetting in to the church and called them agapas charities or feastes of charitie vsed them vvith the administration of this sacrament VVhich after grovving to an abuse the Apostle seeketh here to amend And Beza vvriteth that the first Christians were wont to minister the holy supper of the Lord amonge these feastes which were called agapae vvhich in an other place he calleth sacra coÌ„viâ—is sacra ecclesiae conviuia and fraterna ecclesiastici caetus câ—nvivia holy feasts holy church feasts and brotherly banquets of the ecclesiastical congregation among vvhich feastes that the supper of the lord vvas also ministred it may appeare saith Beza by S. Paule 1 Cor. 11. where he goeth al out to correct that custom which was many ways corrupted VVhich being so that S. Paule here goeth about to correct that abuse then must needs those vvords vvhich go before the institution of Christ beginning after versu 23 be vnderstood of such church feasts so abused and then dominicae caena can not apperteyne to the sacrament vvhich after is brought in thereby to correct that custom and abuse of our Lords supper vvhich is expressed before as sovvly corrupted And the vvords of them selues if they be taken as S. Paule vvrote them the old Translation expresseth them and not as they are peruerted in the Geneva translation and examined vvith indifferent iudgement can beare no other sense For these vvords VVhen yow meete together this is not to eate our lords supper for that every one preventeth and falleth to his owne private supper and one is a hungred another is drunke can haue no other proper natural resolution then this vvhen yow meete together that vvhich yovv eate is not that publike ecclesiastical brotherly supper of charitie of god of Christ and his church vvhich should be common to al the societie of Christians but it is a private peculiar supper voyd of al charitie brotherly loue vvhere one devoureth al an other hath nothing one hath to much and is drunke vvith abundance vvhen many other poore Christians stand by get never a morsel of bread or draught of drinke This is the true sense of the place of S. Paule of this vvord vsed in that only place no vvhere els in the scriptures this sense both Beza and Caluin geve after those auncient doctors And therefore M. B. hath litle reason to cal the sacrament the lordes supper by this authoritie And if the compilers of the Scottish Publike prayer booke had no other reason but this they might as vvel haue called their sacrament as our Enghish do by the name of CoÌ„munion which cometh somwhat neerer to S. Paules phrase then this of the Lords supper vvhich is not so probable to be S. Paules meaning Albeit nether is that vvord Communion truly to speake geuen to the sacrameÌ„t ether by Apostle or Evangelist in al the scripture For as the lordes supper so the Communion in the scripture never signifieth as Beza also noteth communion in the sacrament but in civil offices of loue and charitie in imparting our goods and substance as mony cloth meate and drinke to our brethern vvhich need so is it takeÌ„ Rom. 1â— 26. 2. Cor. 9. 13. Hebr. 13. 16. Pro sacris vero mysterijs nusquaâ— legi in novo testamento absolute positum hoc nomen CoÌ„munionis But â—â—ne ver read in the new testament that the word CoÌ„munion put absolutely signified the holy mysteries saith Beza And if it be not found in the nevv testament I suppose it is not found in the old and so nether the English in calling their signe a Communion nor the Scottish in terming theirs the Lords supper folow the word of the Lord but ether their owne vvord or the vvord of some man vvhom they make lesse account of then of them selues ¶ The other name our lordes table is in deed referred to this sacrament But vvhereas M. B. after Caluin argueth from that vvord that because it is a table not an altar therefore vve should sit at it not stand we should take and receiue not offer and propine these arguments are such as become ministers to make For first of al the vvord table in the scripture is indifferent for a table an altar as appeareth continually in the old testament in description of the tabernacle first and Salomous temple after vvhere there vvere tables mensae not for the priests and their vvives to sit at but for the priests alone to stand at to do things apperteyning to sacrifice And the prophete Malachie in one verse both according to the Hebrevv Greeke and Latin calleth it mensam Domini also altare Domini the table of god and the altar of god signifying an altar or place to offer sacrifice on by ether vvord indifferently And the Prophete Esay rebuketh the Iewes for that they forsaking our lord erected a table mensam to fortune and offered sacrifice on it VVhich the English Bibles both of king Edwards time this present time translate ye haue set vp an altar vnto the false goddesse the vvord Mensa according to the most common vse
only such as be of naughtie life but also of evil and heretical faith if they be not plain Apostataes Of the Calvinists special iustifying faith by which last refuge as al Catholikes be excluded from their spiritual communicatioÌ„ of Christ so yet other most detestable heretikes thereby receiue Christ as wel as the Calvinists And their doctrine of special faith the very roote of dissolute life plainely directly concludeth against M. B. that in their supper the worst Calvinists receiue Christ as wel as the best CHAP. 15. THe next matter not handled before is a couple of arguments vvhich M. B. obiecteth as in the behalf of Catholikes for the real presence The first is this The Apostle saith He that eates of this bread vnworthely is guiltie of the body and blud of Christ There iâ— their ground VVhereof they frame this argument No man can be guiltie of that thing which be â—â—â— not received Evil men receiue not the body of Christ Therefore they can not be guiltie of it This is the argument as he maketh it His answere to this as likewise to the next is out of Calvin thus First I say the first proposition is very false For they may be guiltie of that same body and that same blud suppose they never received it But take heed to the text The text saith not that hey eate the body of Christ but that they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely And yet because they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely they are counted before God guiltie of the body and blud of Christ not because they received him for Christ can not be received of any man bâ—â— worthely but because they refused him For when they did eate that bread and drinke that wine they might if they â—ad had faith eaten and drunken the flesh and blud of Christ Nâ—â— because thow refusest the body of Christ offered vnto thee thâ—â— contemnes it and so art guiltie of it In this answere whereas M. B. wisheth the reader or hearer to take heede to the text so do I to so shal he find M. B. to be as right a minister that is to say as right a falsifyer of the text as are coÌ„monly his felow ministers For where findeth he in the text except it be a false corrupted text that such men eate that bread and drinke that wine vnvvorthely Certainely not in any text of S. Paule For thus stand the words even as I find them translated by Beza and Calvin Therefore who so ever shal eate of this bread and drinke of this cup vnworthely shal be guiltie of the Lords body and blud But let every one proue him selfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh damnation to him self for that he discerneth not the Lords body These are the words of the Apostle and thus are they translated by Calvin Beza And novv take as good heed as yow can to the text VVhere find ye that evil men eate bread drinke wine VVhat godles dealing is this to wil your auditour to take heed to the text then your self to abuse the holy scripture to corrupt the text coosen your auditor or reader most vvhen most yow pretend honestie simplicitie vvil him to take heed to the text And let not the reader suppose that the corruption is smale or of no great moment For it is vile grosse and in this place so heretical that he had bene as good to have made a text of his owne as to have made the Apostle thus to speake For the Apostles vvords are divinely exactly set downe and Apostolically expresse the real presence For in naming this bread in vrging and repeating that bread vvhich in greeke is significantly put and declareth a singular bread he meaneth that bread of God which came from heaven that bread which geueth life that body vvhich in the old testament sometimes and in the Gospels oft times in one chapter of S. Iohn a dosoÌ„ times at lest is called bread vvhich bread our saviour him self assureth vs to be his flesh which was to be geven for the life and salvation of the world In naming the cup or that cup vvhich is Christs owne vvord and vvhich vvord being common to any thing conteyned in the cup be it the blud of the new testament which was shed for vs be it wine be it water be it ale or beer or any maner drinke to al vvhich the vvord cup may vvel agree our saviour restreyneth to the blud of the new testament shed for remission of sinnes and so restreyneth that it can not be referred to wine or any other thing S. Paule most assuredly meaneth the same and so in the one and other truly describeth the Catholike faith of the church Against vvhich M. B. telling vs that the Apostle saith such evil men eate that bread and drinke that wine most vvickedly by thrusting in his wine redueeth the vvord bread to a vulgar base signification because talking of bread and wine no man can conceive othervvise vvhereas the vvord bread being in scripture common to al foode vvhereby man liveth and the vvord cuppe being in his kind as large and general doth not signifie nether that our vulgar kind of bread nor this wine more then it signifieth flesh and ale or fish and vvater and being o 〈…〉 self indifferent other places of the scripture necessarily determine it to one certain more high and divine signification as hath bene declared Now vvhereas M. B. maketh a discourse that a man may be guiltie of a thing vvhich he receiveth not which no vvise man doubteth of and so a man may be guilty of Christs body and blud vvhich yet is not eaten oâ— drunken ether corporally or spiritually vvhich is a plaine case for Pagans and persecutors are guilty of Christian blud vvhich vniustly they shed though yeâ— they drinke it not and Pilate Herode Caiphas and the Ievves vvhich crucified Christ vvere guiltie of his death of â—ath body vvhich they eate nether vvay nether as Catholiks nor as Protestants al this is labour spent in vaine and talke to no purpose VVe argue not vpon vvords of condemnation or guiltines in general but vpon the vvords as they are put in the Apostle and ioyned vvith other vvords of his so they clearly prove a real presence and M. B. his interpretation is maledicta glâ—ssa a cursed glose and exposition because it is cleane not besides but against the text For saith M. B. the fault of these men vvhom S. Paule reproveth is because they eate not that divine bread nor drinke that diuine cup S. Paule saith their fault is because they do eate it and drinke it M. B. putteth the indignitie and vnworthines in refusing not receiving it S. Paule in receiving it not refusing For they do receiue eate it but
Caluinisme And here to the vntruths afore told ye adde one other that vve acknowlege not this speach of Christ hoc est corpus meum to be a sacramental speech For so vve acknowlege it now and so did in the church before yow or any of your sectmaisters vvere borne as by vvhich vvords the sacrament vvas first made instituted by which it is at this present made conseciated and there is no Catholike vvriter scholemaÌ„ or other but he coÌ„sesseth these vvords to be properly sacramental as vvhich import the nature of this sacrameÌ„t most essentially If by the vvoid sacramental yow meane tropical figurative significative as appeareth by that vvhich after ensueth then as I vvish the reader stil to remember your double dealing iugling vvho as ashamed of your owne doctrine stil hide and cover your self vvith this ambiguoâ—s phrase vvhich in the beginning and after yow condemne as inuented by the foly of man against the wisdâ—â— of God so vve vtterly deny that these vvords of Christ are to be taken tropically or figuratively require yow once to geve vs a Theological proofe thereof And thâ—â— yow vndertake here and performe it in this sort For they are compelled say yow wil they nil they in otâ—â— speeches of like sort to acknowledge a figure as Genes 17. 10. Circumcision is called the covenant that is a figure of the covenant and Exod. 12. 11. the lamb is called the passeoâ—er and Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called his blud and Luc. 11. 20. the cup is called the new testament and 1. Cor. 10. 4. the rock is called Christ Al these speeches are sacramental that is figurative and tropical receiues a kind of interpretation yet they malitiously deny it in these words Hoc est corpus meaÌ„ which they are compelled to graunt in the rest especially where S. Paule cals Christ the rock This argument is to the purpose For if yow can prove these words of Christ to be taken tropically then yow directly refel that vvhich the Catholikes beleeve both in general touching the sacrament and in special touching these vvords vvhich as we beleeve to be sacramental as hath bene said so vve vtterly deny to be figurative ortropical and affirme them to be taken literally as the vvords signifie and therefore this your argument to the contrarie is to be examined a litle more diligently And first of al I must tel yow that vvhere yow say these speeches vvhich here yow recite are of like sort vvith that of Christ this is one grosse falsitie to begin vvithal Then vvhere yow say we are compelled to acknowledge a figure in them as one vvay it is true so in the sense vvhich yow meane it is false That al these are not of one sort vvith Christs vvordes nor any one of them as yow take them it is euident to the eye For vvhen vve say circumcision is the covenant a lamb is the passeover the cup that is as yow meane it the material câ—p vvhich Christ held in his hand is Christs blud the same cup is the new testameÌ„t the rock that is a hard stone is Christ in al these propositions one divers and cleane different nature is attributed to an other vvhich if vve take literally as the vvordes lye includeth a contradiction and the later distroyeth the former as much as if a man vvould say black is vvhite for in so saying he saith black is not blacke For in like maner the material rocke can not be Christ because a creature can not be the creator the cup of earth â—in silver or gold can not be the blud of God or man for so could it not be a material cup vvhose nature substance essence is so cleane different that vvho so saith this is blud he denieth it to be gold or silver and vvho affirmeth it to be siluer of neceâ—siâ—ie in that affirmation includeth the contrary negation that it is not blud And therefore al such parabolical speaches vvhereof the scripture is ful and M. B. might have found many more as good as these by the very force of the vvords and meaning of the first speaker and consent of al hearers conteyne a figure and require so to be expounded a number vvhereof Zuinglius and Oecolampadius heaped together in the beginning of this heresie to prove that vvhich M. B. entendeth If Christ had said of material bread or vvine This wine is my blud This bread is my body then I confesse the speaches of Christ and those alleged by M. B. had bene of like sort But Christ spake far otherwise as is manifest by that vvhich hath bene declared before And the plaine sense of Christs speech caÌ„ not be better conceiued then if vve confer them to his doing at the mariage-feast in Cana of Galilee if vvhen he had caused the vvater pots to be filled and presented to the steward he had said hâ—c est vinum this is wine VVhich example I alleage the rather for that S. Cyril the auncient bisshop of Ierusalem applieth it to like purpose In Canâ— of Galilee saith he Christ turned water in to wine And haâ— not we thinke him worthy of credite that he â—â—â—uâ—geth wine in to his blud cum ipse tâ—m asseuerâ—â—â—r diuerit when as he so â—râ—cisely and peremptorily hath said that it is his bluâ— As likewise when he hath pronounced of that bread being consecrate This is my body who can ever doubt of it So that these speaches be of like sort This vvateâ— turned and altered is vvine This bread consecrated is my body This vvine consecrated is my blud Or els of the first This is wine of the second This is my body of the third This is my blud vvhich are Christs owne vvords though the sense of that â—iâ—st and this second be al one ¶ Now if from this general vve shal descend to particulars and examine every one of these examples a part vve shal much more discouer the povertie of this minister and note the infinite inequalitie betwene most of these speaches and that of Christs That circumcision was a figure of the couenaÌ„t vve interprete so both for the reason now geuen and also because the scripture expresly so teacheth But the scripture nether â—aith bread or vvine is Christs body and blud nor yet that bread is the signe of the one or vvine a signe of the other That the lamb is called the passeouer is a text of Zuinglius wicked making and M. B. his foolish imitating For in the place quoted there is no such matter vvhereof I shal more conueniently speake by and by Nether find I that in S. Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called Christs blud Al that I find in that place is this He that wil be first among yow shal be your seruant even as the sonne of man is not come to be ministred vnto but to minister and to geve his life a redemption for
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
tranquillitie of his realme as in the storie hereof set forth by them selues at large appeareth Which iudgemeÌ„t of that king their notorious sauage and barbarous behauiour in many countries of Europe hath since that time continually more and more verified and the writings of the ministers for defense of their opinions which daily they invent hath much more abundantly iustified whereof this smale booke geveth also some proofe demoÌ„stration In publishing whereof vnder your Maiesties name if any man shal reproove me as bold presumptuous for my excuse laying aside the examples of most auncient fathers whose footesteps herein I haue folowed if former reasons satisfie not I appeale to your clemencie for pardon protesting before God that the cause which hath moued me hereunto next vnto his honour defence of the truth is my faithful dutyful and seruiceable hart to your Maiestie to whom I wish as large dominion and ample monarchie as ever had any king of that Iland for whom I pray that with them and aboue them yow may be victorious in warre fortunate in peace amiable to your subiects dreadful to your enemies that it may please our Lord to heape vpon yow your posteritie al blessings spiritual and temporal that finally hauing gouerned your subiects in such quietnes pretie godlines and rule of faith in which your worthy predecessors haue lead yow the way yow may at length with them to your eternal ioy felicitie render vnto God a comfortable accompt for the great charge which he hath committed to your hands Which that your Maiestie may happily persourme with al honour prosperous successe according to my bounden dutie I shal not cease continually to pray Your Maiesties Most bounden Orator and humble seruant VVilliam Reinolde A table of the chapiters Chap. I. The Catholike and Apostolike faith concerning the Sacrament pag. 1. Chap. II. Of Berengarius heresie renewed in this age pag. 36. Chap. III. Of Calvin and the Calvinists opinion concerning the Sacrament pag. 67. Chap. IIII. Of the vvord SACRAMENT and the Calvinists definition thereof pag. 117. Chap. V. The Scottish Supper compared vvith Christs Institution pag. 145. Chap. VI. Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 163. Chap. VII Of Christs body no vvayes ioyned nor deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 172. Chap. VIII A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter pag. 191. Chap. IX Comparison of the Sacramental signe vvith the word pag. â—07 Chap. X. Of the VVORD necessarily required to make a sacrament pag. 215. Chap. XI M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ pag. 233. Chap. XII Of names attributed to the Sacrament pag. 243. Chap. XIII Of the ends for which the sacrameÌ„t vvas ordeyned pag. 259. Chap. XIIII Of vertue remayning in the sacrament reserved of private Communions pag. 276. Chap. XV. That evil men receive Christs body pag. 287. Chap. XVI Of tuitching Christ corporally and spiritually pag. 309. Chap. XVII Manifest falsities vntruthes against the Catholike faith pag. 333. Chap. XVIII ArgumeÌ„ts against the real presence answered pa. 342. Chap. XIX Other arguments against the real presence answered pag. 357. Chap. XX. Answere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically pag. 366. Chap. XXI Of contradictions and the Zuinglians impietie in limiting Gods omnipotencie pag. 379. Chap. XXII A brief confutation of the last two Sermons concerning preparation to receive the Sacrament pag. 398. The Conclusion The conclusion conteyning certain general reasons vvhy the Calvinian Gospel now preached in Scotland can not be accounted the Gospel of Christ pag. 429. This is the summe and effect of the chapiters in general Ech one of vvhich in his place is divided in to several parts and braunches by considering vvhereof the reader may forthvvith perceive the particular discourse and matter of the vvhole chapiter ensuing A NOTE FOR THE READER WHEREAS M. Bruces SermoÌ„s are printed without any figures distinguishing ether page or leafe which no booke lightly omitteth I haue good reader for plain dealing the more easy notifying to others that which I cite out of him added figures to ech page beginning the first next after the Epistle dedicatorie so coÌ„tinuing on by pages 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. vntil the end of his booke which is page 296. Thus much I thought good to warne thee of that if thow please to see his words in his owne booke thow maist with so much the more facilitie find them THE CATHOLIKE AND APOSTOLIKE FAITH CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT The Argument Christ at his last supper instituted both a Sacrament also a sacrifice consisting in the true real presence of his pretious body blud This is proued partly by graunt of the aduersaries who confesse Christ in that supper to haue made his new testament partly by particular examining the nature of a testament and conferring the new testament with the old The same is proued by the Paschal lamb which was a figure as the aduersaries also graunt of Christs Sacrament finished in the same therefore this must needs be a sacrifice as that was according to the plaine scriptures al auncient fathers The same is most clearly proued by the sacrifice of Melchisedech which albeit most Protestants reiect withall reiect the whole primitiue Church of Christians as also the auncient synagogue of the lewes both which church sâ—nagogue confessed the same yet some acknowledge it thereof is the holy sacrifice real presence briefly inferred The same faith was reterned practised by the first primitiue church in the time of the Apostles The same faith was continued in all Christendom from tâ—e Apostles tyme without any great trouble or contradiction the first thousand yeres as appeareth by consent of the fathers general Councels stories of the church Berengarius the first notorious father of the sacrameÌ„tarie heresie conuinced by learning condemned in sundrie Councels gathered out of al Christendom abiured his owne wicked invention died penitent therefore from whose time to this age the Catholike faith hath bene clearly acknowledged and mainteyned by al Christians both in the Latin Church also in the Greeke Berengarius when he was a sacramentarie he was also a damnable heretike euen by the Protestants iudgement for sundry other heresies besides this So were all they which since Berengarius haue taught this heresie as Peter de Bruis the Albigenses Almaricus and Ihon VViâ—lef a pernicious heretike flatterer who yet recanâ—ed his heresies twise or thrise is condemned for an heretike by the Protestants Out of the premisse is gathered a generall sure rule the same confirmed by manifest scriptures to know an heresie to proue that Berengarius his opinion al that folow him is heretical And the summe of this chapiter touching the principal contents thereof is concluded with the authoritie of Erasmus a
man much extolled by the aduersaries THE FIRST CHAPITER BEFORE I come to examine the particular points of error false doctrine contayned in these sermons I thinke it convenient first in a chapter or two to declare the true Catholike faith concerning this sacrament as it hath alwaies bene receaued and acknowledged in the church of Christ and withal historically to note when an in what sort the Zuinglian heresie that I 〈…〉 which at this present beaâ—eth greatest sway among the Protestants of England Scotland for the Protestant coÌ„gregations preachers of Germanie from the beginning of this schisme in Martin Luthers time vntil this present day condemne it for heresie no lesse then do the Catholiks at some tymes endeuored to put forth it self but hath evermore bene repressed by the pastors of Christs church vntil this present age wherein faith decayng Christian beleefe being in many men for many points measured by carnal reason vpon such ground ether of prophane infidelitie or great decrease of faith the true beleef of this sacrament hath amongst many other necessarie articles fayled in the harts of a number ¶ Our sauiour Christ therefore when at the tyme of his passion he was to finish consummate the worke for which he was incarnate that is to redeeme mankynd abrogate the old law begin the new into this to transfer the sacrifices and priesthod of that former as the Apostle Paule teacheth vs in his last supper for a perpetual memorie of that high and infinite sacrifice offered on the crosse which was the persite absolute redemptioÌ„ and consummation of al the ful price and raunsom for al sinnes done or to be done from the first creation of the world vntil the last ending of the same to continue I say a perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice to ordeine the true vvorship of god in the nevv lavv or testament which worship in euerie law consisteth principally of sacrifice to leaue his people a peculier meane whereby that infinite vertue grace procured by the sacrifice on the crosse might be in particular diuided applied to them in his last supper instituted this sacrifice sacrament of the altar as comonly among Catholique Christians it is called the sacrifice sacrament of his owne most pretious body blud a sacrifice for that it is offered to the honor of god for the benefite of christian people in coÌ„memoration of Christ his sacrifice once done and now past as al the old sacrifices of the law of nature Moses were offered for the benefite of that people in prefiguration of the same sacrifice of Christ then to come a sacrament for that it was also ordeyned to be receiued of Christians in particular to feed our bodies to resurrection immortalitie to geue grace vertue sanctification to oursewles This to be the true sense meaning of our Sauiour in this institution and that principally especially concerning the sacrifice for the sacrament is more euident confessed by the more learned of our aduersaries it shal be proued plainly hereafter is sufficiently expressed in the wordes of our Sauiour vvhich according to the recital of al the Evangelists S. Paul yeld plainly this sense For when Christ nameth his body broken or geuen for vs which is al one as if he termed it sacrificed for vs his blud of the new testament shed there in the supper mystically for vs for remission of synnes these words as truly import a sacrifice as any words which the holie scripture vseth to expresse the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse especially those words of S. Paul Corpus quod frangitur the body which is broken most properly directly are to be referred to the body of Christ as in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread in which it novv is then was truly brokeÌ„ so it was not on the crosse as S. IhoÌ„ specially recordeth VVhe â—of S. Chrysostom writeth very liuinelâ— expounding this same word Hoc in Eucharistia vi lere liceâ— in cruce autem minime c. This we see done in the sacrament but not on the crosse For there ye shal not breake anâ— bone of him saith the Euangelist Iohn â—â— But that which on the crosse he suffered not that he suffereth in the sacrifice for thy sake o man is content to be broken And so this word being by S. Paâ—le incuitably verified of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t draweth by like necessitie al the rest both touching the body and blud therevnto although al the rest are also most truly spokeÌ„ of the same body of Christ as geuen for vs on the crosse which no ways impayreth but rather much streÌ„gtheneth the veritie real presence of the same body in the sacrament VVhich sense is yet more clearly necessarely confirmed if we coÌ„ferre these words of Christ vsed in delyuering the chalice of the new law with the vvords of Moses vsed in sprinkling the blud of gotes calues which was appointed by gods ordinance to ratifie establish the covenant betwene god and his people the synagoge of the Iewes in the old lavv For as then Moses gathering that blud in to some standing peece or cup sprinkled the people therevvith saying This is the blud of this old testament which god hath made with you euen to our Saâ—iour ordayning this new testament most euidently making relation to those former vvords of Moses and transferring them to his new ordinance vvhen he deliuered the chalice to his Apostles in them to the vniuersal Catholike church said This is the blud of the new testament as that vvas of the old this here conteyned in the chalice is the selfe same which is to be shed for yow as that was sprinkled vpon the Iewes VVhere S. Luke referring these later vvords shed for yow to that vvhich vvas conteyned in the chalice meâ—utably convinceth that vvhich was in the chalice to haue bene the very real blud of Christ as truly as that vvas his real blud which the next day vvas shed on the crosse as truly as that was real blud with vvhich the people vvere sprinkled in the old testameÌ„t in steed of vvhich blud this is succeded the truth in place of the figure as witnesseth S. Leo S. Austin S. Chrysostom other most auncient fathers All vvhich proue not only the real presence of Christs most pretious body blud but also that it is present by way of a sacrifice as in order to be sacrificed ¶ My intent is not to make any long discourses of this matter vvhich hath bene so learnedly treated dy diuers excellent men of our Iland within our memorie that I gladly confesse my selfe vnable to adde any thing to their labours Yet because this point of Christs testament is the ground of al and for denying the real presence of Christs blud in the sacrameÌ„t the Lutheran Protestants theÌ„ selues charge the
