man much extolled by the aduersaries THE FIRST CHAPITER BEFORE I come to examine the particular points of error false doctrine contayned in these sermons I thinke it convenient first in a chapter or two to declare the true Catholike faith concerning this sacrament as it hath alwaies bene receaued and acknowledged in the church of Christ and withal historically to note when an in what sort the Zuinglian heresie that I 〈…〉 which at this present beaâ—eth greatest sway among the Protestants of England Scotland for the Protestant coÌ„gregations preachers of Germanie from the beginning of this schisme in Martin Luthers time vntil this present day condemne it for heresie no lesse then do the Catholiks at some tymes endeuored to put forth it self but hath evermore bene repressed by the pastors of Christs church vntil this present age wherein faith decayng Christian beleefe being in many men for many points measured by carnal reason vpon such ground ether of prophane infidelitie or great decrease of faith the true beleef of this sacrament hath amongst many other necessarie articles fayled in the harts of a number ¶ Our sauiour Christ therefore when at the tyme of his passion he was to finish consummate the worke for which he was incarnate that is to redeeme mankynd abrogate the old law begin the new into this to transfer the sacrifices and priesthod of that former as the Apostle Paule teacheth vs in his last supper for a perpetual memorie of that high and infinite sacrifice offered on the crosse which was the persite absolute redemptioÌ„ and consummation of al the ful price and raunsom for al sinnes done or to be done from the first creation of the world vntil the last ending of the same to continue I say a perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice to ordeine the true vvorship of god in the nevv lavv or testament which worship in euerie law consisteth principally of sacrifice to leaue his people a peculier meane whereby that infinite vertue grace procured by the sacrifice on the crosse might be in particular diuided applied to them in his last supper instituted this sacrifice sacrament of the altar as comonly among Catholique Christians it is called the sacrifice sacrament of his owne most pretious body blud a sacrifice for that it is offered to the honor of god for the benefite of christian people in coÌ„memoration of Christ his sacrifice once done and now past as al the old sacrifices of the law of nature Moses were offered for the benefite of that people in prefiguration of the same sacrifice of Christ then to come a sacrament for that it was also ordeyned to be receiued of Christians in particular to feed our bodies to resurrection immortalitie to geue grace vertue sanctification to oursewles This to be the true sense meaning of our Sauiour in this institution and that principally especially concerning the sacrifice for the sacrament is more euident confessed by the more learned of our aduersaries it shal be proued plainly hereafter is sufficiently expressed in the wordes of our Sauiour vvhich according to the recital of al the Evangelists S. Paul yeld plainly this sense For when Christ nameth his body broken or geuen for vs which is al one as if he termed it sacrificed for vs his blud of the new testament shed there in the supper mystically for vs for remission of synnes these words as truly import a sacrifice as any words which the holie scripture vseth to expresse the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse especially those words of S. Paul Corpus quod frangitur the body which is broken most properly directly are to be referred to the body of Christ as in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread in which it novv is then was truly brokeÌ„ so it was not on the crosse as S. IhoÌ„ specially recordeth VVhe â—of S. Chrysostom writeth very liuinelâ— expounding this same word Hoc in Eucharistia vi lere liceâ— in cruce autem minime c. This we see done in the sacrament but not on the crosse For there ye shal not breake anâ— bone of him saith the Euangelist Iohn â—â— But that which on the crosse he suffered not that he suffereth in the sacrifice for thy sake o man is content to be broken And so this word being by S. Paâ—le incuitably verified of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t draweth by like necessitie al the rest both touching the body and blud therevnto although al the rest are also most truly spokeÌ„ of the same body of Christ as geuen for vs on the crosse which no ways impayreth but rather much streÌ„gtheneth the veritie real presence of the same body in the sacrament VVhich sense is yet more clearly necessarely confirmed if we coÌ„ferre these words of Christ vsed in delyuering the chalice of the new law with the vvords of Moses vsed in sprinkling the blud of gotes calues which was appointed by gods ordinance to ratifie establish the covenant betwene god and his people the synagoge of the Iewes in the old lavv For as then Moses gathering that blud in to some standing peece or cup sprinkled the people therevvith saying This is the blud of this old testament which god hath made with you euen to our Saâ—iour ordayning this new testament most euidently making relation to those former vvords of Moses and transferring them to his new ordinance vvhen he deliuered the chalice to his Apostles in them to the vniuersal Catholike church said This is the blud of the new testament as that vvas of the old this here conteyned in the chalice is the selfe same which is to be shed for yow as that was sprinkled vpon the Iewes VVhere S. Luke referring these later vvords shed for yow to that vvhich vvas conteyned in the chalice meâ—utably convinceth that vvhich was in the chalice to haue bene the very real blud of Christ as truly as that vvas his real blud which the next day vvas shed on the crosse as truly as that was real blud with vvhich the people vvere sprinkled in the old testameÌ„t in steed of vvhich blud this is succeded the truth in place of the figure as witnesseth S. Leo S. Austin S. Chrysostom other most auncient fathers All vvhich proue not only the real presence of Christs most pretious body blud but also that it is present by way of a sacrifice as in order to be sacrificed ¶ My intent is not to make any long discourses of this matter vvhich hath bene so learnedly treated dy diuers excellent men of our Iland within our memorie that I gladly confesse my selfe vnable to adde any thing to their labours Yet because this point of Christs testament is the ground of al and for denying the real presence of Christs blud in the sacrameÌ„t the Lutheran Protestants theÌ„ selues charge the
Caluinists with quit disanulling making voyd the testament of our Sauiour I thinke it good to make some more stay herein better examine the circumstance of this testament yet as nigh as I can euâ—ing no new questions but resting on such certayn verities as are confessed by the aduersaries them selues cleare by plaine scripture out of vvhich I meane to deduce such reasons as may iustifie our catholike cause disproue the contrary VVolf Musculus in his common places entreating hereof writeth thus S. Luke S. Paule attribute to the cuppe that it is the new testament VVhereby they signifie this to be the sacrament of the new testament in respect of the old the Paschal sacrament which Christ finished in this his last supper in place thereof substituted this new In the same supper being then nigh to his death he made his testament Thus Musculê° In vvhich fevv vvords he noteth tvvo things very important concerning the truth whereof I here entreate both deliuered in the scriptures both vrged by the Catholikes both coÌ„fessed not onely by the Lutherans but also by the SacrameÌ„taries as here we see The first that Christ in his last supper made his new testameÌ„t the second that Christ in the same his last supper ended the sacrameÌ„t of the Paschal lamb ordeyned in place therof the sacrament of his body Concerning the fâ—â—â—t vvhat a Testament is how Christ made his the same vvriter expresseth truly in this sort A testament is the last wil of one that is to dye wherein he bestoweth his goods freely geueth to whom he pleaseth To the making of a testameÌ„t that it be auayleable is required first the free libertie power of the testator that he be as his owne commaundement For a slaue a seruant a sonne vnder the power regiment of an other can not make a testament So Christ when he made his testament was free had power libertie to do it God his father gaue al in to his hands made him heyre of al in heauen earth God his father willed him to make a testament sent him in to the world to that end that by his death he should confirme this new testament which he had promised Next it is required in a testament that the testator bequeath his owne goods not other mens so did Christ 3. A thing can not be geuen in a testameÌ„t which is due of right So that which Christ gaue in his testament was geuen only of grace fauour 4. In a testameÌ„t it is required that certain executors of the testament be assigned Those Christ made his Apostles to whom he coÌ„mitted that office that they by evangelizing should ministerially dispense the grace of this testament 5. Finally to the confirmation ratification of a testament is required the death of the testator So Christ the next day after this testament was made died on the crosse there by his death blud ratified confirmed eternally established it Thus far Musculê° adding withal Christ saith this cup is the new testament in my blud or according to Matthew Marc this is my blud which is of the new testament The old testament consisted in the tropical figuratiue blud of beasts the truth whereof was to be fulfilled in the blud of Christ. The new testament consisted not in the blud of any beast but of Christ the true immaculate lamb For declaration whereof he said This cup is the new testament in my blud or This cup is my blud which is of the new testament Thus much being manifest confessed and graunted it must also be graunted of necessitie that this blud was delyuered in the supper not only shed on the crosse as Musculus the Zuinglians suppose First because our Sauiour Christ according to the report of al the Euangelists in precise termes so avoucheth This in the cup or chalice is my blud of the new testament Secondly because to the making of the new testament fulfilling the figure of the old true real blud of the sacrifice was required as appeareth in the figure which here the aduersaries coÌ„fesse to haue bene fulfilled For in that figure first of al was the sacrifice offered the blud thereof taken in the cuppes then the people sprinkled with the blud of the sacrifice these words vsed This is the blud of the testament c. Nether is it possible that the blud of the sacrifice should be deliuered or taken or any waies imployed by man or to man before the sacrifice were offered to god Therefore whereas Christ assureth this to be the blud of the new testament as that was of the old it is as certain sure that the sacrifice whereof this was the blud was before offered as vve are sure of the same in the old testameÌ„t Briefly vvhereas in that figuratiue sacrifice whereof this is the accomplishmeÌ„t perfect on 3. things are specified by the holy ghost 1. the publication of the law or testament to the people 2. the offering of the sacrifice whereof the blud vvas taken 3. the eating of the sacrifice sprinkling of the people vvith the blud and vsing of those words This is the blud of the testament vvhereas for exact correspondence of the first Christ at his last supper publisheth his lavv and testament A new commaundement geue I to yow that yow loue one an other as I haue loued yow promiseth the holy ghost to remayne vvith them and his church for euer iterateth that commaundement of mutual loue charitie as the summe of his new law perfection thereof which was to be wrought in the hartes of his ChristiaÌ„s by the holy ghost then promised vvho also vvas euer to assist them to teach them to leade them the vvhole Church for euer in to al truth so fuâ—th vvhereas thus in 5. vvhole chapiters having expressed his new wil testament such graces as apperteyne therevnto he in fine for correspondence of the third biddeth the executors of his testament to eate his body and drinke his blud vvith those same so pregnant so vrgent vvords This is my body which is and shal be deliuered for you This is my blud of the new testament which is and shal be shed for yow hovv can it othervvise be chosen but for ansvvering of the second part as that body and blud of beastes there vvas first offered to god in sacrifice so this body and blud here must be offered in like sort to fulfill and accomplish that figure So that it suffiseth not to say the blud of Christ vvas shed on the crosse vvhere he dyed though that also vvere necessarie for the confirmation and ratification of the testament as vve also graunt and common reason teacheth and the Apostle proueth for testamentum in mortuis confirmatur a testament taketh his absolute and ful perfection strength and
tranquillitie of his realme as in the storie hereof set forth by them selues at large appeareth Which iudgemeÌ„t of that king their notorious sauage and barbarous behauiour in many countries of Europe hath since that time continually more and more verified and the writings of the ministers for defense of their opinions which daily they invent hath much more abundantly iustified whereof this smale booke geveth also some proofe demoÌ„stration In publishing whereof vnder your Maiesties name if any man shal reproove me as bold presumptuous for my excuse laying aside the examples of most auncient fathers whose footesteps herein I haue folowed if former reasons satisfie not I appeale to your clemencie for pardon protesting before God that the cause which hath moued me hereunto next vnto his honour defence of the truth is my faithful dutyful and seruiceable hart to your Maiestie to whom I wish as large dominion and ample monarchie as ever had any king of that Iland for whom I pray that with them and aboue them yow may be victorious in warre fortunate in peace amiable to your subiects dreadful to your enemies that it may please our Lord to heape vpon yow your posteritie al blessings spiritual and temporal that finally hauing gouerned your subiects in such quietnes pretie godlines and rule of faith in which your worthy predecessors haue lead yow the way yow may at length with them to your eternal ioy felicitie render vnto God a comfortable accompt for the great charge which he hath committed to your hands Which that your Maiestie may happily persourme with al honour prosperous successe according to my bounden dutie I shal not cease continually to pray Your Maiesties Most bounden Orator and humble seruant VVilliam Reinolde A table of the chapiters Chap. I. The Catholike and Apostolike faith concerning the Sacrament pag. 1. Chap. II. Of Berengarius heresie renewed in this age pag. 36. Chap. III. Of Calvin and the Calvinists opinion concerning the Sacrament pag. 67. Chap. IIII. Of the vvord SACRAMENT and the Calvinists definition thereof pag. 117. Chap. V. The Scottish Supper compared vvith Christs Institution pag. 145. Chap. VI. Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 163. Chap. VII Of Christs body no vvayes ioyned nor deliuered vvith the Sacrament pag. 172. Chap. VIII A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter pag. 191. Chap. IX Comparison of the Sacramental signe vvith the word pag. â—07 Chap. X. Of the VVORD necessarily required to make a sacrament pag. 215. Chap. XI M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ pag. 233. Chap. XII Of names attributed to the Sacrament pag. 243. Chap. XIII Of the ends for which the sacrameÌ„t vvas ordeyned pag. 259. Chap. XIIII Of vertue remayning in the sacrament reserved of private Communions pag. 276. Chap. XV. That evil men receive Christs body pag. 287. Chap. XVI Of tuitching Christ corporally and spiritually pag. 309. Chap. XVII Manifest falsities vntruthes against the Catholike faith pag. 333. Chap. XVIII ArgumeÌ„ts against the real presence answered pa. 342. Chap. XIX Other arguments against the real presence answered pag. 357. Chap. XX. Answere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically pag. 366. Chap. XXI Of contradictions and the Zuinglians impietie in limiting Gods omnipotencie pag. 379. Chap. XXII A brief confutation of the last two Sermons concerning preparation to receive the Sacrament pag. 398. The Conclusion The conclusion conteyning certain general reasons vvhy the Calvinian Gospel now preached in Scotland can not be accounted the Gospel of Christ pag. 429. This is the summe and effect of the chapiters in general Ech one of vvhich in his place is divided in to several parts and braunches by considering vvhereof the reader may forthvvith perceive the particular discourse and matter of the vvhole chapiter ensuing A NOTE FOR THE READER WHEREAS M. Bruces SermoÌ„s are printed without any figures distinguishing ether page or leafe which no booke lightly omitteth I haue good reader for plain dealing the more easy notifying to others that which I cite out of him added figures to ech page beginning the first next after the Epistle dedicatorie so coÌ„tinuing on by pages 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. vntil the end of his booke which is page 296. Thus much I thought good to warne thee of that if thow please to see his words in his owne booke thow maist with so much the more facilitie find them THE CATHOLIKE AND APOSTOLIKE FAITH CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT The Argument Christ at his last supper instituted both a Sacrament also a sacrifice consisting in the true real presence of his pretious body blud This is proued partly by graunt of the aduersaries who confesse Christ in that supper to haue made his new testament partly by particular examining the nature of a testament and conferring the new testament with the old The same is proued by the Paschal lamb which was a figure as the aduersaries also graunt of Christs Sacrament finished in the same therefore this must needs be a sacrifice as that was according to the plaine scriptures al auncient fathers The same is most clearly proued by the sacrifice of Melchisedech which albeit most Protestants reiect withall reiect the whole primitiue Church of Christians as also the auncient synagogue of the lewes both which church sâ—nagogue confessed the same yet some acknowledge it thereof is the holy sacrifice real presence briefly inferred The same faith was reterned practised by the first primitiue church in the time of the Apostles The same faith was continued in all Christendom from tâ—e Apostles tyme without any great trouble or contradiction the first thousand yeres as appeareth by consent of the fathers general Councels stories of the church Berengarius the first notorious father of the sacrameÌ„tarie heresie conuinced by learning condemned in sundrie Councels gathered out of al Christendom abiured his owne wicked invention died penitent therefore from whose time to this age the Catholike faith hath bene clearly acknowledged and mainteyned by al Christians both in the Latin Church also in the Greeke Berengarius when he was a sacramentarie he was also a damnable heretike euen by the Protestants iudgement for sundry other heresies besides this So were all they which since Berengarius haue taught this heresie as Peter de Bruis the Albigenses Almaricus and Ihon VViâ—lef a pernicious heretike flatterer who yet recanâ—ed his heresies twise or thrise is condemned for an heretike by the Protestants Out of the premisse is gathered a generall sure rule the same confirmed by manifest scriptures to know an heresie to proue that Berengarius his opinion al that folow him is heretical And the summe of this chapiter touching the principal contents thereof is concluded with the authoritie of Erasmus a
ratification by the death of the testator but vve say further that to make and perfite the testament as it vvas at the last supper blud also vvas by gods order requisite that blud to be first offered to god in sacrifice vvithout vvhich oblation first made to god it could not be receiued of men and the conference of Christs actions vvith those of Moses manifestly conuinceth the same as shal better appeare in the next paragraph For the present the only authoritie of Gregorious Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great may serue vvho vvriteth very plainly that our Sauiour after a secret and most diuine maner of sacrifice preuented the iudgement and violence of the Iewes and offered him selfe for vs being at one tyme the priest and the lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world And when was this done then when he gaue his body to be eaten and blud to be drunken of his frends the Apostles For a man could not eate the lamb except the immolation went before Quum igitur discipulis suis dedit corpus ad comedendum aperte demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam esse agni immolationem Christ therefore who gaue to his Disciples his body to be eaten euidently declareth that the oblation or immolation of that lamb was now past and performed Now already therefore by his almightie power was that body inuisibly and in wonderfull maner sacrificed The selfe same but more briefly therefore not so plainly vvriteth Hesichius bishop of Hierusalem Christ preuenting the sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse in violent maner sacrificed him selfe in the supper of his Apostles which thing they know who vnderstand the vertue of these mysteries ¶ To this argument the other mysterie of the paschal lambe which Christ also finished in his last supper substituting or placing this sacrament of his body and blud in steed thereof as Musculus truly auoucheth yeldeth great force For plainer declaration vvhereof vve likevvise wil accept that vvhich our aduersaries enforced by manifest scripture graunt thereof dravv a truer conclusion then they do This figure thus the same author expoundeth Christ saith this bread is my body the body of the true lamb which ere long shal be offered in sacrifice This cuppe or to speake more plainly as Th. Beza also teacheth vs that which is coÌ„teyned in this cuppe is not the old but the new testament in my blud the true lamb whose blud shal be shed for yow Therefore as this figuratiue lamb hath bene hitherto accompted the paschal sacrament of the old testament so this bread and cup shal hence forward be accompted in the new testament for the sacrament of my body sacrificed and my blud shed This I take to be the meaning of Christ in these words that as Moses the mediator of the old testament Exod. 12. toke order about that paschal lamb instituted of it a solemne yerely memorial before it was sacrificed that by the blud thereof â—e might turne away the Angel which killed al the first borne and so he appointed that for a sacrament of the old testament in like maner Christ meaning now to make an end of the old testament and to begin the new ordeyned this sacrament of the new true paschal I meane of his owne body and blud before he was to be offered on the crosse for the redemption of mankynd Againe in the same place Christ in his supper endeth the old testament and sacraments thereof by the succession of the new testament There he saith This is the new testament in my blud and so doth substitute the new testament in place of the old and withall ordeyneth a sacrament consisting of two parts which should correspond to the sacrament of the old Pasch which also consisted of two parts In that figuratiue Pasch was sacramental meate drinke so is it here etc. Briefly for I wil not stand vpon euerie his particular circumstance his conclusion is that the plaine text and order vsed by Christ declareth sufficiently that Christs mystical supper succeded in place of the old pasch which was a sacrament of the old law So here we see accorded that the plaine teâ—t of scripture and Christs owne doing proue the paschal lamb to haue bene a prefiguration of this sacrament instituted by Christ at his last supper vvhich as before is confessed was ordeyned by Christ to succede in place of that paschal lamb And this to be so appeareth by euery circumstance of Christs action compared vvith that auncient ceremonie That lambe vvas by God appointed to be sacrificed precisely the 14. day of the first moneth in the euening Christ in the same day and the same time of the day precisely instituted this sacrament That lamb was offered in memorie of our lords passe-ouer and deliuerie of the Iewes out of their Aegiptiacal bondage The Eucharist is offered in memorie of Christs passe-ouer vvhen by his passion he passed out of this world to his father also in memorie of our deliuerance from the power and bondage of Satan which benefite is procured vs by Christs death That lamb was first offered as a sacrifice then eaten as a sacrament as the viage-prouision for pilgremes and trauailers for which cause they who did eate it were then attired like trauailers with their loynes girded shoes on their feete staues in their hands as men being in their iourney tovvards Iewrie their land of promise So this to omitte the sacrifice first due to god is imparted to Christians as their proper viage prouision their viaticum by which they are strengthened comforted in this vale of miserie and peregrination wherein they trauaile towards heauen their eternal country and promised land That lamb could not be lavvfully eaten but in Hierusalem only the place which god had appointed peculiarly for his name to dwel in nor this but in the Catholike church with out vvhich who so euer eateth it he is prophane he is in the high way of damnation as saith S. Hierom. S. Augustin That was appropriated to those only that were Hebrewes circumcided and cleane so this to only Christians baptised of pure life and conscience for vvhich cause S. Paule willeth euery one to proue and tâ—ie him selfe before he presume to this table Finally as Moses coÌ„maunded the Israelites to keep the memorie thereof for euer so Christ vvilled his Christians to do this in memorie of his passioÌ„ death for euer vntil his second aduent VVhere as this then so exact a prefiguration of the Christian Eucharist and which was ended and fulfilled in our Eucharist before it was eaten was by Gods ordinance commaunded to be offered to him in sacrifice how can it be denyed but that the Eucharist was also sacrificed before it was eaten How was the figure fulfilled if the principal part and ceremonie most touching the honour of God were omitted And how is it credible that
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
of his blud the bread there broken is the participation of his body should also be partakers of the table sacrifice of deuils In which argument albeit the Apostle being brief and writing to Christians whom he accounteth skilful wei instructed in this thing by mentioning litle signifieth more setting downe one part willeth them to vnderstand the whole as Calvin also truly noteth and therefore vseth not in everie part of his comparison the terme of altar and sacrifice yet as otherwhere he acknowledgeth the Christians to haue a true altar to sacrifice on and consequently a sacrifice from which the Iewes were debatredâ— so here the very drift of his reason exact correspondence of ech part to other require that as the Iewes had an altar a sacrifice so had the Gentils so had the Christians As the Iewes offered to their god so did the Gentils to their false god so did the Christians As the Iewes by that seruice were partakers of the worship of the true god so were the Gentils by the like seruice concluded conuinced to worship a false god that is the deuil therefore could not haue any part or coÌ„munion in the worship of the true god which was performed by the dreadful sacritice of Christs body blud among Christians VVhich triple sacrifice that of the Gentils to the deuil these two of the Iewes Christians to the true god S. Chrysostom veâ—v we observeth writing vpon the same place His words are In the old testament Pagans idolaters offered the blud of beasts to their idols This blud god tooke to him selfe that so he might turne away his people from committing idolatrie which was a great signe of infinite loue But here in the new testament he provided a sacrifice far more wonderful excellent both in that he changed the sacrifice withal in place of beasts killed in sacrifice he coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offered And this to be the true sense of the place Vib. Regius ioynt-Apostle with M. Luther in preaching this new gospel whom the Protestants of Germanie acknowlege cal a perfite absolute Diuine of infinite learning the Evangelist cheef Superintendent of the churthes of Christ in the Duchie of Luneburge as Luther was in the Duchie of Saxonie plainely graunteth Many there are saith he which thinke a sacrifice to be proued by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the societie of such as sacrifice to idols by arguments taken from the faith of the sacrifice vsed by the Iewes Gentils For he seemeth to compare sacrifice to sacrifice as Chrysostome teacheth his comparison so to stand that by it is gathered Christians in the Lords supper to haue a certaine peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our lord as the idolaters by their abominable sacrifice are made partakers of deuils VVhich if it be so me seemeth it may be answered that in the supper of Christians are the body blud of Christ which are a holy sacrifice but coÌ„memoratiue sacrosanctum sunt sacrificium sed memoriale By which later word albeit he thinketh to haue answered the Catholiks excluded the truth of the sacritice yet is he much deceiued therein For so far are Catholiks from denying the sacrifice to be commemoratiue that of al other sacrifices which euer were or can be imagined we graunt this to be moste coÌ„memoratiue as which most neerely liuely truly expresseth the verie condition efficacie nature of that sacrifice offered on the crosse with which being one in substance it differeth only in maner of offering generalitie of redemption And as Christs transfiguration on the holy mount before his passion vvas the best most persite sigure examplar representation of that eternal glorie which the same person of Christ vvas to enioye in heauen after his resurrection ascension in like maner vve are to iudge of this mistical coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice in respect of his sacrifice on the crosse yet not excluding the veritie of Christs presence in one place more then the other Nether is there any reason vvhy Vrbanus Regius a Lutheran should imagine the sacrifice to be disproued for that it is a memorial or done in coÌ„memoration of Christ more then the real presence is disproued reiected because that also in the Lutheran religion must needs be done in coÌ„memoration Christs vvords being most plaine do this in coÌ„memoration of me VVhich vvords doubtles haue no more strength to overthrovv remoue a sacrifice of Christs body as al Catholikes vrge then a true presence of the same body vvhich al LutheraÌ„s graunt So that out of these vvords of the Apostle is confirmed the mistical sacrifice that it vvas vsually frequented in the first Apostolical church vvhich rec aâ—ed directly from Christ and his Apostles the order administration thereof ¶ This sincere sound beleefe concerning both sacrifice sacrament continued in the catholike church for the first thousand yeres almost vvithout contradiction of any man or sect vvorth the naming Only as our Sauiour him self in the veâ—ie beginning vvhen he first promâ—seâ— that the bread which he would geue should be the same flesh which he was to geue for the life of the world signified obscurely that Iudas the traytour certaine other for want of faith vvere scandalized at his vvords repâ—neâ— at them so a fevv veres after it may be gathered that some there vvere of Iudas folovvers vvho likevvise denyed the truth of this heauenly mistery vvhereof S. Ignatius scholer to the postles vvriteth thus as his vvords are recorded by Theodoretus Some sectaries there are who like not nor approue the oblâ—â—ions sacrifiâ—e◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 for that they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Iesu the selfe same flesh that suffred for our sinneâ— which the father of his merciful goodnes raised from death But vvhat these men vvere vvhat svvay they bare vvhat scholers they had appeareth not by any ecclesiastical record therefore belike vvere sone put to silence in that happie time of our primitiue first faith vvhen the Apostles them selues and many by them instructed had the governement of the church VVherefore the beleefe first taught by Christ and his Apostles proceded on from hand to hand from age to age vvithout any notable resistance VVhereof being a thing at large treated proued in sundry bookes both latin and english set forth of late I vvil bring only thre or fovver testimonies but the same most auncient S. Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Fraunce martyr S. Cyprian bishop of Carthage in Africa a martyr likevvise and the first general Councels of Nice Ephesus in Asia S. Ireneus vvriteth thus Christ taking bread gaue thankes said This is my body and that which was in the chalice he confessed to be his blud and
