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
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
our Sauiour who so diligently obserued euery lesser resemblance should neglect omitte that which was most notable important VVherefore as the ProtestaÌ„ts them selues confesse one part videlicet the sacrament of Christs body to haue bene foresignified in the paâ—chal lamb and that to haue bene fulfilled in our sacrament this our sacrameÌ„t to haue succeded in place their of so we must dravv them one foote farther and adde vpon like ground vvarrant that that sacrifice of the lamb foresignified also our Eucharistical sacrifice that it vvas fulfilled accomplished in this and that this Christian sacrifice hath succeded in place of that Iudaical VVhich conclusion the same comparison of the scriptures inferreth the office of Christs priesthod and fulfilling of the lavv enforceth the Apostle acknovvledgeth and the church of Christ from the beginning hath euermore beleeued as vve learne by Tertullian lib 4. contra Marcionem S. Cyprian de Caena Domini S. Ambrose in Luc. 2. S. Nazianzen oratio 2. de pascha S. Hierom in Matth 26. S. Chrysostom homil de proditione Iudae homil 23. in Matth. S. August contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. cap. 37. S. Leo Serm. 7. de passione Domini Hesich lib. 2. in â—euit cap. 8. lib. 6. ca. 23. S. Beda in Luc. 22. The summe of al vvhose vvords is briefly thus vttered by S. Chrysostom in the place before noted At one table both Paschal lambâ— were celebrated or offered first the figure then the truth And S. Leo The old obseruation is taken away by the new sacrament one sacrifice passeth into an other one blud excludeth endeth the other the legal ceremonie while it is changed is fulfilled Hesichius more shortly Christ at his last supper hauing first eaten the figuratiue lambe with his Apostles afterwards offered his owne sacrifice And albeit as saith S. Gaudentius in that shadow of the legal pasch many lambs were offered not one onely but in euery seueral howse one yet now thorow al churches idem in mysterio panis vini reficit immolatus viâ—ificat creditus consecraÌ„tes sanctificaâ— consecratus Haec agni caro hic sanguis est One the selfe same lambe in the mysterie of bread wine being sacrificed doth refresh vs al being beleeued reviueth vs al being consecrated sanctifieth al the consecraters This is the flesh of the lambe Christ this is his blud Thus these two parcels being true manifest and for such graunted by our aduersaties the one that Christ in his last supper made the new testament the other that then he fulfilled the auncient ceremonie of the paschal lambe and altered that in to this our sacrament these two being examined conferred according to the sense of euideÌ„t scripture and consent of the primitiue church manifestly establish a true sacrifice and real presence of Christs body blud in this sacrament of the new law testament ¶ And yet the figure of Melchisedech is more plaine cleare and irreâ—utable then ether of these Nether vvas there euer any learned christian man bishop Father Doctor or hovv so euer he be called that vvrote since the beginning of the church but he graunted as occasion of mentioning the same vvas offered committed also to vvriting that the sacrifice of Melchisedech foreshevved Christs sacrifice in his last supper and that there Christ exactly and most properly offered sacrifice according to the order and â—ite of Melchisedech as vvas foreprophecied of him This I say is the vniforme and vniuersal consent of al auncient fathers that euer vvrote coÌ„mentaries vpon scripture since the Apostles tyme and some few sacramentarie-protestans there are and more LutheraÌ„s which vnwares and indirectly to an other purpose confeâ—â—e so much Of vvhich number Andreas Fricâ—is sometime secretarie to the king of Pole and for a noble man as learned as any that hath vvriten for the sacramentarie gospel Christ saith â—â— as a feasâ—maker distributed to his gheasts bread wine â—e fulfilled the office of Melchisedech the priest of the most high god him selfe a most true priest For as he offered to Abraham bread wine so Christ gaue bread and wine to his Apostles And in an other place somewhat more to the purpose Christ after the example of Melchisedech offering bread wine gaue both to his disciples Therefore priests that sacrifice after the example of Melchisedech Christ should geue to Christs disciples both bread wine In which application this man much abuseth him self in that he maketh Melchisedech a priest in offering bread wine to Abraham his inferior whereas sacrifice is an office or dutie appointed to testifie the obedience of an inferior to the superior properly of man to god which was no part of a priestly sacrifice but onely of a regal or princely liberalitie benevolence as the Protestants coÌ„monly therein truly declare the matter And much more theologically S. Cyprian expresseth this figure wheÌ„ he writeth that Christ in his last supper as the priest of the hiest god offered sacrifice not to Abraham but to god his father offered the same that Melchisedech did id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say bread wine I meane his owne body blud And thus he being the fulnes plenitude of all accomplished performed the veritie of that figuratiue sacrifice which was foreshewed in the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech VVhich sacrifice in the same epistle S. Cyprian also deduceth to priests of the new testament that for so much as Christ being the priest of God his father first of al so offered sacrifice to god commaunded the same to be done in coÌ„memoration of him therefore priests ought in that same maner to offer true persite sacrifice to god almightie in the Catholike church as