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
condemned them as appeareth by these vvords of his reâ—ocation set dovvne in M. Fox I desyre my lord god of pardon and forgeuenes And now againe â—s before also I do reuoke and make retractation most humbly submitting my self vnder the correction of our holy mother the church c. the yere 1377. After vvhich time he made yet againe an other reuocation the yere 138â— as in the same author appeareth Albeit al this notvvithstanding M. Fox reciteth as a verie great argument of the gospel that VViclefs sect increased priuily and daily grew to greater force truly so great that they made traiterous conspiracies against the king him self as is recorded in the Acts of Parlament and common stories and in part â—auntingly noted by M. Fox vvho vvriteth that king Henry â— decreed most cruel punishement against such as should hereafter solow VViclefâ— doctrine against whom he held a Parlament at Leâ—ester the which peraduenture saith theâ— had noâ— bene so wel holden at London because of the fauourers of the Lord Cobham and other VViclefs solovvers But to returne to my purpose of VViclef and to end his storie although most Protestant vvriters as I haue said recken him for one of their chief most reuerend Apostles namely M. Fox vvho placâ—th him in redd letters first in his Calender Ihon wiclef preacher martyr though he dyed in his bed searce an honest man yet some other ProtestaÌ„t vvriters there are of a more sincere vpright iudgement vvho for the reasons aboâ—e noted recken him as he deserued in the number of ranke heretikes Amongest vvhom Ioachimus Vadianus of Zurich a right Zuinglian vvriteth of him that albeit he saw somwhat in matter of the gospel yet in nounullâ—s foe le lapâ—us est in sundry points of religion he vvas fowly ouerseen much more geuen to scoâ—fing prating then became a sober Diuiâ—e And Pantaleon a sacramentarie likevvise in his Chronologie accounteth him for an heretike as he doth also his scholer Ihon Husse though canonized by M Fox for a martir as likevvise he is in the Scottish Calender of vvhom he saith further that by vvarrant of that great Apostle Martin Luther that quibusdam bonis multa pestifera admiscuit amongest a few good things he mingled a number of wicked pestiferous And these are the principal vvhich since Berengarius time haue bene publishers of the Zuinglian faith touching Christ not present in the sacrament ¶ Out of al vvhich before I conclude this chapiter one general infallible rule I vvil sett dovvne coÌ„monly geuen by al Diuines to proue any sect or opinion heretical and the rule is that VVhensoeuer there ariseth any preaching or doctrine in the church to the Christian people nevv and straunge and vvhich the Pastors and Bishops of the church reproue and disallovv as false such preaching doctrine certainly is heretical This proposition is iustified by the vniuersal tenor and drift of the vvhole testament old nevv in al places vvhere it entreateth of the Catholike church of the nevv Testament for so much as of that church it vvas of old prophecied by Christ performed that it should be put in possession of al truth and by the meanes of Bishops Prelates and Pastors held in the same truth by vertue of the holy ghost and continued vvithout error vntil the end of the vvorld The knovvledge of truth in this Church shal be abundant as the waters of the sea God shal be therein a perpetual teacher God shal make vvith that church such an eternal couenant that the truth once deliuered to it shal be continued from one to an other from seed to seed from generation to generation for euer so long as the vvorld endureth god shal set vpon the vvals of this church right true vigilant pastors and vvatchmen which neuer at any time day nor night shal cease from preaching the truth Thus the prophetes foretold For performance of vvhich Christ promised to be vvith them for euer al daies vntil the end of the world He promised them the holy ghost the spirit of truth to abide with them and their successors for euer to teach them and leade them in to al truth vvhich spirite he sent at the time appointed in the day of Pentecost finally for this purpose before his departure out of this vvorld he placed in his church Apostles prophetes pastors doctors to rule gouerne maynteine preserue in truth that his church so dearly purchased vvith his blud vntil his second comming to iudgement Thus much for the profe of this first proposition Ioyne thereto for a second But the doctrine of BereÌ„garius vvas nevv and strange to Christian people and condemned generally by al Bishops and Pastors then liuing in vnitie of Christs church ouer the vvhole face of Christendome The proofe of this is gathered out of al historiographers liuing about those tymes and out of the practise of the church For as before is noted a number of Councels some general many particular vvere essembled against it and condemned it at Rome at Vercellis at Tours in Italie in France in Germanie and other parts of Christendome as the Histories record Berengario illiuâ— temporis Theologi bellum omnes indixere The Diuines of that time euery one bad warre and defiance to Berengarius so soone as be durst publish his new opinion of the Eucharist Here of the conclusion folovveth plaine and most assured that Berengarius opinion vvas heretical therefore the contrary that is the Catholike opinion vvhich holdeth against Berengarius is the true doctrine of Christ and his Apostles deliuered by theÌ„ to the church in the church conserued and continued in al ages in al times in al Catholike countries and realmes vntil our age VVherefore to end the argument of this chapiter vvithal to stoppe the vvrangling of certain English Diuines vvho more like Grammarians and sophisters then vvise or learned men very childishly thinke to auoid vvhat so euer is alleaged for Christs presence in the Sacrament by conâ—erring together certaine vvords and phrases by vvhich kind of Diuinitie they may and some of their brethern do inferre Christs presence on the crosse to be tropical and figuratiue no lesse then in the sacrament to proue I say that the church and al auncient fathers according to the scriptures vvrote and meant as I haue before declared I vvil shut vp this matter vvith Erasmus vvords vvherein also I vvil comprise the summe in a maner of al that hitherto hath bene declared vvhose authoritie I vse the rather for that the Protestants somtimes much extolle him as a great profound Diuine deepely seene in the Fathers and no enemy to their side to vvhom among others the chief proctor of the English church M. Ievvel yeldeth such high praise as that he calleth him a man of famous memorie whose name for learning and
iudgement hath at al times among the learned bene much esteemed with whom the Catholike writers D. Allen Cardinal D. Harding D. Sanders D. Stapleton c. vvhom he termeth the yonge Louâ—nian Clergy may not wel compare in the profound knowledge of the Doctors without blushing VVherefore this man so wel esteemed among the learned of so profound knowledge in the Doctors concerning this matter vvriteth thus Protesting his ovvne faith vz that he had rather be drawen in peeces then to become of Berengarius opinion and thinke of the sacrament as the Zuinglians do that he vvold rather susteine al miserie then to defile his conscience vvith so fowle a sinne therein depart out of this life the reasons of this his constant persuasion thus he yeldeth I could neuer be induced to beleeue otherwise then that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament for that the writings of the gospel Apostles expresse so plainly The body which is geuen The blud which is shed for that this thing so wonderful wel agreeth with the infinite loue of God towards mankind that whom he redeemed with the body and blud of his sonne those after an inexplicable maner he should also feed with the body blud of the same his sonne and by this secrete presence of him at is were with a sure pawne or pledge comfort them vntil he shal returne manifest and glorious in the sight of al. Thus for the scriptures the gospels and S. Paule and the cleare euidence of this faith touching the sacrament vttered by them vvhich vvas to him as he vvriteth an vnmoueable foundation to ground vpon Novv for the auncient fathers Councels of the church thus he procedeth Seing then we haue so manifest warrant from Christ and S. Paule whereas besides it is most evidently proued that the auncient writers vnto whom not without cause the church yeldeth so great credit beleeued with one consent that in the Eucharist is the true substance of Christs body blud whereas vnto al this is ioyned the constant authoritie of Councels and so great consent of Christian people let vs also be of the same mynd concerning this heauenly misterie and let vs in a darke sort feed of that bread and cup of our lord vntil we come to eate and drinke it after another sort in the kingdome of God And I wish with al my hart that they who haue folowed Berengarius in his error wold also folow him in his repentance Thus Erasmus a man of profound knowledge in the auncient Doctors vvith vvhom if the yonge Doctors of the Catholike Clergie may not wel compare without blushing much lesse may the yonge scholers preachers of the Scottish and English congregations vvho for sound learning substance of Diuinitie so long as they liue I suppose vvil not be vvorthy to carie the books after those former And therefore being content that on both sides such great peerles authoritie be geuen to Erasmê° as M. Ievvel chalengeth for him thereof I coÌ„clude that the auncient fathers according to the plaine scriptures alvvaies thought and taught that in the holy Eucharist is the substance of Christs body and blud that a Christian man vvere better to suffer any torment and most cruel kind of death then to be of an other opinion And vvith Erasmus I vvish and our Lord of his mercy graunt that those of our poore Iland both English and Scottish who haue folowed Berengarius in his impudent error for so Erasmus termeth it may also foloâ— him in his repentance execration of the same impudent error whereunto Erasmus persuadeth them OF BERENGARIVS HERESIE RENEVVED IN THIS AGE The Argument Luther is to be accompted in some sort the very original ground and cause of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our time But more precisely directly Carolostadius a wicked man and very familiar with the devil and altogether possessed of him To whom succeded Zuinglius and after him Oecolampadi agreing with Carolostadius in substance of denying Christs presence but differing in particular interpretation of Christs words touching the institution of the sacrament Diuers other interpretations of Christs words one against an other al which are iustified by Zuinglius for that they al concurre to remoue from the sacrament the real presence and establish in steed thereof a mere priuatiue absence As the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine in the primitiue church attribute the real presence of Christ in the sacrament to the vertue force of Christs words vsed in the consecration so the Sacramentaries by a contrarie opinioÌ„ account such consecration magical and therefore remoue the words of Christ teaching their Sacrament to be made as wel without them as with them Examples of the sacramentarie Communion practised without the words of Christ by the Protestants of England Scotland Zuizzerland and els where which they both by their practise writing iustifie as a very ful and perfite communion The resolution of the church of Geneua that the supper may be ministred in any kind of meate drinke as wel as in bread and wyne VVhereof is inferred that according to the Protestant doctrine that 2. or 3. Euangelical gossips meeting together to refresh them selues eating such vitails as they bring with them haue as true perfite a Communion as the Sacramentaries haue any both touching matter forme also a lawful Minister which ministerie or priesthod euen to preach minister their sacraments the Protestant-gospel alloweth to wemen no lesse then to men CHAP. 2. HAuing novv declared the truth of the Catholike beleef touching the blessed sacrament hovv the faith thereof vvas continued from the first primitiue church of Christ and his Apostles vvith very smale gainsaying in the first thousand yeres somvvhat more in the next 500 vntil the time of our fathers vvherein Luther certaine other vvith him began that vvhich novv is called the Gospel by the Protestants but an vniuersal gulph of heresie and Apostasie by Catholiks it resteth that I plainly sett forth hovv that heresie of Berengarius novv maynteyned in England Scotland began first vvhen Luther broched this nevv Gospel ¶ The original hereof is to be referred to Luther him self noâ— only in general for that he brake al order discipline of the church refusing the obedience vvhich by Christs ovvne precise ordinance vvas due vnto it the gouernors thereof so gaue free libertie by his ovvne craÌ„ple by vvriting arguing disputing to interpret the scripture as ech man listed vvithout regard to antiquitie vniuersalitie consent of al Christendom besides of al fathers Bishops auncient Councels vvhich example and behauiour vvas in general the cause and founteyne of al heresie Apostasie and Atheisme vvhich from such contempt self liking arrogancie must needs arise as vve see by experience but also in special the first origin and spring of this Berengarian
heresie in our age is to be attributed to him partly because by his doctrine he abolished that vvhich in this dreadful mysterie is principal that is to say the sacrifice and vvorship due to god performed therein vvhich is euer most necessary in euery religion and by vvanting vvhereof the prophetes Apostles and holy Doctors vse to describe and expresse a godles and irreligious a prophane Atheistical or Antichristian state of people partly because he protested that him self vvas maruelous desirous to haue also denied the real presence thereby the more to spite and greene the Pope if so be he could vvith any probabilitie ether haue framed the vvords of Christ spoken at his last supper to that part also of the Berengarian heresie or haue induced his ovvne conscience to thinke such a symbolical presence and real absence of Christs flesh from the sacrameÌ„t euer to haue bene entended by Christ vvhereof thus him self vvriteth in the 7. Tome of his vvorks as they are set out by Melancâ—hon in an epistle sent to certaine of his scholers Lutherus Ecclesiastes euangelista VVittembergensis Christianis Argentinae c. Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo c. Luther the preacher and Euangelist of VVittemberg to the Christians of Strasou g. Thus much I nether can nor wil denie that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeres ago could haue perswaded me that in the sacrament was nothing els but bread and wine without Christs real presence he truly had bound me vnto him and I wold haue accepted that as a very great benefite For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruelous paynes and streyned euery veyne of body and sowle to haue ridde and dispatched my self thereof because I saw ful wel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my self taken fast that there is no way to escape For the text of the gospel is to cleare forcible which can not easely be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by words gloses deuised by giddy braynes Thus Luther after he had by sundry vvritings and persvvasions vvhere he bare any svvay taken avvay the sacrifice shevving him selfs as forvvard to haue abolished in like maner the sacrament vvhich except it haue the true presence of Christ is no sacrament of his institution consequently no sacrament aâ—al saue that the vvords vvhereby Christ ordeyned the same stoode against him so strong and pregnant that he could deuise no shift to auoyd them VVhich conclusion and confession of Luther albeit to mer of reason conscience it should more haue confirmed established the truth of Christs real presence in the sacrament seing Christs vvords vvere so strong and mightie that they compelled enforced as it vvere against his vvil this mortal enemy of Christs church to graunt that vvhich othervvise he most gladly vvold haue denyed yet in that lose and dissolute time vvhen euerie man by Luthers example tooke libertie to deuise vpon the scripture as Luther had done these very vvords of Luther gaue great occasion to his felovves and compartners to inuent some farther sovvler shiftes to put that in practise vvhich Luther vvold ful fayne but hauing as then some remorse of conscience regard to Christs vvords durst not ¶ For vvhich cause Carolostadius a companion then of Luther Archdeacon of VVittemberg of vvhich citie Luther calleth him self preacher Euangelist folovving Luthers example of framing the sense of scripture after his ovvne priuate spirite and considering better Luthers ground rule of interpretation vvhich vvas so to interprete as he might most endamage the Papacie church Catholike vvent a litle farther and deuised a vvay hovv to defeate those vvords vttered by our Sauiour vvhich so hampered entangled Luther that he could no vvay rid him self from the power manifest clearnes of them His way vvas not to expound them of the sacrament vvhich Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of his visible person sitting at the table as though Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must dye for yow al this my body is it which must suffer on the crosse for your redemption And this iuterpretation Carolostadius instified by diuers reasons which Zuinglius reherseth whereof these be the principal First for that the Prophetes foretolde that Christs body was that which was to be crucified so that looke hovv many testimonies and places may be gathered out of al scripture old and nevv to proue Christs passion so many could Carolostadius heape to approue this his exposition A second vvas that Christ here vsed a sodayne Apostrophe and turning away of the word This from the bread to his body as he did likewise in the words Thou art Peter a rocke vpon this rocke I wild buyld my church VVhere the first rocke after the Protestants iudgement is spoken of Peter the second is sodainly turned avvay from Peter to Christs person His third reason more probable then al the other vvas for that whereas Christ toke bread in to his hands and before had spoken of the bread in the masculin gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sodenly he changeth it in to the neuter gendre hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVhich reason as it somevvhat maketh for Carolostadiê° bad conceyte so it quit ouerthrovveth the common and general exposition of al other Sacramentaries vvho altogether take this for their sure ground that Christ said This bread is my body VVhich as it is most false so Carolostadius their great father and patriarch refelleth it by Christs manifest vvords vvhich possibly can not admit such construction as Carolostadius truly teacheth them vvhereof more shal be spokeÌ„ hereafter For the present it may suffise vs that vve knovv Carolostadius sentence and peruersion of Christs vvords vvhich consisted in this that he chaunged and altered the first syllable hoc This in to Hic here Hoc est corpus meum Here is my body or as Sleidan the Protestant Historiographer reporteth the matter his interpretation vvas Hic sedet corpus meum Here sitteth my body Certain bretherne saith Musculus meaning Carolosiadius vvith his sectaries refer the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This not to the bread but to the very body of Christ as though turning his finger to him self Christ had sayd This body which here yow see before yow shal be geuen for yow Before I proceed farther to shevv hovv this Berengarian infidelitie multiplied I thinke it conuenieÌ„t for that this man is the very roote founder of it in this our age to describe briefly out of autentical and assured vvitnesses such as the Protestants can no vvay refuse vvhat maner of man this Carolostadius vvas that as before I shevved al the patrones of this heresie from Berengarius to haue bene most vvicked men detestable heretiks so vve may note hovv this man perfectly resembleth those
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
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
by like reason any baptisme vsed in the law were but â—gâ—â—â—â—ue in waâ—er alone yet the baptisme of Christ brought with it the holy ghost it gaue remission of synneâ— and therefore to there that were otherwiâ—e faithful beleeuing beâ—â—â—â—s their faith and beleef baptisme was neâ—eâ—â—aâ—â— for remission of their sâ—nnes eternal life For which cause it is called the holy ghosts lauer or font of regeneration and râ—â—â—uation By iâ— the word of life we aâ—â—cle â—nâ—ed from synne and siued as 〈…〉 â—â—uly as Neâ— and his â—aâ—â—â—lâ—e was sauâ—â— by the Arke and water supporting it in the time of the vniuersal deluge Al which promises and testimonies so plaine and preguant other to 〈…〉 as Calâ—â—â— Zuinghus Musculus and others do with flat denyal that by vertue of baptisme any such matter as grace remission is bestowed on vs or to elude by interpreting al thâ—â— to be spoken only for that baptisme is a signe or marke to â—estife the Lords wil vnto vs is to make a â—est of al scâ—â—pture nothing being so cleare but in this â—ort and with this audacitie may be shifted of or els to expound al these teâ—ts so that nothing be leaft singular to the new testament aboue the old this is plainly to disgrace and deface Christ with his new testament This is to match Moyses with Christ the servaÌ„t with his maâ—ster quit to destroy this new testameÌ„t whose essence coÌ„â—isteth in this differeth from that for that the old law coÌ„teyned shodowes signes prefigurations the grace veritie whereof was fulfilled in Christ Iesus That was a law of secuitude because it found meÌ„ sinners left the in then sinne occasionally encreased heaped synne vpon synne by no meanes of the lavy deliuered men from the burden of synne and therefore is called a TestameÌ„t in the letter which killeth not in the spirite which geueth â—â—fe the ministerie of death damnation because for the â—â—â—son a sore said it was a greater cause of death damâ—â—ion where as this is the law of freedom lâ—l ertie especialy for that it setteth men free from their sinnes hath old naâ—â—e meanes to abolish sinnes when they are committed and to pouregrace into men whereby they may absteyne from committing sinne and therefore is called a nevv Testament in the spirite which geueth life not in the letter which killeth the ministerie of the Spirite and iustice because it maketh men iust holy by conferring grace in her sacrifice and sacraments vvhereas in those other of the lavv was nothing els but a perpetual commemeratioÌ„ of synne once committed without forgeuing putting away or abolishing the same Al which difference the Apostle sammatilie compriseth when as comparing these two Testaments together he coÌ„cludeth that the nevv Testament standeth and is grounded on better promises then the old which out of the prophete Ieremie he noteth to be these In the new testament I wil geue my lawes into theirs mynds and in their hart wil I write them and not in tables of stone as before and I wil be mercyful to their iniquities and their synnes I wil not new remember which in the old testament vvere neuer forgotten but by the very sorme of then seruice remembred perpetually ¶ But to dravv to a conclusion of that vvhich I purpose that is to make plaine and manifest the true nature of the Eucharist after Caluins faith and the faith of such congregations as are erected grounded vpon his Apostolical ministerie and vvithal to demonstrate where to this gospel tendeth that is to a very abnegation of Christianisme establishing in place thereof Iudaisme or some worser thing let vs in this principal mysterie coÌ„sider wel hovv they forsaking Christ and his Apostles forsaking the Apostolical primitiue church of al fathers martyrs the beleef vse of this SacrameÌ„t practised amongest them haue taken their Supper from the Ievves from a Iewish ceremonie vsed amongest the Ievves before Christs coming It is recorded by good historiographers that Berengarius was thought to haue bene instructed in this point of his insidelitiâ— â—y a certain Iew and that al his argument vvhich he made against the truth of Christs presence in the sacrament vvere borowed and taken from Iosephus Albo a Iew a capital enemie of Christian name and religion For that Iew chap. 2â— of his 3 oration which he wrote concerning the points of Moyses law vâ—â—ereâ—h the self same arguments against the Eucharist which afterwards Berengarius his sectaries cast forth Eadem omnino dicit que BereÌ„garius se tatores eâ—uâ— pâ—stea vomueruÌ„t Beza out of Emanuel Tremell us the Ievv telleth that among the Iewes it vvas a custome yerely vvhen they did â—ate their paschal lamb vvithal to ioyne a ceremonial eating of bread and drinking of vvine in this sort The good maÌ„n of the house in the beginning of supper taketh an vnleauened loaf which he diuiâ—eth in two parts and blesseth the one with these words Blessed art thow O lord our god king of al things which out of the earth doest bring forth bread The other part of the loaf â—e â—â—uereth with a napkin and reserueth Then â—al they to their supper merily which being ended the good man taketh out that part of bread which was couered and sitting downe eateth so much as is the quantitie of an oliue distributeth the like to al that sit with him in memorie of their passe ouer Then sitting stil in like order he drinketh and saith the ordinarie grace c. This Ievvish ceremonie I make choise of to compare vvith the Caluinian Supper principally for that both in matter and forme al circumstances it resembleth the Calâ—inian deuise most aptly but partly also that vvithal I may shevv to the reader the incredible â—rovvardnes and peruersitie of Caluin and Beza vvho vvhen they haue equalled al sacraments and ceremonies of the lavv vvith those of the gospel yet forsooth for honour of their ovvne inuention can not abide to haue their peeuish supper called a Ievvish ceremouie or coÌ„pared vvith any such vvhereaâ— Caluin stoâ—meth maruelously Beza in the place before quoted vvheÌ„ he hath likened the one to the other very diligently in fine as though he bare some special reuerence to his ovvne supper addeth by vvay of correction Longe â—amen aliter iudicandum est de hac sancta solemni c. yet must we iudge fâ—â— other wise of this holy and solemne institution of the supper as it is set forth by Ihon Caluin and the church of Geneua whereby we are put in possession of Christ then of thâ—â— external rite humane traditioÌ„ Thus Beza most foÌ„dly frovvardly For what more peevish frovvardnes can be imagined then that they vvho against Christ his Apostles and al scripture haue altogether made equal our Testament with the Ievvish our sacraments vvith theirs ouâ— Eucharist with