can not comprehend vet let our faith beleeue For true it is though most miraculous in these sacramental earings of the Ievves who so perceiueâ—h not many miracles to be coÌ„teyned is more then a doâ—t vvere he not if not in vvit a very dolt asse yet surely in diuinitie a very simple one vvho vvould attribute such miraculous excellencie to the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvhich them selues notvvithstanding al their hyperbol cal lâ—ing florishes meane not to be true no not in the gospel And vvhat so euer they meane the vniuersal scope and drift of scripture denieth refuteth it in the old lavv most effectually For although the good men vnder the law which vnderstood their ceremonies and sacraments to be shadowes and darke presignifications of a Messias and by vsing them were kept in an obedience and orderly subiection and expectation of a Sauiour to come by such obedience faith pleased god and were therefore rewarded at his hands yet that those ceremonies and sacraments velded them any such grace as is here declared much lesse the participation of Christs true flesh blud which is the supreme soueraine grace of al that euer was or euer shal be in this world the old testameÌ„t it self and also the new in many places denyeth especially the Apostle S. Paule in whole chapirers of his epistle to the Hebrewes where he most expresly treateth discourseth of their sacraments and state of the old testament in comparison of ours and state of the gospel For to omit sundry textes apperteyning to this purpose in the Prophets Euangelists to rest only vpon S. Paule when he saith that circumcision the principal sacrament of the law was nothing of no effect to conferre grace and that Abraham him self vnto whom singularly circumcision was a sâ—â—â—e of the iustice of faith was not yet iustified in circumcision nor by circumcision but otherwise when he disputeth that no worke no ceremonie no sacrament of the lâ—â— was 〈◊〉 to iustification but only the faith and grace exhibited in the new testament when he calleth al those Iudaical sacraments infirma et egena elementa weake and poore elements or as the English bibles translate it weake and beggerly ordinances when he teacheth the vvhole lavv and al the ceremonies sacraments thereof to haue bene reiected and altered because of their weakenes and vnprofitablenes that those sacrifices baptismes and meates drinkes blud of oxen and goates were only iustices of the flesh sanctified those that vsed them no otherwise then in taking away legal pollutions and so purified men only according to the flesh and therefore were instituted by god not to remayne for euer but only vntil the time of correction or new testament and then other maner sacrifice and Sacrament should succede in their place briefly when he teacheth the law to haue had a shadow of good things to come not the very image of them much lesse the body which is geuen by Christ in the nevv testament that it vvas impossible for the blud of those sacrifices to take away sinne and purifie the comscience for vvhich cause also god foretold by his prophets that he vvold reiect those hostes and oblations sacrifices and that they pleased him not vvhen the Apostle thus vvriteth thus teacheth thus disputeth against those legal sacraments vvhat Christian man vvil say that vvith them vvas exhibited and conioyned the true flesh and diuine blud of our god and Sauiour as before according to Caluins first preaching the same is conioyned vvith the sacraments of the nevv lavv If vnder those elements of bread and wine as novv in the supper the body and blud of Christ were not only figured but also truly deliuered if vvhen they vvere eaten of the Ievves by the omnipotencie of god and miraculous operation of his holy spirite Christ Iesus I meane as Calvin teacheth me the flesh blud of Christ yea the very substance thereof as Beza also with the consent of a whole Caluinian Synode speaketh were receiued vvithal then truly S. Paul in calling such a Sacrament a weake and beggerly ordinance had bene a very vveake Apostle an vnfit instrument to publish Christs name before nations and Princes of the vvorld vvho of Christs diuine person of his pretious flesh and blud the price raâ—â—â—om of the world reconciliation of al things in heauen and earth had had so meane and beggerly aâ— opinion But because most sure it is that b. Paule was â—â—â—nom any such beggerly or rather beastly ethnical â—og 〈◊〉 the Calumâ—â— who in this deteâ—â—able â— aâ— pâ—â—mous conâ—cite â—oloweth Calâ—in know that tâ— hâ—m S. Paule speaketh and he shal once to his eterna payne vnlesse â—e in time repent â—â—ele true that which S. Paule threatneth in eueÌ„ for this particular blasphe â—â—â—s heresie of matching the base Iewish ceremonies with Christs most heauenly and diuine Sacraments A man making frustrate the law of Moyses is adiudged to death therefore by the verdite of 2 or â— witnesseâ— How much more deserueth he more extreme punishmentâ— which thus treadeth the sonne of god vnder foote and esteemeth the blud of the new testament polluted by making it nothing superior to the blud of beasts and so hath done contumelâ—e to the sp rite of grace beyond al measure abased most vily and contemptuously the diuine state and maiestie of the new testament Let the discreete reader know that against this Iudaisme the Christians euer from the begâ—nning of Christianitie haue had touching their sacraments a more excellent faith and diuine perswasion as who vpon warrant of Christs words haue euer beleeued that in the one sacrament was deliuered the body and blud of Christ the same in veritie and truth of substance that was sacrificed on the crosâ—e as before more largely hath bene deduced And for the other sacrament for I mention no more because thâ—se men acknowledge no more the holy scriptures and writings of the Apostles and the church ensuing haue yelded vnto it as to an instrumental cause higher grace vertue then to any sacrament of the Iewes law or al their sacraments and sacrifices ioyned in one For proofe whereof when Christ was baptized the heauens opened and the holy ghost descended to signifie that by baptisme the way to heauen shut before is made open to is the holy ghost powred in to vs as Christ him self by word and deed taught most manifestly except a man be borne of water the spirite he can not enter into the kingdome of god And to testifie that aâ—â—uâ—â—dly and that in baptisme Christians are made partakers of the holy ghost in the begin â—â—â—g of the church the holy ghost â—â—sibly deseended rested on them that were baptized by the Apostles and first preachers of our faith And the gospel Apostolical writings euery where teach that â—â—bert the baptisme of Iohn
leaueth that office to the people to distribute and diuide the bread amonge them selues as though al grace came to them from them selues vvithout Christ and his spirite of vvhom they had no need and vvithal he maketh a grosse lye vpon Christ which may stand for a fourth difference betvvene their Communion and Christs Supper that Christ commaunded them so to do VVhereas in the quotations with which they most foolishly paint their margent there is no such thing but the cleane contrarie as before out of the Gospel and the very places which they quote by Musculus hath beneshevved Christ mingled the cup vvhich he consecrated vvhich thing albeit Musculus directly affirmeth not yet he supposeth it most likely and probable yea he nothing doubteth of it being the vniuersal custome of the country VVherevnto if he vvould adde that the text of the Euangelists is indifferent as expressing nether cleane wine nor wine mingled with vvater but only the cup or chalice in every place vvhich vndoubtedly speaketh of the Sacrament for the place of S. Matthevv vvhom S. Marke foloweth vvhere is mentioned the fruite of the vine is doubtful and by auncient fathers expounded diuers vvaies albeit being exactly coÌ„ferred vvith S. Luke and the Ievves maner of eating their Paschal lamb it seemeth most probably to apperteyne not to the cup of Christs Supper but to the cup of that Paschal lamb being applied to the supper of Christ though it include the one it excludeth not the other then lay vnto the Gospel being indifferent the general maner of the country of the lavv of the Iewish Synagoge of the sacrifices especially of that singular sacrifice which most expressely foreshevved this al making for the mixtion of vvater vvith it the vniversal consent of the Christian church and al antiquitie besides he should not deny but Christâ—o tempered the chalice vvhereof he made the sacrament So testifieth S. Iames the Apostle vvho vvas present in his Liturgie Likewise after supper Christ tooke the chalice mingling it with wine and water geuing thankes sanctifying and blessing it gaue it to vs his disciples c. So writeth the most auncict Christian doctor S. ClemeÌ„t a man of the Apostolical age mentioned commended by S. Paule S. Ireneus nameth it temperamentum calicis calicem mistum the chalice mingled or tempered S. Cyprian a number of times epaeteth that Christ so deliuered that Christ offered his chalice mingled with wine water So vvitnesseth S. Basile in his Liturgie And finally to omit al other because it is a thing vvel knovven that the vvhole primitiue church consenteth herein so vvitnesseth the 6. Councel of Constantinople and proveth it by great authoritie The vvords are The vse of mingling water and wine in the chalice in al churches is kept as delivered from god him self For S. Iames the brother of Christ and first bishop of Ierusalem likewise S. Basil that most glorious archbisshop of Caesarea having put in writing this mystical sacrifice declare that the holy chalice should haue in it water wine And the fathers of the Councel of Carthage in vvhich Councel vvas S. Austin plainly and precisely decree that in the sacrament of Christs body and blud nothing be offered more then Christ him self delivered that is to say bread and wine mingled with water Out of al vvhich the fathers of this Councel of Constantinople conclude If therefore any bishop or priest folow not this order delivered by the Apostles but offer the immaculate sacrifice not mingling water with wine in the chalice let him be deposed from his office This general or rather vniversal consent custom of al Christendome coming thus directly from the Apostles might suffise to overpeise for our side especially the vvord of the Gospel being indifferent or rather coÌ„pared vvith the old lavv more bending to the same side But because I vvil charge M. B. and his felovv-ministers no farther then they charge them selues and they plainly confesse not Christs chalice to haue bene tempered vvith vvater or at lest thinke not theÌ„ selues bound to folovv Christs example herein because it is not euidently specified in the Gospel nether vvil I vrge them farther vvith breach of Christs ordinance in this behalfe But the last and the same most pregnant principal of al that vvhich geueth light to al the precedent actions of Christ the vvords vvhich Christ adioyned to declare and expresse the meaning of the â—est the vvords vvhich as Musculus truly auoucheth Christ by his diuine wisedome ioyned to his doing and so bound the one with the other that his disciples might see in his doing and heare in his speaking that whereby they might be instructed in this sacrament and thereby al occasion cut of from mans rasbnes to inuent any new thing or corrupt any part of this sacrameÌ„t these vvords I say so vvisely disposed so necessarily ordeyned so significantly declaring our sauiours meaning and intentioÌ„ these vvords so diuine so mystical and effectual vvhere are they Hovv chaunceth it that they appeare no vvhere Are Christs vvords not vvorth the rehersing Or chalenge yovv to your selues a souerain vvisdome aboue the eternal vvisdome of God If not vvhy disioyne yow most sacrilegiously that vvhich he conioyned VVhy separate yovv and pul a sunder that vvhich Christ bound and coupled together After these precedent signes and actions vvhy here vve not This is my body geven and broken for yow This cup is my blud of the new testament which is shed for yow to remission of sinnes VVhy is this inexplicable benefite omitted vvhich vvas principally intended by al the Evangelists so specially remeÌ„bred If you list not to reherse them vvith the opinion of Catholikes or Papists as yovv cal true Christians as though there vvere some force vertue effect and operation in them vvhich vvas the faith of al the auncient and primitiue church as hath bene shevved yet at lest reherse them historically by vvay of narration as is the guise of the English comunion for that in the storie of the gospel so they stand and there ought to haue their place M. B. vvil perhaps reply O Sir vve omit them not For in the beginning before our Sermon the minister reherseth such vvords out of S. Paule But vvhat maketh that to your Communion vvhat maketh the ministers talking out of the pulpit before the Sermon to his communion vvhich he ministreth sitting at the table long after the Sermon is ended VVhat if the minister before he came to the church read the vvhole chapiter in his ovvne hovvse vvhat if over night Christs order is that they should be vsed ioyned vvith those other doings and actions in the administration of his supper Yow thrust them away from that place Christ tooke bread gaue thanks blessed diuided distributed to his disciples and then telling them what it was vsed those words Yow first take bread and then