they see Christ to haue done before them This is the right application of that sacrifice offered to god by Melchisedech that this should so be practised in the new testament Theodorus Bibliander a famous man among the Sacramentaries testifieth to haue bene the general beleefe of al the auncient Hebrewes His words are Est apud Hebraeos veteres dogma receptissimum c. It is among the auncient Hebrewes a doctrine most generally receyued that at the comming of the Messias al legal sacrifices shal haue an end there shal be frequeÌ„ted only the Eucharisti cal sacrifice of praise coÌ„fession that shal be done in bread wine as Melchisedech king of Salem priest of the hiest god in the time of Abraham brought forth bread wine in sacrifice VVhereof the Christian learned reader desirous of the truth may see a verie good treatise out of sundrie the old most famous Rabbins before Christ gathered together by Petrus Galatinus in his tenth booke De arcanis Catholicae veritatis where he verie wel declareth the three special points here mentioned
which shal be deliuered for yow is this An exposition much like to that vvhich Musculus mentioneth geuen by certain his bretherne in these vvords Corpus meum quod pro vobis dabitur in ordine rerum spiritualium est hoc c. my body which shal be geueÌ„ for yow in order of spiritual things is this to vvit a mysterie of spiritual foode this bread of life After this and certain other of like qualitie râ—hersed by Luther he addeth that besides those six vt septenarius numerus compleatur sunt qui dicunt non esse articulos fidei c. to fil vp the number of seuen other there are which say this is no article of faith and therefore men should not striue for it but euerie man be left to his owne opinion to iudge what he listeth These men treade vnder their feete and destroy al. And yet saith he the holy ghost is in euery one of these and none wil be reproued of his error in these so diuers contrarie expositions whereas the text can beare but one direct true sense So grossly the deuil moâ—keth vs. Hovvbeit al those diuersities and contrarieties obiected by Luther Zuinglius taketh for no absurdities but vvith great facilitie as he thinketh econcileth and iustifieth al as very good Euangelical specially that of Carolostadius vvhom the Sacramentaries acknovvledge for one of their first principal Doctors Zuingliê° vvords are Carolostadius that good and godly man doth expound the words of the supper as though Christ had directed them not to the bread but to him self Take eate for I must yeld vp this my body for yow And ansvvering some vvho obiected this diuersitie of opinions vvhich vvere amoÌ„g his felovves comparteners he vvriteth thus Apud nos de Eucharistia nihil vere est dissidij c. Amongst vs concerning the Eucharist truly there is no discord One thinketh there is an Apostrophe turning away of the word Hoc This. An other maketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it that is thinketh that to be put in the first place which should be in the last Againe an other supposeth and auoucheth that a trope and figure is in the worde est is an other wil place the figure in the words body and blud Al which haue one meaning and their diuersitie ought not to offend any man As when captaines entend to ouerthrow some aduersarie fortresse they caÌ„ not be said to disagree albeyt one be of mynd to batter it with gunnes an other wold vndermyne it a third wold get it by scaling for they al agree in one that is to ouerthrow the fortresse By vvhich conclusion vve may learne one good and sure rule to vnderstand the true mynd and meaning of the Sacramentaries as they novv are commonly called or Caluinists or Zuinglians or BerengariaÌ„s for these vvords must I needs vse not only to expresse the difference betvvene them the Catholikes but also betvvene them the Protestants of Germanie commonly named Lutherans and vvho is rightly to be accounted of their side The rule is that any sectarie if he so vvrite or preach or beleeue in this matter that he gainsay the Catholike faith deny the real presence of Christ he is a true gospeller of the Sacramentarie side hath the right sense of their gospelling faith vvhich laboureth only or principally to abolish that former Catholike faith of Christs real presence in place thereof to establish a real absence And so vvriteth Musculus very expresly Omnes vt a me vel inter se in hac causa dissideant c Al men â—ith he how soeuer they disagree from me or among theÌ„ selues in this matter of the sacrament so they mainteyne not the Papistical impietie embrace them as my louing brethern in the lord The reason is for that they al be they Berengarians old or nevv or Petrobrusians or Albigenses or Anabaptists or Trinitarians they entend the ouerthrovv and destruction of the Catholike faith of Christs presence and labour to bring in the Zuinglian absence vvhich is the matter that these men principally desire And therefore so as they agree in this al other errors are venial and pardonable vvhat so euer they teach and hovv so euer they erre and if they may be said at al to erre yet at last they erre in the letter not in the spirite in a circumstance not in the substance as Zuinglius vvriteth in the place last quoted And in an other place vvhen Luther obiected to him that there were among his folovvers diuers sectes he ansvvereth It is starke false There are no sectes no diuisions amongest vs. VVe al both I and Oecolampadius and Carolostadius and the rest agree in this that there is in the sacrament only a figure and symbole Mary we shift the words of Christ diuers wayes as we can Asserimus symbola tantum esse sed verba diuersimode expedimus VVhereof him selfe yeldeth a number of examples vvorth the noting of vvhich many are gathered together out of diuers