vsed by Caluin Beza Martyr Musculus and lightly euerie other sacramentarie that the Iewish Manna vvater out of the rocke their passing ouer the sea and baptisme in the cloud vvas as good and effectual as our sacraments of baptisme the Eucharist and that the Ievves in those figures receiued the self same foode in the one spiritual benefite in the other as vve do in these sacrameÌ„ts of ours the ansvvere is that they al sovvly corrupt and peruert the Apostles vvords and sense The Apostle saith not that the Ievves had the self same spiritual foode which Christians baâ—â— as though he compared Ievves and Christians together but that the Ievves amonge them selues good bad iust and vniust receiued those benefites there mentioned For the Ievves al alike passed the redde seaâ— they vvere al directed alike by the cloud they al alike did eate of Manna vvherein the evil men had as great preeminence as the good they did al alike so did their beasts drinkâ— of the water which issued out of the rocke albeit most of them were wicked men in whom god was not pleased This is al that the Apostle saith These vvere temporal benefites bestowed vpon the Iewes which in no place of the Scripture haue annexed vnto them spiritual grace or remission of sinnes as haue the Christian sacraments wherevnto they are impiously opposed And therefore S. Basil with great zeale mueâ—gheth against them which make such odious comparison as men who vtterly disgrace and extenuate the maiestie of the nevv testament For saith he what remission of sinnes what regeneration or renouation of life was geuen by the sea what spiritual gift was geueÌ„ by Moyses what mortificatioÌ„ of sinne was wrought by his ceremonies or sacraments As for the vvord spiritual applied by S. Paule to Manna the vvater he calleth it spiritual partly because it proceeded from a spiritual diuine miraculous cause as in the storie is noted partly because it signified as did almost al things in the old lavv euen the very stones and timber of Salomons temple spiritual things which vvere to be exhibited in the nevv testament in Christ and his church For that of it self it vvas not ordeyned for a spiritual foode but for a corporal the very text proueth which assigneth the vse of it to al indifferently no lesse to euil men then to good yea no lesse to beasts then to men and our Sauiour him self vvho plainlie separateth it from the diuine Manna of the nevv testameÌ„t directly affirmeth it to haue bene geuen for a corporal foode to differ as much from his diuine body geuen in the sacrament of the nevv testament as doth any vulgar bread or flesh And thus do the auncient fathers agreably to Christs words expound it acknovvleging it for his proper and peculiar vse to haue bene an earthly foode though besides it vvere a signe a figure an image a shadovv and signification of Christ the spiritual Manna and heauenly bread vvhich in deed came from heauen in vvhich first vvord of the definition of our sacraments for every sacrament is a signe that Manna and water of the rocke agree with our sacraments and therefore some times so far forth they are by S. Austin compared together but touching the effect of grace never made equal And now if it shal please the reader to conferre these last 6. rules or obseruatons gathered out of the doctrine of Caluin and the Caluinists with that his first magnifiing of Christs real presence in the Sacrament of the Supper he shal very easely discouer him to be a vvicked hipocrite and also find everie parcel point of that whole paragraph gainsayd and refuted by ech one of these 6. obseruations ensuing vvhich if a man vvould gather in to a table after the example before shevved he should fil a great deale of paper and find at the lest so many contradictions in these later against that first as be sentences perhaps lines in that first He shal vvithal be able to frame to him selfe some certaine and sure knovvledge to sure at lâ—st as may be gathered out of the vvritings of such vvethercockes vvho according to the Apostles vvords are tossed vp and dovvne vvith everie nevv conceite as a light clovvde is caried here there vvith every puffe of vvind vvhat the Caluinian supper is to vvit after his ovvne description bread and vvine or some like nutriment voyd of Christs body and blud or any vertue thereof or any other grace instituted for this only purpose to put vs in remembrance of Christ in no respect or comparison better then the significatiue bread or sheeps flesh vsed by the Iewes in their Paschal suppers ¶ And thus much touching the equalitie of their sacrament with the Ievves as they graunt vve accept so herevpon a litle farther we proue vvhich perhaps they vvil deny that the Ievvish sacraments vvere better then thens not only for that the Ievvish had their Institution from god and his holy prophets vvhereas this supper proceedeth directly from the deuil his Ministers but also for that comparing the sacraments thus by them described in them selues the Ievvish much excelled VVhereof this only reason in their diuinitie is a most sure demonstration The preper vse institution and end of the sacrament is this and in this confuteth the benefite thereof that it stiriâ—th vp our â—aith moveth ouâ— external and internal 〈…〉 to consideration of the thing signified that is Christ his death VVhereof â—â—â—â—lâ—vvâ—th that where this 〈…〉 is most â—ound where a signe is most lâ—â—â—â—y 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to moue ouâ— senses 〈…〉 iy to quicken ouâ—â—aith and excite our mynds to the consideration of Christ his death that â—gâ—e hath in it so much the more singularly and in a more high and excellent degree the nature of a sacrament But this was saâ— better and more effâ—â—â—â—ally wrought by 〈…〉 ng a lamb by pâ—wâ—â—g out the â—lud thereof then by 〈…〉 bread and drinking beare 〈…〉 or wine I or both the lamb is a more noble câ—eatuâ—e then is bread therefore more apt to â—gâ—â—â—â—c Christs body the noblest creature that euer was the innocency of a lamb to signifie Christs innocencie that lamb killed that flesh that blud was a more lâ—â—â—ly signe or this lamb of god killed for â—s of his body of his blud giuen for â—s then breaking of bread drinking of any wine or beare be it neuer so strong Therefore in that wherein consiâ—â—eâ—â— the proper nature of a sacrament the â—ewâ—â—h excelled ours Againe an other saâ—â—â—mental signification and the same very principal 〈…〉 they in this that as the bread and wine nourisheth our bodies corporally so Christ caâ—e by faith nourisheth our sâ—wâ—es spiritually But that Iewish supper hauing in it yong tender nourishing flesh of a lamb together with bread and vvine nourished corporally and so signified Christ body nourishing
the Calvinists definition thereof The Argument The general summe of these Sermons The word sacrament disliked and condemned by M. B. and the sacramentarie doctors which yet because it is doubtful and ambiguous and fit to deceiue simple Christians them selues vse most VVhich thing is exemplified by their wicked corrupt expounding the words of Christ spoken at his last Supper vpon the abuâ—e of that only word Their great falshod and craft in speaking like Catholikes when yet they meane altogether as heretikes Although no sacrament of the new testament be euer called a seale in the scripture yet vpon that word once attributed peculiarly to circumcision in Abraham the Caluinists frame their definition of a sacrameÌ„t that it is a seale to confirme gods promises VVhich definition is improued by manifest demonstration that the sacraments haue no such office to confirme â—r seale gods promise â—ether in respect of the promise it self nor yet of Christianâ— whether they be strong in faith or weake in faith or infants without faith nor yet of the minister that preacheth the promiâ—es This definition and doctrine of the Caluinists tendeth directly to Anabaptisme It is farther declared how vnfitly and fondly the Caluinists cal their sacraments seales to confirme gods promises In which senâ—e they were neuer called seales by any Apostle or auncient father So that the Caluinists haue smale cause to glorie of this their inuention as they do CHAP. 4. HAuing made declaration first what is alwayes hath bone the Catholike vniuersal constant and true beleeâ— concerning the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body next what is the particular variable and vncertaine opinion of the Protestants that kynd of Protestants I meane vvhich for distinction sake from LutheraÌ„ Protestants of Germany the vvorld first termed Carolostadians or Sacramentaries afterwards Zuinglians or Caluinists I come now to examine these Sermons wherein I shal haue occasion to be the shorter for that much they conteyne not whereon a man should make any great stay Many things are in them indifferent with vvhich I wil not medle many things very false and slaunderous which I vvil in a word note and so passe over many heresies there are and the same very sovvle grosse especially in the last 2. Sermons touching iustification faith good works and securitie in sinne which for that they are not incident to this argument I sâ—al shortly dispatch in a fevv lines Most of the stuffe of these SermoÌ„s is dravven out of Caluin vvhom this man chiefly folovveth as lightly doth al the Scottish and for a great part the English ministerie both in forme of doctrine and also in maner of vtterance Here shal the reader find the self â—ame diuersitie incoÌ„stancie and contradiction as hath bene noted in Caluin before Ho sâ—ald fynd the same affectation of much mystical and supercelestial speech when as the meaning conclusion is base earthly contemptible Yet is he not alwaies a folower of Caluin Some points there are wherein this preacher dissenteth both from Caluin also Zuinglius from Geneua Zurick other reformed congregations foloweth a proper peculiar fansie of his ovvne And vvhich the reader is always to note here shal he find euery thing boldly avouched but neuer proued nor any authoritie almost of scripture gospel prophet reason Theological or any sufficient ground brought for confirmation of things most doubtful and resting in coÌ„trouersie but al such things iustified by bare words and proued by his ovvne authoritie saue that more like a Phisicion then a Diuine in some places he much vrgeth physical arguments and rules of Physike And this is the general summe forme of these SermoÌ„s ¶ Now to enter in to particulars such as are most important and concerne the sacrament first of al he findeth fault with the vse of this vvord sacrament because it is ambiguous there are risen many tragedies about the ambiguitie of this word which are not yet ceased nor wil cease while the world lustes where otherwise saith he if men had kept the Apostles words and called them Signes and Seales al this digladiation strife contention apparantly had not fallen out But where men wil be wiser then god and geue names to things beside god vpon the wit of man which is but mere folly al this cummer falleth out This afterwards in his 3. Sermon he repeateth much inueigheth against men who not content to cal it a holy seale which is the Apostles word who cals it so Rom. 4. 11. would needs go about to be wiser then god go beyond god are not 〈◊〉 with the names which god hath geueÌ„ by his Apostle which Christ him selfe hath geuen VVhich if they had done I am sure saith he none of these great stormes tragedies and debates had fallen out Out of al which he draweth a very so ber instruction A lesson by the way saith M. B. Let no flesh presume to be wiser then god but let them stoupe and keep the names which god hath geuen to this sacrament In which vvords discourse to omit some other things very wel worth the noting a lesson the reader may learne much better then that vvhich M. B. geueth him that is our aduersaries great frowardnes and blindnes in their maner of vvriting disputing preaching The which because it is by M. B. made the very ground and foundation of his Sermons and is common to him with the rest of his felovves and comministers both in Scotland and out of ScotlaÌ„d I wil open somwhat more at large The word sacrament saith M. B. is not vsed in the scripture it is inueÌ„ted not by the holy ghost but by the wit of man which is mere folly it hath bene and is the cause of much strife contention and digladiation of great stormes tragedie debates which yet continue The scripture appointeth other names as signes or seales Hereof this Euangelical lesson is to be learned Let no flesh presume to be wiser then god but let them stoupe and keep the names which god hath geuen to this sacrament and yet forsooth both him self in these self same Sermons continually euery where and al other the principal vvriters of his side omitting the names of signes seales geuen by god forgetting their owne lessoÌ„ that al flesh should stoupe and vse such names of signes and seales as god had geven in steed thereof wil needs vse the name of sacrament inueÌ„ted by the wit of man which is mere folly and then they not very vvise that vse it by so doing maynteine this contention and digladiation these great stormes tragedies and debates which is the part of vvicked men and ministers of sedition If god geue yovv varietie choyse of other so apt names so good profitable whereas this is so harmeful and mischevous vvhy refuse yovv god and folovv man VVhy in euery leafe of these your Sermons is there set forth in great capital letters this vvicked
word SacrameÌ„t inuented by man not rather the vvord Signe or Seale appoynted by god As yovv haue altered the Masse in to the Communion Bisshop in to superintendent priest in to minister church in to congregation c. so why in like maner chaunge yovv not sacraments in to signes and seales and then inscribe these your sermons Sermons not vpon the sacraments but vpon the signes and seales But this fault vvere lesse and more pardonable if these men vpon the self same word vvhich they condemne did not buyld the vvhole frame of their cauilling and sophistical Theologie vvhen they ether vvrite against their aduersaries be they Catholiks or Lutherans or in sermons preach to the people because the word being in deed ambiguous ministreth them more occasion to multiplie words to shuffle from one sense to an other to abuse their simple auditors and to saue them selues from plain and direct expressing of that which in deed they stil entend although at some times they are loth to vtter Ioachimus VVestphalus the Lutheran in his last ansvvere to Caluin vvriteth that Carolostadius the first father of the sacramentaries in our daies in his disputations and bookes of the supper of the lord vtterly reiected the word sacrament as new and not found in scripture But our aduersaries the Caluinists saith he because they find the word apt for them to shift and lurke vnder very greedely embrace it and make it their chief ground and ankerhold So Caluin braggeth that this is to him a wal of brasse that Christs words are to be expounded sacramentally This one word he bosteth is sufficient to ouerthrow al the arguments of the Magdeburgenses Hereon he frameth his rules herevpon he bringeth in his tropes If a man marke him he shal fynd that euer he maketh his retreat to this one word sacrament and as a sure buâ—kler he euer opposeth a sacramental maner of speech when he hath nothing els to say In one place he writeth that al this controuersie might forthwith be ended if we could be content to admit a sacramental speech c. Thus he vvhere vve perceiue that although no man be more fierce and eager then is Caluin against words inuented by man out of the compasse of holy vvrite yet him self is content to make his most aduantage chief buckler thereof And this one vvord he not only vseth and vrgeth continually vvhich in him is a great fault but also maketh it to signifie vvhat him self best pleaseth vvhich is intolerable But VVestphalus ansvvereth him rightly that he his Lutheran bretherne are not so simple nor so careles of their faith and saluation as that they can or wil hazard their cause vpon a word obscure ambiguous c. withal stand to rules deduced thence at the pleasure of the Zuinglians VVolâ— Musculus in his common places vvhere he entreateth of the sacraments because he refuâ—eth that name and calleth them sacramental signes for his defence in so doing that good men be not offended very religiously layeth for his discharge â—â—o principal doctors Luther and Melanethon of vvhich Luther writeth thus If we wil speake as the scripture teacheth vs then haue we but one sacrament Christ and three sacramental signes the supper baptisme and penance Melanothon thus That which the common people calleth a sacrament we wil cal a sacramental signe because Paule calleth Christ him self a sacrament So that their proper name it signes and sacramental vvhich Musculus ioyneth is no more then holy or Christian or appointed by Christ vvhom the scripture acknovvlegeth only for a sacrament and only calleth a sacrament and so these fignes are called sacramental because they vvere ordeyned by him signifie him vvho is the sacrament as also a chapiter of S. Matthevv or S. Paul may be called a sacrameÌ„tal chapiter because it entreateth of Christ the only sacrament in which sense al figutes sacrifices many chapiters of the old testament were likevvise sacramental figures chapiters VVhereas then the scripture calleth not the supper by the name sacrameÌ„t but applieth this word only to Christ is it not straunge that the same maÌ„ almost in the same place debating this very question of Christs presence in the supper betvvene his felovves the Zuinglians the Lutherans the Catholikes vvheÌ„ as he should speake most plainly most distinctly intelligibly vvould yet â—un against his ovvne knovvlege and conscience to cover him self to obscure and confound and trouble both the matter vvhereof he treateth and his auditors or readers by such ambiguous and darke vvords vvhich him self vvith such religioÌ„ disliketh and condemneth as not agreable to the vvord of god Yet this man forsooth vvhen he cometh to expound the words of Christ concerning this sacrament not by the vvay or accidentally but fully and directly and of purpose placeth the entier summe substance of his resolution vpon this terme sacrament sacrameÌ„tal For pretending great reuetence to the vvords of Christ protesting that his desire is most religiously to hold fast the words of Christ not to alter any one iote of them that he may thus do he refelleth a number of his bretherne as he calleth them Carolostadius Occolaâ—â—padius Zuinglius Luther and the Lutherans for their expositions of Christs words This is my body for that they al depart from the precise letter and text of the gospel And I saith he can not say as they do that Christs body is with the bread quia ab ipsis verbis domini discedere neâ—uâ—â— because I may not depart from the very words of Christ and if I should thinke as they do haec cogitatio me ab ipso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abduceret such thinking would withdraw me from folowing the plaine and precise letter After this much more to like effect in fine coming to his ovvne exposition Let is now consider saith this doctor how bread may be the true body of Christ that same which was delivered for vs on the crosse so that nether the bread leefe his owne nature and substance and yet receâ—ue in it the substance of Christs body which also remayneth immutable Nam omnâ—no sunt haec omniuÌ„ verissima For 〈…〉 both these are most true that the bread which our lord geueth is his owne body yet as verely bread as it was before the communion c. VVhere by the vvay the reader may see the vvicked and feared conscience of these prophane heretikes vvhom not vvithout great reason S. Paule teâ—meth damned in their owne iudgement vvho feyning a great regard and religious dread to depart from Christs words in the self same instant pervert his words most malitiously For vvhere sayd Christ euer This bread is my body oâ— This wine is my blud what Apostle doth witnesâ—e it what EuaÌ„gelaâ— recordeth it Certainly Christ neuer sâ—ake 〈…〉 contrativvise by his divine wisedome so tempered his words that it is not possible to frame
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
circuâ—cised afterward received the signe of circumcision a seale of the iustice of faith which he had being yet vncircumcised that he should be the father of them thaâ— beleeue c. And vvhat maketh this for the sacrament of the Supper vvhat to our purpose here Certainly as much as circumcision resembleth the supper For first it vvâ—l not folovv in any reason ether humane or divine that vvhich is spoken of one particular streight vvays to be extended to al. The argument on the contraâ—ie side is good from al to some or any one But from one to al is as vvise as if I should say M. B. is minister eâ—go al men are ministers For questionles not al sacraments of the old lavv vvere such signes and seales of iustice For so al that vvere vvashed or purified Iudaically al that eate the Paschal lamb or vnleavened bread yea by the Protestant doctrine al that passed the red sea and eate of Manna or drunke of the vvater issuing out of the rocke vvhich the Protestants make as good sacraments as are the Christian should haue bene iustified vvhich iâ— flat against the Apostle and should from god him self haue received the seale and testification that they vvere iust before him Next if a man deny the sacraments of the old and new law to be of one qualitie as al Catholikes do ever did then againe the collection from circumcision to the supper is fond foolish Thirdly it wil not folow from this of Abraham to any sacrameÌ„t that it is a seale of iustice to the receiuer For albeit it were so in AbrahaÌ„ of whom the scripture testifieth that before this time he was iustified and afterwards receiving the signe of circumcision that was to him a seale and confirmation of iustice as the plain storie and sequele of the Scripture sheweth and S. Chrysostom expoundeth yet this signe can be no such seale to al others except they haue the like warrant and testimonie of their iustice from god out of his word as Abraham had which to affirme fighteth directly against the Protestants doctrine who teach that many were as then circumcised so now baptized who are not iust before god but remayne stil in their sinnes So nether baptisme now nor circumcision then could be to such men a seale and confirmation of iustice which they then had not nor novv haue Fourthly this vvas to Abraham a seale not of iustice only but also of an other promise as vvitnesseth S. Paule â—â— fiereâ— pater multarum gentium that he should become the father of many nations both of Ievves Gentilessuch as beleeved For as before his circumcision he vvas iustified by his faith to testifie that the Gentiles might be iustified if they beleeved and did as he did vvithout circumcision so after vvas he circumcised to testifie that in like â—ort the circumcised Ievv should be iustified as he vvas And as to him his circumcision vvas a seale of his iustice by â—aith so vvas it also a seale assurance that he should be the father of many natioÌ„s vvhich beleeved vvere they circumcised or no. Which both parts the Apostle in one brief sentence for this cause coupleth together And nether this Apostle nor any other nether Evangelist noâ— prophet ever calleth circumcision a seale but in this special place and that no doubt for this special reason So that this being a proper privilege and prerogatiue geâ—eâ— in singular sort to Abraham in testimonie of his obedience and faith as Beza also in part confesseth pecâ—liari ratione hoc convenit Abrahamo cui vni dictum est in â—ebenediâ—entur omnes gentes this saith Beza agreeth to Abraham after a verie special and peculiar sort vnto whom only it was said in thee shal al nations be blessed M. B. must learne as the laâ—v and common reason teacheth him that priuilegia paucorum non faciunt legem communem The priuileges of a few much lesse of one make no common'law for al. And therefore al sacraments can not be called seales although the sacrament of circumcision was so to Abraham Fiftly which is the principal in this place how soeuer that were to Abraham a seale of iustice whether as Origen interpreteth it because it shut vp the iustice of faith vvhich vvas in the time of the gospel to be plainly opened so that this carnal circumcision vvas a secret feale and presignification of the internal circumcision vvhich vvas to be vvrought spiritually after or as S. Chrysostoni interpreteth it vvas a kind of bond and obligation vvhich God tookâ— of Abraham to bynd him and his posteritie the more deeply to gods service for as vvhen vve distrust mens vvords vve take some pledge of them so god knovving the inconstancie of mens mynds vvould haue this signe and assurance from them saith S. Chrysostom or as some other vvil a signe and seale to put men in memorie of their dutie to god in vvhich soâ—t also our sacraments of baptisme and the Eucharist are signes and seales of Christs death his paâ—sioÌ„ and resurrection to the cogitation and remembrance vvhereof vve are induced by the vse of them or vvhat so euer good sense of this word is geuen by good men no good man ever expounded it to signifie that it is oâ— waâ— a seale to confirme the promises of god or gods woâ—d preached which is the point of our question here intreated Finally of this place amongst other let the Christian reader stil nâ—â—â— the frowardnes of our adâ—ersaries vvho in al the nevv Testament having this only tâ—â—t vvhere a sacrament of the old lavv is called a seale and that peculiarly in one man vpon that one place being so doubtful in deed not applicable to other sacraments wil needs reproue the vsual speech of the church vvhich though not found in scripture as they suppose yet can they not deny but it was vsed in the primitiue church from the beginning For so M. B. confesseth as a thing certain and out of question that the Latin Theologes who were most auncient did interprete the Greeke word 〈◊〉 by the word sacrament and applied it to baptisme and the Supper and vvith a litle study and humilitie he might fynd the vvord thus taken in the scripture it self Vpon this so vveake and pitiful a foundation that is vpon this one vvord of seales once vsed by the Apostle in one only place applied to one only man by special privilege never attributed to baptisme never to the supper that is to say vpon his ovvne mere fansie or at lest vpoÌ„ the fansie of Caluin a vvicked and proud heretike condemned not only by Catholikes but also by most of his felow heretikes of this age M. B. buildeth his entier definition of sacraments VVhich therefore if in this discourse I refute vvith any contemptible words or comparisons let the Reader vvel vnderstand me that In ever intend any such vvord or comparison