diuide it as perhaps yow do at your owne domestical table but for ought els that should separate Christs table from your prophane table Christs spiritual supper from your fleshly and belly supper yow do nothing at al in such order as Christ required and in such order as is requisite to make a sacrament to make Christs table to make a spiritual Supper If the Minister at eight of the clocke say to the child which is to be baptised I baptise thee in the name of the father the sonne and the holy ghost or according to Zuinglius guise I baptise thee in the name of the lord and after hauing told a tale of 2. or 3 howres long at ten of the clocke sprinkle a litle vvater on the child wil any Christian cal this baptisme No it is a mere prophanation of baptisme and contempt of Christ and his ordinance ` The like is to be deemed of this your most arrogant damnable tearing renting in sunder of Christs diuine mysterie or rather cleane remouing and taking quit away of that which Christ appointed for the chief and principal I say cleane remouing away because that forerunning talke out of the pulpit being separated froÌ„ the communion by so long tract of time and interposing of a Sermon can be no more accompted any parcel of the communion then the words of baptisme vttered at eight of the clocke are to be esteemed a part of baptising or sprinkling of the vvater which ensueth 2. howres after VVherefore of this example and maner of communion I wish the godly Christian reader to consider how iust occasion the Caluinists geue to their bretherne the Lutherans to write of them that they hate the â—ords of Christs institution that they can not abide nether â—o set nor to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them that not without good reason Luther wrote of them that when they are enforced to talke of this matter and examine the words of Christ they make such a do before they can be brought vnto it they vse such a number of preambles such vaunts and bragger they speake so many things from the matter and so litle to the purpose as is vncredible And vvhen at length they come to the point it self then lo they treade so nicely and gingerly as though they walked vpon eggs and feared they breaking of them and a man can scarce turne his hand but away they flie with such extreme hast as though the deuil were at their heeles and they feared lest they should stumble breake their necke at euery sillable which Christ pronounced A very liuely image and representation of this may a man see in the Scottish communion booke where in the beginning of their Communion in the margent very curiously they note Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. In the end they again daube the margent vvith printing the same quotations of Matthew Marke Luke Paule as they do also a thirdtime in their formal Thankesgeuing But if ye enter in to the text looke for Christs words erlier as they are vttered by S. Matthew or S. Marke or S. Luke or S. Paule ye find no part oâ— peece of them ve finde no body of Christ geuen or broken ye find no blud shed in remission of synnes ye find no blud of the new testament ve find nothing but bread from the bakers shop and wine from the vintners seller For if the missing of any ceremonie any thing or iote that Christ did suffice to take from it al nature of a sacrameÌ„t leaue it common and vulgar bread as M. B. peremptorily affirmeth whereas here are wanting so many matters practised by Christ so many points they ech one essential according to his owne confession yea vvhereas the very principal of Christs ordinance and institution is left out among so many other things vvhich Christ did which Christ spake which Christ required to be spâ—kâ—â— done how can it be denyed but this Scottish communion according to the sentence set downe by M. B. him self and most cleare reason and inevitable sequele drawen thence is a manifest corrupting peruerting of Christs holy Supper is mereprophane wicked Anabaptistical many degrees worse then the Iewish paschal supper or any Christian good mans dinner or breakefast as Luther also truly vvriteth in which bread is taken as wel as in their communion god honored and Christ remembred and thankes geuen to him for his inestimable benefites as wel as in their coÌ„munion Christ beleeued that is to say eaten by faith as wel as in their Communion bread and drinke blessed and sanctified by the word of god prayer and thankes-geuing better then in their communion as much loue and charitie found amongest honest neighbours as is among their communicaÌ„ts and finally what so euer is good and religious in their communion if any such thing be there is found as truly and plentifully in such a dinner as in that their Supper VVhereas their Supper is besides desiled and polluted with schisme and heresier vvith deuelish contempt of Christs church of omitting altering mangling and peruerting Christs owne doing of corrupting his holy sacrament of which prophane and sacrilegious wickednes no peece is found in such a breakfast or dinner Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament The Argument M. B. declaration why the sacrament is called asigne vz. for that there is truly ioyned to it it exhibiteth to the faithful communicants the thing signified that is the very substance of Christs body and blud Al which he vttereth so plainly in so significant termes and with such comparisons that he seemeth to be a very Catholike or at lest a Lutheran in that point Especially for that he requireth true and real ioyning of Christs body to ours by the sacrament that so our bodyes may be made partakers of life immortal and resurrection which is the doctrine of the auncient fathers and most strongly confirmeth the real presence CHAP. 6. THat which the Scottish communion booke in the last chapiter by refusing abandoning Christs order consequeÌ„tly bringing their Supper to mere bakers bread aud tauerners wine hath marâ—ed that in this next place M. B. vvith very honorable words goeth about to mend and repaire again For thus he declareth why their bread and vvine are called signes The reason vvhy I cal them signes saith he is this I cal them not signes because they signifie or represent only the body and blud of Christ But I cal them signes because they haue the body and blud of Christ conioyned with them yea truly is the body of Christ conioyned with thâ—â— bread and the blud of Christ conioyned with that wine c. Again In respect of this exhibition chiefly that they are instruments to deliuer and exhibite the thing that they signifie and not in respect only of their representation they are called signes
vvhich not Iohn Caluin but Christ ordeyned vve must answere cleane coÌ„trarie that there is but one propiner one person that offereth the sacraments and he exhibiteth not only the earthly matter but also the heauenly not only the signe but also the thing signified euen Christs owne body The difference betwene M. B. and me his ansvvere to the question and myne being so contrarie â—iseth of this that M. B. taketh his sacrament or rather signe I meane his tropical bread vvine from the ministerie institution of Iohn Calvin vvhom he must of necessitie separate and disioyne from Christ the ministerie of the one from the ministerie of the other so must needs haue tvvo different diuided propiners at lest The church taking her sacrament directly simply from Christ can make no difference betwene this ministerie that of Christs this offering and that betvvene this sacrament and that this body and that because as there it was done personally by Christ so novv it is by the order appointment and in the person of Christ And therefore although their eye sight tel them cleerly that then minister geues them nothing but bread and drinke the earthly signe not worth a straa a signe bare and barren without the thing signified yet faith telleth vs that the minister of the church geueth to the Catholike coÌ„municant altogether as much as Christ gaue to his Apostles that was beside the signe the thing signified his diuine and most pretious body vvhich there in a sacrament and after in sight of Iewes and Gentils was offered to God for vs. And thus S. Chrysostom many hundred yeres since taught vs to answere M. B. his question The holy sacrifice saith he whether it be offered by Peter or Paule or any other simple priest of what so euer merit he be it is the self same which Christ gaue to his Apostles Nihil habet ista quam illa minus This hath nothing lesse then that How so Because it is not man that sanctifieth this but Christ who sanctified that For as the words which priests now pronounce are the same which Christ vttered so the sacrifice is al one And so it is likewise in baptisme And after somvvhat more spoken to this effect he concludeth Qui autem hoc illo minus aliquid habere putat ignorat Christum esse qui nunc etiam adest operatur If any man suppose that this our sacrament sacrifice hath lesse then that as M. B. doth making so much difference betwene them almost as is betwene heauen hel â—he is ignorant and knoweth not that it is Christ who now also is present and worketh the consecration and sanctification of sacraments no lesse then he did then And so this first error being thus disproued the second vvhich dependeth theron is by the same reason corrected For as it is one propiner so that vvhich is geuen is geuen in one action vvhich albeit M. B. stay not on but vvith a simple negatiue passeth avvay yet for the readers better information I must tel him somwhat more at large that the signe and the thing signified is by the same Minister of the church at one and in the same action moment exhibited and offered The reason is for that albeit Christ in heauen and the Ecclesiastical minister in earth do differ yet vvhen he in earth forgeueth sinne baptizeth or consecrateth the sacrament he doth it not as of him self but as by povver and vertue and authoritie coÌ„mitted to him from Christ also as hath bene said he doth it in the person of Christ and so the action of Christ and his officer the priest is the self same in number and no way to be accompted tvvo ecclesiastical or rather sacramental actions hovv soeuer morally or physically the actions are distinguished As in like maner vvhen the king sendeth a noble man or iudge with his coÌ„mission into some part of his realme in matters of lavv or othervvise to take order for quiet gouernement of his realme that vvhich the king doth by such a iudge and deputie or this noble man or iudge doth by the kings warrant and authoritie is not in ciuil vvisedome and truth to be accompted tvvo several actions but one and much-more is that other of Christ and the priest one the self same in Theologie ¶ As for the third resolution vvhere it is avouched by him that the thing signified is neuer offered to the mouth of the body the blud of Christ the flesh of Christ whole Christ is not offered nor in the word nor in the sacrament to the mouth of my body to vvhich negatiue he addeth very confidently get me that in any part of the bible that there is any other maner of receiuing of Christ but by faith take it to them I aske him only this question vvhether S. Matth. Gosp â— Marks Gospel S. Luke S. Iohns Gospel vvith S. Paules epistles be any part of his bible If they be then let him ansvvere him selfe vvhether Christ when in his last supper he said to his Apostles Take eate this is my body according to S. Matthevv and S. Marke this is my body which is geuen and broken for yow according to S. Luke S. Paule vvhen thus he performed that vvhich he promised in the sixt of S. Iohn The bread which I wil geue to eate is my flesh the same flesh which I wil geue that is vvhich I vvil offer in sacrifice for the life and salvation of the world vvhen after this promise this performance thus mentioned by al the Euangelists the Christians vvere taught to beleeue as a thing most plaine cleere that in the dreadful sacrifice the bread which vvas there broken vvas the communication of Christs body according to Christs ovvne expresse vvord let him self I say ansvvere him self vvhether in these so manifest and euident speeches the body and flesh of Christ be not offered to the mouth of Christian men For the other part vvhich M. B mentioneth the blud of Christ when of that Christ reaching the chalice to his Apostles said to them drinke ye al of this for this is my blud of the new testament which is shed for many to remission of sinnes according to the same Euangelists and S. Paule when the first Christians were likevvise instructed in particular of this to beleeue vvithout al question of casting doubt that the cup or chalice of benediction which by the priests ministerie was blessed in the church was the communication of Christs blud vvhen vpon this most assured evident and infallible warrant the fathers of the primitiue church vvith one voyce and consent taught that self same blud of Christ to be as truly in the chalice as it truly gusâ—hed out from Christs side vvhen he hung on the crosse the same body and sacrifice to be receiued from the altar in the church vvhich was offered on the altar
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
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