his books by loachimus VVestphalus a great gospeller but of an other stampe Out of the heape I vvil here recite 4. or 5. Thus are his vvords Zuinglius in his second treatise of the supper of the Lord saith that in these words This is my body the word body must be taken for the passion death which Christ susteyned in his body The like he hath in his answere to a frend touching the words of Christ The bread which I wil geue is my flesh Here saith Zuinglius by the word flesh is meant death as likewise when he saith This is my body which is delivered for vow by the word body he vnderstandeth his death passion How beit in an other treatise of the supper he saith the bread and flesh-which Christ here mentioneth is nothing els but faith And yet in an other booke he is of an other iudgement that the word flesh is to be taken for the deitie For saith Zuinglius Christ vsing the word flesh vnderstandeth the diuine nature which toke flesh so by a certain figure speaking of his mortal nature whereas he meaneth his nature immortal he vseth the word flesh but meaneth the spirite that is his diuinite which geueth life to the flesh In his epistle to Luther he taketh it for the memorie of Christ It is called the body saith he not for that this solemne meeting or the bread which then is broken is in deede Christs body but for that the memorie of his body death is then recorded In his second answere to Luthers Confession he taketh it for a thankesgeuing in these words The Sacrament is nothing els but a certaine diuine and very manerly holy assembly of the people and congregation of god when they meete together to the body of Christ that is to the Eucharist or thankesgeuing for Christs death which is therefore called Christs body
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
receiuest the bread into thy mouth so soone thow receiuest Christs body by faith whereas it is receiued as wel before as wel after and no more nor no sooner vvith that bread then vvithout it ¶ Yovv vvil ansvvere I suppose that vvhat so ever your vvords are yet your meaning is that this coniunction ioynt offering is only sacramental that is after your sense tropical significatiue as in a signe and so the minister deliuereth Christs body and blud and vvith the bread vvine the body and blud is truly conioyned for that as aftervvards yovv say that signe wakeneth al the outward senses and putteth vs in remembrance of Christs body and blud vvhich is the only coniunction that yovv or your maisters can stand to See novv vvherevnto this your great wonderful coniunction as treacherously yow cal it is come to Christ is conioyned vnto it because vvhen vve see bread broken and vvine povvred out this wakeneth our senses causeth vs to remember Christ As much doth bread eaten and vvine povvred out of the flagon in the feast of every good Christian man or if it do not at lest the vvine and bread is as apt to signifie so much at every Christian mans breakefast dinner beâ—uer and supper as in your communion the nature of the bread being al one and Christian men having euer sâ—ue faith as vve must presuppose vvhich is nothing bettered by the breaking of the bread in one place more then in an other As much doth the cutting vp of a capon of a hen eating of a good peece of beef or mutton or vvhat so ever soode besides For any one of these or the like vvakeneth al our outvvard sensés as vvel as your bread and vvine And then supposing this to be eaten of good Christians who as the Apostle teacheth vvhether they eate or drinke or vvoorke or play geue thankes to god for al things in the name of Christ Iesus and so questionles haue a faith by vvhich only and no other vvaies Christ is eaten in the communion as M. B. teacheth and is the vniuersal doctrine of the sacramentaries and Caluinists hereof it folovveth cleerly and plainly that the second part of his coniunction of Christ with the sacramental bread al this ioynt offering ioynt receiving al this concurrence this secret and mystical coniunction for by these many vvords laborious affectatioÌ„ of divers phrases he wovld make his auditory imagine some great matter in their bread vvine is as vvel truly found performed vvheÌ„ ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ together eate any kind of meate or drinke any kind of drinke VVhat need I to stand vpoÌ„ the termes of meate drinke vvhereas Christ is as truly eaten vvithout al meate aud drinke yea better a great deale vvhen vve fast and eate nothing For the eating of Christ by faith vvhich only they acknovvledge and the same no lesse out of the supper then in it is vvhen by any occasion vve thinke on Christ VVhich vve may do far better vvhen vve fast then vvhen vve feast vvhen vve absteyne from breakefast dinner and supper then vvhen vve supper as also by considering any creature of God vve haue cause to thinke of Christ that is thus to eate Christ as vvel as vvhen vve see the bread of their communion broken or the vvine povvred out VVhen vve see the Sunne or Moone shine and thinke that Christ is the light sent in to the vvorld by faith we eate Christ as vvel as in this communion bread VVhen vve looke vpon a riuer or founteyne and thinke that his spirite is the founteyne of living vvater vve truly eate Christ VVhen vve see a lamb a covv a calf or any thing vvhich hath any resemblance of Christ and by it remember Christ vve eate Christ by faith yea vvhen vve see an heretike or thinke on them and blesse our selues desire God to keepe vs from them as S. Iohn did vvhen he savv Cerinthus vve eate Christ and in al these a thousand like yea as hath bene said in al creatures of the vvorld vvhen they occuâ—re to the remembrance of a good Christian and put him in mind of Christ he eateth Christ and Christ is as truly offered to his sovvle and there