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
I vvil take as sure certainâ— vz. that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed sanctified and consecrated the bread because vve are taught so to beleeue both by the plain vvords of the Evangelists by S. Paule by consent of al fathers oâ— al auncient I â—â—uâ—gies or soâ—mes of Masse in al churches of Christendome vvhereof some example shal be geuen hereafter also by vâ—â—â—â—t of M. Ievvel Caluin Eâ—â— a vvho so effectually by innumerable places of cripture pâ—oue it and refel Musculus and consequently M. B. in thâ—â— point vvâ—o against al scripture wil haue blessing of these elements to be al one vvith geuing thanks to God VVherefore according to this most sufficient authoritie as Musculus truly telleth vs that Christ at tvvo seueral times first ouer the bread next ouer the cup gaue thanks to God so must vve also assure our selues the scripture these Protestans leading vs therevnto that Christ at tvvo seueral times blessed sanctified and consecrated those 2. seueral elements of bread and vvine vvhich he tooke in his hands Concerning the breaking and deliverie of the bread Musculus vvords are Christ brake it with his owne hands gaue it to his disciples He gaue not the bread whole to them which they afterwards should breake but him self brake it He gaue it not them to distribute but him self did distribute it willed them to take and eate it He deliuered with his owne hands this sacrament of grace signifying withal that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except himself gaue it by the vertue of his spirite Of which point I warne the reader not without cause Thus much saith Musculus concerning the external fact doing of Chrisi so far furth as agreeth to the institutioÌ„ of the mystical Supper After al vvhich finally for declaration that they might vnderstand vvhat he meant by the premisses he addeth This is my body which is geuen and broken for yow Do this in commemoration of me Again This cup is the new Testament in my blud which is shed for yow and for many to remission of sinnes Do this so oft as ye shal drinke it in commemoration of me This is the summe of that which Christ did vvhich he spake about the sacrament vvhich as the same author vvitnesseth Christ first of al did in the eyes of his disciples both that they afterwards should do the same them selues and also deliuer the same order to his church ¶ And this being agreed vpon according to the manifest storie of the Gospel exposition of the purest Protestants that Christ thus did as hath bene novv in particular described and thus spake item that thus he did spake as things apperteyning to the Sacrament and which he would not haue omitted by his Apostles disciples and aftercomeâ—â— to returne to M. B vvho affirmeth al the actionâ— and speeches which Christ did and vttered to be so essential to the Supper that if any one yea any iote be omitted the whole Supper is marred and peruerted let vs conserre these doings of Christ vvith the Scottish Supper ministred after their order vvhich is this Commonly once in a moneth the minister vvhen the supper is to be ministred first of al out of the pulpit reherseth briefly to the people a peece of the 11. chapiter of S. Paule touching the Institution of this sacrament Afterwards he maketh some Sermon against ether the Pope and Catholike religion vvhich is their common argument or in praise of their owne which is more seldom or as seemeth good to the minister The Sermon or exhortation ended the minister cometh downe from the pulpit and sitteth at the table now beginneth the communion euery man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serueth Then he taketh bread and geueth thanks ether in these words folowing or like in effect The thankes-geuing set downe for a paterne for al ministers to folow as in sevv vvords it rendereth thanks to God for his benefites of creation sanctification and redemptioÌ„ by Christ as is ordinarie in many good prayers so it maketh no mention of the Supper or any thing vvhich Christ spake or did therein saue that in one place they mention a table and remembrance of Christs death in these vvords Although we be sinners neuertheles at the commaundemeÌ„t of Iesus Christ our lord we present our selues to this his table which he hath left to be vsed in remembrance of his death vntil his coming again to declare and witnesse before the world that by him alone we haue receiued libertie and life c. and that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom to eate and drinke at his table with whom we haue our conuersation presently in heauen This is al that approcheth any thing nigh to the vvords and Institution of Christ Immediatly after this thankes-geuing the ministâ—r breaketh the bread and deliuereth iâ— to the poeple who distribute and diuide the same amonge them selues according to our Sauiour Christ commaundement Likewise he geueth the â—â—p Here is the entier forme and essence of the Scottish communion For that during the time of eating and drinking some place of the scripture concerning Christs death is read this is a sequele and fashion folowing after and not included in the nature substance of the communion vvhich al goeth before Let vs novv seuerally confer Christs supper vvith this communion and consider how many the same most substantial and essential points after their ovvne graunt vsed there are wanting here Christ first of al tooke bread in to his hands and afterwards gaue thanks and blessed vvhich albeit it may seeme vsual and ordinarie yet saith Musculus it is not so and the very vvords of scripture shevve that it apperteyned to the order and institution of a sacrament Here the minister cleane contrariwise inuerting the order of Christ first geueth at large a thanks after taketh the bread the vvhich vvithout any thanks or any vvord at al he deliuereth to the people Secondarily Christ made a special and seueral thankes-giuing blessing and sanctification or consecration first of the bread and next of the cup and this also he did as a thing perteyning to the verie order and institution of his sacrament Here is no such matter but a confuse thankes-geuing vvithout relation to ether and vvhich conteyneth a blessing sanctification or consecration of nether Christ did not only breake the bread once and afterwards bid them breake and distribute it amonge them selues but him selfe brake and distributed and deliuered it to them ech one with his owne hand signifying thereby that it was not possible for them to haue any participation of grace except he gaue it them by the vertue of his spirite Of vvhich point Musculus geueth the reader a special warning and prouiso Here the minister loth belike to take so much paynes
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
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
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
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
iudgement hath at al times among the learned bene much esteemed with whom the Catholike writers D. Allen Cardinal D. Harding D. Sanders D. Stapleton c. vvhom he termeth the yonge Louâ—nian Clergy may not wel compare in the profound knowledge of the Doctors without blushing VVherefore this man so wel esteemed among the learned of so profound knowledge in the Doctors concerning this matter vvriteth thus Protesting his ovvne faith vz that he had rather be drawen in peeces then to become of Berengarius opinion and thinke of the sacrament as the Zuinglians do that he vvold rather susteine al miserie then to defile his conscience vvith so fowle a sinne therein depart out of this life the reasons of this his constant persuasion thus he yeldeth I could neuer be induced to beleeue otherwise then that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament for that the writings of the gospel Apostles expresse so plainly The body which is geuen The blud which is shed for that this thing so wonderful wel agreeth with the infinite loue of God towards mankind that whom he redeemed with the body and blud of his sonne those after an inexplicable maner he should also feed with the body blud of the same his sonne and by this secrete presence of him at is were with a sure pawne or pledge comfort them vntil he shal returne manifest and glorious in the sight of al. Thus for the scriptures the gospels and S. Paule and the cleare euidence of this faith touching the sacrament vttered by them vvhich vvas to him as he vvriteth an vnmoueable foundation to ground vpon Novv for the auncient fathers Councels of the church thus he procedeth Seing then we haue so manifest warrant from Christ and S. Paule whereas besides it is most evidently proued that the auncient writers vnto whom not without cause the church yeldeth so great credit beleeued with one consent that in the Eucharist is the true substance of Christs body blud whereas vnto al this is ioyned the constant authoritie of Councels and so great consent of Christian people let vs also be of the same mynd concerning this heauenly misterie and let vs in a darke sort feed of that bread and cup of our lord vntil we come to eate and drinke it after another sort in the kingdome of God And I wish with al my hart that they who haue folowed Berengarius in his error wold also folow him in his repentance Thus Erasmus a man of profound knowledge in the auncient Doctors vvith vvhom if the yonge Doctors of the Catholike Clergie may not wel compare without blushing much lesse may the yonge scholers preachers of the Scottish and English congregations vvho for sound learning substance of Diuinitie so long as they liue I suppose vvil not be vvorthy to carie the books after those former And therefore being content that on both sides such great peerles authoritie be geuen to Erasmê° as M. Ievvel chalengeth for him thereof I coÌ„clude that the auncient fathers according to the plaine scriptures alvvaies thought and taught that in the holy Eucharist is the substance of Christs body and blud that a Christian man vvere better to suffer any torment and most cruel kind of death then to be of an other opinion And vvith Erasmus I vvish and our Lord of his mercy graunt that those of our poore Iland both English and Scottish who haue folowed Berengarius in his impudent error for so Erasmus termeth it may also foloâ— him in his repentance execration of the same impudent error whereunto Erasmus persuadeth them OF BERENGARIVS HERESIE RENEVVED IN THIS AGE The Argument Luther is to be accompted in some sort the very original ground and cause of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our time But more precisely directly Carolostadius a wicked man and very familiar with the devil and altogether possessed of him To whom succeded Zuinglius and after him Oecolampadi agreing with Carolostadius in substance of denying Christs presence but differing in particular interpretation of Christs words touching the institution of the sacrament Diuers other interpretations of Christs words one against an other al which are iustified by Zuinglius for that they al concurre to remoue from the sacrament the real presence and establish in steed thereof a mere priuatiue absence As the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine in the primitiue church attribute the real presence of Christ in the sacrament to the vertue force of Christs words vsed in the consecration so the Sacramentaries by a contrarie opinioÌ„ account such consecration magical and therefore remoue the words of Christ teaching their Sacrament to be made as wel without them as with them Examples of the sacramentarie Communion practised without the words of Christ by the Protestants of England Scotland Zuizzerland and els where which they both by their practise writing iustifie as a very ful and perfite communion The resolution of the church of Geneua that the supper may be ministred in any kind of meate drinke as wel as in bread and wyne VVhereof is inferred that according to the Protestant doctrine that 2. or 3. Euangelical gossips meeting together to refresh them selues eating such vitails as they bring with them haue as true perfite a Communion as the Sacramentaries haue any both touching matter forme also a lawful Minister which ministerie or priesthod euen to preach minister their sacraments the Protestant-gospel alloweth to wemen no lesse then to men CHAP. 2. HAuing novv declared the truth of the Catholike beleef touching the blessed sacrament hovv the faith thereof vvas continued from the first primitiue church of Christ and his Apostles vvith very smale gainsaying in the first thousand yeres somvvhat more in the next 500 vntil the time of our fathers vvherein Luther certaine other vvith him began that vvhich novv is called the Gospel by the Protestants but an vniuersal gulph of heresie and Apostasie by Catholiks it resteth that I plainly sett forth hovv that heresie of Berengarius novv maynteyned in England Scotland began first vvhen Luther broched this nevv Gospel ¶ The original hereof is to be referred to Luther him self noâ— only in general for that he brake al order discipline of the church refusing the obedience vvhich by Christs ovvne precise ordinance vvas due vnto it the gouernors thereof so gaue free libertie by his ovvne craÌ„ple by vvriting arguing disputing to interpret the scripture as ech man listed vvithout regard to antiquitie vniuersalitie consent of al Christendom besides of al fathers Bishops auncient Councels vvhich example and behauiour vvas in general the cause and founteyne of al heresie Apostasie and Atheisme vvhich from such contempt self liking arrogancie must needs arise as vve see by experience but also in special the first origin and spring of this Berengarian