more be in the sacramental bread and vvine of the English and Scottish Communion And yet as I suppose nether the English not the Scottish ministers thinke it necessarie that vvhen they minister the communion there be present in the congregation reaping and thresshing grinding and baking and so forth nether yet that in their cup being made of vvine or ale there be many ale cornes or many grapes or in the bread many wheat cornes to signifie the vnitie of the lord with the congregation as also the vnitie of the bretherne and sisterne one vvith an other in faith and love but it is counted sufficient that to the matter of the sacrament these things vvere requisite before it could be made bread or vvine If he thus thinke and answere as he must of necessitie then he answereth him self that it suffiseth this sacrament in the Catholike church to be made of bread and vvine vvhich signifie spiritual nurriture though after consecration the substance of nether remayne vvhich yet nurrish even then sufficiently to performe that vvhich his argument requireth Finally this argument is condemned by Iohn Calvin him self and the vvhole consistorie of Geneva For vvhereas this man argueth that vve haue no sacrament because we want a signe if the substance of the bread be chaunged although that notwithstanding vve reteyne al properties qualities effects and operations of bread Calvin vvith his consistory as before is noted holdeth the sacrament to be perfite and absolute though there be no bread at al though there vvant both substance and qualities of bread al shape forme and nature of bread and vvine both internal and external And vvhereas against that opinion or licentious dispensation there vvas obiected belike by some minister of M. B. his conceite this argument vvhich here he opposeth the Consistorie answereth very gravely This analogie or signification of bread made of many graynes and wine of many grapes to declare our mutual coniunction although it be not to be contemned yet nether is it so precisely to be vrged but that it may suffise vs to testifie that coniunction and faith by like signes in general by other meate and drinke If then the Geneva bretherne may have a very perfit sacrament vvithout any kind of bread and vvine â—ther in substance or accident M. B. his reason proceedeth of smal vvit in denying vs a sacrament vvho reteyne the formet al necessarie properties of bread suâ—ficieÌ„t fully to signifie although according to Christs expresse vvord vve beleeve the substance of bread to be changed in to the substance of a more celestial and divine bread vvhich came from heauen Thirdly saith M. B. if there were such a wonderful thing as they speake of in this sacrament there would haue bene plaine mention made of it in the scripture VVhat playner mention can yow require then This is my body the self same which shal be deliuered for yow This is my blud of the new testament the same which shal be shed for the remission of sinnes for the redemption of the world Can M. B. vvith al his study devise vvords more plaine more effectual more significant Fourthly he much troubleth him self to find the veritie of this proposition This bread is my body vvhether it be true before the words spoken or after c. I answere first let him set downe a truth and not a falsitie and after propose his difficultie and then ether it shal be satisfied or vve wil acknowlege his deep and vnanswerable subtilitie But for ought appeareth in our testaments English Latin or Greeke Christ never vsed any such speech Christ never said This bread is my body but as hath bene declared before Christ so vttered his vvords as possibly they can not yeld that proposition Let M. B. marke vvel the words in the Euangelists and conferte them vvith his grammer rules ether in Greeke or Latin and if he can make Hoc to agree vvith panis or Hic vvith vinum then he may chaunce to trouble vs. Otherwise except he his vvil take vpon them to make vs a new Grammar a new Latin and Greeke language vvhich they may better do and vvith more reason then make vs a new faith new sacraments new Theologie as they have done he shal not find in al the testament that â—â—â—â— Christ said This bread is my body This wine is my blud ¶ Fiftly Austin saith lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana cap. 16. To eate Christs flesh and drinke his blud seemeth to commaund a wickednes or mischief Therefore it is a figuratiue speach whereby we are commaunded to communicate with Christs sufferings and with gladnes to locke vp in perpetual memorie that the flesh of our Lord was crucified and wounded for vs. For otherwise as the same Austin makes mention it were more horrible to eate the flesh of Christ really then to murther him to drinke his blud then to shed his blud S. Austins vvords answere them selues and so doth S. Austin in other places and even here the second place answereth the first because it notifieth how far forth this speach is figurative Only this may be added to the first that vvhen S. Austin saith that to eate Christs flesh is to coÌ„municate with Christs sufferings and to locke vp in perpetual memorie that Christs flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs he meaneth no other thing then S. Paule doth and the church also vvhen they vvil al Christians vvhich ether offer the mystical sacrifice or receive it to do it in remembrance of Christs bitter passion vvherein his flesh vvas truly wounded and crucified for vs as here it is not And that S. Austin thus meant and never meant by locking vp Christs death in perpetual memorie to shut out this real sacrifice and sacrament vvhich most directly and perfitly continueth that death and bluddy sacrifice in perpetual memorie let S. Austin him self be iudge in a number af other places vvhereof some heretofore have bene other hereafter shal be cited For this present this one may serue The Iewes saith he in their sacrifices of beasts which they offered after diuers sorts and fashions as was connenient for so great a matter practised a fore signification or representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse VVherefore now the Christians also celebrate and keepe the memorie of the same sacrifice past How by vvords only or cogitations or eating bread and drinking vvine as in the Scottish and Geneua English supper No but by a holy oblation and communication or receiving of the same body and blud of Christ Peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosanctâ— oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis c. This S. Austin thought the best vvay to locke vp Christs sacrifice and death in perpetual memorie And this perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice standeth wel and is best preserved by the churches mystical sacrifice and real presence of
Caluinisme And here to the vntruths afore told ye adde one other that vve acknowlege not this speach of Christ hoc est corpus meum to be a sacramental speech For so vve acknowlege it now and so did in the church before yow or any of your sectmaisters vvere borne as by vvhich vvords the sacrament vvas first made instituted by which it is at this present made conseciated and there is no Catholike vvriter scholemaÌ„ or other but he coÌ„sesseth these vvords to be properly sacramental as vvhich import the nature of this sacrameÌ„t most essentially If by the vvoid sacramental yow meane tropical figurative significative as appeareth by that vvhich after ensueth then as I vvish the reader stil to remember your double dealing iugling vvho as ashamed of your owne doctrine stil hide and cover your self vvith this ambiguoâ—s phrase vvhich in the beginning and after yow condemne as inuented by the foly of man against the wisdâ—â— of God so vve vtterly deny that these vvords of Christ are to be taken tropically or figuratively require yow once to geve vs a Theological proofe thereof And thâ—â— yow vndertake here and performe it in this sort For they are compelled say yow wil they nil they in otâ—â— speeches of like sort to acknowledge a figure as Genes 17. 10. Circumcision is called the covenant that is a figure of the covenant and Exod. 12. 11. the lamb is called the passeoâ—er and Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called his blud and Luc. 11. 20. the cup is called the new testament and 1. Cor. 10. 4. the rock is called Christ Al these speeches are sacramental that is figurative and tropical receiues a kind of interpretation yet they malitiously deny it in these words Hoc est corpus meaÌ„ which they are compelled to graunt in the rest especially where S. Paule cals Christ the rock This argument is to the purpose For if yow can prove these words of Christ to be taken tropically then yow directly refel that vvhich the Catholikes beleeve both in general touching the sacrament and in special touching these vvords vvhich as we beleeve to be sacramental as hath bene said so vve vtterly deny to be figurative ortropical and affirme them to be taken literally as the vvords signifie and therefore this your argument to the contrarie is to be examined a litle more diligently And first of al I must tel yow that vvhere yow say these speeches vvhich here yow recite are of like sort vvith that of Christ this is one grosse falsitie to begin vvithal Then vvhere yow say we are compelled to acknowledge a figure in them as one vvay it is true so in the sense vvhich yow meane it is false That al these are not of one sort vvith Christs vvordes nor any one of them as yow take them it is euident to the eye For vvhen vve say circumcision is the covenant a lamb is the passeover the cup that is as yow meane it the material câ—p vvhich Christ held in his hand is Christs blud the same cup is the new testameÌ„t the rock that is a hard stone is Christ in al these propositions one divers and cleane different nature is attributed to an other vvhich if vve take literally as the vvordes lye includeth a contradiction and the later distroyeth the former as much as if a man vvould say black is vvhite for in so saying he saith black is not blacke For in like maner the material rocke can not be Christ because a creature can not be the creator the cup of earth â—in silver or gold can not be the blud of God or man for so could it not be a material cup vvhose nature substance essence is so cleane different that vvho so saith this is blud he denieth it to be gold or silver and vvho affirmeth it to be siluer of neceâ—siâ—ie in that affirmation includeth the contrary negation that it is not blud And therefore al such parabolical speaches vvhereof the scripture is ful and M. B. might have found many more as good as these by the very force of the vvords and meaning of the first speaker and consent of al hearers conteyne a figure and require so to be expounded a number vvhereof Zuinglius and Oecolampadius heaped together in the beginning of this heresie to prove that vvhich M. B. entendeth If Christ had said of material bread or vvine This wine is my blud This bread is my body then I confesse the speaches of Christ and those alleged by M. B. had bene of like sort But Christ spake far otherwise as is manifest by that vvhich hath bene declared before And the plaine sense of Christs speech caÌ„ not be better conceiued then if vve confer them to his doing at the mariage-feast in Cana of Galilee if vvhen he had caused the vvater pots to be filled and presented to the steward he had said hâ—c est vinum this is wine VVhich example I alleage the rather for that S. Cyril the auncient bisshop of Ierusalem applieth it to like purpose In Canâ— of Galilee saith he Christ turned water in to wine And haâ— not we thinke him worthy of credite that he â—â—â—uâ—geth wine in to his blud cum ipse tâ—m asseuerâ—â—â—r diuerit when as he so â—râ—cisely and peremptorily hath said that it is his bluâ— As likewise when he hath pronounced of that bread being consecrate This is my body who can ever doubt of it So that these speaches be of like sort This vvateâ— turned and altered is vvine This bread consecrated is my body This vvine consecrated is my blud Or els of the first This is wine of the second This is my body of the third This is my blud vvhich are Christs owne vvords though the sense of that â—iâ—st and this second be al one ¶ Now if from this general vve shal descend to particulars and examine every one of these examples a part vve shal much more discouer the povertie of this minister and note the infinite inequalitie betwene most of these speaches and that of Christs That circumcision was a figure of the couenaÌ„t vve interprete so both for the reason now geuen and also because the scripture expresly so teacheth But the scripture nether â—aith bread or vvine is Christs body and blud nor yet that bread is the signe of the one or vvine a signe of the other That the lamb is called the passeouer is a text of Zuinglius wicked making and M. B. his foolish imitating For in the place quoted there is no such matter vvhereof I shal more conueniently speake by and by Nether find I that in S. Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called Christs blud Al that I find in that place is this He that wil be first among yow shal be your seruant even as the sonne of man is not come to be ministred vnto but to minister and to geve his life a redemption for
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
this to good life by necessarie sequele faith decaieth vvith good life and conscience But how matcheth this vvith his former preaching that the best and most sincere Christians fal every day seuen tymes yea seuenty times seueÌ„ tymes and that in to grosse sinnes Is not this as much as if he said that the best Christians every howre of the day become infidels can not haue faith in the mercy of god to vvhom their coÌ„science vvitnesseth that daily hovvrely Gods wrath is kindled against them for that their conscience shewes then to be giltie of many offences against God and al those offences grosse deadly and damnable after the Calvinists Theologie Much more this doctrine repugneth to that vvhich Calvin Beza the vvhole church of Geneva and M. B. him self preacheth aftervvards in this self same sermon in these vvords It is sure certain that faith is never wholy extinguished in the children of God Be it never so weake yet shal it never vtterly decay and perish out of the hart where once it makes residence A weake faith is a faith and where that faith is there man ever be mercy Again Faith once geven by God can not be revoked again Faith when it is geven by God is constantly geven neuer to be chaâ—nged nor vtterly tane from them Again This gift of faith where ever it be and in what hart so ever it be it is never idle but perpetually working and working wel by love charitie VVhere ever it be it is not dead but lively How oppoâ—ite and most evidently repugnant is this to the former preaching If saith vvhere ever it be be never idle but perpetually working wel by love and charitie how saith he that they haue faith vvhich oppresse the poore keep deadly feid and so forth vvhich are no vvorkes of Christian charitie how soever they be esteemed among the Calvinists as vvorkes perhaps of their sole iustifying faith and hote love If vvhen â—aith is once geven it can never be lost never revoked by God never vtterly tane from them vvho are once possessed of it how saith he that it is lost by evil life and that God spoiles them of faith hope of mercy vvhich commit such mortal sinnes But a most vvicked barbarous sensibly false paradox it is to say that faith once had can not be lost the contrary vvhereof vve see by lamentable experience of thowsands vvho depart daily not only from Catholike faith to heretike in heresie from one to an other from Lutheran to Zuinglian or Calvinian from Caluinian to Anabaptistical from that to Triuitarian Antitrinitarian c. but also from the general name and pretence of Christian faith to plain Apostasie to Iudaisine to Mahoâ—â—ctisine to Atheisme VVith professors of vvhich gospel as by vvitnesse of my Lâ— of Canterburie the English church is vvel replenished so M. B. him self signifieth the like of his Scottish congregation of vvhich he vvriteth thus Alas we are come to sic a loath disdain ofâ—asting of this heavenly food he meaneth Gods vvord in this country that where men in the beginning would have gane some 20. myles some 40. myles to the hearing of this word they wil searcely now come fra their howse to the kirk and remayne one howre to heare the word but bâ—des at home This being true if as he in this same place teacheth faith formed in our harts by the holy spirit vvil decay except it be nurrished and if to the nâ—â—risâ—ing of this faith it be requisite that we heare the word of God preached and preached not by every man but preached by a lawful pastor by him that is sent vvhich point he doth inculcate diligently without which preaching it is not possible saith he that a man continue in the â—aith how can it be avoyded but vvhere this vvord is not thus preached as it is not in a number of places of England nor perhaps of Scotland there the faith among the bretheâ—â—e not only may but also must of necessitie decay vvhich vvithout this kind of preaching can not possibly continue And if there be no such preaching preaching I meane by pastors lawfully sent as in truth there is noâ—e nether in England nor yet in Scotland amongest al the ministers as of the English ministerie is best proved by the Puritanes by Caâ—twight by Calvin by Beza by Knox by the Scottish communion booke and election of ministers appointed there and for the Scottish ministerie to let passe my L. of Canterbury and the English Pontifical it is very clearly proved by Buchanâ—â— in his storie and the first original and foundation of this new Scottish kirk in our age layd by that seditions and infamous man Iohn Knox his comparteners in despite and against the vvil of both magistrates as vvel temporal as spiritual that I mention not Catholike vvriters vvho have made demonstration of this against both Scottish and English in sundry writings how can there be remayning any faith among them vvhere is no orderly preaching of the vvord by any such lawful pastor orderly sent vvho is so necesiarie to preserve this faith And how plentifully is this most barbarous fansie refelled in the holy scripture by a nuÌ„ber of examples facts and sentences vvhere vve find that Simon Magus beleeved Christs gospel as other Christians did vvho yet after became an Arch-heretike or Apostata as likewise did Hymeneê° Alexander vvhere the Apostle forewarneth that in the later dayes many Christians shal depart from the faith vvhereof vve see daily experience vvhere he reproveth the Galathians for that they receiving the spirite and for a vvhile continuing in the spirite afterwards gave over the spirite and ended in the flesh vvhere is declared that some vvho vvere sanctified by the blud of the new testament afterwards despised trode vnder their feete the sonne of God the same blud by which they had bene sanctified being washed from their sinne afterwards as vncleane swine returned and wallowed in their former filth vvhere the Evangelist vvriteth plainly and our Saviour him self teacheth vs that some there are vvho gladly receiue the word of God and beleeue for a tyme but vvhen trial and persecution cometh then they depart and geve ouer their faith And to vvhat purpose is it that the Apostles exhort Christians to stand fast in their faith that S. Paule threatningly vvarneth some Christians to become humble and thinke lowly of them selves and to feare lest God who spared not the natural branches the Iewes spare not them but cut them of also reiect theÌ„ as he reiected the Iewes If it vvere then an article of faith that faith once had can never be lost that God vvil never take faith from them on vvhom he hath once bestowed it vvhat vvit or vvisdom vvere there in these ether exhortations or threats As much as if M. B. should exhort his ministers