three or fovver bretherne eating and drinking their symbolical bread and vvine hovv can ether that confirme to vs the child to be saved or this that such eaters and drinkers eate spiritually Christs flesh and thereby shal haue eternal life Certainly if the minister out of the vvord did not tel them so much before the bread and vvine vvould neuer confirme nor scarce signifie such spiritual eating much lesse eternal life ensuyng thereof So that vvhereas ordinarily in common practise vvhence these men take their Theologie in this point seales confirme words and vvritings among men and vvithout a scale the vvord and vvriting is of no great force or value in lavv to make a bond and obligation the seale geuing al strength force thereto here it is cleane contrarie For al dependeth of the vvord and the vvord geueth strength vertue and force to the seale not the seale to the vvord and the vvord vvithout the seale is altogether sufficient carieth vvith it ful entier and perfit authoritie vvhereas the seale vvithout the vvord is nothing at al but as M. B. truly saith a common peece of bread so that truly to speake the vvord is rather to be accompted a seale to the bread then the bread a seale to the vvord Again these men in making such comparison vvaigh not the true nature and difference of vvords and seales as they are vsed in things diuine humane In humane because men are mortal and mutable and false so that vve can not take hold of their vvord vve are enforced to vse other meanes for our assurance and certification as first to put their vvords in vvriting and then to ratifie both vvord and vvriting by sealing But in God and things diuine it is not so But for so much as God is immortal immutable and constant vvhose vvord is vvorking and vvhose vvord once vttered is as sure certaine infallible and irreuocable as if it vvere vvritten in faire velem in a thousand exemplars confirmed by as many seales here can be no vse of any such seales as is amoÌ„g men because no such seale can add any more authoritie or certaintie to his vvord as it doth to ours How beit it pleaseth him some times to vse some kynd of confirmation vvhich may not vnfitly be compared to a kind of sealing as vvhere the Euangelist saith that vvhen Christ was ascended his Apostles preached euery vvhere our lord working with them and confirming their dostrine and preaching with signes and miracles of vvhich kynd of confirmation the storie of the Acts of the Apostles is ful But these were miraculous noâ— sacrameÌ„tal seales applied truly properly to speake not to coÌ„firme gods vvord or promises but to confirme vnto the heaâ—ers the authoritie and credit of the preachers the prophets Apostles and disciples of Christ as euery vvhere appeareth both in the old testament nevv And therefore as S. Paul teacheth such miraculous signes and seales properly are not for faithful men Christians but for faithles and infidels to dravv them to faith and Christianitie And this is a far different kind of seales from the sacraments vvhereof vve here entreat vvhich neuer any learned father or vvriter called seale in the Protestant sense For albeit sometime S. Augustin vseth the vvorde and applieth it to the sacraments as also do some other Doctors yet they neuer meane nor applye them as do the Protestants but cal them seales ether because they signe the faithful vvith such a marke vvhereby they are distinguished from the vnfaithful or because they conteyne in them a secret holy thing that is inuisible grace in vvhich sense the booke of the Apocalyps is said to be signed vvith 7. seales in both vvhich senses S. Austin S. Gregorie Nazianzene calle them seales or because they geue perfit and absolute grace vvhereby a Christian being vvashed from his sinnes and made the child of god in baptisme receiueth farther strength to persist and stand fast in his Christian prosession and fight constantly against the enemies of Christ and his church the deuil and his ministers is confirmed in hope and hath as it vvere a pledge of eternal life in vvhich sense S. Cornelius an auncient Pope and martyr and after him S. Leo the Great calle the sacrament of confirmation a seale The vvords of the first are VVhereas Nouatus the heretike was only baptised but afterward tooke not such other things as by order of the church he ought neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus suit nether was signed with the seale of our lord by the bisshop in the sacrament of confirmation how I pray â—ow receiued he the holy ghost to strengthen him in his Christian saith S. Leo in his 4. Sermon de natiuitate Domini Stand fast in that faith in which after yow were baptised by water the holy ghost yow receiued the Chrisme of saluation the seale or pledge of eternal life In these senses and perhaps some other tending to like effect the auncient godly fathers calle the sacraments seales as questionles euery sacrameÌ„t and especially that of the most blessed Eucharist is a most admirable signe and seale and confirmation and demonstration of gods infinite mercy and Christs infinite loue towards mankynd But the sense of the Protestants as it is foolish fond nevv vvithout al vvit and reason and not only so but also wicked impious heretical Anabaptistical as hath bene shevved neuer taught by the holy scriptures of god by any Apostle Evangelist auncient father or Councel so I can not greatly enuy at Bezaes glorious triumph vvhich he maketh to him self and his maisters for the first invention thereof wherein he so flattereth and pleaseth him self that hauing expressed the same in such sort as here M. B. doth and I before out of Beza haue alleaged he suddenly from explication of the scripture breaketh out in to admiration of him self and his companions in these vvords This my exposition coÌ„cerning circumcision a seale of iustice al other sacraments seales in like maner if a man compare with such things as not only Origenes but also sundry other of the auncient fathers albeit for godlines and learning most famous haue written vpon this place he shal doubtles find what greâ—â— abundant light of truth the lorde in this time hath powred out vpon vs of al other men most vnworthy thereof No doubt a vvorthy doctrine for such Doctors and in deed to be vvondered at vvhich being so necessarie for the church as these men make it for it conteyneth the true faith of the sacraments vvhereas Origen S. CypriaÌ„ S. Austin S. Ambrose S. Leo. S. Basil S Gregorie Nazianzene and sundry other for holines and learning most famous as he confesseth could neuer find it out and yet these men Caluin Beza and Iohn Cnox for learning not very famous and for horrible filthines and abomination of life not to be named and not heard
then probable it is that Christ made correspondence therevnto as we find recorded by S. Paule albeit water be not mentioned in the text of the law in that cup of Moyses as nether it is mentioned in the text of the gospel in this cup of our Sauiour Concerning the geving of thankes this did Christ saith Musculus twiâ—e first at the bread then at the cup. VVhich thing albeit he did commonly yet in this present case doutles he did it with singular zeale according as S. Luke witnesseth ca. 22. VVith great desire haue I desired to eate this Pasch with yow before I suffer That which Musculus mentioneth of thankes-geving to god omitteth al other blessing of the bread or vvine vve must a litle supplie out of other men of as good credit and authoritie as Musculus For that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed and sanctified the elements of bread and vvine it is plaine by the storie of the gospel For so signifieth the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by S. Matthevv and the same by the Evangelist S. Luke and S. Paule is determined and referred directly to the bread and vvine VVhich is so cleare and manisâ—â— that Beza expounding that vvord in S. Paule The cup of blessing which we blesse though in other places he avoid such blessing as much as possibly he may yet here he confesseth it Puto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem hic declarare atque in insinitis locis veteris testamenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu consecrare sanctificate I thinke saith Beza that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as doth the like word in innumerable places of the old testiment to sanctifie or to consecrate This S. Paule meaneth by that greeke word VVhich thing besides those innumerable places of the old testament iustifying this interpretation he approveth by many of the nevv namely Matth. ca. 5. 44. ca. 25. 34. Luc. 9. 16. Matth. 26. 26. vvhere that vvord blessing is vsed in like construction signification importeth as much as sanctifiyng consecrating is referred to the bread vvhich Christ tooke in his haÌ„ds and vvhereof he made the Sacrament And our English Ievvel expounding these vvords of Christ Hoc facite do this saith that their sense and meaning is Take ye bread blesse it and not only thanke God breake it and geue it in my remembrance VVherevnto he addeth This is not a ceremonial accident but the very end purpose and substance of Christs institution VVith Beza and M. Ievvel herein agreeth Iohn Caluin and vvithal refelleth both Erasmus and al other vvho in this place expound blessing by thankes-geving and to blesse make nothing els but to geue thankes VVhich three so singular doctors especially armed with innumerable places of scripture both in the old testament nevv may suffice against Musculus M. B. also Against Musculus for that he finding the vvord to blesse to geue thankes vsed by the Evangelists in some places to one effect thereof concludeth â—ondly and directly against the scripture in other places innumerable that to blesse in this place of consecrating the sacrament is nothing els but to geue thankes to praise and glorifie god that Christ vsed no other blessing then geving thankes and that blessing he referred not to the bread but to his father Against M. B. for that albeit he confesse in word blessing to signifie sanctification and consecration of the elements and not only praysing of god or geving him thankes yet after his maner in the same place contradicting him self he telleth vs that to blesse and geue thankes haue al one signification and in a solemne marginal note adviseth his reader that the word blessing and thankes-geving are vsed indifferently and ech one is expressed by the other VVhich in this case and as he vttereth it is most false and vnpossible to be true For among the places quoted by Beza to note one example as here Christ blessed the bread so in S. Luke he blessed the fisnes aâ—b thereby multiplied and increased them to feed thousands And wil M. B. say that Christ there gaue thankes to the fishes and here to the bread that the words are indifferent and one expresseth the other But much more by argument he laboureth to disproue al blessing of the elements vvhich in vvords he approveth For thus he disputeth substantially from the verie definition of blessing God is said to blesse when he geveth good things to his creatures For gods blessing is ever effectual Man is said to blessâ— when he craues blessing at the hands of god to any man when he blesses in the name and at the commaund of god any person or people In ether of which significations we may not ascribe blessing to the bread or cup. For we vse nether to craue blessing to insensible elements nor vet to blesse them in the name of god and god vseth to geue good things to the sonnes of men and not to insensible creatures Thus he to proue that never god nor man blessed that is wrought any good effect or prayed for any good effect to insensible creatures and therefore nether did Christ By which argument the discret reader may see hovv far the Scottish ministerie is gone from al sense of Christianitie and Christian Theologie For they never vse to craue blessing to vnsensible creatures nor yet to â— lesse them in the name of god But the Apostolike church from the beginning by these examples of Christ ever vsed so to blesse in the name of god as in the Apostle most auncient fathers every where appeareth And God him self from the begining thus blessed insensible creatures and not only the sonnes of men but also the sonnes of beasts if so I may vse the vvord â—ovvles of the ayer fishes of the sea and al other living creatures as vve see in the first chapiter of Genesis which blessing of God brought some good to those creatures And as on the contrarie vvhen God cursed the serpent vvhen he cursed the earth vvhen Christ cursed the fruitles figuee this curse vvas an impayâ—ng of the condition of the setpent of the earth of the figtree so vvhen God by him selâ— or the ministerie of his servants blesseth his creatures this is a bettering of their condition And albeit it end or be referred to the benefite of man yet it is a true blessing and good vvrought also in the creatures And this is principaâ—ly so in theâ—e sacraments of the nevv Testament vvhere both that of baptisme and this of the Eucharist and al other haue special blessing and sanctification bestovved dy Christ to the commoditie and benefite of his church VVhich thing seeing M. B. vpon no other ground then his ovvne simple and sinful conceite and authoritie of the Scottish practise most ignorantly against al scripture denieth
I vvil take as sure certainâ— vz. that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed sanctified and consecrated the bread because vve are taught so to beleeue both by the plain vvords of the Evangelists by S. Paule by consent of al fathers oâ— al auncient I â—â—uâ—gies or soâ—mes of Masse in al churches of Christendome vvhereof some example shal be geuen hereafter also by vâ—â—â—â—t of M. Ievvel Caluin Eâ—â— a vvho so effectually by innumerable places of cripture pâ—oue it and refel Musculus and consequently M. B. in thâ—â— point vvâ—o against al scripture wil haue blessing of these elements to be al one vvith geuing thanks to God VVherefore according to this most sufficient authoritie as Musculus truly telleth vs that Christ at tvvo seueral times first ouer the bread next ouer the cup gaue thanks to God so must vve also assure our selues the scripture these Protestans leading vs therevnto that Christ at tvvo seueral times blessed sanctified and consecrated those 2. seueral elements of bread and vvine vvhich he tooke in his hands Concerning the breaking and deliverie of the bread Musculus vvords are Christ brake it with his owne hands gaue it to his disciples He gaue not the bread whole to them which they afterwards should breake but him self brake it He gaue it not them to distribute but him self did distribute it willed them to take and eate it He deliuered with his owne hands this sacrament of grace signifying withal that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except himself gaue it by the vertue of his spirite Of which point I warne the reader not without cause Thus much saith Musculus concerning the external fact doing of Chrisi so far furth as agreeth to the institutioÌ„ of the mystical Supper After al vvhich finally for declaration that they might vnderstand vvhat he meant by the premisses he addeth This is my body which is geuen and broken for yow Do this in commemoration of me Again This cup is the new Testament in my blud which is shed for yow and for many to remission of sinnes Do this so oft as ye shal drinke it in commemoration of me This is the summe of that which Christ did vvhich he spake about the sacrament vvhich as the same author vvitnesseth Christ first of al did in the eyes of his disciples both that they afterwards should do the same them selues and also deliuer the same order to his church ¶ And this being agreed vpon according to the manifest storie of the Gospel exposition of the purest Protestants that Christ thus did as hath bene novv in particular described and thus spake item that thus he did spake as things apperteyning to the Sacrament and which he would not haue omitted by his Apostles disciples and aftercomeâ—â— to returne to M. B vvho affirmeth al the actionâ— and speeches which Christ did and vttered to be so essential to the Supper that if any one yea any iote be omitted the whole Supper is marred and peruerted let vs conserre these doings of Christ vvith the Scottish Supper ministred after their order vvhich is this Commonly once in a moneth the minister vvhen the supper is to be ministred first of al out of the pulpit reherseth briefly to the people a peece of the 11. chapiter of S. Paule touching the Institution of this sacrament Afterwards he maketh some Sermon against ether the Pope and Catholike religion vvhich is their common argument or in praise of their owne which is more seldom or as seemeth good to the minister The Sermon or exhortation ended the minister cometh downe from the pulpit and sitteth at the table now beginneth the communion euery man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serueth Then he taketh bread and geueth thanks ether in these words folowing or like in effect The thankes-geuing set downe for a paterne for al ministers to folow as in sevv vvords it rendereth thanks to God for his benefites of creation sanctification and redemptioÌ„ by Christ as is ordinarie in many good prayers so it maketh no mention of the Supper or any thing vvhich Christ spake or did therein saue that in one place they mention a table and remembrance of Christs death in these vvords Although we be sinners neuertheles at the commaundemeÌ„t of Iesus Christ our lord we present our selues to this his table which he hath left to be vsed in remembrance of his death vntil his coming again to declare and witnesse before the world that by him alone we haue receiued libertie and life c. and that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom to eate and drinke at his table with whom we haue our conuersation presently in heauen This is al that approcheth any thing nigh to the vvords and Institution of Christ Immediatly after this thankes-geuing the ministâ—r breaketh the bread and deliuereth iâ— to the poeple who distribute and diuide the same amonge them selues according to our Sauiour Christ commaundement Likewise he geueth the â—â—p Here is the entier forme and essence of the Scottish communion For that during the time of eating and drinking some place of the scripture concerning Christs death is read this is a sequele and fashion folowing after and not included in the nature substance of the communion vvhich al goeth before Let vs novv seuerally confer Christs supper vvith this communion and consider how many the same most substantial and essential points after their ovvne graunt vsed there are wanting here Christ first of al tooke bread in to his hands and afterwards gaue thanks and blessed vvhich albeit it may seeme vsual and ordinarie yet saith Musculus it is not so and the very vvords of scripture shevve that it apperteyned to the order and institution of a sacrament Here the minister cleane contrariwise inuerting the order of Christ first geueth at large a thanks after taketh the bread the vvhich vvithout any thanks or any vvord at al he deliuereth to the people Secondarily Christ made a special and seueral thankes-giuing blessing and sanctification or consecration first of the bread and next of the cup and this also he did as a thing perteyning to the verie order and institution of his sacrament Here is no such matter but a confuse thankes-geuing vvithout relation to ether and vvhich conteyneth a blessing sanctification or consecration of nether Christ did not only breake the bread once and afterwards bid them breake and distribute it amonge them selues but him selfe brake and distributed and deliuered it to them ech one with his owne hand signifying thereby that it was not possible for them to haue any participation of grace except he gaue it them by the vertue of his spirite Of vvhich point Musculus geueth the reader a special warning and prouiso Here the minister loth belike to take so much paynes
is ten thousand times greater then the worke of our first creation then to worke this our new creation appointeth for a meanes this wonderful coniunction of Christ with the sacramental signe and addeth farther that except he be not only receiued but also both deuoured for so he speaketh and digested he can do vs no good and yet in fine to procure and worke our second creation ten thousand times greater then our first creation assigneth for the meane such a graceles bit of bread ten thousand times yea ten thousand millions of times of lesse force then vvas the vvorker of our first creation to speake the lest a man may iustly deeme of him that he very negligently considereth the greatnes of these creations ether the first or second and that he vttereth these vvords rather like a mery iester or player on a stage then a sober preacher of gods vvord from the pulpit A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter The Argument M. B. to the more disgrace and abasing of their supper proposeth certain questions with their answeres which as they are partly true in the Scottish or Geneua supper so are they false in the Sacrament of Christs church The first two are 1. VVhether one man geue the signe the thing signified that is Christs body 2. in one action which he denieth land therein manifestly contradicteth him self because saith he no man hath such power no more then he hath to remit sinnes Against which it is proued that man hath pover to remit sinnes and therefore may haue that other power also VVithal is shewed the great difference betwene Christs baptisme and S. Iohns which M. B. ignorantly wickedly confoundeth M. B. his first question is plainly answered and resolued by S. Chrysostom against him and therein is conteyned an answere to his second question The third assertion that Christs body is not promised nor geueÌ„ to be receiued corporally is likewise refuted by plain scriptures which teach a real and corporal eating and not only by faith Such corporal receiuing of Christ M. B. can not auoyd but by foolish and shameful peruerting of Christs words whereof he geueth in this place a faire example to the manifest abasing of the Scottish Communion CHAP. 8. ANd yet as though hetherto he had not sufficiently against his former words disgraced abased his poore tropical bread he goeth much farther folovving the right principles of his ovvne Theologie vvhere sacraments signifie as vvords do vvhich euery natioÌ„ may alter as they list so he likevvise falleth more and more to chaunge and abase their Communion bread and drinke and in deed vseth it altogether as a signe of their ovvne inuention For vvhich as hetherto he hath alleaged no one text or syllable of scripture to proue I meane the thing in questioÌ„ betvvene him and the Catholiks touching this sacrament for impertinently one or tvvo places he hath quoted otherwise so here he somvvhat more dravveth from it al estimation due to a sacrament of Christ and his church though vvhen he hath left it at the vvorst it is good inough for the ministerie of Iohn Caluin and Iohn Knox and their congregations 4. questions he proposeth ansvvereth the first VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to the communicants by one man or no He ansvvereth No. Next VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to them in one action He answereth No. Thirdly VVhether it be geuen to one instrument The ansvvere is No. Fourthly VVhether the signe and thing signified be offered receiued after one maner The answere likevvise is No. Al thâ—se he vvilleth his auditors to marke diligently then saith he litle difficultie shal â—e find iâ— the sacrament vvhich I confesse For al these negative ansvveres standing for true there is no more difficultie in their sacrament then in any other moâ—sel of bread or meate vvhich vve eate euery day And these ansvveres being restrayned to their Scottish and Geneua signes I admit for good and so let them passe But that the Christian reader be not deceiued and thinke likevvise of the sacraments of Christs church in that respect I wil severally shevv the vanitie and falsitie of them especially the first three and examine his reasons if he bring any to iustifie these negatiue answeres For the first thus he argueth The signe and thing signified are not both geven by one man and this ye see clearly For the bread and wine ye see your self that the ministers offers he geues yow the sacrament As that signe is an earthly and corporal thing so an earthly and corporal man geues it Now the thing signified iâ— spiritual and heavenly incorruptible the geving whereof Christ hath reserved to him self only Therefore there are two geveâ—â— in this sacrament This first reason how strong so ever it seeme in the Caluinian Synagoge touching their signe yet is it but weake anb slender in the catholike church where the veritie of the sacraments is not tried by the clearenes of the eye sight for so sometimes the ministers dog that standeth by him seeth perhaps more in the sacrament then he yong men that haue good eyes more then old whose eye sight is dim therefore need spectacles but by Christs ordinance the cleareâ—es of faith And this being vvith vs more sure and certaine M. B. his Therefore folovveth not very vvel that Therefore there be two gevers of this sacrament To this phisical reason which yet is the very ground of al the rest â—or from phisick and philosophie and sense and their â—iesight proceedeth al their â—aith or rather infidelitie against this diuine mysterie he ioyneth certaine theological as The minister geues the earthly thing Christ keepes the ministerie of the heauenly to him self and he dispenses his owne body and blud to whom and when he pleases For why â—f any man in the world had power to geue Christs body and â—lud no question that man should haue power to clense the hart and conscience for the blud of Christ hath that power with it and consequently should haue power to forgeue sinnes Now it is only God who may forgiue sinnes and therefore it is not possible that the ministerie of the heauenly thing can be in the â—over of any man In these vvords the reader may first â—â—cal to memorie M. B. contradiction to his former â—â—ords vvhere he taught hovv the sacrament signifing and the thing signified that is Christs body were coâ— ioyned For the second part of that coniunction he there made to consist in a continual mâ—â—â—al concurring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and thing signified were both offred together receiued together at â—â—â— time and in one action c. And immediatly after The second point of this coniunction stands in a ioynt-offering and ioynt-receiuing and this I cal a concurrence Here he