If the second so is there no more coniunction betvvene Christ and the sacrament then is betvvene Christ every creature â—nder the Sunne For that euery creature natural or artificial much more liuing much more reasonable yet much more spiritual and Angelical in some good sort resembleth and shevveth furth the grace goodnes povver maiesty of God his creator Such coniunction as here is spoken of there is betvvene God or Christ and a cap a govvne or coate a svvord a dish any beast much more my man c. For as a cap keepeth the head from rayne and fovvle vvether so God protecteth his from hel and damnation as a good govvne keepeth the body vvarme and in helth so God preserueth both body and sowle in grace to life euerlasting as by the svvord vve conquere our enemy so by Christ vve vanquish the deuil as the dish bringeth our meate to the table so Christ brought in to the vvorld the true foode and meate of immortalitie Much more such similitudes may be sound in beasts in vvhich as al Diuines coÌ„fesse there is vestigium dei a more lively footestep and marke of God For vvhich cause especially and particularly for that I say they in some special maner represented figured the Messias to come our blessed Sauiour in the sacrifices of the old testament there vvas appointed both of the one sort the other as oxen kine calves goates kids sheepe lambes doves pigeons c. and also bread cakes flovver fruits of the earth vvheate oyle a number of other things burnt rosted sod fried as vve read in Levitieê° Al vvhich vvere not takeÌ„ at randon by chaunce but by great special choise for special signification and relation vvhich in some point they had with the Messias to come the Sauiour of the vvorld I need not to make comparison of man though the vvorst that euer vvas be it Iudas or Caluin or Arrius or Iohn Knox vvho being created to the image and similitude of God haue a thousand times more likenes resemblaÌ„ce proportion and analogie to God and Christ then al the bread and vvine that is eaten and drunken at al the communions in Scotland and England So that this first part of Christs coniunction vvith their signe and Supper bringeth smale credit vnto it and maketh it a very pitiful signe betvvixt vvhich and Christ the coniunction is not only lesse theÌ„ betvvene Christ Arrius â—â— Caluin or Iudas lesse theÌ„ betwene Christ any liuing beast be it dog or cat but also as litle as betvvene Christ a cap or any the least sensses creature of Gods creatioÌ„ ¶ The second part of this coniunction vvere more to the purpose if it vvere true for thus he saith The second point of the coniunction standes in a continual and muâ—â—d coÌ„curring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and the thing signified are offered both together at one time and in one action the one outwardly the other inwardly if so be thow haue faith to receiue it Then the second point of this coniunctioÌ„ standes in a ioynt offering in a ioynt receiuing and this I cal the concurrence The same he aftervvards expresseth again thus If ye be a faithful man Christ is †as bissie in working inwardly in your sowle as the minister outwardly towards your body Looke â—ow †bissie the minister is in breaking that bread in powring out that wine in geuing that bread wine to thee as bissie is Christ in breaking †his owne body to thee in geuing thee the iuyce of his owne body after a spiritual inuisible maner These words may seeme to make some coniunction betvvene the bread in their Supper and Christs body but being truly vvayghed according to these mens doctrine they conteyne nothing but a mockerie and coosinage of the poore people besides much vvickednes prophane conceits manifest contradiction to their ovvne preaching and vvriting For to begin vvith the later what a prophanitie is it and irreligious impietie to flame Christ in heauen by their ministers paltring in earth and to tel the communicants that he doth there in his body as the minister doth here in the bread to inculcate in to their mindes and to wil them especially to consider and thinke when they are aâ— the table in sight of that Action that looke what thow leest the minister doing outwardly what euer it be a large worde Christ is as bissie doing al those things spiritually to thy sowle be is aâ— bissie geuing to thee his owne body as the minister is breaking dealing bread he is as bissie geuing thee his owne blud with the vertue and efficacie of it â— the minister is powring out the wine distributing it VVhy sir As yovv breake your bread in your Supper doth Christ so breake his body in heauen As the minister povvreth out the vvine doth Christ so povvre out and communicate his blud though after an inuisible and spiritual maner yet truly as yovv haue told vs sundry times And doth not Christ communicate his body blud ioyntly vvholy but thus parted and diuided not with facilitie but with labour and bissines for that yovv vvil the people to beleeue and marke and consider that Christ is as bissie which word yow so tediously inculcate in heauen as your minister is in earth VVhat a vile resemblance and comparison is this to make the rude people imagin that Christ is not in heauen glorious immortal impassible but after an earthly maner working labouring toyling bissying him self to ansvvere your Ministers breaking of bread povvring out vvine dealing diuiding it in earth True it is Christ in heauen doth ratifie concurre vvith the doings of his officers and servants in earth vvhether they baptise consume coÌ„secrate bynd or lose or do any thing els which he hath appointed For hovv so euer they instrumentally do their parts Christ is he qui baptizat in spiritu that baptizeth doth al the rest in the holy ghost by authoritie as S. Iohn saith But to speake as this man doth that Christ keepeth such a sâ—â—â—re coyle and is as bissie as the minister and breaketh his body and vvringeth out iuyce to geue to the good bretherne after example of the minister vvhom Christ resembleth and imitateth in euery thing what so euer this is no diuinitie nor yet humanitie but litle differing froÌ„ plain scurrilitie especially to men that know hovv bissilie and troublesomly oft tymes yovv minister your comunions VVhereof Clebitius a prelate of your order brawling with his cominister Heshusius about this ministring geueth vs some tast amongest a number of other faults charging him vvith these Diddest rot their in making ministers allow a publike communioÌ„ of one only person that before the whole congregation Did dest not thow commaund me superstitiously to number the breads of the Eucharist VVhen
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
vnworthely S. Paule maketh their sinne to be that they make no differeÌ„ce betwene the body blud of our lord other meates therefore are giltie of that body and blud vvhich they so despâ—se M. B. admitteth not that they proceed so far but coâ—deÌ„nâ—th them before hand before they eate vvhich is â—â—â— against S. Paules coÌ„patison vvhich standeth in this that as those men came to other tables to those ecclesiastical feasts of charitie there did eate drinke vvithout any prâ—câ—dent 〈…〉 al of them selves or examination of their consciences so came they and receiued the body and blud of Christ at this divine table not distinguishing this food from that but vvithout any convenient preparation honor regard or separation of one from the other eating and drinking this divine sacrament as they vvould coÌ„mon meates drinkes VVhich words of necessitie implie an eating drinking on both sides or els there is no comparison and consequently no condemnation of the one side vvhich condemnation remayneth resteth in the vvant of reverence regard and distinction made betwene those vulgar tables and this body and blud of our saviour both vvhich they received but alike and vvith like honor and reverence vvherein they sinned and dishonored Christ whose body they discerned not and therefore received it vnworthely And thus the auncient fathers vnderstood this text and out of it concluded the real presence and real receiving of Christs body though to the condemnation of the receivers So for example S. Austin He that vnworthely receiveth our lords sacrament albeit him self be naught yet that which he receiveth is good Corpus enim domini sanguis domini nihilominus erat illis c. For as to good men so was it the body of our lord and the blud of our lord no lesse vnto them of whom the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthely eateth his owne iudgement The same Doctor intending to shew that the evil vse of good things harmeth greatly what shal I speake saith he of the very body and blud of our lord the only sacrifice of our salvation Of which albeit our lord him self say that it geveth life yet doth not his Apostle teach vs even that to be pernicious to them which vse it noâ— wel when he saith who soever shal eate that bread and drinke that chalice not vvine of our lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud In vvhich place vvhereas â—e nameth it ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini the very body and blud of our Lord and the only sacrifice of our salvation â—e most certainly noteth not bread and vvine but an other thing except bread and vvine be the very body of Christ and the only sacrifice of our redemption So in his epistles he vvriteth that our Lord suffered Iudas that traytour among his innocent disciples to receiue that which thâ— faithful know our raunsom or redemption quod fideles norâ—â—t pretium nostrum In an other place he calleth it sacrificiâ— pretij nostri the sacrifice of our redemption vvhich vvords of sacrifice raunsom price redemption c. quit exclude M. B. his tropical bread and vvine and prove that Iudas vvith the other disciples received the same body which was delivered for vs the same blud which was shed for vs according to the plain text of al the Evangelists This same veritie and exposition of S. Paules vvords is geven by the other auncient and learned fathers Greeke and Latin as namely S. Basil lib. de baptis cap. 3. S. Chrysost in sundry places in 1. Corinth cap. 11. homil 24. hom 27. â—omil â—3 in Matth. hom 45. in Ioan. S. Cyper sermo de coena Hieron in â— cap. Malach. Treophilact S. Ambros and Theodoret. expounding this place of vvhich the later vpon those very words vvhereon M. B. maketh his cavilling he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud vvriteth expressely thus By these words the Apostle signifieth thus much that aâ— the Iewes dishonored Christ shamefully abused him so they also dishonour and shamefully abvse him who receiue his most holy body with their impure handes and take it in to their defiled and vilanous mouth in pollutum incestum â—â— So that M. B. his conclusion or rather straunge paradox that no man can receive Christ vnworthely vvhich out of the sacrament Herodâ— Annas and many other publicanes Iewes Gentiles other did or might have done and in the sacrament many evil Christians continually do is quit opposite to the Apostles scope and discourse in this place vvhich against al drift of the text and sense of the vvords and exposition of auncient fathers he peevishely laboureth to pervert For albeit sometimes some fathers and namely S. Austin in one or two places vvhich Calvin citeth deny to the vvicked rem sacramenti the thing of the sacrament yet thereby he meaneth not Christs true body as S. Austin declareth his owne meaning but the iustifying grace the fruit and commoditie thereof the vertue and sanctification vvhich by Gods ordinaÌ„ce redouÌ„deth thence to al worthy receivers Nether doth it greatly helpe M. B. that he laboureth to approve his saying by the example of wordly princes who wil not suffer their maiestie to be interessed in the smallest thing But if thow disdainfully vse their seale which is but wax and contemne it and stamp it vnder thy secte thow art compted as gilty of his body and blud as if thow put thy hands on him much more if thow so handle the seales of the body and blud of Christ this I say litle helpeth the matter For first the comparison is nothing like For S. Paule speaketh not of stamping vnder feet of such disdainful abuse and contempt but of vnreuerent receiving vvhich differeth much and therefore if M. B. vvould speake to the purpose and applie his talke to the subiect here handled he should take such examples for the one side vvherein is like coniunction of things signified vvith the signe as he â—â—ineth to be in his Geneva signe or supper and for the other side vvhere men shew such vnteverence towards them as is here likewise presupposed Christ saith he and so say the Protestants of his sect is ioyned vvith the bread as as he is vvith a vvorde spoken as he is with a sermon as he is vvith an image as a king is represented in his picture in his seale in a peece of vvax Suppose then that some man stamp not vnder foote the Testament in despite and disdayne of Christ for so S. Paule speaketh not nor meaneth but that he reade some chapter of the Testament not discerning it from a chapter of S. Hierom or S. Austin is he gilty of our lords body If he heare a sermon preached and perhaps sleepe at the sermon time so receive not Christ inteâ—nally as by the vvord he is offered no lesse then in the Supper is he gilty of the body of the