113. It is in the power of man to make as good a sacrament 270. 271. 272. 273. Actions of Christ in the Institution of the Sacrament pa. 147. 148. 150. 151. 155. He mingled his chalice vvth water 151. 158. 159. He blessed the bread and chalice 152. 153. 154. 155. The Sacrament vvhy called Eucharist pa. 251. 252. Carefully coÌ„ceiled froÌ„ knowlege of Ievves Pagans in the primitiue church 262. 263. 264. No heretike could be present at the administration thereof 254. 262. The Sacrament reserved sent abrode to private men in the primitive church pa. 278. 279. Yet beleeved to sanctifie and confer grace 279. Only heretikes thought contrarie 279. To receiving the Sacrament other preparation required then to receiving the vvord pa. 421. 422. 423. Sacraments of the Law Gospel much differ in conferring grace pa. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 108. The material parts of the Sacrament signifie many things not necessarily present pa. 359. 360. substance of bread not necessarie to it 359. 361. The Sacrament not called Dominica coena the lords supper in scripture pa. 245. VVhat that word meaneth in S. Paul 245. 246. 247. Nether is it called coÌ„munion in al scripture 247. 248. A Sermon not necessarie to the essence of any SacrameÌ„t p. 218. that opinioÌ„ is refuted by the English church 221. It is plainly Anabaptistical 222. 223. It maketh voyd most baptismes in England and Scotland 224. 225. and also coÌ„munions 226. 227. 228. 229. 235. It maketh the vvord or sermoÌ„ it self superfluous of no effect 230. 231. A Sacramental speech pa. 367. Sacramentaries condemned by Erasmus pa. 34. 35. By Luther 325. 354. 438. By Melancthon 348 349. By Pappus 326. VVestphalus 121. 283. 284. 285. Hosiander many other protestaÌ„t Doctors 344. 436. Euery heretike against the Sacrament an heretike for other matters besides as Berengarius pa. 26. 27. Petrus Brusius Henricus and the Albigenses 27. 28. Almaricus 28. VViclef 29. Christ at his last supper instituted a sacrifice pa. 3. proved by vvords of the Institution 4. 16. and conference of them with the vvords of the legal sacrifice of Moyses lavv 4. 5. Christs sacrifice ordeyned in steed of the Paschal sacrifice of the law pa. 9. 10. The exact coÌ„parison of them proveth ours to be a true sacrifice 10. 11. So al the auncient fathers teach pa. 12. 51. 252. 255. 256. 257. 258. 363. It is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 201. A true sacrifice though commemoratiue 19. 20. Sacrifice of Melchisedec a figure of Christs sacrifice pa. 13. 14. 15. 363. Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles pa. 17. Proved by S. Paule 17. 18. 19. Graunted by some chief Protestants 19. Beleeved in the primitiue church 20. 21. 22. 257. 358. Confessed by both churches Greeke and Latin 26. as Calvin graunteth 257. Sacrifice of the church testified by the auncient fathers 201. 249. 251. 252. 255. 256. 257. Seales divine miracles pa. 142. 143. ProtestaÌ„t Sectes of this age to what number they are grovven pa. 445. Sinne separateth man from God pa. 399. Al sinne mortal none venial with the Calvinists pa. 30. 399. Remission of Sinnes See priests The Protestants special faith invented by Luther pa. 301. 302. putteth them in assurance of their election and salvation 303. 304. Cause of infinite pride and presumption 304. 307. 308. 402. Of vile dissolute life 306. 307. CoÌ„mon to al kind of heretikes especially Anabaptists 304. 305. 4â—4 By this faith the vvorst Protestants eate Christ spiritually in their supper as vvel as the best 304. 307. 308. It leadeth to hel 308. 309. Seâ— Protestants Special faith destroyeth al Christian faith 433. Remission of sinnes in the church Keyes of the church Sacraments of the church pa. 433. prayer to God feare of God 433. 434. This special faith refuted by S. Paule pa. 316. By Caluinists theâ—â— selves 316. 317. By Melancthon 434. 435. This special faith once had can never be lost pa. 306. VVhat is necessarie essential to the Scoâ—tish or Geneva Supper pa. 146. 239. How it is ministred 156. It is nothing like to Christs sacrament for a number of defects 157. 158. 159. 160. 162. 200. 201. 239. 240. 241. 242. and superfluities 220. 223. 224. Any vulgar dinner or repast as good as that Supper 65. 163. It is ministred as wel by wemen and boyes â—â— by their Ministers 65. How Christs body is ioyned to the Geneua or Scottish Supper pa. 174. 175. 274. As to a word spoken 176. 177. 27â— Lesse then to a picture 178. No more then God is ioyned to the devil 175. 176. Nothing at al. 175. 176. It is altogether superfluous ridiculous 179. 180. VVickedly by M. B. preferred before gods vvord 210. 211. 212. The Supper described by M. B. pa. 182. prophanely 182. 183. 184. Striving for the coÌ„munion drinke 184. It is not vvorth a straa 193. 200. 229. rather to be called a breakfast then a supper 332. It is wicked and sacrilegious 242. 243. No sacrament of Christ 229. 233. Christ no othervvise received in the Scottish supper then in any common dinner pa. 187. 206. 275. 276. Then in seeing any creature 189. Christ received no vvayes in their Supper 189. 190. The flesh of priests Catholikes more eaten in the Geneva suppers then the flesh of Christ pa. 229. 230. Divers vncertain significations of the Geneua supper pa. 177. 178. 179. Many things signifie Christ as wel as that 180. 181. 182. How long it remayneth holy 276. 277. T Table See Altar Christs Testament made at his last Supper 6 8. VVhat was required to the making thereof 6. 7. 8. The real presence and sacrifice is thereof inferred 7. 8. 9. How his blud in the chalice is called the new testameÌ„t 371. 372. Difference of the old TestameÌ„t new pa. 98. 99. V No lawful VocatioÌ„ of preachers in Scotland or England pa. 407. VV VVemen may preach and minister the Protestants communion pa. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. VVemen have in them al power ecclesiastical 64. VViclef an heretike and a parasite pa. 29. 30. An heretike to the Calvinists 30. His often Recantation 30. 31. He is condemned by the Protestants 31. 32. The VVord required to make the Calvinists sacrament is a sermon pa. 134. 216. 220. 228. The Ministers preferre their owne words before Christs 216. 217. 218. The right word wanteth in most Scottish sacraments pa. 226. 227. 228. No such word found in scripture as they require 225. Christ vsed no such word pa. 220. 221. 233. See more in Sermon Z Zuinglius an Anabaptist pa. 140. His interpretation of Christs words more fond then that of Carolostadius 43. He learned it of a sprite in the night 376. 378. FINIS A TABLE OF PLACES OF SCRIPTVRE EXPLICATED IN THIS TREATISE ESPECIALLY SVCH AS APPERTEINING TO THE SACRAMENT ARE CORRVPTELY expounded and perverted by the Sacramentaries Genes 3. 15. In the sweate of thy face thow shalt eate thy bread pa. 267. Exod. 12. 6. The children of Israel shal offer
so taught the new sacrifice of the new testament which the church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to god through the whole world Of which sacrifice the prophete Malachie foreprophecied thus I haue no liking in yow saith our lord almightie nether wil I take sacrifice of your hand o ye Iewes because from the rising of the Sunne to the going doune of the same my name is glorified among the Gentils incense is offered to my name in euerie place and a pure sacrifice The same argument and dedustion I haue noted before out of S. Cyprianâ— First that Christ our lord and god him selfe was high priest of god the father and he first of al offered him selfe a sacrifice to his father â—â—â—â—s last supper and commaunded the same to be done in commemoration of him Next that such priests occupie the place of Chist truly who do that which Christ did and then in the church offer they to god the father true ful sacrifice if they so offer as they see Christ him selfe to haue offered About some 100. yeres after S. Cyprian vvas gathered the first general Councel of Nice and about a hundreth yeres after that of Nice vvas the first general Councel of Ephesus in vvhich the bishops there assembled thus vtter their faith that is the faith of the vniuersal catholike church in this matter The vvoids of that most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice are On the diuine table let vs not basely regard the bread and cup set there but lifting vp our myndeâ— let vs by faith vnderstand that on that holy table is placed the lamb of god which taketh away the sinnes of the world who there is without effusion of blud sacrificed by the priests and that we truly receiue his preticus body and blud beleeuing these to be the pledges of our resurrection The vvords of the other general Councel of Ephesus are to the same effect thus VVe confessing the death of Christ according to his flesh his resurrection and ascension into heauen confesse withal and celebrate in the church the holy liâ—eâ—â—uing and vnbluddy sacrifice beleeuing that which is set before vs not to be the body of a common man like to vs as nether is that pretious blud but rather we receiue that as the proper body blud of the word which geueth life For common flesh can not geue life as him selfe witnesseth saying flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite that geueth life For because it is made the proper flesh of the word for this reason it is lifegeuing according to that our Sauiour him selfe â—aith As my liuing father hath sent me I liue by the father he that eateth me he shal liue by me This faith I say of Sacrament sacrifice in al sinceritie simplicitie thus passed on so vniuersally knovven beleeued that as vvriteth S. Leo in Italie S. Augustin in Africa very children vvere taught to acknovvledge the true flesh and blud of Christ to be offered in the sacrifice of the masse Tovvards 800. yeres after Christ one Bertram a litle before him one Scot â—s vvrote darkly of the truth of this sacrament Of the vvritings of the one of these nothing I thinke remayneth of the other a litle doth but the same vttered so doubtfully that as the Zuinglians vse his authoritie against the Catholikes so the Lutherans vse him to the contrarie yea they in maner reproue him as fauoring to much the faith of the Catholikes For of him Illyricus vvith his bretherne say that he hath in that his litle booke semina transubstantiationis the seedes original ground of transubstantiation But vvhat soeuer his priuate opinion vvere his publike speaches and vvriting â—ounded soâ—il in the eares of the Catholiks of that age that Paschasius an Abbat in France made a verie learned booke in refutation of him And al vvriters vvho about that age vvrote of this mysterie vsed more expresly to denâ—e the sacrament to be a signe trope figure image symbole c. in such sort as vvhereby the veritie of the real presence might be excluded as appeareth in the seuenth general Councel in Alcuinus scholemaister to Charles the great in Rabaâ—â—â— archbishop of Ments lib. de diuinis officijs Theophilact in Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Ioan. 6. Aâ—alarius Arch-bishop of â—reuirs lib. de mysterijs missae cap. 24. 25. Haymo bishop of Halberstat in 1. ad Corinth ca. 10. Remigâ—ê° bishop of Antissiodorum in Canonem missae Fulbertus bisshop of Chartres in epistola ad Adelman episcopum in lib. Paschasij Stephanus bishop in high Buâ—gundie Tom. 4. bibliothâ—cae Sanctorum patrâ—m and briefely al other that vvrote betvvene the time of Bertram Berengarius ¶ For after Bertram the next that appeared in fauour of this heresie vvas Berengarius vvho put forth him self a little after the yere of our lord 1000. vvhen as S. Ihon vvriteth in his Apocalyps the deuil was let lose to trouble the church This man as vvitnesseth our martyr-maker M. Fox like to those first heretiks in the Apostles tymes toke away the veritie of the body blud of Christ from the sacrament For vvhich cause he coÌ„mendeth him as a singular instrument whom the holy ghost raised vp in the church to ouerthrow great errors VVhat instrument he vvas vvhom he serued shal best appeare by his ovvne behauiour confession In the meane season this old heresie he published vvith greater industrie shevv of learning then his predecessors countenanced it with more credit assistance of many vnstable sowles and sinful persons as is noted by the godly and learned writerâ— of that tyme vvhich only kind of men ioyned them selues to him and that because his doctrine seemed to yeld them some quietnes securitie in their sinne from vvhich they vvere much withdravven by a reuerend feare and dread vvhich they had of Christs presence in the sacrament to the receauing vvhereof they vvere by order of the church at certaine times induced But as the heresie of this man spread farther then any of that kind in any age before so the church vsed more diligence in repressing the same by sundry publike disputations had vvith the same Berengarius by a number of most excellent vvriters against him among vvhom Lanfâ—ancus archbishop of Canterbury in England Guitmundus bisshop of Auersa in the kingdom of Naples Algerus a monke in Fraunce in that verie time excelled the supreme pastors of the church assembled sundry great synodes meetings of byshops and other doctors to discusse that opinion instruct those that erred after him first at Tours in Fraunce next at Vercellis in Italie then againe at Tours vvhere Berengariê° him selfe being manifestly conuicted 〈…〉 a solemne oth neuer to maintaine his former heresie VVhich oth vvhen as yet he performed not but returned to his former filth an other Councel vvas gathered in Rome of 113.