of what matter and in vvhat sort he must preach is that word vvhich is so necessarie and vvhich maketh the sacrament In vvhich discourse first of al the Christian reader may note the good opinion that these Ministers haue of them selues and their owne vvords These signes seales albeit they be ordeyned by Christ to signifie and seale as hath bene often tymes said yet are they dead the bread is commoÌ„ bread the vvine is common vvine notvvithstanding Christs ordinance institutioÌ„ Many times the Protestant vvriters vvil beare vs in hand that the auncient fathers vvheÌ„ they speake of Consecâ—ation meane thereby nothing els but the application of the bread vvine from prophane vse to holy from serving coÌ„mon tables to â—â—â—â— the table of the Lord. The bread water and wine when in baptisme the supper they are applied to holy vses then are they consecrated saith M. Ievvel Bullinger This is their Consecration saith Caluin when they are applied to spiritual vses And so commonly vvrite Peter Martyr Zuinglius â—â—â—a and the rest But novv albeit the bread and vvine be brought from the tauerne to the church and there remaine vpon the table al the bretherne and sisters attend ready to receiue it in memorie of the Lords death vvhich is from prophane vse to apply it to maruelous holy yet notvvithstanding stil it remaineth coÌ„mon bread coÌ„mon wine a dead elemeÌ„t vvithout life sowle like a dead carcas If a Catholike priest take such bread and vvine and hauing vvith him a sufficient company to make a communion after their praiers ether priuate or publike purpose farther to consecrate this common bread by rehearsing al the words of Christ ether after S. Maâ—thevv S. Marke S. Luke or S. Paule al this vvorketh nothing thus to recite Christs vvords is magical inchauntment and it is grosse beastlines doltishnes to suppose that they are of any effect to vvorke any thing say Caluin and Zuingliê° The Papists do perversly superstitiously ascribe force of sanctification to recital of such vvords Nulla est vis in recitatione verberum Domini there is no vertue at al in reciting the words of the Lord ether in baptisme or in the supper saith Bullinger But yet after al this if a minister of Calvins creation vvho hath as much authoritie to make this sacrament as hath his vvise and nether of them more then they haue to create a nevv Sunne or Moone if such a minister come tel a tale of his owne spend perhaps an houâ—e oâ— more in railing at the church discipline at the Pope at Papists or in some such other argument vvhich is the coÌ„mon subiect of their sermoÌ„s for fevv ministers folovv M. B. order of preaching prescribed here then forsooth the whole action is quickened then the bread and vvine receiue life and sowle and from common bread become sacramental bread significatiue bread sealing bread vvhereby it is sealed and confirmed to al the bretherne and sisterne that they haue spiritually eaten the flesh of Christ by faith Is not the blindnes of these men vvonderful that can thus iustle our Christ to thrust in them selues can reiect his vvords and so magnifie their ovvne And where find they in any part of the scripture old or nevv that a Sermon is required as a necessarie part of the sacrament VVhat Apostle or Euangelist vvriteth so vvhat Doctor or Councel euer so expounded the scripture or gathered any such rule or conclusion thence VVe find in the Evangelists the vvhole entier forme vsed by Christ when first of al he instituted this sacrament which before we haue in particular declared and that according to the iudgement of a learned and siue Caluinist Nether in the text of the Evangel noâ— yet in the exposition of this Euangelist is any such preaching mentioned much lesse is it made a necessarie part of the sacrament vvhereon the life of it dependeth Our sauiour after the deliuerie of it in S. Iohn maketh a long sermon I graunt but nether is that adioyned as a part of the Supper nether toucheth it the sacrameÌ„t the institution oâ— administration or explication or declaration there of to the people which only declaration of the mysterie to the people saith Caluin maketh the dead elemeÌ„t to become a sacrament In the other sacrament of baptisme this â—â—oward perversitie sheweth it self much more For to vvhom wil they preach there To vvhose vse frame they their sermon To the infants or to the people present if any be If to the infant this in deed were very magical not preaching but inchauntement to preach to the infant who vnderstandeth never a vvord To the people Hovv so vvhereas the sacrament is not for them the baptisme is not to be applied to them the signe or element must be ioyned to make a sacrament not for the standers by but for the receiuers ¶ Because this vvhereof vve now intreate is the most necessarie and substantial part of the sacrament and also of these sermons we must somvvhat more exactly sift and search the true meaning of this word preached which is of so great authoritie and operation in geving life and spirite to the Scottish and Geneua sacraments otherwise very dead and deadly VVherefore I desire a litle more particularly to be resolued and ansvvered vvhat word preached this is whereof dependeth the life and sovvle of their sacrament Hath euery sermon this grace Doth every idle preaching of a minister geue life and sowle to the sacrament and with common bread make such a wonderful coniunction of Christs body as M. B. telleth vs VVhat if out of the pulpit he tel a tale of Robin hood and litle Ihon VVhat if he do nought els but inveigh against the Pope the Cardinals Purgatorie praying to Saints so forth VVhat if he fal in commendation a common argument among the ministers of love matters and chamber-worke as VVigandus an Archprotestant one of the framers of the Magdeburge Centuries writeth that once him selfe was present vvhen a gospelling minister in his sermoÌ„ to that effect cited aboue 20. verses out of Ovid dâ— arte amandi which also to be a common veine of preaching in Scotland it is wel knovven testified Doth every such pulpit talke geue sowle to your sacrament Yovv wil say no. For albeit both in ScotlaÌ„d EnglaÌ„d a number of CoÌ„munions are currant passe wel with such Sermons both the CoÌ„munions Sermons are compted perfite enough the multitude both of ministers and Protestants like this kind of preaching best yet vvhen they come to M. B. scanning he as vve may here perceiue vvil dislike them find theÌ„ deficient VVherefore let vs put the case somwhat more indifferent VVhat if the Minister make his sermon of the creation of the vvorld of the fal of Adam of the patriarchs mariages of the deluge of the childreÌ„ of Israels captivitie of the old law VVhat if he talke of
sacraments And then must it needs folow that the sacraments may be ministred to those only which are able to heare the word whereby infants are secluded from baptismâ— And in deed this is one of the strongest arguments that the Anabaptists haue This for al Christians to come so that hence forward by M. B. Theologie baptisme must no more be ministred to children or infants but we must expect with the Anabaptists vntil they come to yeres of discretion that then they hearing the minister preach may haue the right sacrament endued with life and sowle and perfite essence which now for want of such preaching is to them mere water without the spirite a dead body without life or sowle and as our Puritanes speake iust according to Caluin M. B. nothing but seales without writing and plain blanks After foloweth an authoritie of Zuinglius to prove his purpose which because it is very long would fil vp a leaf at lest I willingly omit The summe of Zuinglius allegation and my L. application is that the word preached is not the life and perfection of the sacrament but that the sacraments are perfite without it and that M. B. and al other in teaching this doctrine plainly ioyne hands with the Anabaptists Thus my Lord of Canterbury Vnto whose reasons one more I wil adde which M. B. his preaching before and the general doctrine of the sacramentaries yeldeth against this toy or rather madnes It is agreed among them very generally that the baptisme of S. Iohn was the self same that Christ his Apostles after deliuered to the church we now enioy VVhich being so then must it needs folovv that it had the same matter forme the same elemeÌ„t word that ours hath This is evident can not be denyed Let vs then proceed because of the matter element which was water in both there is no controversie let vs consider the forme that is the life and sovvle the word preached without vvhich baptisme is nothing but water as their other signe of the supper conteyneth nothing but coÌ„mon bread VVhen S. Iohn ministred baptisme to Christ did he preach the word as here vve haue it defined did he with a cleere voyce denounce and proclame to Christ al the parts of baptisme Did he tel Christ vvhat was his owne part and dutie as likevvise what was Christs part dutie How Christ ought to come receiue the baptisme and so furth as here vve haue the vvord defined and explicated Let M. B. make choise of vvhich part he vvil and answere yea or no I suppose he shal perceiue his ovvne error and foly and that as in ansvvering truly he must deny al his preaching hetherto about this VVord so if he vvil stand to maynteine his vvord and say that S. Iohn vsed in his sacrament such a word such preaching and opening al parts of the sacrament this affirmation in the iudgement of sober men wil conuince him not so much of folie as furie not of heresie as of phrenesie the particular consideration vvhereof I leaue to him selfe ¶ Novv let vs a vvhile sequester al authoritie both of god and man of scripture and father old or nevv saving M. B. him self and examine this matter by it self according to indifferent trial M. B. his ovvne preaching If vve marke vvel vvhat vvord it is that he requireth to geue life to the sacrament vve shal find it to be such a word as proueth the tenth part of English and Scottish baptismes and communions to be no sacraments at al. For first vvhereas in very many churches of England and I thinke the like of Scotland baptismes and communions are ministred vvithout Sermons in many some poore homilie is read in steed of a Sermon in al these churches the sacraments are dead things the communion bread is nought els but common bread the vvater of baptisme is coÌ„mon prophane vvater nether of these any sacrament And that the reader thinke not my asseveratioÌ„ bold or straunge vvhere I say that in England in many churches are so fevv Sermons let him vnderstand that albeit there be in deed order prescribed that in euery parish church there should be 4. sermoÌ„s in the yere euery quarter one vvhereas in the yere there are baptismes and communions perhaps 2. or 3. hundred yet this is soil obserued that notvvithstanding such order takeÌ„ the CaÌ„bridge doctors them selues testifie that they know parishes not far from Cambridge so principal an Vniuersitie for preachers where one of these sermons was not in 4. yeres together which if it be so so nere to Cambridge say they what is to be thought of other places of the realme And els where the same parties affirme that in most churches of England there is none that ether can or wil preach so that this one clause maketh voyde thousands of baptismes and thousands of Communions in England and Scotland For this must be obserued by the vvay that such reading of Homilies in the church is not according to this definition not these mens opinion preaching of the word with a cleere voyce no more say they then a mens pen or hand is his tongue and voyce vvho furthermore vtterly deny such reading to be comprised in the name of preaching despise it altogether and say that it is as il as playing on a stage and worse to Next to omit Homilies come to sermons whereas this vvord is appointed by Caluin to be preached after one certaine forme vz that the minister preach the promise and leade the people thether where the signe directeth how many thousand ministers faile in preaching this promise who doubtles in al the Gospels where after the Protestant-Theologie mention is made of the sacrament can not possibly find any such promise as Caluin surmiseth for that assuredly there is none such For to tel vs that these vvords This is my body is a promise is as blunt ridiculons a toy as if a man would make the articles of our Creed promises as if some vvise minister would tel vs that these verities Christ was borne of the virgin he suffred death vnder Pilate be rose againe and ascended vvere promises which are of like qualitie with that promise of Iohn Caluin And if in Christs words vvhere he instituteth this sacrameÌ„t there be no promise hovv then shal the minister preach with a lowd cleer voyce vpoÌ„ this promise which is not If to helpe forward the matter we shal take M. B. his expositioÌ„ that the minister must tel the people whereto the signe tendeth and directeth them that is looke how able the bread is to nurish them corporally so able is Christ to nurish them spiritually to eternal life which spiritual nurriture is sealed coÌ„firmed in them by these reuerend sealeâ— of bread vvine first this similitude is taken not from the scripture but from the doctors fâ—thers and therefore a
Christ These fevv instances and exceptions for example sake I geue to the Christian reader vvho may find a number of this sort if he please advisedly to consider that vvhich bath bene said of this matter heretofore And if novv according to M. B. his resolution a man leaving out the least ceremonie vsed by Christ in his supper perverteth the whole institution and marreth the sacrament so as it becommeth no sacrament vvhat horrible prophaners perverters and destroyers of gods sacraments are these vvho leaue out so many and those not the least but the greatest vveightiest ceremonies And if they haue no sacrament vvho lacke in the administratioÌ„ any signe elemental or ceremonial any material part because they be al substaÌ„tial how far are these men from having any shew colour pretence or similitude of Christs Sacrament who lack so many signes ceremonial substantial besides vvhich is the head top leaue out cleane al the vvords of Christ vvhich in deed is the formal therefore the chief soveraine and principal part of the sacrament hovv soever it please these proud ministers to take that honour froÌ„ the vvord of Christ attribute it to their owne vvord Truly as the Catholike for sundry other reasons hath iust cause to abhorre their bread and vvine as polluted as schismatical as heretical as leading the high vvay to Gods vvrath and indignation to hel damnation so these arguments and reasons geven published by them selues suffise to proue as much to proue their communion a schismatical communion cleane divided from Christs communion a perverting a corrupting and destroying of his holy sacrament vvith vvhich it hath no more resemblance by this their ovvne confession then hath an ape vvith a man copper vvith gold heresie vvith religion and an angel of darknes vvith an angel of light Yea many times spiritually sprites of hel doubtles counterfeit Saints and Angels and many apes or munkeys sensibly counterfeit the actions of men vvith more likelihood colour and probabilitie then these mens apish and spritish communion resembleth the Divine Sacrament ordayned by our blessed Saviour Of names attributed to the Sacrament The Argument Of names by which the blessed Sacrament is called in the scripture It is not there called the Lords supper as M. B. falsely supposeth nor yet the Communion Toat it is called mensa domini our Lords table maketh nothing against the sacrifice but rather for it Of names by which the B. Sacrament according to M. B. opinion is called in the auncient fathers It is not called a publique action as by any proper name nor yet a banquet of loue VVhy it is called the Eucharist It was also called the Masse in the Primitiue church when that church generally and especially the church of Rome was most pure and therefore that name savoureth nothing of Idolatry as M. B. ignorantly concludeth But most commonly it was named the sacrifice of Christs body and as a true and real sacrifice was offered vnto God in the church euer since Christs time and first institution of it M. B. argument made to the contrarie answered CHAP. 12 Many of the things which M. B. handleth in these later Sermons or as he calleth them lessons and exercises are by him particularly vttered and entreated of so far furth as concerneth the Sacrament in the first sermon or lesson likewise so much hath bene said of them by me as I thinke convenient ether for proofe of the truth or confutation of error For which cause I shal when they occurre hereafter passe them over in silence or touch them more sleightly The first nevv matter mentioned in this lesson is about names geven to the SacrameÌ„t in holy scripture auncient fathers wherein he speaketh some truth which therefore I gladly embrace as that it is called in the booke of god The body and blud of Christ and never the figure trope signe or seale of that body and blud and therefore belike that being the proper name conteyneth also in proprietie of speech what it is Also it is called the coÌ„munion and participation of Christs body and blud vvhich implieth the former truth It is also called saith M. B. the supper of the lord not a prophane supper not a supper appointed for the belly for Christ had ended the supper that was appointed for the belly or ever he began this supper which was appointed for the sowle In this M. B. is somewhat deceiued as likewise in his explication of the next vz that it is called also in the bible The table of the Lord. It is not called the altar of the lord but the Apostle calâ— it a table to sit at and not an altar to stand at a table to take and receiue and not an altar to offer and propine That M. B. supposeth S. Paule to name the sacrament dominicâ—â— caenam our lords supper it is his error and not S. Paules meaning For albeit at the same time and in the same place whereof S. Paule speaketh Christs sacrament was also communicated vnto the faithful for which cause and also in regard of the time when Christ first instituted it some auncient fathers sometimes inscribe their treatises of the Sacrament De caena domini yet that the booke of god that is the bible and scriptures of god geue not this appellation to it it is plain inough by that place of S. Paule where only in al the scriptures of god that word is vsed For S. Paule mentioning that at these suppers of our lord some devoured al and had to much some could get nothing and rose a hungred some were drunke c. declareth thereby that this place can not directly be vnderstood of Christs sacrament except M. B. be of the opinion with some Puritans whom my self haue heard vpon this place to argue that at their Lords supper there should be not only bread and drinke but also varietie of other meate flesh fish rost and baked wine and beere according as it is in other suppers and feasts Vnto vvhich conceit M. B. by his discourse after ensuing seemeth somewhat to incline But the common opinion of learned men is otherwise that this place meaneth the church-feasts of old time termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were called dominicae caenâ— our lords feasts or suppers because they were kept at night in churches which were in the primitive church and also after called Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our lords howses whence I suppose our name kirke cometh to vvhich feasts the rich sort contributed liberally for the benefite and relief of the poore Before vvhich as S. Chrysostom supposeth though others thinke after the Sacrament vvas also received But that the vvords of S. Paule meane not the sacrament S. Chrysostom is very plaine the circumstance of the place proueth sufficiently This supper saith S. Chrysostom might rather be called humaine then divine potius humana quam dominica rather
also vvould they haue ministred the sacrament VVhich although M. B. his vvise ministers in quiet times can speake of and say so they should have done yet I vvâ—â—ne both he and they vvould haue bene better advised before they did it if them selues vvere put to the trial ¶ His third end is true if it vvere spoken and applied to Christs holy sacrament but being applied to the Scottish signe or Geneuian seale is very fond and ridiculous vvhich because it dependeth on the first end vvhich is the principal therefore by shewing the vanitie of the first I shal consequently vvith one labour declare the baldnes of the third In the first he saith that this sacrament was appointed chiefly for this end to represent our spiritual nurriture VVhere vve learne that the chief grace of these mens sacraments is to figure represent vvhich end M. B. proveth vvith no other reason then his ovvne only bare vvord and authoritie And therefore as before so here every vvhere perpetually let the reader marke hovv these men having of them selues invented coyned vs a definition of sacraments and â—iamed the nature and vse of this sacrament especially in their ovvne forge brayne stil confirme it by their ovvne only vvord never mentioning S. Paule or S. Peter or Gospel or Epistle or any sacred authoritie of god or man For in vvhat chapter of al the gospel or al S. Paules epistles find they that this sacrament vvas chiefly instituted to represent to signifie to figure our spiritual nurriture being in deed instituted for this end to nourish to feed and actually to preserue vs to life spiritual and eternal as Christ came in to this vvorld not chiefly to signifie to represent to figure to teach our redemption and reconciliation but truly to vvorke it performe it Not that I deny the sacrameÌ„ts this namely to figure to represent and signifie for that is the first word in euery sacrameÌ„t both old and nevv both Iewish and Christian that it be a signe and signifie but this is not the chief but meanest not highest and supreme but lovvest and lest accountable vertue incident to this sacrament and vvhich if it be made chief quit deâ—aceth and destroyeth the nature of a sacrament in the nevv testament For this signification not only addeth nothing to these sacraments above the Ievvish but also it addeth to them nothing aboue the force and abilitie of man and any good man may make many a sacrament as good as this and better to if such signification be the chief and best part of it But that we deceiue not ourselues misconster M. B. his meaning let vs heare him more at large declare this chief end of his sacrament vvhich he doth in this maner Nothing is so fit as bread and wine for this sacrament as nothing is so fit for baptisme as water VVhy so for that as nothing is meeter to wash with then water so nothing is meeter to wash the sowle then the blud of Christ And the reason why in baptisme is but one signe that is water alone is this because water is sufficient inough to do the whole turne But in the other sacrament it is not so there must be two VVine can not be sufficient alone nor yet bread For he that hath bread only and wine only hath not a persit nurriture corporal Therefore that they might represent a persit nurriture Christ hath geuen vs both bread and wine for the persit nurriture corporal stands in meate and drinke to represent the ful and persit nurriture of the fowle Here is the chief and supreme sacramental grace of the Scottish and Geneua signe Hereof he coÌ„cludeth thus Looke how ful persite a nurriture he hath to his body that hath store of bread and wine so he that hath Christ hath a ful and persite nurriture of his sowle This is M. B. discourse touching that which he accompteth the chief end of this sacrameÌ„t VVherein let the ChristiaÌ„ reader first of al note the true ground of the Geneva resolutioÌ„ for altering the matter of this sacrameÌ„t For when they coÌ„clude that it may be very wel ministred not only in bread and wine but also in bread beer in ale flesh fish or any thing els which bodily nourisheth for that such bodily food aptly represeteth the food of the sowle this resolutioÌ„ hath his ground hence that to signifie figure is the chief end why the sacrameÌ„t was instituted and therefore where this significatiâ— is reteyned there is the substance of the sacramenn sufficiently coÌ„served as our M. Iewel also expresly affirmeth And nâ—w to come to M. B. Theologie who vpon this simple g 〈…〉 bulldeth his sacrameÌ„t what if a man deny al his ground both in the one signe in the other what if a maÌ„ deny that as Christs blud washeth away the spots staynes of sinne so this is best represented by water as Christ is the persit nurriture of our sowle so this is best represented by bread and wine For touching both the one and the other both washing and feeding not only his laundresse or wife if she be demaunded the question and wemen having by the gospel such power and sway geven to them in ecclesiastical matters as hath bene declared doubtles their sentence in such cases is greatly to be esteemed wil answere in both negatively that nether only water washeth and clenseth best nor only bread and drinke be it wine or ale is ful and persit nurriture but also reason common experience and the scripture it selfe wil iustifie this their negatiue For everie one that vseth to wash and scoure cleane knoweth that water alone is not of best force so to do And the scripture when it wil signifie persite and best washing requireth somewhat els as where the prophete saith If thow wash thy selfe with nitre and multiplie the herbe Borith or after Malachie the fullers herbe yet thow art stil vncleâ—â—e VVhich Nitre as likewise many other natural liquours or herbes to be of greater power to scoure out spots and steynes then is running water daily practise philosophie teacheth vs. And on the other part the coÌ„mon diet thorough out Scotland and England assureth vs the contrarie of that M. B. so confidently affirmeth every man and woman I say wil deny that who soever hath bread and drinke hath by by ful and persit nurriture as on the contrarie side some times and in some places countries ful persit nurriture hath bene without ether of them ether bread or wine In the first age before the deluge when men lived 700. 800. yea 900. yeres they had persite ful nurriture yet never knew what wine meant perhaps nether bread For albeit the scripture vse once that vvord bread in our vulgar translations yet it is wel knowen to al vvhich knovv ought that the hebrew word especially in that place signifieth
