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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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