is the very self same ioynt offering and ioynt-receiuing and concurrence and secret mystical coniunction vvith and in euery sticke stone tree vniuersally euery creature to euery good Christian and faithful man as is vvith their bread in their bread euery one of these creatures as much wakeneth the outward senses vvherein coÌ„sisteth the vertue efficacie of their signe as doth the bread and vvine in their Scottish or Geneuian supper hovv so ever they set a face and floorish on the matter to make it seeme somvvhat els ¶ Nay if M. B. could learne once to speake plainly and properly and agreably to his ovvne doctrine as I feare he vvil neuer he should not attribute to the receiuing of the bread and vvine any communication of Christs flesh and blud at al but only a sealing and ratification of the same flesh and blud afore eaten by faith For as the â—eale of the evidence to vse his ovvne explication sense similitude vvords geueth not the right of any thing but the consent of the parties and bargaine or contract betvvene them made before vvherevnto being drawen in to an autentical forme and instrument the seale is ioyned for confirmation and ratification of such antecedent contract euen so these men in their communion hauing first seene the bread broken whereby their sight informed did conuoy to the mynd the remembrance of Christ vvhich is the eating of his flesh or hauing heard the word preached distinctly and al the parts opened vvhich also is eating of Christ by faith thereafter receiue the sacramental bread and wine as seales appended to that former eating vvhereby they are assured that they haue eaten rightly This is also our English theologie in this case the same most agreable to Iohn Caluin Although saith M. Ievvel vve vse to say that the sacrament ioyneth vs to God God to vs yet in plaine speach it is not the receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t that worketh our ioyning to God consequently by like reason nether the ioyning of god or Christ to vs. For who so euer is not ioyned to god before be receiue the sacraments he eateth and drinketh his â—â—â—â— iudgment The sacraments be seales and witnesses and nâ—â— properly the causes of this coniunction And M. B. him self within a few pages after vtterly destroyeth this ioynteffering of Christs body with the bread and in very precise termes flatly denyeth that which here he affirmeth whereof forth with I shal entreate One thing first of al the reader may note that whereas this man so magnifieth the worke of our renovation from the state of sinne to gods grace and saith that this worke of our new creation
of the crosse and blotted out the offences of the world finally the same thing to be receiued outwardly with our mouth which inwardly we beleeue in hart id ore sumitur quod â—ide creditur do not these speeches declare that the body and blud of Christ is offered to the mouth of Christians Or when Christ bad his disciples to take and eate that body in the chalice to drinke that blud of the new testament meant he that they should eate and drinke only by faith Do his words import not that they should eate with their mouth but only vvith their eyes and eares which only two instruments M. B. allovveth for eating Christs body by faith the eare serving for conueyance of the audible word preached to our sovvle the eye for conveyance of the visible word that is the bread vvhen it is broken in their Communion by vvhich tvvo meanes only we eate Christ spiritually by faith as he teacheth vs If he thus say yet S. Marke wil somwhat gainsay him and if he haue any conscience make him gainsay him self reuoke his saying For that as Christ deliuered thâ—m his chalice and bad them drinke it so S. Marke testifieth that they al dranke of it vvhich drinking could no more be done vvithout their mouth vvith their only eyes and â—ares then with their heeles And therefore in the bible vve find that Christs blud both in the word in the sacrament is offered to the mouth of Christians And therefore to ioyne â—un on vvith M. B. a litle vvhereas he denieth that there is in the Bible any receiuing of Christ but by faith vvhereas he biddes vs find that in any part of the bible he is then content to turne Christ ouer to vs vve accept his offer And if he can so interprete these places of the Euangelists vvhose vvritings are part of the Bible that lie dravv them al â—o a mere spiritual eating by only faith vvithout corporal and real communion as the church teacheth I vvil confesse he hath as good a grace in interpreting scripture as euer had Carolostadi the first sounâ—â—yne of this sacramentarie heresie yea or the heauenly prophete vvhether it vvere the deuil or the deuils dame â—s Luther saith that instructed him ¶ And yet that I make not my self to sure of my vvinâ—ing before hand I must needs acknovvlege that M. B. already geueth a sâ—â—ewd presumptioÌ„ that he vvil vvring Christs words after a very straunge fashion before he yield so much as any reasonable man pressed with these â—ords must graunt necessarilie and perforce For besides that he is of one spirite vvith them that haue already geven vs vvonderful constructions of these fevv vvords This is my body vvhich body Christ vvilled his disciples to receiue and eaâ—e as that by it according to 〈◊〉 Christ meant his passion and death or els he meant faith or his deitie or a memorie or at lest a thankes geuing or lâ—st of al the churchâ— or if al this serue not he meant thereby an action as Ioannes a Lasco rather thinâ—â—eth and then the sense must needs be spiritual for â—â—oubtles vve can not take and eate nether Christs passion and dâ—â—â—h nor faith nor yet his deitie nor a memorie noâ— a thankesgeuing nor the church vvhether Zuingli meane 〈◊〉 vvals and stones of the church or the people