blud of the death of Christ If he looke vpon a picture of Christ not reverently vvhich as hath bene proved offereth Christ spiritually to the sowle better then any bread and vvine ministred at the best communion vvhere soever they breake theyr bread most bissilie if vvith the external sight of the picture he internally receive not Christ is he giltie of so great sacrilege as these vvords import â— doubtles not For so should vve multiplie sinnes and make men to commit sacrileges almost in every thing they do for that every creature as hath bene shewed is as nighly ioyned to Christs body as is their signes and seales of bread and vvine and represent Christ as perfitly and offer him to the faith mind and remembrance of every Christian as presently And albeit oftentymes Christian mâ—n in deed offend in not taking and vsing such occasions to remember Christ and so by faith to eate Christ as God offereth them yet such omission negligence is not to be condemned as sacrilege against Christs body and blud vvhich here is spoken of The self same may be conceived of a number of like examples If the minister ready to baptize a child and perceiving his hands sowle take a handful of vvater out of the font and first vvash his hands albeit he playeth a sluttish part and offendeth yet no vvise man vvil say he is gilty of Christs body and blud no more then he is gilty of the kings body and blud vvho to vse M. B. his example having the kings image and seale in wax by him and vvanting vvax to scale his owne letter breaketh the kings seale and applieth it to his owne vse These similitudes are of like condition qualitie therefore whereas for not discerning the body and blud of Christ in the sacrament a man is condemned as gilty of Christs body and he is not so in any of these matters hereof it is plainly inferred that Christs body is otherwise in the sacrament vvhereof S. Paule speaketh then in any of the rest ¶ The other argument vvhich M. B. alloweth to the Catholike is this The bread which the wicked eate is not naked bread bâ—â— the sacrament The sacrament hath ever coinoyned with it the thing signified Therefore the thing signified is geuen to al. To this argument M. B. pretendeth a double answere but geveth a single and the sâ—me very single and simple â—â— deed VVhat saith he if I graunt them al this argument there should no inconvenience folow For the thing signified â—ay be geven to al that is offered to al and yet not received of al. A man vvould thinke that when he thus beginneth vvith what if this vvere but a florish before hand being in deed al his answere vz that the wicked get the body and blud of Christ offered to them conioyntly with the word and sacraments but wanting faith they receive the bread but not the body This is the argument and this is his answere And although the argument be not very strong yet by the vveaknes of his answere it is much bettered For if the entier sacrament consist of not bread alone but bread vvith the body that is the thing signified how can it be truly said that the vvicked receive the vvhole entier sacrament vvho receive the one only more base and corruptible part For vvhereas M. B. maketh his foolish and childish evasion in saying To the vvicked is geuen that is to say is offered this is to play the boy in matters most grave and serious The sacrament is geven and received not offered only The sacrament consisteth of two parts bread the thing signified The bread alone is not the sacrament no more then a body alone is a man vvalles alone are a howse paper is a booke cloth is a gowne or vvheat is a loaf of bread VVherefore vvho so receiveth bread alone receiveth the sacrament no more then he hath a howse vvho hath the only vvalles vvithout ether foundatioÌ„ or roose then he hath a gowne vvho hath only a peece of cloth as it came from the draper vvithout stitch or cut So that the argument as M. B. maketh it standeth stil in force notwithstanding that childish sophistrie yea notvvithstanding ought that he can say against it by the rules of his Theologie And thus much Pet. Martyr frankly graunteth VVhereas saith he there are two parts of the sacrament the signe and the thing signified if a men wil speake of these matters exactly he must say that the wicked receive not the whole sacrameÌ„t but one only part that is the bread And a litle after The wicked in the holy supper receive nothing els but bread wine and consequently they receive not the sacrament nor any sacrament at al. ¶ VVhich albeit it be the general doctrine of the Calvinists for the Lutherans are contrary to them in this no lesse then are the Catholiks yet somwhat other to helpe this poore beggerly bread of theirs or to shew the vanitie and inconstancie of their doctrine I vvel briefly by their owne Theologie prove that the evil Protestants except they be plaine Apostataes and Atheists as many are receive not only the bread but also the thing signified as vvel as M. B. him self and therefore that al his talke against S. Paules vvords is mere sâ—ivolous cavilling vvithout any ground of learning not only Catholike but also Scottish or Genevical For vvhat is there that baâ—â—eth a common Protestant though in life he be never so bad and impure from receiving by faith the body of Christ as vvel as the minister He eateth the bread as vvel as the minister there is the body of the sacrament The life and sowle is put in to it by the ministers sermon as before vve are taught Now vvhen that evil Protestant after the sermon receiveth it vvhy receiueth he not their perfit ful and entier signe vvhereas he receiveth that vvhich hath both matter forme both body and sowle If M. B. reply that he lacketh faith vvhich is most necessarie I answere first that his faith is altogether impertinent to this purpose for that the sacrament hath before his total nature and complement vvhich can not be taken away by his faith vvhich as being very good maketh not the sacrament not is required as essential thereto so nether being very baâ— can it marre the sacrament from vvhose essential perfection it vvithdraweth nothing I say further that such a Calvinist be he vvicked in the highest degree so that he be not an Apostata hath faith good inough to receive besides the bread the thing signified that is Christs body For how is that receiued eaten by faith In vvhat sort thus that as his eye seeth the bread broken so his mind remembreth Christs death and passion And vvhat hinderance I pray yow is evil life to this imagination Can not this remembrance stand vvith evil life Can not he if
remit the reader Concerning the priest who only can say the masse one thing required in him that so necessarie as without it he can not be a priest is that he have power geven by the bisshop to consecrate which power is iustified by the vnction and shaving of his crowne as truly as the ministers power geven him by the Superintendent as in England or by the assembly of ministers and Elders as in Scotland is iustified by hauing a faire long beard and a sister in the lord to keepe him companie at bed and at bourd I omit a number of other falsities vttered in this place by him for that they are not particular but general agreing to him vvith the rest of the ministerie as that a priest hath no calling nor office now in the church of God that he â—ffereth sacrifice withâ—ut a commaund that he should speake out cleerly in â—knoweâ— language so forth these are coÌ„mon lies therefore I vvil not heâ—e lay theÌ„ to M. B. his charge Albeit he may take that to him self vvhich is an vntruth ioyned vvith ignorance and I thinke not avouched by any of the more learned Calvinists that sorsooth vve make two things necessaâ—iâ— to the actiâ—n without which the action can not be VVâ—â—h uâ— the lor â—â—â—â—â—ver it can not be without the â—ive words of the institution it can â—â—â— le For if he vnderstood vvhat is meant by the action in the masse he should find that vvithout the lords praier if by it he meane the Pâ—â—â—r noster the action mâ— le and tâ—erof â—re that he falsely and ignorantly coupleâ—h together as things of like necessitie the wordes of the Iâ—stituâ—ion and the Lordes praâ—â—r Touching the forme of consecration so far as I vnderstand of it saith he it standes in these 5. wordes Hoc est enim corpâ—â—â—eum and in the whispering of them For if ye whisper theâ— not ye tine the fashion of incantation For the thing that we câ—â— sanctifying they cal whispering Here is again vntruth vpoÌ„ vntruth only somwhat excusable for that he pleadeth ignorance adioyning to his assertion so far as I vnderstaÌ„d vvhich is almost as litle as nothing For nether do they sanctifie the bread vvine nor can they by their doctrine ioyne any sanctification vnto it and M. B. him self albeit he vse the terme of sanctification yet in this very place refuteth al true sanctificatioÌ„ of the bread vvine we cal not sanctifying whispering no more then they cal it gâ—pling or halowing as hunters do a fox because after Caluin M. B. requireth and urgeth very carefully that the minister preach proclame his sermon publikely with â— cleare lowd voyce As for the vvords of consecratioÌ„ whether by a lawful priest they be pronounced a lowd vvith an audible voyce as from the beginning vntil this present hath bene the vse of the Greeke church and of old it seemeth to have bene so likevvise in the Latin church or vvhether the vvords be pronouÌ„ced as novv the vniversal custom is vvith vs in a lovv voyce and in silence the effect is al one and no Christian of any vvit ever doubted but as of old in both churches so novv in the Greeke vvhere the vvordes are vttered alovvd as vvel as in the Latin church vvhere they are pronounced othervvise the effect of consecratioÌ„ folovveth in both alike That in the auncient church the priest spake the vvords alovvd vve find in S. Clement the Apostles felovv in S. Ambrose â—â— others and that the people vvere then accustomed to say Amen and by open confession to acknovvlege for true the priests vvords VVhereof vvriteth S. Ambrose thuâ— The priest saith it is the body of Christ and thow answereâ— Amen as much to say as truly so it is That thow confesseâ—â— with they tonge reteyne and hold fast in thy hart and mind For in vayne saith Leo the great do they answere Amen to the priests words who dispute and make arguments against that which is there received The like vsage of answering Amen by the people appeareth in the most auncient Masses or Liturgies of S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom and others And that at this present the same order stil continueth in the East churches it is testified by Bessarion Patriarch of Constantinople in his booke of the sacrament c. The priest saith he pronounceth the words of consecration with a lowd voyce iuxta orient â—is Ecclesiae rituÌ„ according to the maner of the East church and the people seuerally first at the consecration of the body then againe of the blud answere Amen truly so it is And by answering Amen to those words verily say they these giftes are the body and blud of Christ So we beleeve so we confesse Thus Bessarion And to ioyne hereto one 〈◊〉 example vvhich may serve in steed of many as being takeÌ„ out of the Liturgie or Masse called VNIVERSALIS CANON vsed vniuersally by al Christians in a maner over al Africa especially in the most large and ample kingdoms of Aethiopia at the consecration of ether part of the sacrifice the people likewise geve assent and approbation to the priest in this sort The priest speaketh Christ the night in which he was beâ—rayed tooke bread in to his holy and immaculate hands looking vp to heaven to thee O God his father geve thankes blessed sanctified it saying take eate ye al of this This is my body which shal be delivered for yow to remission of sinnes The people answere Amen Amen Amen truly truly truly so it is VVe beleeve and trust and praise thee O our God Hoc vere tuum corpus est This here is truly thy body The priest procedeth Christ likewise taking the chalice geuing thankes blessed and sanctified it and said to them Drinke ye al of this This is the chalice of my blud which shal be shed for yow and for the redemption of many The people answere we beleeve and trust and praise thee O Lord our God Hic vere â—â—us sanguis est this truly is thy blud This is the order of the Christian churches in the East and South in Asia Africa this vvas sometimes the custom in the VVest in Europe And if it vvere now reteyned it vvould not â—arme tyne or hinder the veritie of consecration or Christs real presence but it vvould harme hinder and discover perhaps many faithles godles and Christles Calvinists vvho now sometimes like hipocrites are present at the church sacrifice because they are not driven to make such Christian confession of their faith in this behalf as vvas the auncient custom in both churches East and VVest and at this present continueth in al churches of the East And therefore vvhen M. B. speaketh as here he doth every vvord he speaketh is a fowle vntruth It is a fowle vntruth to say that vve cal whispering that
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.