not possibly be ioyned any falsitie as is manifest no more then god can be false in his word or promise But that Luther Calvin Beza M. B. and every Protestant is elect hath remission of his sinnes is iustified this is not only false in the iudgement of every Catholike but also of the most learned Protestants Of every Catholike because he knoweth by gods word that out of the Catholike church ministerie of the same is no remission of sinnes as the forme of our Creed teacheth vs Calvin him self graunteth By the very order of the Apostolical Creed we learne faith Calvin that perpetual rentission of sinnes resteth in the Church because in the Creed so soone as the church is named by and by ensueth remissioÌ„ of sinnes And this benefit is so proper to the church that we can not otherwise enjoy it except we remaine in vnitie of the church out of whose lap no man may hope for remission of sinnes or salvation as witnesseth Esai 37. 32. Ioel. 2. 32. Exechâ—el 13. 9. Psalm 106. 4. VVhereas then no kind of Protestaut remaineth in the Catholike Church but is departed thence vnto several particular congregations some after Luther some after Calvin some after Rotman some after other Sect-masters therefore in the iudgement of al Catholikes confirmed also by the testimonie of Calvin and authoritie of scriptures it is very salse and vnpossible that any Protestant remayning in his sect should have remission of his sinnes and be iustified It is false also for a great part in the opinion of M. B. of Calvin and the Calvinists item of Luther and the Lutherans them selves For albeit Luther the first father and inuentor of this faith reckeneth it perhaps as sure as any article of his faith that he and al his scholers the Lutherans have remission of their sinnes yet he beleeveth not so nor can beleeue so of Zuinglius and the Zuinglians nor yet of Calvin and the Calvinists al vvhich heaâ—â—ounteth for deâ—â—stable heretikes as iâ— or vvorse then Turkes For so â—â— is vvel knowen that he evermore â—â—â—l his dying day wrote exclamed against them And the like thought Zuinglius and Calvin vvith their brood of Luther his sectaries as in part hath bene signified before VVherefore this special faith and persuasion being common to every sect of Protestants Trinitarians Arrians Anabaptists Zuinglians especially to the Lutherans who vvere first possessed of it vvhereas yet M. B. if he folow Calvin must needs graunt that these sectaries divided from his CalviniaÌ„ church notwithstaÌ„ding their special faith have not remissioÌ„ of their sinnes are not iustified are not elect hereof he may learne most certainly that this false faith conteyning certain and manifest falsitie is not the faith which S. Paule calleth a substance or substancial ground as which hath in deed no substance or ground or firmenes in it but is a mere fansie a mere toy imagination taken vp by every lightbrayned heretike common to al alike by which al alike have remission of their sinnes in particular one as much as an other that is never a vvhit at al. And therefore if the chief principal eating of Christs flesh drinking his blud stand in this special faith â— he telleth vs then his chief principal eating of Christs flesh is nothing For in thus eating he eateth nothing but lyes and heresies and feedeth on them vvhich is not very good nurriture for his sowle and â—udas vvhen he sold Christ did eate Christs flesh as spiritually as any such beleeving Protestants vvhen they eate Christs flesh by such a false faith ¶ Agreably to this foundation vvhich he layeth thereoÌ„ to build the rest of this sermoÌ„ he proceedeth heaping together a nuÌ„ber of most absurd propositioÌ„s which might rather become a Iew then a ChristiaÌ„ if some Protestants bearing the name of ChristiaÌ„s were not as il as Iewes For he so runneth on in extolling his spiritual dealing with Christ by this wicked presumptuous faith so to cal it that he vvholy overthroweth the mysterie of Christâ— incarnation living and doing here in the world For see how he goeth on The carnal band whether it be the band of blud running thorough a race or the catrnal tuitchinâ— of flesh with flesh that carnal band was never esteemed of Christ in the time be â—â—â— conversant here in earth he made nothing of that band VVhat vvicked speech is this Doth God by the very singer of nature besides his writteâ— vvoâ—d vvherein we are willed to honor our father and mother imprint in the hart of every good child a reverence honor regard and estimation of his parents and had our Sauiour Christ Iesus no reverence of that carnal band vvhich him self specially commended â— VVhat scripture reacheth thus VVhere learneth M. B. this doctrine Doubtles no vvhere For albeit in the gospel wheâ— some malitiously went about to interrupt Christs preaching by mentioning his mother and bretherne he preferred the doing of his office and service of his father and preaching of his vvord and saving of sowles before carnal kinred then importunely and to evil purpose obiected shewing that we should ever preserâ—e gods service before humain respect and divine spiritual and heavenly blessings before vvordly and fleshly curtesie or civilities yet to inferre thereof that Christ esteemed not the carnal band that he reverenced not carnal coniunction that â—â—â— maner â—e denied that band this is a vvicked illation out of Christs vvord and as wel might he have inferred vvith Marcion and Manicheus out of this same place that Christ was not carnally borne of the virgin his mother but phantastically and as the English Protestants of the familie of Love teach that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie no otherwise then he is borne of their flesh and such illatioÌ„ or coÌ„sequence drawen from those words by Marcion Manicheus and these English gospellers is as right as his If M. B. had done as some times the good auncient fathers do that is preferred the spiritual cognation before the carnal because the one is vniversal the other particular the one good and availeable of it self the other not so except it be ioyned vvith the spiritual the one the right vvay to salvation ordeyned by Christ who living and preaching tended to plant in al men such spititual coniunction vvhereas the carnal cognation vvas not ordeyned as a meane to iustifie any though in it and by carnal cognation Christ vvas made man vvhereby iustification redemption salvation is vvrought in al if thus M. B. had compared them and preferred the one his preaching had not bene amisse But simply and rudely to disgrace and disanul the one as though it vvere of no moment or commendation in the scriptures this is vvicked heretical inexcusable Christ as the gospel treacheth lived vvith the virgin his mother Ioseph his supposed father erat subditus
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
vvhich they cal sanctifying It is a fowle vntruth to sâ— that without whispering vve account the vvords of Christ to lacke their force And vvhen he calleth consecration incantation that is an vntruth Sâ—â—â—â—ical blasphemous because it reacheth not only to aâ— the auncient primitiâ—e church as hath bene shewed but also to Christ him self For vve vse the vvords of Christ as Christ did and vve vse them no otherwise to no other end vvith no other intention or effect then Christ did and commaunded to be done and the church of Christ first and last old new in the East and VVest in Europa Asia and Africa vsed vniversally vvithout control vntil these vvicked and prophane mockers of Christ and al religion set a vvorke by Satan brake lose in to the vvorld Besides al vvhich falsitie impietie heresie blasphemie and ignorance â— true religion this man seemeth to be ignorant of common learning and philosophie for that he supposeth â—â— magike and incantatioÌ„ to depend of vvhispering vvhere as such inchanters and impostors play their parts no more by whispering then by speaking vvith a cleare voyce as M. B. byndeth his ministers to speake vvhen they eate their supper ¶ The seuenth vntruth vvith vvhich I vvil end â—oâ— if I vvould note al I should be to tedious euery sentence almost conteyning nought els but such grosse and palpable falsities and the same accompanied vvith a number of folowers is vvhere he preacheth thus After the words of consecration are this way whispered they presâ—pâ—â—â—â— such a hid and monstruous vertue to be inclosed in the sillables one blasphemous vntruth that the vertue and power which flowes from the words there is two are able to chase away wholy the substance of bread there is a third and that the power which flowes from these words is able to rug pul downe the flesh and blud of Christ that sits at the right hand of his father there is 4. at lest This ministerlike kind of speech that is to say this vvitles and frantike kind of railing and blaspheming and lying that vve suppoâ—e such hid vertue to be inclosed in the sillables and flow from the words he continueth and thus repeateth to make good his former raylative speech of incantation against vvhich he disputeth very gravelie and the more gravely the more ridiculously because he disputeth against the false conceit of his owne fansie and not against any faith of ours His argument is this VVe deny that any vertue is inclosed in the sillables For if there were such a vertue and power inclosed in the sillables by that reason there should be a vertue in the figure and shape of the letter that makes vp the word Now there is no man wil thinke that there is any vertue in the figure or shape of the letter ergo c. Doubtles a profound argumeÌ„t vvhich if M. B. could have vsed vvel towards Iohn Knox that famous incestuous adulterer and Apostata M. B. his predecessor the chief Scottish Apostle of this age the Scottish ministers vvhich now rule he might perhaps have much refrayned and vvithdrawen both him them from their vsual magicke familiar coniuratioÌ„ of spirites For of Knox it is testified that even in Geneva vvhere he vvas to pretend a litle honestie he vvas much geven to such kind of study and of the Scottish ministers it is publikely witnessed by one vvho speaketh of his certaine knowlege that no other science and so belike not the Iustitutions of Iohn Calvin nor yet the vvord of the Lord is more ordinarle and 〈…〉 liar there or more diligently studied or had in mor◠〈…〉 and esteeme then magicke and witcheraâ—â— As for the 〈…〉 liks any creature that is not bereft of common 〈…〉 may soone perceive that this point of incancatioÌ„ â—posâ— pose any vertue or power to lye inclosed in the sillables no more toucheth them then the man in the moone For they know and professe that vvho soever pronounceth these wordes or sillables be he man vvoman or child be he King or Keisar or of vvhat degree and state soever if he be not lawfully called in the church of Christ to the office of priesthod the words and sillables pronounced by any such haue no more vertue and power then if they vvere pronouÌ„ced by a minister of the Scottish or Geneva creation Againe they know prosesse that if a lawful priest or bisshop pronounce them as many do both in their studies vvhen they reade S. Paules Epistles or the Gospels and in the church vvhen privatly they say their service and among other parts of scripture rehearse these vvords there is no more power or vertue in them then in any other vvords or sillables or sentences of the Gospelâ— and yet if there vvere any power or vertue included in the sillables the sillables being stil one like power and vertue should ensue of theÌ„ And therefore M. B. may soone perceive that vve have no such magical imagination of these or any like vvords Mary vvhen a lawful priest or bisshop pronounceth them as the substitute of Christ to that end and vvith that intention and meaning to do as Christ appointed now in this case that these vvords or any other of like effect substance have power vertue to vvorke that vvhich Christ ordeyned to be wrougâ—â— by them vvhat should I go about to prove vvhereas M. B. him self in the next page immediatly confesseth it For I vvil not trouble the reader vvith any distinctions vsual in Catholike vvriters because the simplicitie of this man is such that him self in this very page yeldeth as much to consute him self as I desire or the reader needeth to require For thus he vvriteth VVe deny there is â—â—y vertue inclosed in the sillables or resident in the word But we say there is a power conioyned with the word and vve say no more but al power is resident in the eternal word whereof tobe 〈◊〉 mention in the first of his Euangel Let that stand for 〈◊〉 that yet yow remeÌ„ber your owne words in your first sermon that as the Euangel is a mighty and pâ—tent instrument to our everlasting saluation so the sacrament is a potent instrument appointed by God to deliver and exhibite to vt the thing signified that is Christ Iesus And therefore vvhereas yow say There is not a drams weight of this vertue power resident in any creature but it is only in Christ Iesus vvhich no vvise man denieth so long as yow speake of this vertue to vvit such and in such sort as it is resident in our Saviour the fonteine origin author of al grace and vertue both in vvord and sacrament so yet if yow consider the vvord and sacrament as mighty and potent instruments ordeyned by Christ instrumentally to deliver vs Christ yow must allow vnto them some drams and some ounces to of vertue and power or
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
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
Peter Martyr c. is that the word rocke here signifieth the material stony rocke and so Calvin in his Institutions and Commentarie of this place affirmeth Howbeit in the same place vvithin ten lines after considering better the Apostles vvorde that this rocke fâ—lowed them thorough the desert vvhich can not be expounded of a material stone he goeth an other vvay to vvorke and so doth Beza after him and tâ—keth it for a thing euident and notorious that by the vvord roâ—ke is vnderstood the course of the water which never forsooke that people so long as they vvere in the vvilderneâ— vvhich is a notorius lye and refuted by the storie in the chapter immediatly folowing For there again the people vvant vvater and for supplie thereof haue by Gods ordinance not a rocke but a wel provided for them And therefore VVestphalus iustly nameth Calvin a most vain pratler for that in his last booke against him he vseth this so false an exposition vvhich also P. Martyr though a Caluinist and a great frind of Calvin disproueth and condemneth Insulsissimus blatero saith VVestphalus blaterat Paulum vocare petram non duriciem saxi sed profluentem inde potum VVhereof so much the more appeareth the vanitie of M. B. vvho so specially and hastely requireth vs to yeld to his spiritual tropical sense when his masters as yet can not agree vpon the ground and foundation vvhich must be first layd before they can frame any necessary argument thence to compel or move others ¶ Now for a litle more manifestation of the truth to discover the vveakenes of this maÌ„ let vs resolve backvvards and vndoe al this and graunt as much as M. B. requireth that in these 5. examples there is a figurative speech and that the verb est is must be expounded tropically for significat doth signifie Circumcision signifieth the old testament or is a figure of the old testament the rocke is a figure of Christ the cup is a figure of the new testament and so in the rest VVhat vvil M. B. conclude hereof Ergo in Christs vvords vve must vse like figurative and tropical exposition and they do malitiously vvho deny it Is this his argument Hath he thus learned to assault his aduersaries Then let him geve vs leave to make the like argument thus The name of ministers in the scripture signifieth ministers of the deuil or such ministers as put their helping hand to the crucifying of Christ For so the vvord minister signifieth in S. Paule 2. Corinth 11. 15. in S. Iohn ca. 18. v. 12. 18. 22. ca. 19. 6. in S. Mark 14. 54. 65. and S. Matth. 26. 58. Ergo vvhen M. B. speaketh of the minister vvho breaking bread and dividing vvine in the Scottish congregation the vvord minister must be taken for a minister of the devil one vvho ioyneth vvith Pilate Caiphas and the adversaries of Christ to crucifie him it is of verie malice for mere contradictioÌ„ to the end only that they may gainstand the truth if M. B. his felow-ministers deny this consequent especially vvhereas they are compelled to grauÌ„t this to be the significatioÌ„ of the vvord minister not in one only place of S. Paule 2. Cor. 11. vvhereas vvith one only place of his 5. M. B. can necessarily by his owne iudgement charge vs but in every one of 5. places more to quoted here For nether he nor his are able to deny but the terme minister hath this only precise signification in every one of these places By this argument vvhich is of the same mould and forme vvith his and much better for the matter because he can take exceptioÌ„ against no one of my examples as I haue against most of his let him ghesse vvhat pith is in his owne argument For albeit I make no doubt but that he and his felow ministers are in deed the very ministers of Satan and professed enemies of Christ for their only schisme to omit their sundry detestable heresies as S. Austin in vvhole chapters treatises sheweth yet vpon this argument so to coÌ„clude vvere foolish ridiculous because an other by the like argument might conclude them to be honest men for that in divers other places the terme minister though never in such sense as the vvord is vsed in the Scottish and English coÌ„gregations that is for an Ecclesiastical office and degree above a Deacon signifieth an honest ministerie both in the men and in the office ¶ One place of his that the lamb is called the passeouer Exod. 12. 11. I haue hetherto differred because the lieth much in it and it deserveth both special examination special remembrance and the ground of that obiection cometh not from M. B but from a more profound doctor and therefore I vvil also borow my answere from a doctor his equal Zuinglius vvriteth of him self that vvhen he laboured to plant his Zuinglian heresie that vvhich M. B. defendeth in Zurich and to that end disputed as M. B. doth that est is in Christs vvords This is my body must needs staÌ„d for significat doth signifie vvhich he vvent about to prove by M. B. his argument for that in sundry places of scripture as The sild is the world Matth. ij The seed is the word of God Tie envious man is the devil c. the verbe est is must thus be expounded and reply vvas made by the common â—otarie for the disputation vvas in the Senate â—â—wse that the case vvas nothing like for that in parables vvordes are not taken properly but it is otherwise in sacrements this answere to â—â—â—bled Zuinglius that as he vvriteth of him self tâ—â—â—â—h â—e much beat his brayne herevpon yet he knew â—oâ—â—â—â— to lose this I not Multum capi voluere cogitare riâ—â—l simile poteram reperiâ—e saith he Being thus vexed and peâ—plexed â—e vvent to bed At midnight as he vvas last a sleep there came to him a helper a pionâ—pter vvhether he vvere a Saint or a devil black or white vvhen he wrote the storie he remembred not vvho thus spake to him quin ignâ—ue resâ—ondes qued est Exod. 12. 11. est enim phâ—se id est transitus deâ—iâ—s VVhy thow lazie lorrel answerâ—st â—how not by this text of M. B. the lamb is the passeâ—â—er Exod. 12. 11. It foloweth in Zuinglius Protinus â—â—pergeâ—â—â— â— lecto exiliâ— loâ—â—m circunâ—sticio c. Forthwith I aâ—â—â—â—d â—â—â— of my sleep I leapt out of my bed I looked out the place I â—isputed thereof according to my abilitie before al the multitude and that satiâ—fied them al. Albeit the vaniâ—ie of Zuinglius argumâ—t suggested by this sprite of darknes drawe â—â—â—m this one place may easely appeare by that vvhich hath bene said for if siem the sense of a vvord so vsed in â— or 6. places vve can not necessarily conclude the like sense in a seuenth place much lesse can
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
vvho vvant a right faith and confidence in him vvhereon intierly dependeth the health of their sowle their quietnes of conscience and peace with God True it is that the best and faithfullest seruants of god have iust occasion to feare Gods iudgement as vvhom they must attend for not only a mercyful father but also a iust iudge one that iudgeth every man not according to this solifidian persuasion and presumption but according to his worke that so severely that the iust man shal scarce be saved and therefore the prophetes Apostles S. Paule S. Peter and Christ him self ever taught their scholers as to hope wel so to feare in feare trembling to vvorke their owne salvatioÌ„ But great or rather infinite is the difference betwene feare dread reverence and trembling vvhich the scripture commendeth these terrible doubtings wonderful stammerings and wonderful pits of desteration in to vvhich these men thrust the best seruants of God And yet this preaching vvere more tolerable if he spared our Saviour him self and set not him farther out of Gods fauour as these men measure it according to this their presumptuous confidence then the vvorst servant of God that ever vvas For vvhereas of such servants M. B. saith that the Lord never sussereth them to despaire though they be brought to the very brinke of desperation yet are they not swallowed vp of it Christ our blessed Sauiour he thrusteth farther in to the very bottomles pit of desperation For saith he To what end doth the lord cast his servants so low He answereth To the end they may feâ—le in their harts and consciences what Christ suffered for them in the yard and on the crosse in sowle and body that we feele in our sowles in some measure the hel which he susteined in ful measure VVhere attributing to Christ the ful measure of that vvhereof he alloweth to his seruants but a portion vvhom yet he draweth to the very brinke of desteration he manifestly teacheth that Christ despayred fully and absolutely according to the doctrine of that monstrous caytive Calvin vvho vvriteth expressely that Christ not only internally in mind despayred but also externally brast out in to a speech of desperation vne voix de desespoir luy est eschappee in his french Harmonic vpon the Gospel and the gehennical church of Geneva in vvhose Catechisme Christ is subiected to the same torment of conscience and paynes of hel as are the damned and reprobate the impenitent sinners whom God doth punish in his terrible wrath saue that Christ susteyned that for a tyme only a day or two in the yard on the crosse saith M. B. vvhich they must endure continually VVhich doctrine invented or published by Calvin and Beza taught in the Geneva Catechisme and here briefly vttered by M. B. besides that it taketh away one article of our faith Christs descent in to hel in effect marreth and destroyeth al articles of our Christian Creed so far as they apperteyne to the redemption vvrought by Christ For if the perfection of Christian iustice be measured by firme persuasion of Gods mercy and favour and as M. B. vvriteth he that hath no measure of this faith hath no measure of peace vvith God Christ of al gods seruants that ever vvere vvas farthest from this measure as being plunged in desperation in ful measure then vvas Christ farthest of all other from being at peace vvith god and therefore was most vnfit to be a peace-maker for others to reconcile man to God pacifying things in heaven and earth vvhereas him self vvas not at peace vvith God nether had that peace of conscience vvhich every Protestant hath A forme of pietie the vertue vvhereof he denieth his vvords cary vvhen as he preacheth that this faith and persuasion vvhich he so magnifieth and baptizeth by the name of their iustifying faith dependes vpon the quiet state of a good conscience This quiet state is troubled by nothing in the world but by sinne Herevpon he falles in to a commoÌ„ place vvhich conteynes much good moral talke that we must glorifie god by doing good works there maÌ„ be an agreemeÌ„t betwene the hart the hand thy conuersatioÌ„ man of necessitie be changed with thy hart and be holy honest godly as thy hart is VVe must love our neighbour els we can not love God Faith is tried by his fruits and except thow glorifie God by thy deeds and make thy life holy to testifie thy holy faith al is but vayne al is but mere hipocrisie c. If thy conversation be good it is a sure token that thow hast a true faith and art one with God But if thy conuersation be not good let men say what they wil thy hart is defiled true and lively faith is not in thee Al vvhich and much more of like effect in fine he plainly referreth to this conclusioÌ„ So this ground holds fast A doubting conscience makes a weake faith The more doubting is the coÌ„science the weaker is the faith A good conscience makes a strong faith Hurt your coÌ„science yow hurt your faith For how can I be persuaded of gods mercy whose anger I feele kindled against me and against whom my conscience shewes me to be gilty of many offences Once again Every of yow take tent to your conscience For keep a good coÌ„science and thow shalt keep faith The better thy conscience is the starker thy faith is Loosing it a good coÌ„science ye loose faith and loosing faith ye loose saluation The hail exhortation that we gather on this point depends vpon this To omit his false ground that strong persuasion and confidence of Gods mercy can not stand vvith sinful life or evil conscience vvhereas presumptioÌ„ vvhich is a degree beyond confidence may so be coupled and oft tymes is sure reason certain experience and manifest scripture telleth vs that to to many there are vvho in the depth of their iniquitie say The mercy of the lord is great he wil be merciful to my sinnes be they never so many to omit this and marke only the il coherence of these mens fantastical gospel here faith of necesâ—itie requireth good conscience good conscience dependeth of holy life So vvhere holy life is abandoned and sinne raigneth good conscience is lost and that being perished faith also perisheth Vpon vvhich gradatioÌ„ he inveigheth against certain great men whose oppressions of the poore whose deadly feids with their owne companions would not burst out in so high a measure if they had advised wel with their consciences But the Lord seing them take so litle tent to their consciences he spoiles them of faith and of the hope of mercy Out of al vvhich vve may must conclude and so M. B. him self teacheth vs that faith in these men may be easely lost vvhich being altogether fastned and tyed to good conscience and
to continue men not become vvemen or threaten them that except they stood fast in their new gospel they should never be able to passe from Scotland to Denmark ether on foote or horseback or vvalke in one day from Edinburgh to HierusaleÌ„ This is to foolish impious yet this is the very forme tenor of the scriptures by M. B. Calvins doctrine And as foolish and impious is Calvins answere to these and the like places that the Apostles Evangelists Christ and al scripture speake vnproperly therefore their speaches are now to be corrected by this vvorshipful squire and Evangelist of Gebenna or rather Gehenna And vvhat can be devised more pregnant and forcible against this then that vvhich the Apostle Paule vvriteth to the Hebrews that some vvho vvere endued vvith faith and that in the most high and excellent degree vvho vvere once illuminated after their illumination had tasted the heavenly gift were made partakers of the holy ghost had moreouer tasted the good word of God and powers of the world to come vvhich is to yeld them al the prerogatiues and tastings of Gods grace vvhich M. B. somtime talketh of and chalengeth to his elect yet these men so amply illuminated after al this fel from the faith yea fel in so desperate sort that as much as in them lay they crucified again the sonne of God made a mocke of him If true faith once had can never be lost vvhat commentarie vvil M. B. make of these vvords I omit to produce fathers of the primitive Church of vvhom no one from the first to the last ever dreamed of this CaluiniaÌ„ frensie Yet if M. B. have mind to see this in them refelled generally by scripture let him reade S. Austin vvho most of al other vvas by reason of the heresies of his tyme concerning grace exercised in this kind of argumeÌ„t he shal find inough to satisâ—â—e a reasonable man Certainly to geve men in this vvorld securitie assurance assurance I say not of hope but of faith that they shal not nor can perish eternally is to turne vpside downe and cleane invert the nature of humanitie and divinitie of heaven and earth of man and Angels it is to geve the crowne to one vvho yet is fighting and hath not obteyned the victorie to geve him the garland vvho yet is running his race and vncertain how to hold his course to put him in the sure port who yet is rowing on the sea and tossed vvith the vvaues thereof to geve mortal man in this life that reward for vvhich in this life vve labour and is proper to the next and by gods ordinance appointed for the blessed sowles and angels confirmed in grace that is in one vvord to make men beleeve they are already sure of heaven and salvation vvho by this very presumptioÌ„ are in the broad and most certain vvay to hel and eternal damnation But because if I should proceed in this sort vvith the rest of these two last sermons I perceive I should fal in to that tedious prolivitie vvhich I most covet to avoid I vvil therefore only vvrite downe shortly M. B. his strauÌ„ge assertions concerning faith and vvorks adding for confutation no other authoritie then his owne vvhich I wil likewise put downe so nigh as may be in his owne vvords but alwayes in his owne sense And let this stand for the first The first Faith depends on good life and conscience and so vvith the losse thereof faith and saluation is lost Contra Faith once had can never be lost vvhatsoever a manâ— life is For God never reuokes or takes away the gift of faith which once he hath geven Faith shal never vtterly decay perish out of the hart wherein it makes once residence II. Faith is the onlâ— moven and instrument whereby we applie Christ vnto our sowles And there is in the scripture no other instrument of applying Christ to vs but this Contra. Love of Christ is an instrument vvhereby vve apprehend and grip Christ better then by faith even as the meate vvhich vve eate tast better nurrisheth our body then that vve only feed our eye vvithal III. VVhere the conversation is not holy let men speake what they wil there the hâ—râ— is defiled there this true and liuely faith hes no place Contra. Be our conuersation never so vvicked howsoeuer â—â—â— bodies be losed to al dissolution faith ever remaineth the fier of true faith is never put out suppose it be covered IIII. The gift of faith where ever it be in what hart soeuer is never idle but perpetually working working wel by love and charitie VVhere ever it be it is not dead but lively that is Al men vvhich have faith are perpetually vvorking vvel by love and charitie Contra. In some of our great men their oppressions of the poore their deadly feids with their owne companions burst out in sick an high measure as shew that they advise not wel with their consciences wherein depends faith And therefore the Lord seing them take so litle tent to their consciences spoiles them of faith Then some men vvhich have faith vvorke not perpetually vvel by love charitie V. Sinne severeth a man from God God can not dwel in a man that alway committeth sinnes Contra. The best men every day and howre commit grosse sinnes Yet the faithful in their greatest dissolutions fal they to murther and adulterie as Dauid did they never leese the spirite of God So then God dwelleth in them notwithstanding their continual sinnes VI. A Christian man living dissolutely in sinne can not have faith and confidence in the mercy of God For how may be have faith in the mercy of God whose conscience witnesseth to him daily that for his manifold sinnes Gods wrath is kindled against him A hurt conscience man ever doubt and the more we doubt the lesse is our persuasion Na question so long as the sense of gods anger and feeling of my offenses bides I can not have a starke persuasion that he wil be merciful to me and so yow can not have a right faith vvhich vvith yow is a starke and strong persuasion of gods mercy Contra. A Christian man living never so dissolutely can never leese faith The spoonks whereof worke in him continual morse and makes him cal to God for mercy every day And â—â—â—â— prayer is a certain argument of the right faith and beleefe in God For I can not speake to him nor pray to him in whom I trust not Ergo a brother sinning never so much not only may haue but also actually hath faith cofidece in the mercy of God For els he could not pray vnto him Again In despite of the devil and the corruption which is in vs and M. B. vvho teacheth the contrarie this faith shal never perish and then necessarily such a man hath a stark