noâ— aâ— action but after a mere spiritual or rather spiritish maâ—â—â— besides thâ—â—e I say of al vvhich he may choose any one vvhich he pleaseth with as good â—ight as they did he geueth an other of him self as vvonderful as any of al these For saith he we find in Christs institution a promise and a commaund The commaund is this Take eate which obligeth vs to obey craues obedience The promise is conteyned in these words This is my body The promise craues faith and beleefe as the commaund craues obedience VVhich exposition seemeth to me as straunge as any of the precedent as straunge it is to cal these vvords of Christ a promise as to cal it a promise if one say to a poore man Take receiue here is a pennâ— or a peece of bread if this be a promise I vvonder hovv we shal define the performance But let it stand for good for these men haue power to make al things sound as they list especially in church matters articles of â—aith with which the Eldership or as the phrase is in the Scottish coÌ„munion booke the Assembly of the ministers Elders and deacons may dispense varie and alter at their good pleasure But what shal become now of these words what sense shal vve geue them forsooth this Take eate a promise or take eate here is a promise which is delivered for yow And if he thus meane then in deed he is far from any corporal eating And if he meane otherwise as Caluin doth vvhom perhaps he foloweth for he vttering no more theÌ„ I haue set dovvne leaueth me in doubt I can but gheasse his true meaning that the vvords of Christ are a promise annexed to a condition and so not fulfilled except the condition be accomplished vvhich goeth before as Caluin teacheth even so his meaning is as straunge wil dravv after it as straunge and vvonderful a communion For saith Caluin these words Take eate is a coÌ„maundement This is my body is a promise like as the lord commaunded Cal on me and immediatly adioyneth the promise I wil heare thee If now any man would bost of this promise That God vvil heare him and not performe the commaundement annexed To cal vpon god might be not be counted a mad soole Euen so here this promise This is my body is made and geuen to them who obserue that which Christ commaunded Out of which this we may and must directly gather that if This is my body be a promise depending of that condition and commaunde Take eate which goeth before then when soeuer man on his part fulfilleth the condition commaunde God on the other side questionles performeth that he hath promised And it were blasphemous impietie to thinke or say otherwise that men doing as God appointed God faileth in performing that vvhich he promised This therefore being a most sure vnremoveable ground if these vvords This is my body be a promise depending vpon that commaund Take eate then by like assured consequence and conclusion when so euer Christian men take and eate especially if they doe it in remembrance of Christ vvhich albeit it be not in the commaund Caluin requireth it not yet I am content to adde it for more suertie then such bread to such eaters is the body of Christ and so vvhen soeuer Christian men vvith such remembrance eate they eate Christs body vvhen soeuer they drinke they drinke his blud For like as he is a mad foole in Caluins iudgement vvho thinketh he can enioye the promise of Christs body except he
vnworthely S. Paule maketh their sinne to be that they make no differeÌ„ce betwene the body blud of our lord other meates therefore are giltie of that body and blud vvhich they so despâ—se M. B. admitteth not that they proceed so far but coâ—deÌ„nâ—th them before hand before they eate vvhich is â—â—â— against S. Paules coÌ„patison vvhich standeth in this that as those men came to other tables to those ecclesiastical feasts of charitie there did eate drinke vvithout any prâ—câ—dent 〈…〉 al of them selves or examination of their consciences so came they and receiued the body and blud of Christ at this divine table not distinguishing this food from that but vvithout any convenient preparation honor regard or separation of one from the other eating and drinking this divine sacrament as they vvould coÌ„mon meates drinkes VVhich words of necessitie implie an eating drinking on both sides or els there is no comparison and consequently no condemnation of the one side vvhich condemnation remayneth resteth in the vvant of reverence regard and distinction made betwene those vulgar tables and this body and blud of our saviour both vvhich they received but alike and vvith like honor and reverence vvherein they sinned and dishonored Christ whose body they discerned not and therefore received it vnworthely And thus the auncient fathers vnderstood this text and out of it concluded the real presence and real receiving of Christs body though to the condemnation of the receivers So for example S. Austin He that vnworthely receiveth our lords sacrament albeit him self be naught yet that which he receiveth is good Corpus enim domini sanguis domini nihilominus erat illis c. For as to good men so was it the body of our lord and the blud of our lord no lesse vnto them of whom the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthely eateth his owne iudgement The same Doctor intending to shew that the evil vse of good things harmeth greatly what shal I speake saith he of the very body and blud of our lord the only sacrifice of our salvation Of which albeit our lord him self say that it geveth life yet doth not his Apostle teach vs even that to be pernicious to them which vse it noâ— wel when he saith who soever shal eate that bread and drinke that chalice not vvine of our lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud In vvhich place vvhereas â—e nameth it ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini the very body and blud of our Lord and the only sacrifice of our salvation â—e most certainly noteth not bread and vvine but an other thing except bread and vvine be the very body of Christ and the only sacrifice of our redemption So in his epistles he vvriteth that our Lord suffered Iudas that traytour among his innocent disciples to receiue that which thâ— faithful know our raunsom or redemption quod fideles norâ—â—t pretium nostrum In an other place he calleth it sacrificiâ— pretij nostri the sacrifice of our redemption vvhich vvords of sacrifice raunsom price redemption c. quit exclude M. B. his tropical bread and vvine and prove that Iudas vvith the other disciples received the same body which was delivered for vs the same blud which was shed for vs according to the plain text of al the Evangelists This same veritie and exposition of S. Paules vvords is geven by the other auncient and learned fathers Greeke and Latin as namely S. Basil lib. de baptis cap. 3. S. Chrysost in sundry places in 1. Corinth cap. 11. homil 24. hom 27. â—omil â—3 in Matth. hom 45. in Ioan. S. Cyper sermo de coena Hieron in â— cap. Malach. Treophilact S. Ambros and Theodoret. expounding this place of vvhich the later vpon those very words vvhereon M. B. maketh his cavilling he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud vvriteth expressely thus By these words the Apostle signifieth thus much that aâ— the Iewes dishonored Christ shamefully abused him so they also dishonour and shamefully abvse him who receiue his most holy body with their impure handes and take it in to their defiled and vilanous mouth in pollutum incestum â—â— So that M. B. his conclusion or rather straunge paradox that no man can receive Christ vnworthely vvhich out of the sacrament Herodâ— Annas and many other publicanes Iewes Gentiles other did or might have done and in the sacrament many evil Christians continually do is quit opposite to the Apostles scope and discourse in this place vvhich against al drift of the text and sense of the vvords and exposition of auncient fathers he peevishely laboureth to pervert For albeit sometimes some fathers and namely S. Austin in one or two places vvhich Calvin citeth deny to the vvicked rem sacramenti the thing of the sacrament yet thereby he meaneth not Christs true body as S. Austin declareth his owne meaning but the iustifying grace the fruit and commoditie thereof the vertue and sanctification vvhich by Gods ordinaÌ„ce redouÌ„deth thence to al worthy receivers Nether doth it greatly helpe M. B. that he laboureth to approve his saying by the example of wordly princes who wil not suffer their maiestie to be interessed in the smallest thing But if thow disdainfully vse their seale which is but wax and contemne it and stamp it vnder thy secte thow art compted as gilty of his body and blud as if thow put thy hands on him much more if thow so handle the seales of the body and blud of Christ this I say litle helpeth the matter For first the comparison is nothing like For S. Paule speaketh not of stamping vnder feet of such disdainful abuse and contempt but of vnreuerent receiving vvhich differeth much and therefore if M. B. vvould speake to the purpose and applie his talke to the subiect here handled he should take such examples for the one side vvherein is like coniunction of things signified vvith the signe as he â—â—ineth to be in his Geneva signe or supper and for the other side vvhere men shew such vnteverence towards them as is here likewise presupposed Christ saith he and so say the Protestants of his sect is ioyned vvith the bread as as he is vvith a vvorde spoken as he is with a sermon as he is vvith an image as a king is represented in his picture in his seale in a peece of vvax Suppose then that some man stamp not vnder foote the Testament in despite and disdayne of Christ for so S. Paule speaketh not nor meaneth but that he reade some chapter of the Testament not discerning it from a chapter of S. Hierom or S. Austin is he gilty of our lords body If he heare a sermon preached and perhaps sleepe at the sermon time so receive not Christ inteâ—nally as by the vvord he is offered no lesse then in the Supper is he gilty of the body of the
many In the same chapiter Christ vttereth his death and suffering by a parabolical phrase of drinking his cup vvhich is the only cup mentioned there but this is nothing to the purpose In S. Matthew cap. 26. v. 2â— vvhich I thinke M. B. meaneth as Beza translateth the text the cup is called Christs blud But that text is a wicked text of Bezaes making and not of S. Matthews putting and Beza as gilty in conscience vvarneth the reader before hand that men vvil cry out vpon his sacrilegious boldnes for so corrupting the text VVhich although he go about to excuse but straungely Protestantlike by heaping one sâ—crilege vpon an other yet to omit that for brevities sake both Beza playeth the part of a horrible corrupter in so translating and M. B. of ether a bold and vvicked heretike or at lest of an ignorant heretike in folowing Beza and in telling vs that S. Matthew calleth the cup Christs blud though in a good sense that is true in Bezaes sense it is starke false but how soever it be it vvas never in one sense or other so vttered by S. Matthew For S. Matthews vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic est sanguis meus This is my blud in the second place can no more import the material cup to be called blud then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est corpus meâ— This is my body in the first place import that Christ called the material table his body That S. Luke calleth the cup the new Testament is a figure I graunt but litle to M. B. his help or iustifying his figure For in vvhat sense can he make the cup to