bishops in vvhich he againe vvas confuted and yelded so that with his ovvne hands he burnt the bookes vvhich he had made in defence of his heresie But not persisting in his faith and oth geuen after certaine yeres he vvas againe persvvaded to come to Rome there to defend his opinion by such learning as he could in a great synod of bishops gathered for that purpose vvhere being convinced by al maner proofe vvhich he desired by scriptures by fathers by Councels by vniuersal and vncontrolled tradition and vniforme consent of al Christians and christian churches that euer vvere since Christ be being then an old man hauing some more feeling feare of death of hel of his ovvne damnation then before acknovvledged his impietie requested pardon of the supreme Pastor and other bishops there present and as it may be credibly thought vvithout al fiction or hypocrisie abiured his heresie in these vvords Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor c. I Berengarius beleeue in hart confesse with mouth that the bread and wine is conuerted into the true propre and life-geuing flesh and blud of Christ our lord that after consecration there is the true body borne of the virgin which suffred on the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father the true blud which issued out from his side that it is present not only in signe or vertue but also in proprietie of nature and veritie of substance As here in this writing is conteyned as I reade it and as yow vnderstand it so I beleue wil neuer teach contrarie And aftervvards being at the point of death vvhich befel on the day of the Epiphanie vvhich is as much to say as the Apparition of our Sauiour remembring by his hererical preaching what numbers of poore ignorant sovvles he had seduced vvith great sorovv and repentance he vttered these vvords This day which is the day of Christ Iesus his Apparition shal he also appeare vnto me for my glorie as I hope because of my repentance or for my eternal punishment as I feare because of so many as I haue deceaued I verelie beleue that after the consecration those mysteries are the true body and blud of our Sauiour And I am induced so to beleue both by the authoritie of the primitiue church by many miracles shewed of late And â—o vvith great signes of sorovvfulnes and repentance died a true Catholike man as is recorded by good autentical vvriters From Berengarius tyme vntil this present albeit there haue not bene any such great numbers as vvere in Berengarius tyme yet scarce any one age hath missed some notorious heretike vvho among other heynous he resies hath vpholden also the heresie of BereÌ„garius As on the other side there hath not vvanted great Clerks and Saints of excellent holynes learning vvho haue maynteined the Catholike and Apostolike faith deliuered to them from their fathers Such vvere in the age of Berengarius besides those before named Adelmanâ—us bishop of Brixen Hugo bishop of Langres Iuo bishop of Chartres Hildebertus first bishop of Mantes after archbishop of Tours S. Bruno and sundry others After solovved S. Bernard Petrus Clumacensis Petrus Lombardus Hugo Richardus de S. Victore Euthymius S. Thomas S. Bonauenture the general Councel of Laterane vnder Innocentius in vvhich vvere present as vvitnesseth M. Fox 61. Archbishops Primates 400. Bishops 800. other men of great learning an other general Councel holden at Vienna item a third general Councel holden at Florence besides that of Constance vvherein the Greeke church and Latin professed their consent and vniforme faith touching the veritie of this diuine sacrifice and sacrament as likevvise many Greeke Bishops vvrote sundry treatises in iustification thereof Samonas Bishop of Gaza Nicolaus of Methone Marcus of Ephesus Nicolaus Cabasilas Bessaâ—ion the Cardina ' as likevvise of late they haue testified the same in their ansvvere to the ProtestaÌ„ts of Germanie vvho sued to enter in to some communion vvith them against the Romaine church But the Greekes vtterly refused them as condemned heretikes both for other their sundrie heresies namely for this of the sacrament vvhereof I speake vvherein the Greeks very constantly hold the same faith vvhich al Christians heretofore haue and euer ought vvhich is deliuerâ—d in the late general Councel of Tient ¶ Thus much is to be noted in this discourse that from Berengarius vnto Luther no one man hath bene a patrone of this opinion but he hath bene also defiled vvith some very sovvle grosie heresies beside such as the Protestants them selues hold for heresies count the defenders of them heretikes As for example to begin vvith Beregauê° him selfe vvhen he maynteined this sacramentarie heresie he his partakers denyed withal the grace of baptisme denyed that men coÌ„mitting mortal sinne cou'd euer obtayne pardon therefore Besides this he was an enemie to mariage and al stayned from meates which god had created and from fat as things vncleane VVhereby it appeareth that he vvas not only a Sacramentarie but also an Anabaptist a Ievv and vvhich in the Protestant gospel perhaps is greatest of al an enemie to mariage and good fare For vvhich cause Occolampadius though in the matter of the sacrament a right Berengarian yet iudgeth him to be an heretike vvorthely condemned Berengarium a Concilio Romano non iniuste condemnatum arbitror c. I saith he am of opinion that Berengarius was iustly condemned by the Councel holden at Rome For besides the matter of the Eucharist he defended some things against mariage the baptisme of children in the verie matter of the Eucharist he seemeth hoâ—ely to haue set him selfe a worke rather desirous of victorie and vaine glorie theâ— of opening the truth ¶ Next ensued one Petrus Brusius and Henricus author of the sect called Albigenses vvhich so horribly for many yeres tormented Fraunce as novv do the Caluinists and these in many articles agreed iust vvith the Sacramentaries of this tyme. For vvhich reason Ioannes Crispinus him self a sacrameÌ„tarie one that hath gathered together in to a storie the french sacramentarie mar tiâ—â— as M. Fox hath done the English the like vvhereof euerie sect especially the Lutherans and Anabaptists haue done for the Martirs of their peculiar Gospels this Crispinus of Geneua in his Martyrologe acknovvledgeth them for bretherne of his congregation and for martyrs those that dyed in defence of their opinions as also M. Fox in his Acts monuments greately aduaunceth them And vvhat men vvere they In matter of the Sacrament so far forth as now it is ministred in the church for in an other point they differed they vvere of Berengarius faith beleeuing that the body of Christ was present there no otherwise then it was in any other bread VVithal they denyed prayer for the dead and Purgatorie defaced Images brake downe
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
a man his vvise a seruant no farmar no Inholder no taverne or vittayling hovvse but the common tables haue ordinarely if they be Christian men vvho eate there as good substantial coÌ„munions as any are practised in the most solemne meeting of the bretherne in any congregation through out al Scotland England Zurike yea or Geneua it selfe vvhether ye regard the matter of the Sacrament vvhich is though not vvhite bread and good vvine yet brovvne bread smale drinke which suffiseth or the forme which is nothing certaine but only privatiue that the presence of Christ be assuredly remoued Christ in cogitation at the most thought vpon or the minister for which the good man or if she be better tongued his wife may seâ—â—e as wel as any minister in Scotland or Geneua OF CALVIN AND THE CALVINISTS OPINION CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT The Argument Caluins high speaches amplifications of his supper VVherein is shewed by a number of plaine testimonies that he acknowlegeth at the lest as his manifest words import a true and real presence of Christ body and blud in the Sacrament in as plaine and cleare maner as any Lutheran Caluin notwithstanding such high and counterfait speaches which he of purpose affecteth to deceiue his reader yet stil thinketh of the Sacrament as a mere Zuinglian and by 5. diuers crafty special degrees besides a sixt more general against the words and sentences before cited induceth his Sacramentarie heresie The first is that he denieth to the supper Christs body and blud in steed thereof putteth some real vertue deriued from his body and blud by the holy ghost which serueth as a canduit-pipe to that effect wherein he many wayes contradicteth him self The next degree is that he denieth as al old Sacramentaries commonly do euen this deriuation of any such vertue alloweth no other communion of Christs body to the supper then is had out of the supper by only beleeuing In which sort Christs flesh and blud is receiued as wel or better in hearing a sermon then in receiuing the supper Only there is in the supper ioyned to such receiuing an external signe of bread and drinke A third degree is that Caluin and the Caluinists teach not only that Christs body and blud is better receiued cut of the supper then in the supper better by a sermon or reading the scripture then by their Sacramental bread and wine but also acknowlege no maner communication of Christs body ether real or spiritual as proper to the supper VVhereof because it would fâ—low that their supper were altogether superfluous they vsed a new point of doctrine that the Sacramental bread and wine serued for seales testimonies or ratifications of Christs body and blud receiued before by the meanes of faith For that the doctrine of seales is daungerous in deed very false Caluin and the rest proceed on and that their supper be not altogether friuolous he saith it is ordeyned for to helpe weake memories And this is the true conclusion of the Sacramentarie doctrine generally to make no more of the Sacrament then a mere rude picture or signe of Christs body and blud absent voyd of al grace and vertue Besides the former points Caluin the Caluinists the more to disgrace the Sacraments of baptisme the supper coÌ„pare them and make them no better then the Iewish ceremonies VVhich doctrine besides that it is most directly opposite to Caluins first preaching wherein â—e so highly magnifieth the supper is also aâ— directly opposite to the whole course of the new testament which euery where denyeth al grace to the Sacraments of Moyses law and attributeth al grace to the Sacraments of Christ gospel and the contrarie doctrine vnworthely confoundeth the gospel of Christ with the law of Moyses The Caluinian coÌ„munion is particularly conferred with a like ceremonie vsed of old among the Iewes and against Caluin and Beza it is by plaine demonstration out of their owne doctrine and writings proued that their supper is nothing better then a mere graceles Iewish supper or ceremonie Bezaes preferring of their supper before the Iewish is declared to be vaine and Sophistical Answere made to Caluin who with other Protestant writers match the Christian Sacramentâ— with the Iewish vpon a falsified sentence of S. Paule The definition of Caluins supper Because the Zuinglians and Caluinists sticke not to graunt the comparison bandled in the last paragraph it is here farther declared that the Sacrament after Caluins doctrine is much inferior to the like Sacrament ether the Paschal supper and especially Manna of the Iewes VVhich thing is shewed by manifest reason