spiritually we may eate Christ in the supper as we may also at dinner or breakfast or walking or praying or hearing a sermon or when so euer we thinke on him beleeue that he truly dyed for vs yet no such eating is proper to the supper â—oâ— vve see it is coÌ„mon to al times and al places the supper vvas not instituted therefore but to ratifie confirme and seâ—le such spiritual eating and herein in this 〈…〉 consisteth truly the essence of Calâ—ins supper and not in eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blud so much as spiritually For such a supper imparteth not vnto vs nether coÌ„municatâ—th the body of Christ nor is cause instrument or meane thereof othervvise then for that it stirreth vp ouâ—â—â—â—â— mynds and geueth vs occasion to beleeue in Christ by vvhich beleef only and no 〈…〉 Christ is eaten So that if by hearing a good sermon or reading a good chapter of the old testament or nevv or talking vvith a good zealous brother or sister a mans faith be better moued then by receiuing the supper to beleeue that Christ died rose again whereof many zealous Protestants much doubt to reforme their â—aith herein haue need of better helpes then is yelded to them by breaking of bread drinking of wine which thing may be very common and is very probably supposed then by such a sermon such a chapter such good brotherly talke Christs flesh is eaten more properly more truly more really and effectually then it is in the supper And therefore this is not the cause why the supper was instituted For so the word preaching serueth much better as Peter Martyr also conuinced by manifest reason and sequele of the Caluinian doctrine confesseth For being thus vrged I deny not saith he but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no losse in words then in the sacrament or symboles For this receiuing is wrought by faith And to faith we are stirred vp by wordâ— aâ— wel as sacraments Neque vereor dicere multo etiam maâ—is c. And I feare not to affirme that wecome to the receiuing of Christs body much more by words then by sacraments For sacraments haue al their force from the words VVhich is most euideÌ„t to any Christian man indued with coÌ„mon capacitie To vvhom if one say these words that Christ dyed for our sâ—nnes rose againe for our iustification by whose death we al looke to be saued obteyne eternal felicitie and an other bring him in to the Protestant congregation and there breake before his eâ—es a loaf of bread and â—il a goblet of wine comparing these tvvo together there can be no question but the first vvords are ten rymes more avayleable to make the hâ—â—â—er eate Christ by faith then this later dumb ceremony vvhich may haue tvventie other significations as vvel as Christs passion death and resurrection and our iâ—stiâ—ication and doth not nor can signifie any such thing except some body tel him that such a signification is meant and intended thereby VVherefore the body of Christ being better receiued before supper by reading talking conferring vvith some honest zealous brother or before the taking of the bread by the preaching of the minister then by such symbolical receyuing of bread wine Christ being in that sort out of the supper both more coÌ„monly and ordinarily receiued as Caluin confesseth and euerie man may see then in the supper which chaunceth to many scarce once in the yere to some scarce once in 10. yere the receiuing also out of the supper by words being more effectual and profitable then in the supper by bread drinke as P. Martyr acknovvlegeth and by good reason iustifieth hereof Luthers obiection against this Caluinian supper albeit it vvere very rude and rustical yet lacked it not altogether ground that Christ had smale occasion to institute such a supper vvhereof al the Christian world is ful For there is neuer a Christian but ether doth or at least may make this supper euery hovvre of the day night also if he vvake and thinke vpon the passion and death of Christ VVhich obiectioÌ„ of Luther because it is though grosse and blunt yet sure euident therefore to auoyd that absurditie and that this supper of Carolostadius Zuinglius invention and framing but of Caluins polishing and persiting should not be altogether voyd of some vse this vvas deuised that it should serve for a seale to confirme the ministers preaching and the brethrens receiuing vvho ether before the supper or in the supper according as their mynd vvas thinking of Christ hauing eaten him by faith and cogitation spiritually aftervvards resorting together to their supper there receiue the seales of bread and vvine or some other nutriment to confirme assure them that before they haue receiued the Lords body spiritually by faith And this is the sealing and confirmation proper to the supper vvhereof in the places before noted P. Martir and Caluin vvrite and vvhich Caluin most accompteth of therefore geuing the definition of a Sacrament as it is common to the tvvo Baptisme and the Supper vvhich only he admitteth for sacraments maketh the very essence nature of them to consist in this sealing A Sacrament saith he is an external signe whereby the Lord sealeth to our consciences the promises of his beneuolence thereby to proppe vp our weake faith And this sealing and confirming is taught both by Caluin and al other right Caluinists as a most special substantial proprietie of their supper and the other sacrament of Baptisme also as that baptisme sealeth to vs remission of sinnes and election to life eternal the supper sealeth to vs the manducation of Christs body and blud which by faith we haue receiued For truly to speake after these mens doctrine the Supper yeldeth no more the one then baptisme doth the other the supper no more conferreth or imparteth Christs body then baptisme conferreth remission of sinnes and election to life eternal But saith Caluin aâ— in publike grauntes the seales which are set to the writings and instruments are of them selues nothing for if nothing were written the putting to of the seale were of no effect but when the writing is made graunted then the seales confirme make the same more autentical and as among the auncient Greekes Romanes their leagues and treaties of peace were confirmed by killing a sow which sow so killed had bene to no purpose had not the words couenants of the treatie bene accorded before for many a sow is killed which signifieth no such mysterie likewise in coÌ„mon contractes when matters haue bene by words of frendship agreement before concluded arrested on then is the contract ratified confirmed by shaking of hands without which antecedent words of concord the shaking of hands is nothing which may as wel be done by an enemie to euil purpose as
were molten made away he caused others to be made of vvood and reserued his Eucharistical bread in a woodden one and the same so slâ—â—tish as was not good inough for a cowheard to put his butter in it sordâ—da at non digna in qua bubulcus suum recondaâ— butyrum so such Communion bread hath bene and I beleeue is vsed in some churches of England and also Scotland and that according to the rule of their gospel and Communion bookes that a good housholder vvould allow better and fayrer to his catters sure I am many do allow better to their ordinary seruants so nether in this respect can the bread of Caluin compare with that Ievvish sacrament but rather cleane contrarie as that signified by his colour puritie and cleanes so this signifieth synne and filthines and therefore hath no resemblance vvith Christ as that sacrament had Thus resting vpon the signification common to both sacraments of the old lavv and the nevv and remouing al grace and vertue as do the Caluinists proper to the new aboue the old most cleare and sensibly apparant it is that amongst other that sacrament of the old lavv far surpassed this of the nevv because as P. Martyr vvriteth that sacrament had such a number of properties by which it did very aptly designe to vs and represent the thing signified that is Christ IESVS by vvhich signification these men define their sacraments vvhereof this Caluinian sacrament hath scarce any one and for very many of these properties it rather conteyneth a contrarie and false signification and consequently leadeth the coÌ„municants to a vvrong false and vvicked opinion of Christ the thing signified A man might adde to the premisses for a surcharge and the same more general that this doctrine of our adversaries quit abolisheth and taketh avvay al sacraments of the nevv testament For vvhereas the Catholiks confesse some Protestants also namely Philip Melanethon and Martinus Kemnitius vvho hath vvritten most exactly of the sacraments that to the nature and definition of a sacrament of the gospel is necessarily required that it be as Melanethon calleth it a ceremonie as Kemnitius a signe instituted by Christ in the new testament by this definition nether can baptisme nor yet the supper be duly called sacraments of the gospel For our baptisme the Protestants especially Zuinglians Caluinists vniversally teach vs to haue bene instituted by Iohn not by Christ So writeth Zuinglius expresly in a number of places Iohn Baptist instituted our baptisme and the baptisme of Christ and Iohn was the self same this saith Caluin is most certaine The same is the iudgement of Bullinger Musculus Beza Gualterus Tigurinus and al other for ought I haue read So that baptisme is not of Christs institution but of Iohns and so not of the gospel but of the law And the verie like is to be said of this supper For according to these men as Christ borowed his baptisme thence so did he this supper or sacramental bread which being in vse practise among the Iewes Christ him self tooke from them and with their baptisme least also this supper to his disciples as he found it without adding any new forme fashion grace vertue or sanctification as haith bene said And therefore properly and truly to speake both these are ceremonies or signes of the old law not of the new receiued thence not invented or ordeyned here and therefore can not properly be called sacraments of Christ and his gospel but ceremonies of Moses and the old testament where is the first institution nature fulnes and perfection of them But to omit this and returne where I left to our Protestant supper and that Iewish I wil end this chapiter with the Protestants owne comparison only stretching that one ioynt farther then they do yet no â—oâ—e farther then manifest reason such as them selues yeld allow permitteth in this sort If we regard the paschal supper of the Iewes and the gospelling supper of the Caluinists as they are signes of grace so is that Iewish supper a more noble signe and signifieth better then this as now hath bene the â—ed If we regard them as memorialâ— so that in faithful mynds renewed the benefites of heavenly grace better more effectually then this as being a memorial more liuely and evident then is this If we respect them as they are seales of the iustice of faith so that sealed and confirmed it more strongly and durably then this both for that blud is a more durable seale then wine and here being only bread wine whereas there was bread and wine and besides flesh blud those many must needs seale more strongly then these fewer For both reason and scripture teacheth that a triple or quadruple bond is of more strength then a duble or single If we weigh them by their external shape and similitude as they figure represent the things signified so there is no comparison betwene this and that because the paschal lamb and blud thereof was a more liuely representation figure of Christ the immaculate lamb by whose blud we were to be redeemed then is the Caluinian bread and wine VVherefore if touching any other matter there can be put no difference betvvene the one and the other as them selues confesse and then in these so many points manifest reason taken from the very nature and intrinsecal proprietie of the sacraments according to their owne deâ—cription convinceth the Iewish so far to excel theirs let the Christian reader hereof conceiue what a gospel they haue what a communion out of it they haue drawen and invented hovv base hovv simple hovv contemptible and beggerly For if they make the Apostle so to speake of the Iewish sacraments much more iustly may vve be bold so to tearme theirs vvhich vve see to be so many degrees baser more beggerly then the Ievvish And can it sinke into the head of any Christian man that Christ our God and Sauiour vvas incarnate and came into the vvorld so to alter the lavv the sacraments ceremonies thereof that he vvould make exchaunge for the vvorse That he vvould abrogate and take avvay sacraments more liuely more beneficial more effectual and gracious and substitute in place thereof sacraments more dead more fruitles more vnâ—to itable yea altogether vveake impotent and graceles If this be not only vnprobable but also vnpossible then is the Caluinists doctrine vvhich thus teacheth not only heretical but also Apostatical as vvhich tendeth to the ouerthrovv of al Christian religion of Christs gospel and incarnation and by these craftie and misâ—hevous sleights laboureth in steed of Christianisme to plant Iudaisme from Christs gospel to bring vs backe to Moyses of Christians to make vs Ievves at vvhich rocke many of the purest and most zealous Calvinists haue made shipvvracke already as in their ovvne vvritings vve find it recorded OF THE VVord SACRAMENT and
and rayle at the Catholiks for obseruing the like ceremonie once in the yere nether yet to say that Christ hereby gaue an instruction that we should humble our selues not once a yere but euery howre vvhich the Catholiks knevv both in speculation practise before he or his gospel vvere engendred For albeit true it is that this action signifieth a brotherly charitie and mutual beneuolence and humilitie to be continued so long as we liue euer yet this setteth not Christians free from vsing the ceremonie neuer no more then the bread and wine of the supper vvhich by these mens doctrine signifieth their perpetual nourishement vvhich they haue from Christs flesh and blud continually quitteth and setteth them free from receiuing their Supper as is the Scottish order once a â—â—neth And lest of al can M. B. thus argue who accompteth al that Christ did al that he spike in the whole action 〈…〉 be so essential that it must necessarily be done as doubtles Caluin did not After our Sauiour had thus spoken done he s 〈…〉 dovvne againe vvith the tvvelue al men and no vvomen so that in to this companie he admitted not the most pure and immaculate virgin his dearest mother and with these 12. kept the celebration of this sacrament at night vvhich time also the Apostle specifieth which two obseruations of number and time our English Ievvel seemeth to hold for matters of some weight For of the first he writeth that Sainct Basil reporteth an Ecclesiastical decree or Canon that at the receiuing of the holy communion there ought to be 12. persons at the lest and neuer vnder Of the second in the same place he saith that it appeareth by S. Austin and certain old Canons that in the primitiue church the Communion some times was ministred after supper as though he would gladly haue it brought to such a time again And in this folovveth M. B. and his Scottish ministerie the example of Christ Do they as he did minister they their communion not in the morning but at night to twelue and no more nor lesse al men and no women I suppose not Only I find in their coÌ„munion special and precise order taken that the minister siâ—t at the table that every man and woman in like wise take their place to sitte as occasion best serveth This one circumstance among so many and this as litle needful as the lest of al other the booke carefully observeth but of the rest not one Let vs then proceed in examining Christs institution and conferring it with the Scottish supper that so we may see how wel it observeth that which M. B. him self accounteth in it so necessary and essential ¶ But because I may perhaps misse in vrging Christs Institution as by an erroneous iudgement for that I am not of their spirite supposing that to apperteyne to the institution which is nothing sâ— and this our English Superintendent goeth as far wide for that commonly by a froward and perverse iudgement he taketh together he careth not what rather telling what other men say then declaring what him self thinketh and that more to trouble his adversarie then to iustifie his owne cause for nether did him self minister his communion at night notwithstanding S. Austin and those certaine old Canons nether had he