and such like it may be answered in his behalf that to require of him or any other of his profession to make their doctrine ech part agreable to other in places so far distant is vnreasonable and against the tenor and qualitie of their gospel vvhich euermore varieth and altereth VVhich libertie also M. B. closely insinuateth and chalengeth to him self in these Sermons vvilling his auditors in the second of them to take this for the present vntil he have more insight in these matters and it appeareth his insight vvas more in the 4. and 5. Seâ—mons then it vvas in the third I omit also vvhich yet is very markable and diligently to be noted that for al these blind contrarie assertions he stil alleageth scripture as vvel for one part as the other That faith is lost by evil life he proveth by scripture That faith is never lost by any meanes he proveth at large and more abundantly by scripture That faith is a substantial ground an assurance and certaine pâ—rsuasion without al doubting he proveth by S. Paul That faith may stand vvith doubting looke to the Apostle saith M. B. the Apostle saith we always are in doubt but we despaire not For vvhich text refeiring it to faith as he doth that we always are in doubt of our faith or any part thereof vve may looke for it in the Apostle til our eyes be out and never find it That the holy ghost can not abide and remayne in a sinful sowle is proved by scripture That the holy ghost never departeth from the elect commit they sinnes never so fowle and filthy for this also he alleageth scripture and so forth for the rest that faith is ever vvorking wel by charitie sometimes not vvorking wel c. scriptures especially S. Paul is ever at hand to iustifie al. ¶ But the most absurd and grosse contrarietie is that he maketh the very frame body of his discourse plaine repuguant to his beginning ending he setteth as it vvere the head feet of a horse to the body of a man as though he vvould protest him self to be of the number of those of vvhoÌ„ the Apostle speaketh They covet to be taken for doctors of the law and preachers of the gospel vvhereas they vnderstand nether what things they speake nor whereof they affirme For what is his discourse in these 2. Sermons touching preparation Forsooth that to the vvorthy receiving of the Lords supper is required preparation vvhich conteynes many parts that the communicant have true faith in Christ love God love his neighbour pray be merciful bring forth good fruits glorisie God in vvord and deed be sorie for sinne coÌ„mitted â—heretofore diligently eschew it for the tyme to come hate sinne and also have sorow for it For it is not inough to hate it if thow lament not the committing of it and with a godly sorow deplore it vvherein he speaketh like a Papist or Catholike not like a Gospelling Protestant this being flat against the common vvriting of his maisters Luther Calvin Musculus Melanchton Beza c. yea against his owne Scottish communion booke For it was one of Luthers capital articles condemned by the Romane See and after stubbornely mainteined by him and his sectaries as an article most true Christian and godly plane manifeste Christianissimus that such contrition and lamenting for sinne as here M. B. commendeth maketh one an hipocrite yea a greater and more grevous sinner before God facit hypocritam imo magis peccatorem and the Scottish communion booke speaking of this verie point saith that the Lord requireth no other worthines on our part lut that we vrfaynedly ackowlege our naughtines and imperfection briefly and in summe the person that vvould vvorthely receive the supper must trie his conscience in these 2. points first to know whether it beat peace with God secondly whether it be in love charitie and amitie with his neighbour This preparation vvhich thus in these last Sermons he most prosequuteth may seeme both to incite his auditors to great holynes and to make others suppose that he hath a verie divine and high opinion of their supper to the receiving vvhereof such great preparation is required But vvilt thow see good reader al this overthrowen in one sentence Marke his first proposition in the first page of these last Sermons wherein he avoweth preparation to be always at al times as wel necessarie for hearing the siwple word as for receiving the visible sacrament and like preparatioÌ„ requisite for the one as for the other For so he foloweth on vvith his discourse The Apostle in the words that we have read 1. Cor. 11. v. 28. gives his commaund that we should not come to the table of the Lord we should not come to the hearing of the word rashly but with reverence we should prepare and sanctifie our selves in some measure VVith the same conclusion he shutteth vp both these sermons thus speaking in the last leaf Thus ye see in what points every of yâ—w ought to be prepared Ye man be indâ—ed with loue â—aith if ye haue these in any smal measure go baldly to the hearing of the word and receiving of the sacrament VVhy Siâ—is this the vvay to make your auditors to amend them selves their life and maners or to engender iâ— them reverence towards the supper to tel them that like preparation is required for hearing the simple vvord as for receiving the sacrament To leâ— rest for a vvhile the grosse absurditie and vile consequence vvhich dependeth hereon lâ—â— vs first learne vvhere yow find this kind of Theologie Yow answere The Apostle in the words which yow have read to your auditors 1. Cor. 11. ver 28. interpones his counsel and geves advise and not only that but also geves his admonition and commaund that we should not come to the table of the lord we should not come to the hearing of the word rashly but with reverence c. Let vs consider the text in the Apostle The place by yow quoted is this according to the translation of Calvin and Beza Let every one try him self and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh to himself damnation for that he discerneth not the lords body VVhere find yow here that a man must come vvith such reverence as yow tel vs of to heare the word Yea vvhere find yow the vvord mentioned at al ether in that verse or in the vvhole chapter VVhat grosse impietie corruption is this to publish so vvicked vnreasonable pestilent doctrine then to father it on the blessed Apostle and namely in this place vvhere it is most repugnant to the vvhole drift of the Apostles atgumeÌ„t VVhat one I vvil not say of the Apostles or primitive fathers and auncient Doctors but vvhat man indued vvith any meane learning
meane wit or sense of Christianitie ever wrote or affirmed that Gods vvord could not be heard fruitfully but of such men as vvere first indued with the love of god and then vvith the love of their neighbour in and for god and had such other vertuous dispositions as here yow require in your communicants Doth not the vvhole course and scope of the new testament shew infinit dissimilitude betwene the vvord of God and this sacrament of God in this respect vvithal resel this your to grosse folie VVhereas the sacrament in the verie place by yow read to your auditors if ye read truly is peculiarly appointed for the good and holy those that have tried and examined vvel them selves contrariwise is not the vvord of God by Gods like ordinance indifferent as vvel to the vnholy as holy to the bad as to the good as vvel to correct the one as to preserve the other to illuminate the faithles as to continue the light kindled in the faithful Do not the vvritings and preachings of Christ and his Apostles confirme this â— Preached they not alike to Iew Gentil to Idolaters to Pagans to sacrilegious persons of al sorts blind for their faith and abominable for their life vvhereof many knew not God much lesse loved him and so could not love their neighbour for him And yet this preaching doubtles vvas vvithout al sinne ether in the Apostles vvho thus preached indifferently to al or in the disciples vvere they Iewes or Gentils vvho heard them In the first primitiue church vvhich vvas immediatly planted by the Apostles preaching of the vvord vvas stil publike vniversal to Heathen no lesse them Christiâ— after for the space of 400. yeres the same maner of preaching the vvord continued vvith expresse order taken by the church by hundreds of bisâ—hops in very general Synodes that nether Pagan nor Iew nor heretike should be excluded from the presence and communication thereof from hearing the word of god vvhen as by precise order both of the Apostles and their successors pastors and rulers of the church al not only heathen Iewes heretikes but also novices in the Christian faith so long as they vvere vnbaptized vvere diligently excluded from being present at or seing the administration of the holy sacrament So that most salse it is like preparation to be required for receiuing the vvord and the sacrament and so to say cleane dasheth and destroyeth both these last sermons induceth the plain opposite of that this maÌ„ vvould seeme to persuade For if no other preparation be necessarie for the sacrameÌ„t then for the simple vvorde it being most cleare and certain that Christ his Apostles al auncient Bisshops vvithout any sinne or offence of any part ether of the preacher or of the heater preached the vvord to Ievves Gentils idolaters vsurers adulterers publicans men and vvomen living in al sinne of body and sowle hereof the deduction is manifest that by like reason the sacrament vvithout sinne of ether part may be delivered and received of Iewes of Gentils of Idolaters of adulterers of vsurers of slannderers of men never so sinful and vvicked VVith vvhich qualities albeit perhaps the elect bretherne of Calvins institution be commonly indued vvho vsually as M. B. vvitnesseth fal in to such grosse sinnes not only seven times but even seventie times seven times that is almost five hundred times every day yet thus to instruct and teach them and namely at such tyme and place was a very vnfit vvay of preparation to vvorthy receiving of the sacrament for vvhich by this doctrine any preparation suffiseth to vvhich they can never come vnworthely nor receive it to their condemnation no more then Marie Magdalen the sinful vvoman or other publicans vsurers and sinners received the vvord of Christ or his Apostles to their condemnation And this may stand for an evideÌ„t exaÌ„ple of a more general repugnaÌ„ce vvherein pretending honour to the sacrament he most dishonoreth it and vvhile at large he persuadeth great care of preparation he shortly but pithily dissuadeth the same causeth his auditors to neglect castavvay al such care Now to end this matter let vs consider one other like general example vvherein he vniversally both gainsaieth him self marreth al his deuout preaching and setteth his auditors in the high vvay to al audacitie licence libertie and fleshly securitie Towards the end of his secoÌ„d sermoÌ„ thus he armeth them against al tentatioÌ„s and teacheth them how they shal find repose in their conscience be their sinnes never so great their contempt of God and despising of his commaundements never so notorious and horrible and their owne conscience never so vehemently accusing them thereof VVhen saith he the devil thy owne life and conscience accuseth thee and beareth witnes against thee go backe ouer again to thy bygane experience cast over thy memorie and remember if god at any time in any sort hath loved thee if ever thow felt the love and favour of god in thy hart c. Remember on this and repose thy assurance on this that as he loved thee ains he wil love the ay and wil assuredly restore thee to that love or thow dye The hart that felt ains the loue of god shal feele it again And looke what gift or grace or what taist of the power of the world to come that euer the lord gave to his creatures in this life to that same degree of mercy he shal restore his creature or ever it depart this life This lesson he vvilleth his audience to locke vp in their harts remember on it faithfully as a most vvorthy comfort and me â—icament for their conscience I vvil not spend time in reâ—uting this strauâ—ge doctrine nether how it contrarieth the scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists in a number of places And yet I may no let passe briefly to vvarne the â—eader that not only in the thing and substance of the matter but also in the very forme of vvords and maner of phrase most vvickedly yea like a flat Apostata enemy of the Apostles al Apostolical doctrine he directly opposeth him self to the Apostle For vvhereas S. Paule saith that such Christians as have once bene made partakers of gods graces and gifts and have taisted the word of god and power of the world â—â— come vvhen such men become Apostataes and fal from God it is impossible for them to recover their former estate and grace M. B. running ful but against the Apostle saith in the same vvords phrase that such as have once receiued the grace gift of the holy ghost or taisted the power of the world to come fal they never so desperatly in to vvhat dissolution of body and sowle soeuer most certain and sure it is that before their death they shal recover be restored to the same grace degree of mercy againe Yea vvhich is far more vvonderful and far
Calvinists pag. 348. 350. B BAptisme of Christ S. Iohn Baptist differ pag. 198. 199. Baptisme conferreth grace and remission of sinnes pag. 97. 98. Baptisme of the Calvinists by their doctrine is no sacrameÌ„t of Christs Gospel pag. 114. 115. as nether is their Supper Ibid. Nether of them conferreth any grace 185. 186. Baptisme is to them only a ceremonie pa. 105. Only a signe 106. Remitteth no sinne nor doth any good to the sowle 105. 106. 186. Baptisme by the Caluinists ministred vvithout vvater pag. 60. see Sacrament Berengarius the first notorious heretike against the sacrament pa. 23. General Councels against him 24. 26. His recantation 25. He is condemned by the Protestants 27. His doctrine as likewise al other that is new proued heretical 32. 33. He learned his sacrameÌ„tarie heresie of a Iew 100. Bertrams doubtful vvriting of the sacrament pag. 22. 23. Bezaes frowardnes and hipocrisie 101. 106. His vaine bostiâ—g of him self 144. 145. Blessing of creatures vvickedly denyed by M. B. pag. 153. 154. Christ blessed creatures pa. 153. Especially the bread and vvine at his last supper 152. 154. 158. 337 Blessing c geving thankes differ much pag. 152. 153. M. Bruces Sermons vvhat they conteyne pag. 118. 119. 426. M. B. very vnconstant in his preaching 208. M. B. his coÌ„tradictions pa. 120 128. 194. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 389. 390. 399. 400. per totum cap. 22. M B. his had argumeÌ„ts against remission of sinnes imparted by man pag. 197. 198. Against sacrifice to be offered to God 258. 259. Against private coÌ„munions pa 2â—0 â—81 Against Christs presence in the sacrament 253. 254. 255. 256. 368. 374. 375. M. B. coÌ„trane to al other Calvinists pa. 185. 186. 187. 210. 212. 419. 420. To the English church pa. 212. 222. 282. To the Scottish church pa. 419. 420. His arguments answered by Calvin 351. 355. 356. By the Consistorie of Geneva 358. 361. By Luther 377. 378. 394. By VVestphalus 394. 395. M. B. corrupteth the Gospel against Christ 320. 321. 322. He corrupteth S. Paul 288. 289. 421. vnto vvhom he is fully opposite 424. He applieth Scripture to prove contrarieties 418. 4â—â— M. B. measureth Diuinitie by physicke pag. 392. 393. M. B. assureth heauen to Pagans no lesse then Christians pag. 427. This bread and this cup vvhat it signifieth in S. Paul pag. 289. C. CAluins inconstancie in treating of the Sacrament pa. 70. His double dealing hypocrisie therein 74. 75. 76. 94. His manifold plain testimonies for the real presence 71. 72. 73. He protesteth him self a Lutheran in that point 73. 74. His doctriâ—â— a mockerie of Chistians 300. He corrupteth the scriptures 91. 107. 108. Calvins cundit-pipe for receiving the sacrament pa. 75. Calvins contradictions touching the Sacrament pa. 77. 78. Calvins sacramentarie Gospel leadeth to Iudaisme pa. 116. 117 where it began â—00 Calvin a mere Zuinglian 89. 90. Calvinists Zuinglian Berengarians Sacramentaries al one pa. 45. 70. 90. VVho is a right calvinist or Sacramentarie 45. Calvinists make void the Tesâ—ament of Christ pa. 5. Enemies of Christ 207. They make Christ to have despayred 403. They denie his redemption 403. 404. Calvinists Atheists pa. 53. 325. they hate the words of Christ pa. 54. 162. How sometimes they magnifie their sacrameÌ„t 69. Thei corrupt the scriptures 350. 351. 370. 371. 394. Fathers 348. 349 Calvinists practise their CoÌ„munions without the words of Christs Institution pa. 54. in Germanie Ibi. in England 55. 56. 57. in Scotland 58. 156. 159. 160. 161. 162. in Suizzerland 58. 59. Calvinists coÌ„munion may be ministred without ether bread or wine pa. 59. 60. 361. By wemeÌ„ 61. 65. and boyes 66. The Calvinists Creed pa. 325. 326. By what Doctors they vse to coÌ„firme their Gospel 53. 394. Their Gospel denyeth almost al Articles of the Apostolike Creed 437. Their Gospel a Gospel of Epicure Venus 425. 426. 428 Calvinists condemned by the Protestants of Germanie 73. 74. 394. 395. Their maner of writing and disputing 162. 394. Their faith framed by physicke 394. 395 396. They applie scriptures to prove any thing 418. The Calvinian Gospel destroyeth al religion pa. 430. 436. 437. Good workes 431. 432. Faith 432. 433. It erreth in matters of great weight 436. It is lesse covered with sheepes clothing then old heresies 438. 439. A more enemie to memories monumeÌ„ts of Christianitie then is the Aleoran 439. 440. It is condemned by them selves 441. 43. Ever vnconstant altering 444 Many differences betwene the Gospel of Christ this of Calvin 444. 445. 446. Carnal cognation esteemed by Christ 318. 319. Carolostadius in our tyme the first father of the sacramentaries pa. 39. His interpretation of Christs words 39. 40. approved by Zuinglius 44. A description of him 41. He was very familiar with the devil 41. 42. Catholike words vsed with heretical meaning pa. 129. 173. DiffereÌ„ce betwne Catholiks Protestants touching the assurance of salvation pa. 302. 303. No salvation out of the Catholike church 316. The Catholike visible church eternal ever directed by the Spirit of truth 32. 33 Chalice or cup in S. Paule what it signifieth 289. chalice of Christ mingled with water 151. 158. 159 Christ honored his mother 318. 319. Christ made â—â—â—s Testament aâ— his last supperâ—ba 6. He sacrificed him self thereiâ— 8. 9. See more hereof in Testament SacrameÌ„t Christs flesh profiteth pa. 322. It feedeth vs to eternal life 32â— 234. It is at one time in heaven and in the sacrament 342. Hovv it is horrible to eate Christs flesh 363. 364. It is received really 202. 203. 204. 365. 366. Corporal touching of Christ profitable 327. 329. 330. 331. sometimes vvithout faith of the party profited 331. 332. much more corporal and spiritual touching as in receiving the sacrament 332. Christs words of the Sacrament diversly straungely interpreted by Carolostadius pa. 39. 40. By Zuingliê° 42. By OecolaÌ„padius the Anabaptists 43. Many other contrarie interpretatioÌ„s of those vvords 44. 45. Al approued by Zuinglius and Musculus 45. 46. 47. 48. Calvins and M. B. exposition of those vvords 204. 205. 206. The true sense of those vvords 3. 4. 5. 124. 362. 369. 370. Confessed by a sacramentarie Martyr pa. 55. Christs body in the sacrament received of evil men pa. 290. 291. 292. Christ not received of evil men in their supper saith M. B. other Calvinists 288. 293. 295. The contrarie is proued by the whole course of his and their doctrine 296. 297. 298. VVhat it is to eate Christ 7 by their Theologie 78. 79. 29. 298. The worst men eate him so 299. 300. See Special faith Christ no otherwise received in the Sacramentarie communion then out of it pa. 79. 80. 81. 82. Better out of it 83. Christs miraculous entrance to his disciples the doores being shut pa. 384. 385. 386. Many wayes cluded by the Calvinists 384. 385. Christs Ascension and sitting at Gods right hand vvhat it meaneth pa. 354. 355. It rather proveth the real presence then
hindereth it 354. 355. Christ is absent from the world not from his church 356. 357. Christ concurreth with his Ministers in conferring grace by his sacraments pa. 183. 201. 202. Christs body glorified hath preemineÌ„ce aboue al others pa. 397. Circumcision a seale of iustice to Abraham peculiarly pa. 131. 132. The Iewes Communion pa. 100. 101. 102. Compared with Calvins 102. 103. They are after the Calvinists doctrine al one 103. 104. 105. In truth the Iewish much better proved at large pa. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 115. 116. The Calvinian Communion no sacrament of Christs gospel pa. 104. 115. The definition thereof 104. 109. Priuate Communions improved by the Calvinists pa. 277. 278. 280. Approved by al the primitiue church pag. 278. 279. 285. Item approved by the Lutheran ProtestaÌ„ts 283. 284. 285. M. B. reasons to the contrarie 280. Answered 281. by them 283. A policie of the Devil to deny priuate communions 285. 286. Confidâ—ce engendred by Catholike faith pa. 312. Presumption by the protestant faith 303. 304. Feare as necessarie to be taught as confidence 402. Sacrament of Confirmation pa. 143. 144. VVords of Consecration religiously obserued in the church 334. They are pronounced in the East church alowd 337. And of old in the VVest 336. It vvas is an evident testification of the real presence 336. 337. 338. VVhat power or vertue is in the words 339. 340. 341. Christs words of consecration beleeved to be of great force in the primitiue church pa. 49. 50. 51. To be of no force in the Protestant church 51. 52. 53. 217. 218. See VVorde VVhat is a Contradiction pa. 388. 389. D Dominica coena our lords supper pa. 245. See Sacrament E English clergy against the Scottish touching the necessitie of preaching to make sacraments pag. 221. 222. 223. S. Paules Epistle to the Hebrewes denyed by the Calvinists pa. 313. Erasmus faith touching the real presence pa. 34. His grounds reasons thereof 34. 35. F VVhat faith Christ required in them whom he healed pag. 328. Faith defined by S. Paule pa. 314. 315. No similitude betwene S. Paules faith and the Caluinists 315. 316. Their faith is no faith 308. But arrogant presumption 303. 304. 409. 410. Faith not the only iewel of the sowle pa. 312. How it worketh confidence in the hart 312. 313. Once had it may be lost 408. 409 Faith to be vrged before reason in matters of Diuinitie 391. Only faith iustifieth not pa. 401 Fathers of the primitiue church condemned by the Calvinists for their beleef of the church sacrifice 15. 257. For preferring the sacrameÌ„ts of Christs Gospel before those of Moyses law 93. For preferring Christs baptisme before S. Ihon Baptists 199. G Geneua consistorie dispenseth against Christ pa. 59. 60. 147. 361. Gospel See Protestant S Gregories coÌ„passion of the English pag. 442. Gyges ring 346. H Heretical craft to disproue one truth by coÌ„mending an other pa. 311. Heretikes deceiue by faire speeches 17â— I Iewel a eaviller vpon words pa. 15. 16. A notorious lyer corrupter of fathers 389. A shufler together of sentences out of the fathers to no end 149 150. L Liturgia with the Greekes the same that Masse in the Latin church pa. 17. 250. 251. Luther author in general of the sacramentarie heresie pa. 37. 38. His rule to interprete scriptures by â—â— M Manna and his properties pag. 111. 112. 113. Martyrs of the primitiue church most zealous pa. 136. The vvord Masse vsed in the primitiue church pa. 253. 254. But sacrifice much more 254. 255. Of priuate Masse See priuate communion Scottish Ministers much geven to sorcerie witchcraft pa. 3â—â— They condemne them selues for heretikes 196. Verie inconstant in their preaching 440. 441. Ministers in their sermoÌ„s what they handle most 219. The name Ministers 374. 375. Never found in scripture in the Calvinists sense 375. N Nabugodonosors fiery fornace hote and cold at one instant 387. 388. O Gods omnipotency denyed by M. B. and the Calvinists pa. 137. 381. And withal the vvhole bodie of scripture 381. 382. principles of Christianitie 383. P Phisical qualities necessarie to humaine bodies bind not the body of Christ 344. 345. 346. 383. 384. Priests remit sinnes in the church pa. 194. 195. 196. 197. God is honored thereby 197. They communicate Christs body to the faithful 201. 202. Protestant Gospel suggested by the devil to Carolostadius pa. 41. 42. To Luther 304. To Zuingliê° 376. 378. It overthrovveth al Christianitie 388. Protestants once indued vvith their special faith can never after leese it pa. 306. Nor yet the holy ghost howsoever they live Ibidem As sure of their electioÌ„ and saluation as of any article of their faith 303. 307. 308. 413. 414 See special faith The Protestants rule vvhereby they interprete scripture pa. 38. 39 R Real presence of Christ in the sacrament pa. 20. 21. 22. 49. 50. 51 Acknovvleged by the old fathers for a cause of our resurrection 169. 170. 171. 325. Real presence proved by scripture 202. 371. by fathers 203 204 291. 292. 364. 365. 366. 369. 391. 392. By protestant Doctors 349 354. It standeth vvel vvith the memorie of Christs death 363. Al religion grounded on two pillers pa. 430. Resurrection of our bodies denyed by the Calviâ—ists pa. 323. 324. 325. 326. 383. Rock what it signifieth in S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. 4. eagerly debated betvvene the protestant Doctors pa. 373. 374. Romain church for 500. or 600. yeres after Christ pure in faith by graunt of many Protestant Doctors 252. 253. S The word Sacrament most auncient pa. 132. Much disliked and condemned by M. B. and other Calvinists pa. 119. 1â—2 127. Yet most vsed by him and them 120. 121. 125. Their wicked sophistrie in abusing that vvord 125. Exemplified by their expounding of Christs vvords touching the Sacrament pa. 122. 123. 124. 125. 174 Divers significatioÌ„ of the word Sacrament 126. Sacraments of the new Testament never called selves in the scripture pa. 130. 132. In the Calvinists sense they are lying seales â—6 They are fondly and falsly so called 141. 142. 144. Definition of the Geneua or Scottish sacrament that it is a seale of the word preached pa. 134. Refuted 135. 136. 137. 138. 140. 214. It is plainly Anabaptistical 138. 139. 140. The word is rather a seale to the sacrameÌ„t then contrariwise 141. 142. VVhence probably this doctrine of seales proceded 213. 214. Sacraments in what sense called seales by the auncient fathers 143. 144. The SacrameÌ„t to the Calviniste nothing but a seale 〈…〉 84. 85. A lying seale 86. A signe without al grace or vertue 87. 105. A bare signe 70. 88. 89. 90. 106. No better then a Iewish ceremonie 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 104. 106. 107. See Supper and Communion The principal end substaÌ„ce of the Geneua sacrament is to signifie pa. 265. 266. It signifieth vnperfitly 267. Many other things signifie as wel or better therefore are as good sacrameÌ„ts 268. 269. 270. The Calvinists base esteeme of it 112.