and particular conference of those Sacraments together cut of the writing and teaching of the Caluinists which also proue both their Sacraments baptisme and the supper to apperteyne rather to the law of Moyses then to the gospel of Christ CHAP. 3. AGainst the premisses it wil be replyed I suppose that how so euer I ether vpon pretence of Luthers authoritie or of myne owne conceite disgrace and abase the Zuinglian coÌ„munion yet it is wel knowen that their writers and Doctors much amplifie advaunce the worthines thereof as in sundry their bookes Apologies and Commentaries is manifest VVhere vnto I answere that true it is some such places in some of their writers are sound but in such sort as litle coÌ„mendeth their coÌ„munions For as rebels when they haue withdrawen them selues from their lawful king appointed them by gods ordinance and framed to them selues one of their owne crue in the beginning or so long as he please them they much extolle magnifie him but vpon the first displeasure and discontentment he is pulled downe againe and brought to his old roome or perhaps serued a worse turne and as tyrannes vpon the sodayne advaunce their minions favorites heaping on them al riches and honors whom afterwards vpon better consideration of their smale deserts or some other light occasion they despoyle abase despise and perhaps hang out of the way in like sort these gospellers hauing reiected the Sacrament which Christ ordeyned and in place of it invented a toy of their owne for some tyme and in some place against their adversaries or for some other occasion much praise and magnifie it But after when the heate is past and they by learning come to examine it or by other force of truth are driuen therevnto or without contention speake of it as it is and as they thinke then are they constrayned to put away al those former borowed fethers and leaue it as pild as Aesopes daw that is they are then driuen to confesle it to be as poore and beggerly a bitte of bread and suppe of drinke as any vsed at common tables And this the reader shal find not only in the old Sacramentaries but also in the new ¶ For albeit it be a common opinion among many that Caluin and the later Sacramentaries haue some what fined the grossnes of their forefathers
and therefore the Lutheran churches of the Counts of Mansfeld in Germanie in the Confession of their faith put a great difference betwene the old Sacramentaries the new saying that the old Sacramentaries that is the Carolostadians the Zuinglians the Anabaptists and such like alwaies taught the Sacrament of the altar to be nothing else but an external idle signe without the body and blud of Christ that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans whereas the new teach otherwise and Caluin to continue and mainteine such a conceite of al other seemeth to speake of this matter most diuinely and mystically and with straunge affectation of high speach may make vnlearned and vnstable sowles beleeue that he hath a wonderful deepe fetch in this case aboue the rest of common ministers writers whom M. B. in these sermons much foloweth yet who so thoroughly fifteth and examineth Caluin shal find in the end that he hath no other opinion of their supper then hath Carolostadius or Zuinglius or Occolampadius or the Anabaptists or the Scottish and English martyrs or who else so euer thinketh of it most basely and beggerly For let vs by articles consider how he runneth vp and downe praiseth dispraiseth maketh and marieth it at one time mounteth alost flieth in the ayer like a bird straight waies creepeth on the ground like a beast but in â—ine falleth headlong in to the coÌ„mon dongeon with the rest of his bretherne and whether in deed the very course and sway of their whole doctrine carieth them At some times he speaketh and writeth so supernaturally as though he were a very Lutheran defending the real presence as for example I say saith Caluin that in the mysterie of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered vnto vs I meane his body and blud to the end we may grow in to one body with him he thereby refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blud And although it may seeme vncredible that in so great distance of places as is heauen from earth he should passe downe to vs and become our food yet let vs remember how far the power of the holy ghost excedeth our sense and how fond a thing it is for vs to go about to measure his infinite power by our smale capacitie VVherefore that cur mynd or reason can not comprehend let our faith conceiue VVhat Lutheran wold require more then here Caluin coÌ„fesseth Or what more pregnant and effectual words can be desired to declare the veritie of Christs real presence not in figure trope or signification which wit and reason can castly comprehend but truly verely so as Christ I say Christs body and blud notwithstanding so great distance of place as is betwene the highest heauen this low vale is here truly deliuered by the inexplicable force and strength of the holy ghost which only is able to worke such a miraculous coniunction Againe If any man demaund of me how this is done I am not ashamed to confesse the mysterie to be higher then that I can ether comprehend it with my wit or declare it with my tonge to speake the truth I rather find it by experience then vnderstand it Therefore the truth of god wherein I may safely rest here I embrace without scruple He pronounceth his flesh to be the meate of my sowle and his blud the drinke To him I offer my sowle to be nourished with such foode In his holy supper he willeth me vnder the symboles of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and blud I nothing dout but he truly geueth it and I receiue it And that his meaning is Christs true body to be not sigâ—â—atâ—uely or tropically but most really and truly present vvith the bread he expresseth in his litle booke De caena domini by an apt similitude ExempluÌ„ valde propriuÌ„ in re simili habeâ—â—u c. VVe haue a maruelouâ— apt example in a like matter VVhen the Lord wold that the holy ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ â—e represented him vnder the figure of a doue Iâ—â—n Baptist rehearing the storie saith that he saw the holy ghost descending If we consider the matter wel we shal fynd that â—e saw nothing but a douâ— For the essence of the holy ghost iâ— inuisible Yet because he wel knew that vision to be ro emptie figure but a most sure signe of be â—resence of the holy ghost â—e doubteth not to affirme that â—e saw him because he was represented or made present in such sort as he could beare So in the communion of Christs body blud the mysterie is spiritual which nether can be seene with eyes nor comprehended bâ— mans wit Therefore is it shewed by signes figures yet so that the figure is not a simple bare figure but ioyned to his veritie aâ—d â—â—stance Iustly therefore is the bread called the body of Christ because it doth not only figure it but also present or offer it vnto vs. This is a plain declaration that novv Caluin vvil not separate Christs body from the Sacrament as far as heauen is from earth but ioyne it thereto as truly as the holy ghost vvas to that doue vvhere he vvas vvithout doubt present truly really substantially And this being so is it not a great shame vv â— some say to charge Caluin and the Caluinists vvith contempt of the Sacrament and to say that they haue no other opinion of it then Zuinglius Carolostadius and those other forenamed Protestants Doubtles so he complaineth The aduersarie slaunder â—e â— â—aith Caluin that I measure this mysterie with the squire of humaine reason and gods power by the course of nature But who so euer shal tast our doctrine herein shal be rapt into admiration of gods secrete to ver VVe teach that Christ descendeth vnto vs as wel by the external signe as by the spirite that the flesh of christ entreth in to vs to be our foode that Christ truly with the substance of his flesh and blud doth geue life to our sowles In the e few words who so perceiveth not many miracles to be â—onteâ—â—ed is more then a dolt These words and other to the same effect are common with â—aluin as that the symbole doth not only signifie râ— figure but truly also deliuer the thing which it figureth that it bath the veritie which it signifieth conioâ—ned with it vere exhibet quod figuraâ— adiunctam secum habet veritateâ— Vbi signum est ibi res signata vere exbibetur VVhere the signe is there also the thing signified thereby is truly deliuered Nether must we suppose the signe to be destiâ—uâ—e of the truth signified except we wil make god a deâ—eâ—uer â—or true it is and we must needs confesse that the sacrament compriseth the visible signe
whereunto is ioyned the thing signified which is the veritie of the same In which kind of veyne and maner of writing he runneth on so lustely that in his last Admonition to Ioachimus VVestphalus the principal minister preacher of Hamburg he boldly auoucheth his doctrine in this point to agree with the Lutheran ConfessioÌ„ of â—uspurge also with Melanchthon penman thereof In which Confession the SacrameÌ„taries no lesse then Anabaptists aâ—e expressely condemned and the I egates of the 4. Sacramentarie Imperial cities then present were en â—oâ—ced to make and put vp to the Emperour Charles a separate Confession of their â—aith because the LutheraÌ„ then called Protestant-princes and Cities for this special opinion reiected them wold in no wise admit them to â—oyne with them in that Confession of thâ—iâ—s commonly called Confessio Auâ—ust ina As also the next yere after when certaine cities of the Suizzers which were then sacrameÌ„taries sued to the Protestants of Germanie to be receiued in to league with them which for some respect the Germanes much desired yet in â—iâ—e the matter being thoroughly debated the Duke of Saxonie chief of the Confession of Auspurg made them answere that for so much as they folowed an other doctrine concerning the Lords supper it was not lawful to enter any league with them And albeit their societie by reason of their power and forces might stand the Germanes in great steed yet he could not so â—â—ch regard that lest gods heauy hand should fal vpon him â— the scripture witnesseth it hath fallen on others who to forâ—â—â—â—â— them silues haue vsed the ayd and succour of such heretikes as they were So that Caluin in saying he agreeth with the Confession of Augusta consequently must needs say that he condemneth the sacramentarie heresie and acknowlegeth Christ truly and really present in the sacrament in such sort and sense as the Confession of Augusta and Protestant princes of that Confession did ¶ And certainly these words and sentences vsed by Caluin and a number of the like are so euident seeme so opposite to al Zuinglian tropes and figures that no man could otherwise imagine but that Caluin thought rightly inough of the real presence Truly in this veyne of writing his hipocrisie is so singular that Ioachimus VVestphalus seemeth to make some doubt whether Caluâ—n in this point of controuersie thought as a Zuinglian or a Lutheran His words are Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter he leaveth his reader so doubtful vncertaine what to iudge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometime it yeldeth a consession of faith like to our Lutheran churches â—e seemeth to reiect the doctrine of Zuinglius to beleeue that the very body blud of Christ is truly present and geuen in the supper with the bread and wine But yet in fine hauing conferred a number of Caluins words and writings to gether he resolueth the contrarie that he is a â—anke Zuinglian and vseth this crastie â—â—ueyance of darke obscuâ—e speaches only to abuse his readers deceiue them more perniciousty of which speaches hauing recited a nuÌ„ber he thus concludeth of them Hinc â—uilibet fit manifestum saith he Caluinum haerere in eodem caeno c. By vew consideration of â—â—ese places euerie man may see that Caluin sticketh in the same mire in which Zuinglius and other sacramentaries haue walowed and that he is stirred vp with their spirite and that vnder this craftie iugling he singeth the old song of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius iumbleth in his figures and significations taking away the true presence of Christs body blud which as VVestphalus at large very wel proueth by laying downe a number of testimonies out of him so I wil make it manifest by declaring 4. or 5. special meanes degrees besides a sixt which is general vsed by Caluin to that effect The first is by remouing away the true and real flesh of our Sauiour in place thereof allowing vs a true real qualitie and vertue thereof to be sent downe imparted to vs from Christ in heauen by a new kynd of conduit pipe which he hath inuented In desâ—â—â—ption whereof albeit he seeme not wel stayd for in one place of his commentaries vpon S. Iohn when belike he was of that opinion he teacheth that the flesh of Christ is the conduit pipe which traduceth and powreth vpon vs life which is intrinsecally resident in the diuine nature the founteyne of life Ioan. 1. 