present at his communion 12 persons at the lest and never vnder albeit S. Basil report an ecclesiastical decree or Canon so requiring except he lye as in deed he doth our English communion booke approveth it for a very lavvful sufficient communion where there be 4. or 3. yea somtime the minister vvith one alone sufficeth to avoid al quarelling partial dealing I vvil take the parcels of Christs institution out of one vvho seemeth most of others to agree vvith the Scottish religion vvith M. B. very order division making this as it vvere a preface entrance to his explication For so much as the Lordâ— Institution consisteth not in words only but in words deeds we must consider both the one the other For it was not done without great wisdome that be instituted this sacrameÌ„t nether by doing without words nether by words with out doing but so ioyned both together that his disciples might see in his doing heare in his words that whereby they might be instructed in this matter so kept from error afterwards Thus much in general Come vve novv to the particulars first concerning Christs action doing and after concerning his vvords Concerning the action and doing of Christ saith he so much as perteyneth to the Institution of this sacrament first he tooke bread into his hands 2. He gaue thankes vnto his father 3. He brake the bread 4. He gaue the same to his disciples which were with him at the Supper 5. He likewise tooke into his hands the cup of wine 6. As before at the bread so here at the cup he againe gaue thankes to his father 7. He gaue also the cup to his disciples In these parcels is conteyned the doing of Christ and external forme of this sacrament These actions of Christ especially some vvhich he counteth most important he more at large declareth thus That he tooke bread into his hands gaue thankes brake and gaue it to his disciples might have seemed to bene done as a thing of custom but the tenor of the words which be addeth in way of exposition admonished them sufficiently that this doing of his was not to be accoÌ„pted among things vsual and ordinarie but that it conteyned the order and institution of a sacrament Concerning the cup of vvine â—â—us he vvriteth I nothing doubt but in those East parts of the world where the wines are must strong it was an vniuersal custom to delay their wine with water vvhich vniversal custom vvas also authorised by the lavv of God For so S. Hierom affirmeth and willeth to be observed that the wine which was offered to God in sacrifice in the old law was mingled with water VVhereby that maner of mingling the vvine became so vniversal in al cases whether divine or humane that as Musculus graunteth the Hebrew word which signifieth to mingle is vsed also for powring out Proverb 9. 23. Esai 5. And hereof I thinke it came to passe saith he that the Bishops of the East and after them the Italians began to mingle their wine with water as in their vulgar vse so also in the mystical Al which he applieth to declare that it is most probable Christ to haue done so likewise Howbeit because it is not expressed in the gospel he would not haue the church bound thereto And yet this may farther be added somwhat more strongly to confirme Musculus iudgement that in the special figuratiue cup of the legal sacrifice foreshewing this of Christ there was water mingled with the blud of the sacrifice and therefore more
of al languages and al Ecclesiastical and holy vvriters bearing equally both senses most assured it is that it signifieth so in that place of S. Paule as hath bene proued And from this vse of scripture al holy fathers both Greeke and Latin al auncient Liturgies and our common Masse-booke vvithout any such imaginarie scruple of sitting name the place of our Christian sacrifice at some times an altar at some other times a table albeit for ech name the church can yelde a more special and seueral reason for that it is first an altar to offer and propine to god and afterwards a table to take and receiue for our ovvne benefite Both vvhich S. Austin very divinely conioyneth together thus Mensa quam sacerdos noui testamenti exhibet de corpore sanguine suo c. The table which our sauiour the high priest of the new testament prouideth of his body and blud is that sacrifice which hath succeded in place of al sacrifices which in the old testament were offered in shadow and figure of this to come for that in place of al those manifold sacrifices and offerings his body is now first offered to god then delivered to the communicants VVhere vve see S. Austin an other maner of Theologe then M. B. not to oppose an altar and a table offering and receiuing as though one destroyed the other but to couple and conioyne them as coherent one to the other declaring plainly that in the church Catholike there is an altar for the honour of god there is also a table for the commoditie and consolation of Christians first to do sacrifice to god next for Christians to participate of the same sacrifice And that from the Apostolical age vsage the first primitiue Christians evermore vsed altars to sacrifice on vve find recorded by the most auncient Christian vvriters vvhose monumēts are yet extant as namely S. Martialis S. Denis Areopagita Origen Tertullian and S. Cyprian to omit al later fathers as Eusebius Optatus S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Gregorie Nazianzene S. Chrysostom S. Austin by al vvhich it is most cleere that then altars vvere every vvhere buylt in Christian churches to this very vse of offering sacrifice to God So that M. B. collection from a table to inferre denyal of sacrifice to improue standing and iustifie sitting is very vveake to say the least prophane as vvhich proceedeth from one vvho seemeth to measure and define the table of gods church by the order vvhich him self his vvife and domesticals vse at their ovvne table besides it conteyneth a certaine scorne and disgrace of the English Comunion in which although they haue nought els but a bourd or table as it is there called yet al sitting is quit barred and the bretherne which communicate are commaunded to kneele humbly on their knees and the minister him self some time to stand some time to kneele but neuer to sitte ¶ Amongest the auncient fathers 4. names he findeth attributed to the sacramēt They called it saith he a publike action this was a very general name 2. Sometimes they called it a thankesgeuing 3. sometimes a banquet of loue and 4. at the last in the declining estate of the Latin kirke in the falling estate of the Romane kirke it began to be perverted with this decay there comes in a perverse name and they called it the Masse This last word he most of al dislikes and vvhy for that by processe of tyme corruption hath prevailed so far that it hath turned over our sacramēt in to a sacrifice and where we should take fro the hand of god in Christ they make vs to geue This is plaine idolatrie And therefore where the word was tolerable before now it is no ways tolerable To speake a litle of these 4. names although the sacrifice be a publike action yet vvhere the fathers vsed to cal it so as by a particular name is hard to find In the church of Christ catechizing before baptisme baptisme it self is hath bene vsed as a publike action so hath the geving of orders and making priests confirmation preaching and diuers other sacraments and ecclesiastical offices yea in some respect these haue bene far more publike actions then the sacrament for that many vnchristened vvere publikely admitted to catechismes preachings vvhich vvere carefully excluded frō being present at the celebration of the sacrifice or sacrament both in the Greeke also Latin church And therefore this name is il applied by M. B. In deed the Greekes called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich vvord among prophane vvritiers signifying any publike ministerie or office by the Apostles and aunciēt fathers vvas restreyned to the publike Christian sacrifice that is to the masse as hath bene more at large declared before Priests of the new testament celebrate the mystical liturgie or sacrifice mysticam liturgiam vel sacrificium peragunt saith Theodoretus And the Greeke fathers in this sort made the vvorde liturgie as proper to the sacrifice in the Greeke church as the very vvord masse signifieth the same sacrifice in the latin church vvhen as in the meane season al those forenamed sacraments and other functions vvere publike actions and yet not liturgies The terme banquet of loue is somvvhat more straunge as I thinke more seldom vsed True it is the sacrament is a banquet of love as vvhereby vve are moved first to loue god and then one an other as likevvise it is a banquet of faith of peace of mildnes of patience of modestie of sobrietie of chastitie of al vertues vvhich gods holy spirite especially by meanes of this blessed sacrifice vvorketh in the receivers But yet to say it vvas so named by the auncient fathers is somvvhat avvry And I suppose M. B. by his banquet of love so to speake like a Protestant or rather after the old fashion the banquet of charitie meaneth the church feastes called charities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof I haue spoken before VVhich banquets of charitie albeit they vvere charitably made for relief of the poore and that about the time of ministring the holy sacrament yet the fathers vse not by that name to expresle this sacrament The name of Eucharist Thankes-geving is far more common Mary M. B. must note what the fathers meant thereby not as the Zuinglian Protestants would perswade the simple as though it were nothing but a verbal thankes-geuing to the Lord for Christs passion resurrection vvith a remembrance thereof by eating bread and drinking vvine or beere but they called it so for that in the church sacrifice principally most effectually thankes are gevē to god for his infinite benefites according as S. Austin vvriteth VVhat is a more holy sacrifice of praise thē is geving thākes to god And wherefore are more thākes to be gevē then for his grace which we haue receiued by Christ Iesu our lord Quod totū
a lamb p. 10. 11. 12 Exod. 12. 11. It is phase that is the passeover of our lord pa. 375. 376. 377. 378. Exod. 16. 15. Mauha what thing is this pa. 111. 112. Exod. 24. 8. This is the blud of the covenaÌ„t or TestameÌ„t which God hath made with yow pa. 5. Psal 109. 4. Thow art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec pa. 13. 14. 15. Daniel 3. 22. 50. The fiery fornace burning to the ChaldeaÌ„s cold to the. 3. children 387. 388. Mat. 3. 11. I baptise yow in water but he shal baptise yow in the holy ghost and fier pa. 198. 199. Mat. 9. 6. The sonne of man in earth hath power to forgeve sinnes pa. 196. 197. Mat. 12. 48. VVho is my mother who are my brethreÌ„ 318 Mat. 26. 26. Christ blessed the bread pa. 152. 153. 154. 159. 337. Ibidem This is my body pag. 123. 124. 369. 370. Ibidem v. 29. I wil not drinke of this fruit of the vine pa. 158. Marc. 2. 7. He blasphemeth VVho can forgeve sinnes but God pa. 196. 197. Mar. 6. 5. 6. He could not do any miracle there because of their incredulitie pa. 327. 328. Mar. 5. 28. If I shal touch but the hem of his garmeÌ„t I shal be safe Pa. 327. 328. 329. 330. 332. Mar. 16. 19. Christ assumpted in to heaveÌ„ sitteth at the right hand of God pa. 353. 354. 355. Luc. 22. 20. This chalice the new testament in my blud vvhich shal be shed for yovv pa. 5. 6. 7. 8. 371. 372. Luc. 24. 39. Handle and see For a spirit hath not flesh and bones pa. 352. Ihon. 6. 14. And I wil raise him vp in the last day pa. 170. Ihon. 6. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing et c. pa. 320. 321. 322. Ihon. 13. 5. Christ vvashed his disciples feet pa. 147. 148. Ihon. 14. et 16. 28. I leave the vvorld 356. 357. Ihon. 20. 19. The doores being shut Christ stood in the middest of his disciples pa. 384. 385. Ihon. 20. 23. VVhose sinnes yovv forgeue they are forgeuen pa. 195 196. 197. Act. 3. 21. VVhom heaveÌ„ must receive vntil et c. pa. 350. 35â— Act. 13. 2. As they vvere ministring to our lord pa. 17. Rom. 4. 11. He received circumcision a seale of iustice pa. 130. 131. 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. Al did eate of the same spiritual food and al drank of the same spiritual drinke pag. 107. 108. 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock vvas Christ 372. 373. 1. Cor. 10. 21 Yovv can not be partakers of the table of our lord and of devils pa. 17. 18. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eate our lords supper pag. 244. 245. 246. 1. Cor. 11. 27. VVho soever shal eate this bread or drink the chalice of our lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the body blud of our lord pa. 288. 289. 290. 294 Hebrew 9. 20. This is the blud of the Testament et c. pa. 5. Hebrew 11. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for â—t c. pag. 314. 315. FINIS Errors some in al copies some in certain only are thus to be corrected Pag. 17. Lin. 9. Deest in margine 5 Pag. 42. Lin. 1. in margin obseus obsessus Pag. 31. Lin. 11. 138r 1381. Pag. 57.  in marg remo remoued Pag. â—1  in marg 710. 71. Pag. 150. Lin. 4. 21. 12. Pag. 236. Lin. 19. in marg deest The fift Before p. 167 Pag. 237. Lin. 4. in marg deest The sixt Pag. 265. Lin. 4. in marg deest The third first end Pag. 327. Lin. 31. in marg Marc. 5. 5. 6. 6. 5. 6. Laus Deo ANNO 1553. Narrati 〈…〉 de dissipa ta Belgan ecclesia caet Acta apu 〈…〉 regeÌ„ Daniae a pa. 24. vsque ad 110. Heb. 7. â— 1â— 1 Cor. 10. 1â— Christ in his last supper iâ— stituted a true sacrifice Genes 4. â—â—â— et cap. â— â—â—â— Exod. 24. Malâ—ch 1â— Christs body 〈…〉 in his supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Cor. 11. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â— â—â— 20. Maâ— 26. 28 Maâ— 14. â—â— Gal. 1. 4. 1. Tim. 2. 6. Tiâ— 2. 14. Ioan. 19. 33. 36. Chrysost in 1. 〈…〉 â—â— Christs blud in the chalâ—câ— Exod. 24. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Luc. 22. â—â— Leo â—â—â—m 7. de passione Domini August â—pist â—6 â—â—â—â—â— l. Chrysost â— â—â— ad N oplytoâ— hom 45. in Ioan. â—â—â—â—m 61. ad â—oâ—ul Aâ—tioch Magdeburg Câ—â—t 4. in pâ—â—sâ—t Plane â—â—â—câ—ant testamentum Domini Muscul in â—o â—â— commun cap. de canâ— Domini nu 〈…〉 2. Pag. â—â—2 Christs testaâ—â—â—t made as â—â— last supper VVhat vvas required to â—he making thereof 1 â—â—ber ac sui 〈…〉 Matth. 11. 27. Hebr. 1. 2. Hebr. 8. â—â—â—â—â—om â— 1. 2 3 4 1. Cor. 4. v. â— 5 Ibi. pag. â—â—â— Christs blud deliuered in his last supper Exod. 24. 6. 7. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper â— 3 â— Ioan. 13. 34. cap. 14. 16. cap. 15. 9. 10. â—â—c Cap. 16. 12. Cap. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Hâ—br 9. 17. Christ offered him sâ—lf at his â—â—â—t supper Greg. Nyssenus orat 1. de ` Resurrectione Hesiâ—hius 〈…〉 Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 4. â—â— lib. 6. cap. 23. Muscul vbi supra pa. 3 â—4 Beâ—â— annot â— Mattâ— â—â— 26. v. 28. The sacrameÌ„t in steed of the Paschal lamb Musâ—â—l vbi supra 3 23. Comparison of our sacrament vvith thâ— paschal lamb Num. 9. 5. Exo. 1 2. v. 6 Matth. 20. v 17. 20. Exo. 12. 11. est enim phâ—se 1. transâ—tus Domini Luc. â—2 19. Ioan. 13. 1. Exod. 12. v. 6. 8. 11. Deuteron 1â— v. 5. 6. Hieron tom 2. epist ad DamaiuÌ„ Papam Aug. sermo 18 1. de teÌ„pore cap. 12. Num. 9. 5. Exod. 1â— 43 45. 1 Cor. 11. 28 Exod. 12. 42. 1 Cor. 11. 25 26. Exod. 12. 6. Christ sacrificed at his last supper 1. Cor. 5. â— Tertullian Cyprian Ambros Nazianz. Hiâ—râ—nâ—m Chrysost August Leo. Hesichius Beda Marc. 14. 12 Hostia â—n â—â—stiam transit Gaud. tract â— in Exod. Mâ—lâ—â—isedâ—â—â— sacrifice Gâ—â—â—s 14. Psal 109. Vide Vâ—â—â—â— Râ—gium responâ—â—â—â—â—â— Eâ—â—â— dâ— Missa cap. 13. Fâ—â—câ—as Mâ—dâ—â—â— de â—â—â—â— siâ— lib. 4. ca. 19. Ibid. lib. â— â—e Ecclâ—siâ—â—â—act 11. dialog 1. pa. â—1â— Christ in his â—â—sâ— supper offered after Melchisedeâ—â—s order Cyprian libr. â— epist 3. Melchisedeâ—â— sacrifice in the nevv Testament Bibliander de summa tâ—â—n lib. 2. pa 89. Galat. de arcanis Cath. verita lib. 10. Cap. 4. Cap. 6. Cap. 5. Genes 14. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ConteÌ„pt of the auncient fathers Caluin dâ— vera ecclâ—sia reformanda ratione â—psâ— vanitatâ— vanius Idem ad Hebra ca. 7. v. 9. Zuingâ— â—â— â— Epichir de canone Mâ—â—sâ—â—ol 183. Thyr glâ—sâ— iâ— Hebra â—7 v. 1. Ievv Defence of the A 6. logic part poâ—a 11. pa. 650. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 9â— 6. Genes 14. 18. Psal 109. 4. Helra 7. 1. Luther Vrbanâ— Reg. M 〈…〉 n Pomeranuâ— Biâ—â—rus Brentius Kâ—mnâ—â—â—us â—â—â—yrâ—cuâ— Caluin in