113. It is in the power of man to make as good a sacrament 270. 271. 272. 273. Actions of Christ in the Institution of the Sacrament pa. 147. 148. 150. 151. 155. He mingled his chalice vvth water 151. 158. 159. He blessed the bread and chalice 152. 153. 154. 155. The Sacrament vvhy called Eucharist pa. 251. 252. Carefully coÌ„ceiled froÌ„ knowlege of Ievves Pagans in the primitiue church 262. 263. 264. No heretike could be present at the administration thereof 254. 262. The Sacrament reserved sent abrode to private men in the primitive church pa. 278. 279. Yet beleeved to sanctifie and confer grace 279. Only heretikes thought contrarie 279. To receiving the Sacrament other preparation required then to receiving the vvord pa. 421. 422. 423. Sacraments of the Law Gospel much differ in conferring grace pa. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 108. The material parts of the Sacrament signifie many things not necessarily present pa. 359. 360. substance of bread not necessarie to it 359. 361. The Sacrament not called Dominica coena the lords supper in scripture pa. 245. VVhat that word meaneth in S. Paul 245. 246. 247. Nether is it called coÌ„munion in al scripture 247. 248. A Sermon not necessarie to the essence of any SacrameÌ„t p. 218. that opinioÌ„ is refuted by the English church 221. It is plainly Anabaptistical 222. 223. It maketh voyd most baptismes in England and Scotland 224. 225. and also coÌ„munions 226. 227. 228. 229. 235. It maketh the vvord or sermoÌ„ it self superfluous of no effect 230. 231. A Sacramental speech pa. 367. Sacramentaries condemned by Erasmus pa. 34. 35. By Luther 325. 354. 438. By Melancthon 348 349. By Pappus 326. VVestphalus 121. 283. 284. 285. Hosiander many other protestaÌ„t Doctors 344. 436. Euery heretike against the Sacrament an heretike for other matters besides as Berengarius pa. 26. 27. Petrus Brusius Henricus and the Albigenses 27. 28. Almaricus 28. VViclef 29. Christ at his last supper instituted a sacrifice pa. 3. proved by vvords of the Institution 4. 16. and conference of them with the vvords of the legal sacrifice of Moyses lavv 4. 5. Christs sacrifice ordeyned in steed of the Paschal sacrifice of the law pa. 9. 10. The exact coÌ„parison of them proveth ours to be a true sacrifice 10. 11. So al the auncient fathers teach pa. 12. 51. 252. 255. 256. 257. 258. 363. It is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 201. A true sacrifice though commemoratiue 19. 20. Sacrifice of Melchisedec a figure of Christs sacrifice pa. 13. 14. 15. 363. Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles pa. 17. Proved by S. Paule 17. 18. 19. Graunted by some chief Protestants 19. Beleeved in the primitiue church 20. 21. 22. 257. 358. Confessed by both churches Greeke and Latin 26. as Calvin graunteth 257. Sacrifice of the church testified by the auncient fathers 201. 249. 251. 252. 255. 256. 257. Seales divine miracles pa. 142. 143. ProtestaÌ„t Sectes of this age to what number they are grovven pa. 445. Sinne separateth man from God pa. 399. Al sinne mortal none venial with the Calvinists pa. 30. 399. Remission of Sinnes See priests The Protestants special faith invented by Luther pa. 301. 302. putteth them in assurance of their election and salvation 303. 304. Cause of infinite pride and presumption 304. 307. 308. 402. Of vile dissolute life 306. 307. CoÌ„mon to al kind of heretikes especially Anabaptists 304. 305. 4â—4 By this faith the vvorst Protestants eate Christ spiritually in their supper as vvel as the best 304. 307. 308. It leadeth to hel 308. 309. Seâ— Protestants Special faith destroyeth al Christian faith 433. Remission of sinnes in the church Keyes of the church Sacraments of the church pa. 433. prayer to God feare of God 433. 434. This special faith refuted by S. Paule pa. 316. By Caluinists theâ—â— selves 316. 317. By Melancthon 434. 435. This special faith once had can never be lost pa. 306. VVhat is necessarie essential to the Scoâ—tish or Geneva Supper pa. 146. 239. How it is ministred 156. It is nothing like to Christs sacrament for a number of defects 157. 158. 159. 160. 162. 200. 201. 239. 240. 241. 242. and superfluities 220. 223. 224. Any vulgar dinner or repast as good as that Supper 65. 163. It is ministred as wel by wemen and boyes â—â— by their Ministers 65. How Christs body is ioyned to the Geneua or Scottish Supper pa. 174. 175. 274. As to a word spoken 176. 177. 27â— Lesse then to a picture 178. No more then God is ioyned to the devil 175. 176. Nothing at al. 175. 176. It is altogether superfluous ridiculous 179. 180. VVickedly by M. B. preferred before gods vvord 210. 211. 212. The Supper described by M. B. pa. 182. prophanely 182. 183. 184. Striving for the coÌ„munion drinke 184. It is not vvorth a straa 193. 200. 229. rather to be called a breakfast then a supper 332. It is wicked and sacrilegious 242. 243. No sacrament of Christ 229. 233. Christ no othervvise received in the Scottish supper then in any common dinner pa. 187. 206. 275. 276. Then in seeing any creature 189. Christ received no vvayes in their Supper 189. 190. The flesh of priests Catholikes more eaten in the Geneva suppers then the flesh of Christ pa. 229. 230. Divers vncertain significations of the Geneua supper pa. 177. 178. 179. Many things signifie Christ as wel as that 180. 181. 182. How long it remayneth holy 276. 277. T Table See Altar Christs Testament made at his last Supper 6 8. VVhat was required to the making thereof 6. 7. 8. The real presence and sacrifice is thereof inferred 7. 8. 9. How his blud in the chalice is called the new testameÌ„t 371. 372. Difference of the old TestameÌ„t new pa. 98. 99. V No lawful VocatioÌ„ of preachers in Scotland or England pa. 407. VV VVemen may preach and minister the Protestants communion pa. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. VVemen have in them al power ecclesiastical 64. VViclef an heretike and a parasite pa. 29. 30. An heretike to the Calvinists 30. His often Recantation 30. 31. He is condemned by the Protestants 31. 32. The VVord required to make the Calvinists sacrament is a sermon pa. 134. 216. 220. 228. The Ministers preferre their owne words before Christs 216. 217. 218. The right word wanteth in most Scottish sacraments pa. 226. 227. 228. No such word found in scripture as they require 225. Christ vsed no such word pa. 220. 221. 233. See more in Sermon Z Zuinglius an Anabaptist pa. 140. His interpretation of Christs words more fond then that of Carolostadius 43. He learned it of a sprite in the night 376. 378. FINIS A TABLE OF PLACES OF SCRIPTVRE EXPLICATED IN THIS TREATISE ESPECIALLY SVCH AS APPERTEINING TO THE SACRAMENT ARE CORRVPTELY expounded and perverted by the Sacramentaries Genes 3. 15. In the sweate of thy face thow shalt eate thy bread pa. 267. Exod. 12. 6. The children of Israel shal offer
1. Cor. ca. 11. v. 24. Christs body geuen as in Sacrifies Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles Act. â—3 2 Erasmus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in curâ— loâ—um 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masse Lut. 1. v. 2â— hebra ca. â— 2. 6. 1. Covinth 10 14. S. Paul proveth the sacuses Ibi. v. 18. v. 20. v. 16. v. 21. v. 15. Caluin in 1. Cor. a. â—0 v. 17. Hebra 13. 1 Sacrifice vsed among the first Christians Chrysost in 1 Coâ— â— 10. Homil. â—4 Seipsum offâ—rendum prâ—cepit Prasatie operu Vib. Râ—gâ—â— de preplutijâ— viâ—â—u TestameÌ„tâ— so 164 operum parte 3. s 7â— Vrban Regiâ—â— 1. parte opâ—rum de missâ— negotio â— sol 6â— The masse â— true sourifice yet commeâ—â—ratius Mat. 16. â—â— Mâ—t. 17. â— â— Pet. 1. â—â— â—â— 22. 19. Ioan. 6. 51. Ibi v. 64. Real presence Tâ—â—od 〈…〉 3. â—◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 â—â—◠〈…〉 â—◠〈…〉 câ—rnâ—m saluâ— toris nostrâ— quae pro peccâ—tâ— nostris passa est â—t c. Ireneus lib. â—â— ca. 32. True sacrifice of the nevv testament Malach. 10 Before pa. 14 Cypria lib. 2. â—pâ—stola 3. Coâ—cil Nicâ— 1. Real presence real sacrifice Concil Ephâ—s declaratio Anathem 11. pâ— 667. â—n epist Conc. pa. 605. quod proponâ—nitur Ioan. 6. Ibi. v. â—7 Leo epist 23 ad â—lâ—rum popuâ—uÌ„ Constantinop August lib. 3. de ciuitat â—d 10. Centur. â— ca. 4. col 312. Paschas lib. de â—â—rpore sanguine Domini in Eucharistia Concil Nicâ—n 2. Actio 6. â—om 3. Alâ—uinus Rabanus Theophilact c. Apoc. 20. â— Fox Act. monuments anno 1â—7â— pa. 55. 〈…〉 an aâ—câ— hâ—â—â—tike against the sacrament Guâ—tmuÌ„d lib. 1. dâ— sâ—â—rameÌ„to in 〈…〉 VVriters Councels against Beren garius â— Petr. 2. â—â— Berengarius 〈◊〉 Theueâ—â—â—â—â— dâ—â—â—â—m illustres lib. 3. sol 1 2 â— iâ— vita Bereng Guilâ—â—â— Malmeâ—â— lib. 3. â—â—gestis Anglerum Berengarius repentance Vide â—apâ—â—â—um Mâ—ssonâ— in Annalib Fracorum lib. 3. in Philip. râ—gâ—â— Gerson contra Ro ment â—ox Act. â—â—â— Annâ—â—â— 15. pâ— 70 Consent of the Greek latin church touching the sacrofice Concil Florentiâ— Censurâ— Orientalis Ecclesia art 10. ConciliuÌ„ Tâ—ident â—â—â—â— â—â— cap. 1. Berengar con 〈◊〉 the protestants Top Masster in Annâ— lib. Francâ—â—â—â—â— 3. in â—ugâ—ns Rolerâ—â— Occolamp â—â— lib. 3. epistol Zuingliâ—â—â— Occolampad folâ—â—â—â— Papir Massâ— Anâ—â—l Francoâ— lib. 3. in Philip. Aug. Ser S. â—ernard epistol 14â— Crispi in â—â—â—â— mart fol. 9. Fox Acts monuments fol. 71. Albigenses heretiks Antonin 3. parte specuâ—s â—â—stor tit 19. ca. 1. Vincentius lib. 30. Elâ—ncâ—â— Aphabet hâ—â—eâ—uÌ„ lib. 1. cap. 23. Bâ—lsorest in Annalib lib. 3. ca. 80. Fox Acts monuments pa. 70. 〈◊〉 hâ—râ—tâ—â—e Bernard 〈…〉 6. 1. 〈◊〉 lib. â— ca. 29. Extrâ— dâ— sumâ—â— Tâ—nit câ— Finâ—lâ— Nâ—n tam haeretiâ—â— quam 〈◊〉 Ievv defen â— of the Apologie part 1. câ— 7. diuis 3. Ievv ibid. Fox Acts monuments pa. 85. UUicles â— heretike a parasite Fox vbi supra fol. 90. UUicless articles pa. 97. VVicles an 〈◊〉 in the Caluinistâ— Beza annot â—â— 1. Ioan. ca. â— v. 16. VVicless oâ—ten 〈◊〉 Fox Act. monumeÌ„t pa. 91. pa. 9â— Ibid. Henrie 5. â—â— 2. cap. 7. â— â—olâ—â—â— Virgâ—nstor lib. 2â— Fox vbi supra pa. 173. 〈◊〉 â— VViclef an heretike to the Caâ—â—â—nistes Vadianus dâ— Eu 〈◊〉 lib. 5. pag. 162. Pantaleon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pa. 110. Maij 2. Iuly 8. A sure rule to discerne an 〈…〉 Maior The visible Church eternal Psal 11. 9. cap. 2. 3. cap. 54. 13 cap. 39. 21. Esa cap. 60. 18. cap. 62. 6. Matth. 2â— â—â— Ioan. 14. 17 Cap. 16 13. Act. 2. Ephes 4. 1â— Act. 20. 28. Minor Papir Massâ—n vbi supra in Henricâ— rege Conclusion Calu. Instructio contra Libertinâ—s ca. 1â— Ievv defense of the Apologie part 2. cap. 16. diuisio 2. Erasmus faith of the sacrament Membraâ—im discerpi The grounds of Erasmus faith Erasmus lâ—â— 19. epist ad Conrad Pâ—llâ—câ—num pag. 676. Plaine scriptures Idem lib. 2◠〈…〉 pag. â—17â— Immobile â—â—â— damentum Consent of auncient fathers 1. Cor. 13. 1â— Matth. 26. 29. Ubi supra pâ— 1178. Matth. 18. Luther author of the sacrameÌ„tarte heresie Genes 4. 3. 4. Gen. 1. 20 3 Reg. 19. 14 â— Paralip 15. 3. Daniel 3. 38. Dan. 12. 11. Malach. 1. 11 Heb. 7. 11. 12 Cyprian de ca â—a Domini See after chap. â—2 num 2. 4 5. Luther Tom. â— VVittemberg sol 502. The ProtestaÌ„ts rule to interprete scripture Probe perspiâ—uâ—am hae re Papatui cum primis me val de incommodare poss Textus Euangelij nimium apertus est potens Carclostad father of the Caluinists Carolostad interpretation of Christs vvords Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling de ca â—a fol. 155. Ibid. in responsione ad Billicanum et Regium so 261 One lye built vpon an other The rock in both places hath one relation to Peter Hoc this in Christs vvords hath not relation to the bread Cap. 4. num â— THIS HERE Sleidan CommeÌ„t lib. 5. sol 7â— Musâ—ul in locis communib cap. de cana Domini pag. â—â—4 A description of Carolostad Cap. 1. num 8. 9. 10. Melancthon in epistol ad Freder Micâ—niam Luther Tom. 3. Ienens sol 65. Kemnit de cana Domin pa. 214. Vel diabolus fuit vel diaboli mater Alber. contra Carolostadianoâ— Z. 4. pa. 1. Y. 2. pa. 1. Luther in colloq mâ—nsalib so 367. 373 Ego ad illum non respicio sed ad cum a quo obseus est qui per ipsum etiam loquitur Alber. vbi supra s 1. pa. 1. Ioan Soul lib. 50. causatum cap. 50. Zuinglius exgesition of Christs vvords Zuingl Tom. 2. commeÌ„t de vera falâ—a religione cap. de Eucharistia fol. 209. 210 Zuingl Tom. 2. in epist ad Matth. Rutling fol. 158. See after cap. 20. num 1. 4. Luther Tom. 7. defensio verborum caenae c. fol. 386. Hoc enim nihil prorsus simile veri habet Oecolampad exposition of Christs vvords Zuingl Oecolampad epistol lib. 2. fol 64. Other sacramentarie expositions of Christs vvords Luth. Tom. 7 VVittem defensie v. bâ—â—uÌ„â—â—nâ— c. â—ol 387. Muscul in locu communiâ— cap. de â—aâ—a Domâ—â— num 2. pa. 324. Luther vbi supra Simlerus in â—ita ` Bullingers fol. 18. Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling de cana sol 155 Ibid. in râ—sponsio ad Bill â—â— Regium â—â—l 261. VVho is a right Zâ—inglian or Sacramentarie Name of zuinglians or Calvinists Muscul in loâ—â— commun cap. de can◠〈◊〉 pag. 322. Si errarunt errarunt in litera non in spiritu Responsio ad Biâ—ic Regium vbi sup Zuingl Tom. 2. in Exeâ—â—si ad â—uthâ—rum fol. 362. VVestphal Apologia confessio de cana domini pa. 62. 63. 64. 1 Ioan. 6. Straunge expositions of the vvord body 2 3 4 5 Non est alâ—â—â— quam diuine quâ—dam vâ—râ— mâ—dest a panegiris 6 Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling fol. 157. Ibid 7 VVestphalus vâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 35. 36. Caeleste â—raculâ—m
ProtestaÌ„t conference of scripture hovv sure â—â—â—â— Chap. 2â— VVestphal vbi supra pa. 37. Conclusion of the Zuinglian doctrine touching the Sacrament The Zuinglian opinion of Christs vvords Iustinus in Apologiâ—â— Ambros â—â—â—â—â— qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tuâ— cap 9. The force of Christs vvord in making the Sacrament Genes â— Psal â—â— 9. Ambros lib. 4 de sacramenta cap. 4. 5. Quaâ—â— operaâ—â—â—ius sit sâ—â—-â—â—â— Christi Ibi. cap. 5 Cyril lib. 1â— in Ioan. cap. â—â— Vide ibid. lib. 4. cap. â—â— The force â— Christs vvord in making the sacrament Euseb Emissenus Sermo dâ— corpore Dâ—â—â—ns Zuing. Tom. â— Respons ad Conâ—â—â—â—oâ— â—â—â— ther sol 431 Vt â—oâ—um vertuâ—e quicquaÌ„â—â—fiâ—â—atur The Zuinglianâ— take al sorce from Christs 〈◊〉 Zuinglius ibid. lib. â—â— baptistract 1. â—ol 64. A â—evv forme of baptisme Cal. Institut lib. 4. cap. 14. num 4. â—â—â—â— â—â—â—pâ—â—s cap. â— v. 2â— Bullinge deâ—ad â— â—ermâ— 6. Nâ—◠〈◊〉 in Christs 〈◊〉 Plinie a goodly Doctor Protestant Doctors Plinie Hom. â—â— Bezâ— annotat in Luc. ca. 22. v. 20. Bullinger in 〈◊〉 â—irmo part 2. 3. cap. 1â— Ioan. Sâ—â—ut lib. 50. 〈◊〉 â—rum cap. 13. Calu. 2. desens dâ— Sâ—â—â—mâ—nt pag 35. 〈◊〉 minâ—â—â—râ—d vâ—â—â—â—out Christs vvords In Germanie Calu. Instructio contra Aâ—abaptist arti 3. pa. 54. Sleidan lib. 10. â—ol 152. Fox Acts monumet pa. 666. In England Ibi pag. 667. Note tâ—iâ— Pâ—â—â—â—â— Clunia â—â—nsis in Tractatu de saâ—â—â—fiâ—â—o Mâ—â—â—a â—â—x vbi supra Communion vvith out Christs vvords Obiections against this communion 1 â— Cals against the Crosâ—â— art 4. per â—oâ—â—â—â—bium 3 4 Ievvel Reply against Doct. Harding art â— Diuis â—â— Christs vvords order â—eâ—â—â—â—rom the supper The Scottish 〈◊〉 Bucâ—aâ—â—â— Histoâ— Sâ—â—tâ—â— lib. â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â— Scottish communion 〈◊〉 â—â—â— Christs vvords The â—â—â—zzâ—â— communion Zuingl Tom. â— Expositio â—â—dâ—â— Christiana fol. 563. 564. Bullin in epiâ—â—stol ad Hebrâ—â—â— cap. â—â— Paâ—â—â—â—â—â—â—uitâ—â—rtur in â—â—â—â—â—â—is Musculus in â—â—â—â— câ—â—munibus cap. de cana Dâ—miâ—â— pa. 336. Communion vvithout Christs vvords See the. 5. chapiter num 4. Beza epist. Theolog. â— pa. 27. The suppâ—â— ministâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â— In â—â—â—â— vvine Baptisme vvâ—â—ut vvater The 〈◊〉 communion A Protestant communion 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 minister the supper Luther Tâ—m â— lib. de Ministrâ— ecclesia instituâ—ndu sol 3â—2 Omnes faciâ—nâ— tales qualiâ— ipsâ— suit â— consecratores Ibi sol 369. oâ—â—ursâ—â— sol 372. Ibi lib. ratioâ—â—â— iudicij ecclesia c. sol 373. Ibid. lib. â—â—â—brogandâ—â—issa priuata VVâ—menâ— preâ—ching iustified Martyr â—â—â— Cor. cap. â—â— â— 5. Zâ—â—n Tom. â— in â—â—planâ—tio artic 17. so 27. In the Harbâ—rough â—nnâ— 155â— H. â— Al Ecclesiastical povver deriued from a vvoman Anno 1. Elizab c. 1. 3 VVhitegift coÌ„tra T. C. Tract â— cap. 3. diuis 33. â—aâ— Actâ— monumentâ— pa. 52â— Parlament Elizab. anno â— cap. â— VVemens preâ—ching iustifiâ—â— Ievv Reply contra Hard. aâ—â— 1. diuis 30. pa. 69. The Zâ—â—ngliâ— supper Fox Actâ—â— monum pag. 70. Luther in orthodox eccles Tigurina conâ—â—â—â—â— tractaâ— 3. sol 111. eximâ—e stultâ—â— Ibâ— tractat â—â— sol 66. Imâ— rustica commpotatio Hovv the Sacramentanes some times magnifie their Sacrament 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ— in dâ—â—â—â—ne Comâ—tum Manâ—seldiâ— c. an 1559 fol. 121. 121 Nihil aliud quam externuÌ„ at otiosum signum Caluins inconstancie Caluin Instit. lib. 4. ca. 17. num 11. 10. Christs flesh vvonderfully receiued in the Sacrament Beyond â—â— reason Iâ—â— cap. 17. num 32. Magis experior quam intelligo Christs flesh truly receiued vnder the symbole of bread Calâ— deâ—ana Domini Christ◠〈…〉 〈…〉 to the Sacrament Calu. Institut lib. 4 cap. 17 num 14. Caâ—â—â— for the real presence La chair entâ—â—â—â—sgâ—es à 〈…〉 â—luâ—quam â—◠〈…〉 〈…〉 Ibid. 〈…〉 21. Ibid. num 10. â—â— m in Haâ—â—â—â—ia iâ— Mattâ— cap. 20. â— 20. Caluâ—â— Admâ—â—â—â—â—ltiâ—a pa. â—3 Slâ—â—dan lib. ◠〈…〉 109. anâ—o 1530. Zuâ—glâ—â—◠〈…〉 a â—â—â—◠〈…〉 Idem lib. â— â—â— 119. â—â— 1531. Non 〈…〉 â—oâ—â— taâ—â—â—â— cuÌ„â—â—â—â—â—â—llâ—◠〈…〉 VVestphalus 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 7â— â—â—luinâ—â—ugâ—â—â—g Vâ—â—st â—â—â—â— â—â— 71. 7â— 73. 74. 7â— 7â— pa. 76. 71. Caluin a mere zuinglian Caluin in Ioan â—ap 6. v. 5â— Caluin Institut lib. 4. â—a 17. num 1â— Caluins conduit-pipe Calv. Harmoniâ— in Matt. cap. 26. â— 26. Calv. 1. Câ—r ca. 11. v. â—4 Note thâ—â— meaning Vâ— quâ—dam 〈…〉 ex Christâ— caâ—â—â—â—â— not â—â—ffusa Christs body not â—n the sacrament but some vertue thereof â—â—â— 6. 19. Luc. â— 46. Mâ—â—â—â— â— â—3 â—â— â—â— â—â—aâ— 4. â—3 Luc. 1. 45. Caluin â—â—â— sup â— 24. Institut lib. 4. ca. 17. num 1â— Ibid. â—â—â— â—2 Caluinâ— contraâ—â—ctions 1 2 quin illâ— were pâ—â—â—â—gat 3 Institut vbi supra num 10. See the â—â—â—â— Diuisiâ—n â—â—stâ—t lib. 4. â—â— 17. num â—â— 4 Calu. in Iean â—a 6. v. 4â— Calu. Institut lib. 4. ca. 17. num 5. VVhat it is to â—atâ— Christ in Caluins supper Catâ—chis Caluin Dominica 51. Christ no other vvise receiued in the protestant supper then out of it Calu. in Ioan. ca. 6. v. 53. 54. 〈…〉 lib. contâ—â— VVâ—â—â—phalâ—â— paâ—sim Beza 〈…〉 〈…〉 65. pa. 2â—5 Ievvâ—â—â—eply contâ—a Har. â— art 5. Diuis â— pa. 323. â—al Harmâ— in Matth. ca 26. v. 26. 〈…〉 Mâ—t. ca. 26 v 26. Calu Instituâ—â—â— lib 4. ca. â—7 num 3â— Before pa. 7â—â— Christ no other vvise receiued in the supper then out of it Calu. in Ioan. ca. 6. v. 54. 56. Calu. Institut lib. 4. ca. 14. num 14. Martyr in desensio Eucharist contra Gardâ—neâ—um par 2. regul 5. pa. 61â— Calu. Institut lib. 4. ca. 14. num 17. Calu. in Ioan. 6. v. 54. Martyr vhi supra parte 3. pa 644. â—47 â—â—â— pâ— 6â— 1. Before pâ— 7 8 Beza â—â—â— corin â—a â—â— v. 23. Christ receiued better out of the supper then in it Martyr vbâ— supra partâ—â— pa. 683. See after cap. 7. num 2. Sâ—â—â—â—ilus in Apolog. de conâ—â—dia Lutheran pa. 105. Before pa. 65. Before pa. 60. The sacrameÌ„t only a seale Calu. Institut lib. 4. â—a 14 num â— Calu. vbi supra â—um 5. The 2. sacraments 〈…〉 maner of seales Ibid. num 6. Christ no vvayes communicated in the sacrament See chap 4. â—â—â—â— 3. 4 Calv. in Ioan. â—â— 6. v. â—â— The communi 〈…〉 counâ—â—â—fait Wordâ—â—sait scale The communion a gâ—â—â—leâ— image 1 â—â— v. Inst â—◠〈◊〉 4. ca. 4. num 17. No kind ◠〈…〉 by the ◠〈◊〉 suppâ—â— Conâ—â—sâ—â—◠〈…〉 Geneuâ—â—◠〈…〉 Beza lib. de s 〈…〉 sa 〈◊〉 â—â— qu sa â— 2 The suppâ—r only a tokâ—n or signe 〈◊〉 in ◠〈◊〉 ap â—â— v. â—4 Zum Tom. â— aâ— V 〈…〉 2â—â— N 〈…〉 2. 〈…〉 c 〈…〉 sol 2â—3 Ibi. Comment d 〈…〉 213 Idem Tom. 2. responsio ad 〈◊〉 Conâ—â—â—iâ—on 477. The supper ◠〈…〉 Zuing. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 baptism â—ol â—â— 60. pa. 70. Caluin a mâ—re Z 〈…〉 an Beza epistol Tâ—â—â—â—â—g 1. pa. 7. The supper a 〈◊〉 signe Lâ—uit 1. 2 v. 1 24. â— 6. c. Sacraments of 〈◊〉 no better than the Ievvish â—â—â—â—re pa.
Minister is iniuried and it is against his profession out of the pulpit vvhence the only vvord of the Lord should sound to preach such inventions of men Next vvho can doubt but thus to prescribe one certain rule as necessarily to be obserued is the right vvay quit to disanul as many mo thousandâ— of their baptismes communions For vvho can imagin that the vnruly ministers folovv any one certain rule Or vvho knovveth not that it is in a maner against their professioÌ„ to admit any such vnâ—â—â—iâ—ie And yet this very order intended I suppose by Caluin and exactly and particularly thus defined by M. B. is most essential For seing the bread and vvine are material pâ—â—â—s and by their condition apt to signifie in general a hundred things as hath bene declared whereas the determination and reducing of it from general to special from signifying things prophane to signifie things sacred among a number of things sacred one several singular vz. the eating of Christs flesh by faith dependeth vpon the vvord of the minister thus determining it assuredly this vvord bringing vvith it this determination and so separating and abstracting the bread from al other things is most necessary most essential For as a peece of wax vvhich is to receiue the kings seale or image is indifferent before the staÌ„pe to receiue the image of a serpent of a dog of a tree of any living creature man or beast but after by the staÌ„p is limited to one certain forme and representation even so the bread being the matter and as it vvere the vvax which is to be sealed is of it self indifferent to as many stampes images But vvhen the minister cometh and according to M. B. and Caluins direction telleth them that as the bread feedeth their body to life temporal so the flesh of Christ feedeth both body and sovvleto life eternal c. â—ow this word putteth a certain print a certain image a certain stamp signe on the bread vvhereby it receiveth this one sacramental significatioÌ„ This is it vvhich putteth life in to the dead element and this vvord is the life and sovvle of the communion VVhich being so thereof I conclude plainly directly that thorough out al Scotland and England are very fevv true communions very fevv sacraments of Christs body For if there be a Sermon made not an homilie read yea if the sermon entreate of the sacrament and not of other matters yet if the minister preach not as here M. B. and Calvin appoint ether for frowardnes because he wil not be commaunded or els of very conscience because he is no Calvinist but a mere Zuinglian vvho defineth the sacrameÌ„t to be nothing but a badge a token a memorial and that it hath no such vertue of sealing and confirming vvhich the Zuinglian condemneth as Anabaptistical this sermoÌ„ is not the vvord vvhich geueth life to the sacrament but leaveth it as blockish dul and dead an element as it was before Because although the minister vnto this wax of bread and vvine put a seale a staÌ„p a signification yet he putteth not the right seale the right stamp the right signification although he preach the vvord yet he preacheth not that word vvhich should quicken and geue life to this action he preacheth not that word vnto which this seale is to be appended for confirmation Much more may I conclude that al English ministers if they be not Puritanes but folow their Archbisshop my lord of Canterbury vvho condemneth for Anabaptistical no lesse then Zuinglius though for an other reason this opinioÌ„ of geving life to the sacraments by preaching the vvord â—l they can never possibly haue any right communion any right sacrament they can haue nothing but commoÌ„ bread but a dead element because they admit not but contrariwise o great sacrilege impugne that vvhich is the very sowle and should geue life to the sacramet n I conclude thirdly that if a Scottish perfit Calvinian minister make the sermon except he humble him self to preach not only this former word of the promise inveÌ„ted by Calvin found no vvhere in the Gospels nor only the word of the mystical similitude betvvene the bread and Christs body required by M. B. borowed out of the doctors but also besides with a cleer voyce preach distinctly open al the parts of the sacrameÌ„t which thing here M. B. in general requireth in special reherseth explicareth nether is such a CoÌ„munioÌ„ the right sacrament to the essence coÌ„plement vvhereof it is necessarie not that one or two or a fevv but that al parts of the sacrament and sacrameÌ„tal receiving be opened declared vz. 1. that a lawful minister 2. vvith a cleere voyce 3. in a familiar homely language 4. publikely proclame and denounce 5. the bâ—il parts of the Supper or CoÌ„munioÌ„ 6. what is the peoples part 7. what is his owne part 8. how he ought to deliuer that bread and wine 9. how the people ought to receive it 10. how they ought to receiue the body and blud of Christ signified by it 11. how they should come with great reverence to the table Besides al vvhich he must also speake 12. what soever Christ spake in that whole action of his supper without omitting any one iote Al this is comprised in the name of the VVord al this must be preached by the minister before it can be a sacrameÌ„tal signe or supper and omitting any of these quite marreth and destroyeth the vvhole supper as where many parts are required to the nature and substance or essence of some certain body or creature the missing of any one destroyeth the whole as in man or beast the losse of any one essential part as hart lungs c. bringeth certain death to al. So then if the minister do not in particular prosecute ech one of these parts in his sermon if he folovv not precisely and religiously this M. B. his appointment if he play the Minister and sting out in to other matter against Pope and Catholike church and perhaps inveigh against this formal prescription of M. B. for that the spirite of the Lord in them is not to be bridled by men that they know their dutie herein and how the sacrament is to be ministred as vvel as Iohn Caluin Iohn Knox or M. B. him self that they wil stand in defence of their libertie not become servants of men c. if he thus preach or in any other sort so that he omit any part of that word vvhich is before declared the bread and vvine distributed to the people after that kind of preaching is not a sacrament but stil remayneth common bread not worth a straa for want of the right perfit word And so there was never a communion ministred according to the Scottish communion booke since these ministers got rule in Scotland which had ought