4. but in his Harmonie as also in his Institutions when belike he thought that opinion somwhat to true and to much sauouring of a real presence for if the flesh of Christ were the conduit pipe and brought to vs the life which is resideÌ„t in the deitie then must the flesh be communicated really vnto vs for otherwise it can no more serue for a conduit-pipe to conuey in to vs such life then a conduit-pipe distant a mile or 2. from a howse serueth to conuey water to the howse vnto which it approcheth nothing nigh he resolueth othervvise that the holy spirite is the conduit-pipe and the flesh of Christ geueth life vnto vs for that the holy spirite causeth to flow downe and to be powred on vs life which is resident in the flesh remayning in heauen yet in fine he seemeth to choose rather this later sense so not novv ioyning the flesh and blud of Christ vvith the signe by the omnipotent power of god but separating the one from the other as far as heauen is from earth of Christs body communicated to vs in the supper thus he vvriteth I conclude graunt that the body of Christ is geuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our sowles I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our sowles are fedde with the substance of Christs body to the entent we may be made one with him or which is al one that a certaine quickening vertue is peured on vs cut of the flesh of Christ by the holy ghost although the flesh be far distaÌ„t froÌ„ vs. Is not here a straunge kind of meaning a straunge declaratioÌ„ so to declare his meaning that his meaning cleane ouerthroweth his words whereof he pretendeth to geue vs the meaning For how match those words immediatly going before with this meaning The body of Christ is geuen vs in the supper really I meane the substance of his body or which is al one a vertue proceeding out of his body Is this al one to say the body and a vertue of the body a substance or which is al one no substance but an accident a qualitie Doth not the scripture most euidently according to coÌ„mon sense and reason distinguish betwene Christ or the body of Christ and vertue proceeding from him which at some
times wrought so that al men desired to touch him because vertue proceeded from him and healed al that were present desired so to touch him at an other time vvhen his body was in like maner present to al the vertue thereof healed one only persone amongest a number At an other time it wrought the like benefite to persons many miles distant from the place where his body vvas at some other time it did no such benefite to many that vvere not only in one place vvith him but also touched and pressed and throng him vvho vvere neuer a vvhit the better therefore but perhaps the worse And yet forsooth is it al one to say the body of Christ or a vertue issuing from his body Or doth this man that thus speaketh in these most serious and diuine matters care vvhat he speaketh In the same place going about as it were to moderate his former plaine speaâ—â—es he repeateth that we receiue Christ remayning in heauen And this communication of Christ which is offered vs in the supper requireth nether local presence nether that he descend vnto vs nether that his body be infinitely extended nor any such matter but we receiue him though so far distant from vs as heaueÌ„ is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Al vvhich in his Institutions he expresseth more plainly by the similitude of the Sunne a similitude very familiar with Peter Martyr and others that as the Sunne with his beames shining ouer the earth doth after a sort communicate his substance with it to the engendring cherishing refreshing of the fruits thereof so the spirite of Christ by his illumination traduceth vnto vs the communion of Christs flesh and blud albeit the flesh it self enter not into vs no more then the Sunne leaueth his place in the heauen to descend dovvne to the earth In which words and al this maner of discourse there appeareth a very plain and sensible contradiction to his former talke There vve had in the mysteries of bread and vvine Christ truly deliuered I meane quoth Caluin his true body and blud which veritie is truly conioyned with the symbole here vve haue only a quickening vertue flovving thence There Christ bad vs vnder the symboles of bread wine to eate his body drinke his blud I nothing doubt saith Caluin very religiously but he truly reacheth it me I truly receiue it novv he not only doubteth of it but also plainly denieth any such ether deliuery on Christs part or receiuing on ours and in steed thereof placeth an irradiation or illumination as from the sunne by vvhich a certain grace and vertue out of Christs flesh as heate from the sunne is conueyed vnto vs. There Christ descendeth vnto vs the flesh of Christ entreth in to vs and notwithstanding so great distance of place the flesh of Christ penetrateth and cometh downe vnto vs in tanta distantia locorum penetrat ad nos Christi caro here al such â—enetration and application or coÌ„munication is vtterly refused condemned and Christ descendeth no more then doth the sunne out of his sphere no more as he other vvhere vvriteth then vve ascend vp in to heauen to him mary yet we draw life from Christ Christ froÌ„ the substaÌ„ce of his flesh remayning in heauen powreth life in to vs albeit his flesh enter not in to vs quamuâ—s noÌ„ ingrediatur in nos carâ— Christâ— There the matter vvas so incredible so mystical so miraculous far exceding al capacitie of man that Caluin him selfe so sing lar a prophete and instrument of the holy ghost as his scholers terme him could nether comprehend it by his wit nor declare it by his tonge here the matter is made so familiar and vulgar as for the sunne to shine in a sommets day and therefore nothing so profound hard to vnderstad as Caluin vvith his hipocritical retorike vvold make the case seeme For vvhat plain rural Caluinist can not comprehend this But the manifold manifest contradictions of Caluin to him selfe in this article vvil yet appeare more sensibly if vve continue to declare by vvhat other degrees he falleth from his first high and diuine description of Christs real presence in the supper to a plain Zuinglian and Carolostadian absence from the saine Let this stand for the first vvhere in steede of a true and real presence of Christs body and blud deliuered vs vvith the figure or sacrament vve haue not the true body but only a certaine vertue deriued thence in to our sovvles vvhich tvvo are as far different as is heauen and earth as is the body and sovvle of Cicero and his vvit or learning as is Caluins person and his heretical Institutions S. Peters coate and his shadovv a good feast and the smel thereof ¶ The second degree of abasing the supper and contradicting that his first and more true opinion is vvhen as he pulleth from the supper euen this communication of any such particular vertue and force and maketh the vvhole eating to consist in only faith and beleeuing For then al such deriuing of vertue by his conduit-pipe from the flesh of Christ is no othervvise deriued in the supper then in any other good action of praying or preaching vvhen so euer a ChristiaÌ„ man stedfastly beleeueth in Christ So he vvriteth more commonly and that according to the vulgar maner of al sacramentaries as for example VVe confesse that we eate Christ no other way theÌ„ by beleeuing Againe VVe eate truly the flesh drink the blud of Christ in the supper but this eating driÌ„king is only by faith sicut nulla alia fingi potest as no other kind of eating or drinking can be imagined VVhich eating by faith beleeuing vvhat it is vvhat he meaneth thereby he declareth in his Catechisme vvhere he geueth this definition of it In beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemptioÌ„ is risen for our iustificatioÌ„ our sowle eateth the body of Christ spiritually VVhich being so this maner of eating geueth no title of preeminence nor maketh any kind of difference betwene the supper and any other time place or action when so euer we beleeue in like sort Nether if al the eating consist in beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemption risen for our iustification is there any more vertue force or quickening power as Caluin speaketh deriued to vs from Christs flesh when we eate the Protestant supper then when we eate our owne dinner in case we beleeue Christ to be our redeemer iustifier which is the whole only way to eate Christ and then which there can be no other imagined The Protestant at this supper hath perhaps a draught of wine a bit of bread more then the stander by or then we at our dynner but our faith being as good as his we
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