signifie the new testameÌ„t VVhat resemblance or representation is there betwene the one the other Therefore questionles by the cup S. Luke meaneth not the material cup but the thing conteyned in the cup. And herein I graunt is a figure but a figure so vulgar vsual and common to al tongues and nations vulgata trita omnibus linguis consuetudire loquendi as Beza also confesseth that it litle differeth from a very proper and literal speech VVhich thing conteyned in the cup vvhereas S. Luke determineth and restreyneth by vvords most pregnant and effectual and irreâ—utable to Christs owne blud then this is the proposition vvhich M. B. vvil haue to stand for one of his figures This coÌ„teyned in the chalice that is This blud of Christ is the new testament And now vvhat figure findeth he here to serue his turne That the cup is placed for the thing conteyned in the cup This is nothing to his purpose Nether hath it any resemblaÌ„ce vvith the rest of his examples his vvords in this place intend it not That the cup vz Christs blud conteyned in the cup is the new testament is this his figurative and tropical speech VVil he thus expound it that the blud of Christ figureth signifieth or representeth the new testameÌ„t This in deed he must say But in so sayng he speaketh vvickedly heretically and damnably and quit disanulleth maketh voyd and disgraceth the blud of Christ the blud of the new testament And the blud of an ox of a goate of a calf in the old law may serve M. B. for his figurative tropical speech For so that vvas tropically in deed the new testament vvhich it signified and figured But the blud of Christ is more truly and properly after a more divine sort called the new testament ether for that it is the special and principal legacie and gift bestowed on vs by Christ in his new testament or because it is the very founteyne of grace vvhich is likewise geuen properly in the new Testament and vvhereby vve have right to glorie and life eternal which is the consequent of grace and effect thereof in the new testament For this and such like cause is Christs blud as in the chalice called the new testament the confirmatioÌ„ of vvhich testament consisted in the death of Christ effusion of the same blud on the crosse As for figuring and signifying that is no cause of this appellation And therefore to say This is the new testament that is This signifieth or figureth the new testament is to make the blud of Christ no better then the blud of a beast vvhich is a proposition fitter for a beast or a minister vvho in so speaking litle dissereth from a beast then for a ChristiaÌ„ man If against this M. B. vvil stil cavil to find out here a figure let him take this for a final answere that this speech of S. Luke most effectual and significant though not so proper or common is properly expressed by S. Matthew and S. Marke This is my blud of the new testament vvhich is a sufficient commentarie to expound S. Luke and quite excludeth al his tropes and figures except he alleage as plaine sufficient authoritie to make those vvords of Christ This is my body tropical vvherevnto he reserreth al these his examples The last example of S. Paule calling Christ a rocke is a figure like to this former A figure there is one vvay but not as M. B. meaneth That the vvorde rocke is applied to Christ is a metaphore and figure as vvhen he is called a lyon a lamb a doore a vine c. But vvhere he saith that vve are specially compelled here to graunt his sacramental that is his tropical and significative speech more then in the rest surely herein he is very specially deceiued For vvhen S. Paule saith the rock was Christ vve are not compelled to expound him thus the rock signified Christ but the true sense may be the literal that the rock vvas Christ S. Paules vvordes are They drunke of the spiritual rock which folowed them and the rock was Christ That rocke which folowed the Hebrewes in the desert vvhich guided directed and susteined them can not probably be expounded of a material rocke although some of the Hebrew Rabbines have such an imagination but of the spiritual rocke vvhich spiritual rocke did not signifie Christ but vvas Christ And thus S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Theodoretus and others expound it and the rocke in S. Paule referred to the vvord spiritual vvhich goeth next before iustifieth this plaine and literal interpretation And so nether this special place vvhich M. B. maketh such accompt of compelleth vs to his trope and figure And yet I must tel him besides for an overplus that he is to rash so specially and peremptorily to charge vs vvith this place as though the case vvere plain cleere and vve must needs confesse that here the rocke signifieth Christ spiritually vvhereas them selves are not yet agreed vvhat the rock here is literally nor vvhat it meaneth or signifieth historically VVhich literal and historical sense must first be resolved vpon before he can so specially presse and beare vs downe vvith his spiritual sense and figuring The common exposition namely of Zuinglius Oecolampadius
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