by a frend to good euen so fareth it in the sacraments of baptisme and the supper which are seales to ratifie coÌ„firme spiritual things but not to geue or confer them as hath bene said before So then now we are come so far of from our first diuine opinion of the Sacrament that no maner coÌ„munication of Christs flesh is properly attributed vnto it no more then the graunt of a Lordship by the prince to his subiect is to be attributed to the seale of wax the articles of peace betwene the Romans their enemies to the sow or hog the private coÌ„tracts betwene men in buying selling borowing c. is ascribed to the snaking of haÌ„ds which only succedeth in co 〈…〉 mation of bargains promised as the sacrameÌ„t of the supper succedeth for a scale cotirmation of the body of Christ which the Protestat hauing eaten before â—or a pledge â—atification thereof aftervvards cateth dâ—â—keth this symbolical bread vvine ¶ But yet Caluin slaieth not here nether can hevey vvel For besides some other absurdities against this sâ—aling inuented by him vvithout any vvariant or probable prâ—tâ— vt of scripture as shal be shevved here after this â—â— one sound argument to breake al these seales for that they thus vâ—ed are very lyâ—â—g and countersent seales and therefore not to be thought in any case to proceed from god but rather from his enemie the deuil For seing as Caluin testifieth sure it is that many vvhich come to the Lords tables haue no participation of the flesh and blud of Christ they â—eede not on lam spiritually but remaine his enemies and receiue that bread and vvine to their condemnation and yet this notvvithstanding the minister geueth indifferently to al these seales vvhich confirme assure to them al that they haue receiued Christ maruelous effectually hovv caâ—t be auoyded but the minister lyeth dovvne â—ight vvhen in fact he thus informeth the communicants as also he plaieth the traytour against god in that he putteth his scale to a blaÌ„ke where in god neuer vvrote ought that is to say he testifieth by deliuering this symbolical or scaling bread and vvine that god highly fauoureth and loueth such a protestant vvhom yet in veritie god hateth and purposeth eternally to damne Nether doth Caluin nether can he by any probable colour auoid this absurditie Only somvvhat to mend the matter to proppe vp his poore Supper that it be not altogether void and ridiculous he continually runneth on â—atther and saither and at lenght alloweth it for his final conclusion to be a memorial or commemo ratiue signe to recal to our memories the death of Christ mary yet vvith this sober caueat that vve suppose in no vvise there is in it any vertue or grace of sanctification but only a bare memorial as it vvere a picture or image rudely fashioned to helpe our vveake memories and put vs in remembraÌ„ce of Christ Both these parts I vvil ioyne together for brenities sake and for that Caluin also teacheth them both together in very precise and plane termes â—nocerning the one part that it is void of al vertue VVe must beware saith he that we fal not in to error by reason of such speaches as the faâ—hers sometimes vse conteyning more honorable traise and commendation of the sacrameÌ„ts then needeth as though there we eany hid vertue 〈◊〉 or ioâ—ned to the sacraments as wine is offered to vs in a â—oblet For sacraments are the same thing to vs from god as messengers that bring good newes are from men or els we may wel liken them to an earnest penny in confirming a bargain for that the of them selues geue no maner grace but they declare and shew and confirme such things as by gods bâ—untisulnes are ceuen vâ— Againe in the litle booke which he made conteyning the consent of doctrine betwene his Geneuian church the Tigurine of Zuinglius forndation thus is their consent expressed touching the sacrament Si quid boni nobis per sacramenta confertur c. If aâ— good be bessowed on vs by the sacraments that is not wrought by the proper vertue of the sacraments no not if ye ioyne to them the promise of god with which they are adorned For it is only god that worketh by his spirite And albeit he vse the seruice of sacraments yet thereby he nether powreth his grace in to them nor withdraweth any thing from the force of his spirite but for our rude and grosse capacitie so vseth thee helpes that yet al vertue of action or operation remayneth in him self alone As for the signes saith Beza after Caluin there is in them no other force or uertue but so far forth aâ— by those external obiects of bread and wine our internal senses are moued In which words both the master and the cholâ—r both Caluin Beza the church of Geneua as also Zurick remoue al maner vertue of grace and sanctification from the sacraments and make them mere signes and as it were painted tables to bring vs being othervvise forgetful â—ude and grosse to remembrance sometimes of Christ which is the second part and clearly set downe by Caluin who writing vpon S. Paule and declaring what is the force of the Eucharist maketh it to consist nether in deliuering vs the body blud of Christ present with the signe nor yet in deriuing to vs some real vertue from that diuine body remayning in one only place nor in spiritual imparting the body or vertue of it nor in sealing that which was receaued before nor any matter hetherto treated of but only in that it serueth as a picture or image to put vs in remembrance of Christ so that if we were of good memorie to remember Christs death vvithout this breaking of bread and drinking of vvine in the supper by his iudgement the Supper might be spared wel mough Vpon Christs words Do this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Ergo caena 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est c. Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmitie For if otherwise we were myndful inough of Christ death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to al sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmitie VVhich vvords withdravv from the Supper al maner grace and vertue and leaue it a naked and bare signe ordeyned only to helpe vveake memories and as Zuinglius defineth it to be nothing els but a commemoration thinkes geuing for the Lords death And so saith he the old writers called it the body and blud of Christ when as in the meane season they meant it to be no other thing then a signe or figure which renewed the memory of Christs body deliuered for vs as if some good wife receiuing a ring of her husband when he goeth out of the towne should cal that ring her husband For vvhich cause he vseth to cal the sacrameÌ„t symbolical bread
and memoratiue bread panis commemorialis of like qualitie or proprietie to signifie Christs death as is the ivie bush to signifie the sale of vvine or in some places a vvaze of stravv to signifie vvhere is good ale or as Zuingliê° vsing more Capitaynelyke and honorable comparison to the honour of his mysteries as a noble mans armes or princes scutchion signifieth the noble maÌ„ or prince to vvhoÌ„ it apperteineth For so vvriteth he See and marke wel this is the acramental presence of Christs body in the supper as Charles the Emperour or the king of France is said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or scutchions are there where as in in the meane season one of them remayneth in Spaine the other in France So Christ also is here present in the harts and minds of the faithful As for the bread and wine they are wont to be called Christs body and blud but they are no more so then those banners or scutchions are the kings them selues non magis eadem sunt quam signa sunt ipsissimi reâ—es The selfe same in sundry other places he expresseth by many like similitudes some times calling them tesseras militares soldyars markes at an other tyme comparing them to a white crosse or rod vvhereby the buizzer soldyar and the Burgundian are distinguished vvhich is his more vsual comparison The sacrament saith he is an external marke whereby we shew whose men we are what is our dutie as one that weareth a white crosse thereby declareth him self to be a Suizzer And this is Caluins resolute iudgement of the supper that it serueth for nothing els but for a memorandum to refresh our memorie vvhich I could shevv more at large out of his vvritings vvere not the thing euident inough of it self For although some Lutherans not so conuersant in Caluins hipocritical stile vvhereby he vseth to set a graue solemne countenance on the matter vvhich othervvise is light and apish make so great a difference betvvene the old nevv Sacramentaries as before hath bene touched as though Carolostadius Zuinglius and other of that reuerend antiquitie thought one vvay and Caluin and the later heretikes of this nevv creation vvere of an other beleefe yet in truth if vve desire to heare and haue his plaine and simple explication such as his folovvers must be lead by he then ansvvereth and so Beza in his behalfe protesteth that he esteemeth of the supper no othervvise nor any vvaies more diuinely then those auncient and first sacramentaries did And therefore to such Lutherans and other Adâ—ersaries who obiected that Caluin a late vpstart in this matter varyed from those more auncient Euangelists Beza vvith great stomacke replieth Dâ—co impudentes esse calumniatores qui c. I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagin there was euer any coÌ„trarietie betwene those most excellent men Zuinglius Oecâ—lampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the sacraments So that â—â—yng vvhat is the doctrine of one of these great and excellent men the same is the doctrine of the other vvhere as both by Caluin and also Zuinglius the supper is nothing els but a token and memorial an obscure and slender image of Christs death pasâ—ed vvhich in bread and vvine is but poorely represented it foloweth that not only the true and real presence of Christs body as in the first place nor only a real vertue deriued and flowing from the flesh of Christ as in the second but also al other vertue grace operation is quit excluded remoued from the supper and that left a bare and naked token such as is a lyon rampant set in the beginning of M. B. his booke to represent the king of Scotland or 3. lyons passant to represent the Queene of England ¶ To which purpose also it auayleth much more to consider one other general point of their doctrine concerning the sacraments of the nevv Testament to wit that the Protestants and Caluin especially make them euen leuel vvith the sacraments of Moyses law attributing no more to our Eucharist then to the Iewish calues or sheep or laÌ„b or bread minchah vsually adioyned to al their sacrifices For which of these they wil make most properly answerable and correspondent to ours as they vse the matter I knovv not wel for that plaine bakers bread without sacrifice and real presence is not very aptly figured by the first and this being as graceles and emptie bread as bread may be caÌ„ not be wel foresignified by the last for that things performed in the new TestameÌ„t should be of more honour grace vertue efficacie then vvas the signe prefiguring it in the old But to omit this in that the Sacramentaries namely Caluin make no difference touching vertue and grace betvvene the sacraments of Christs gospel and Moses lavv hereof it is inâ—â—rred yet more certainly assuredly that al his first amplification of the diuine presence of our Sauiours body and blud in the Eucharist is more verbal and fantastical For in the sacraments of the old lavv nether he nor any of his vvil graunt I suppose that ether Christs body blud vvas truly really ioyned vvith the signe or any quickening vertue flowing from Christs â—â—esh was annexed to those sacraments For in al this discourse the reader must euer note carie away the state of the question which is noâ— what those men beleeued then or vvee beleeue novv or vvhether they did eate Christ by faith spiritually as we do or how they vvere sanctified or iustified by him as we are but what then sacraments ours in them selues by them selues considered were vvhat vertue and grace they gaue by then ovvner at â—re in that they vvere and ours are sacraments ordeyned by god seâ—nestred from al forain and external consideration Novv that thâ—s Caluin matcheth the lâ—vviâ—h sacraments of Moyses lavv vvith ours delâ—uered by Christ in the Gospel it is very manifest That â—holistical opinion saith he whereby the Papists put a great difference betwene the sacraments of the old and the new law as though they figured only the grace of god and these gauâ— it presently is altogether to be abandoned For the Apostle Pauâ—e speaketh no more divinely of the one then of the other whereis â—e teacheth that our fathers of the old law dâ—d eate the some spiritual meate that we do 1. Cor. 10. v. 3. c. And to the end no man vnder the gospel should prefer him self as though he had some priuilege the Apostle preuenteth this obiection making them altogether like to vs. And especially he sheweth this equalitie in the sacraments VVherefore al what soeuer we haue now geuen vs in our sacraments the same the Ieweâ— of old receiued in theirs that is Christ with his spiritual riches And the vertue whiâ—h ours haue they also found in theirs to wit that they should be seales of gods