as the Apostle describes it is no substantial ground no evidence or demonstration and it vvas no offence of the Catholikes to cal it an vncertain opinioÌ„ fleeting in the brayne vvhich now your self confesse to be the very nature of your Genevian faith saying that ever it hes be it wil be and man be doubting X. Faith is the gift of the holy spirit And this gift is not geueÌ„ to al men and women Al hes not faith This gift is not geven vnto al but it is only geven to the elect that is to so many as the Lord hes appointed to life everlasting Contra. VVho soever hath a desire to pray to crave mercy for his sinnes suppose the greatest part of thy hart repine and would draw thee froÌ„ prayer yet assuredly that desire which thow hast in any measure to pray is the true effect of the right faith Prayer is a certain argument of a iustifying faith Ergo al that pray to God have faith Item If thow be content to forgave thy neighbour as freely as God forgave thee assuredly that is the effect of the right spirite Item A third effect of faith is compassion Thow man bow thy hart and extend thy pitie vpon the pure members of Christ For except ye have compassion ye have no faith Examine your selves by these 3. effects prayer forgeving wrongs and compassion and if ye find them in any measure be it never so smal yow have the right faith in your hart yow have the true and lively faith and assuredly god wil be merciful vnto yow Ergo al that pray though neuer so litle or forgeve iniuries and vvrongs done to them freely though never so seldom or be pitifully affected towards a Christian in miserie and geve an almes though never so smale one denier al his life time assuredly al these men have the right faith Fourthly if thy conuersation be good it is a sure token that thow art at one with god No doubt that hart that breakes forth in to good fruites of doing wel and speaking wel is coupled with god And consequently it is sure and there is no doubt but in such a person is faith For no man is coupled with god but by the band of faith Item VVhen thy conuersation thy hart and mouth sais al one thing then no question thow hast the worke of faith wrought by the holy spirit in thy hart Ergo al that live honestly that do vvel and speake vvel doubtles have faith as likewise al that are not dissemblers but speake as they meane and meane as they speake without question have faith vvrought in them by the holy spirit Sixtly ye men also try whether ye be in love charitie with your neighbour Loue is the only marke whereby the children of Christ and members of his body are knowen from the rest of the world And the more we grow in love the more god by his spirit dwels in vs. Alwaies this love flowes from the roote of faith Ergo al men that live quietly in love and peace vvith their neighbours have faith Seventhly and last to talke and coÌ„sider this faith more properly and specially in it self by her more intrinsecal effect and operation by faith we have peace with god To try whether ye have faith or not ye must try whether ye beleeve in the blud of Christ or not whether ye beleeve to get mercy by his merites sanctification by his blud For if ye have no measure of this faith ye haue no measure of peace with God This is the faith which purgeth the hart and purisieth the sowle Ergo al kind of Christians al I say vvithout exception save only perhaps Calvin some Calvinists vvho deny the merite of Christs passion and can not abide to heare of any merite in Christians or Christ him selfe vvhich beleeve that Christ by his passioÌ„ merited our redemption sanctification and salvation have faith VVherefore to conclude this vvith his owne vvords The whole weight saith he of our trial stands chiefly vpon this point to see whether we be in faith or nâ—t to examine whether Christ dwels in vs by faith or not For without faith there can be no coupling nor conioyning betwixt vs and Christ without faith our hart can not be sanctified without faith we can not worke by charitie So al depends on this only For vvhich trial and examination he geveth vs so many sure certain doubtles markes markes vvhereby without question vve may know vvhere this faith is found and these maâ—kes are praier at some time though but coldly forgevenes of iniuries and compassion of the poore though once in ten yeare honest conversation plain dealing love of our neighbour to vvhich by like right and reason he may adde al other civil moral vertues beleef in Christs death and passion VVhere these markes be found he putteth it for sure and certaine vvithout doubt and question that al such men have the right true iustifying faith VVhereof I conclude that according to this his doctrine not only al Christians good bad excepting the Calvinists have faith but also many Turkes and Ethnikes vvho in number of the foresaid vertues far surpasse many kind of Protestants For as S. Austin and S. Prosper vvrite and vve find it true by al learning plain reason and certain experience sine quibusdam operibus bonis difficillime vita cuiuslibet pessimi hominis inuâ—nitur The most wicked man vnder the Sunne be he Iew or Gentile hardly passeth the course of his life without some good workes And therefore ether al these are elect vvhich is vnpossible or al vvhich he putteth downe for such are not sure and certain markes of faith vvhich is true or true it is not that only the elect have faith vvhich to affirme is most false absurd and execrable as vvhich everteth al Christianitie and al sense and meaning of scriptures And these few so palpable contradictions found in so smale a compasse may suffice to declare vvith vvhat substance of diuinitie and constancie of doctrine these men feed their miserable auditors I omit many other as fond and contrarie assertions of vvhich these last two sermoÌ„s seeme in maner vvholy patched vp as a beggers cloke of divers peeces and colours especially if I should compare them also vvith his former sermons as for example in his third sermon faith is the gift of God and only iewel of the sowle in his fift sermoÌ„ prayer is a iewel of the sowle as vvel as faith yea better then faith as being the best iewel and gift that ever God gave man in the fourth Sermon love is a iewel of the sowle to and that better then ether faith or prayer as by which vve best of al grip Christ and applie him to our sowles better then by faith c. These and many more must be omitted both for brevities sake and also because in this