beneuolence Againe in the same booke and chapiter Circumcision geuen to Abraham the Iewish purifications and washings the sacrifices and such other rites of Moses law were then the Iewes sacraments in place whereof haue succeded in the gospel baptisme and the supper Both theirs and ours were referred to the same end and scope that is to direct men to Christ or rather as images to represent him and make him knowen c. The only difference betwene them is this that the Iewish figured Christ as yet to come ours notifie him already come and exhibited The like he hath in many other places and it is the general sense commentarie of al or most Caluinists sacramentaries writing vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians cap. 10. VVhich equalitie Musculus very exactly better to the vnderstanding of the reader explicateth in particular â—unning thorough al cases and points wherein these sacraments may be compared one to the other the summe of whose comparison in his owne words is this 1. If we regard that which is more principal in the sacramental signes of the old and new testament so there is no difference betwene them one and the selfe same god Christ Iesus the mediator of grace was author of both 2. Both the one and the other were geuen to be signes of grace 3. As in the old so in the new the signe and the thing signified differ For one thing is signified an other vnderstood 4. Touching the thing signified it was al one in both Circumcision was a sacrament of our nature to be regenerate and purified in Christ so is baptisme Circumcision was a sealing of the iustice of faith Râ—m 4. so is baptisme Circumcision was a signe of gods couenant so is baptisme The paschal lamb was a sacrament of Christ the immaculate lamb by whose blud we were to be redeemed so our bread and wine is a sacrament of the same VVe haue the same meate drinke which they had 1 Cor 10. So hetherto there is no differeÌ„ce betwene our sacrameÌ„ts and theirs But now cometh the greatest difficultie the efficacie or effectual working and conferring of grace whether in this also those sacrameÌ„ts were match vvith ours vvhich equality the whole course of scripture and state of the old and new testament seemeth to improue Concerning this question thus proceedeth this Euangelist I confesse that the auncient fathers he might and should haue added and with them the Apostles and namely S. Paul as out of him shal hereafter â—e declared in this point attribute more to our sacraments then to those other and far extol ours as though they did not only signifie but also geue and conserre grace and iustice euen to them that are in mortal synne and lacke faith where in he grossely belieth the auncient fathers as also al other Catholiks but this is an error vtterly to be reiected of al faythful For it fighteth directly with the doctrine of iustifying faith which is so necessarily required is that without it the sacrameÌ„ts are not only vnprofitable to the receiuers but also hurtful For sacraments as they are signes of grace so they signifie grace geue none as wel in the new testament as the old As they are seales of iustice of fayth so seale they and confirme it not only in the new testament but also in the old and they confirme it not as the spirite sealeth but as signes do seale As they are figures so by the external shape similitude they figure and represent the things signified as in the old testament so in they new In that they are memorials so in the mynds of the faithful renew they the benefites of heauenly grace no lesse in the old testameÌ„t then in the new If besides this we attribute any force to our sacraments that they worke grace iustice health in those that vse them we geue to them that which only is the worke of the holy ghost For our sacraments wash from synnes iustifie and sanctifie no otherwise then those did of the old testament c. and therefore in this respect we ought to put no difference betwene them Out of al which so diligent and exact comparison he dravveth this conclusion That sentence belike of Luther vvhom there he citeth for proof of this doctrine is verâ—e true that not the sacrameÌ„t but faith of the sacrament iustifieth that as wel in the old sacrameÌ„ts as in ours VVherefore there is no other vertue or efficacie in our sacraments then was in theirs and it was rasâ—y said by Austin in psal 73. that the sacrameÌ„ts Iewish Christian were not al one because other are the sacrameÌ„ts which geue health or saluatioÌ„ other that promise a sauiour The sacrameÌ„ts of the new Testament geue saluation those of the old promised a Sauiour This is very aâ—surdiâ— spoken c. VVherefore this being put dovvne as a â—aâ—e ground that the sacraments of Moyses and Christ of the law and the Gospel agreed were al one sauing that they pointed to Christ as afterwards to be incarnate ouâ—s point to him as being novv incarnate already hereof the reader meanely skilled in diuinitie ether Catholike of Protestant may quickly gather conclude that al these first thetorical gloses of Caluin touching the vvonderful supernatural incomprehensible inexplicable vvorthines of the Eucharist of Christs flesh truly ioyned with the bread of his blud truly and really deliuered vvith the cuppe beyond al reason and capacitie of man by the only omnipotent operation of the holy ghost c are nothing els but so many wonderful sensible palpable and impudent lyes and mockeries For both Protestant must graunt and Catholike doth conâ—eâ—â—e and the scripture convinceth that Christ vvas in no such vvise conioyned vvith the bread or vvine or oyle or vvaâ—â—ings and purifications or asâ—hes of a heifer or flesh of a calle in the old lavv For is there any Christian yea Caluinist or Anabaptist so meanely instructed in Christian saith that vvhen the Ievves did eate some such bread or a peece of calues flesh vvil say that vnder those signes of bread or calues flesh was deliuered to the Iewes the body and blud of Christ that the veritie of Christs flesh was conioyned with those signes that Christ truly gaue them his flesh blud to the end they might grow in to one body with him that Christ descended vnto them aâ— wel by the external signe aâ— by the spirite that his flesh did penetrate vnto them which thing albeit it seeme vncrelibâ—e in sâ— greaâ— distance of plaâ—es as is heauen from earth especially Christ being then not incarnate and so hauing nether flesh nor blud nether in heauen nor earthâ— yet by the holy ghost omnipotent power of god this was truly done this flesh and â—lâ—d was truly and â—eâ—ly exhibited as truly and really as the holy ghost vvas in the do eat Christs baptisme VVhich thing although our mynd and reason
can not comprehend vet let our faith beleeue For true it is though most miraculous in these sacramental earings of the Ievves who so perceiueâ—h not many miracles to be coÌ„teyned is more then a doâ—t vvere he not if not in vvit a very dolt asse yet surely in diuinitie a very simple one vvho vvould attribute such miraculous excellencie to the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvhich them selues notvvithstanding al their hyperbol cal lâ—ing florishes meane not to be true no not in the gospel And vvhat so euer they meane the vniuersal scope and drift of scripture denieth refuteth it in the old lavv most effectually For although the good men vnder the law which vnderstood their ceremonies and sacraments to be shadowes and darke presignifications of a Messias and by vsing them were kept in an obedience and orderly subiection and expectation of a Sauiour to come by such obedience faith pleased god and were therefore rewarded at his hands yet that those ceremonies and sacraments velded them any such grace as is here declared much lesse the participation of Christs true flesh blud which is the supreme soueraine grace of al that euer was or euer shal be in this world the old testameÌ„t it self and also the new in many places denyeth especially the Apostle S. Paule in whole chapirers of his epistle to the Hebrewes where he most expresly treateth discourseth of their sacraments and state of the old testament in comparison of ours and state of the gospel For to omit sundry textes apperteyning to this purpose in the Prophets Euangelists to rest only vpon S. Paule when he saith that circumcision the principal sacrament of the law was nothing of no effect to conferre grace and that Abraham him self vnto whom singularly circumcision was a sâ—â—â—e of the iustice of faith was not yet iustified in circumcision nor by circumcision but otherwise when he disputeth that no worke no ceremonie no sacrament of the lâ—â— was 〈◊〉 to iustification but only the faith and grace exhibited in the new testament when he calleth al those Iudaical sacraments infirma et egena elementa weake and poore elements or as the English bibles translate it weake and beggerly ordinances when he teacheth the vvhole lavv and al the ceremonies sacraments thereof to haue bene reiected and altered because of their weakenes and vnprofitablenes that those sacrifices baptismes and meates drinkes blud of oxen and goates were only iustices of the flesh sanctified those that vsed them no otherwise then in taking away legal pollutions and so purified men only according to the flesh and therefore were instituted by god not to remayne for euer but only vntil the time of correction or new testament and then other maner sacrifice and Sacrament should succede in their place briefly when he teacheth the law to haue had a shadow of good things to come not the very image of them much lesse the body which is geuen by Christ in the nevv testament that it vvas impossible for the blud of those sacrifices to take away sinne and purifie the comscience for vvhich cause also god foretold by his prophets that he vvold reiect those hostes and oblations sacrifices and that they pleased him not vvhen the Apostle thus vvriteth thus teacheth thus disputeth against those legal sacraments vvhat Christian man vvil say that vvith them vvas exhibited and conioyned the true flesh and diuine blud of our god and Sauiour as before according to Caluins first preaching the same is conioyned vvith the sacraments of the nevv lavv If vnder those elements of bread and wine as novv in the supper the body and blud of Christ were not only figured but also truly deliuered if vvhen they vvere eaten of the Ievves by the omnipotencie of god and miraculous operation of his holy spirite Christ Iesus I meane as Calvin teacheth me the flesh blud of Christ yea the very substance thereof as Beza also with the consent of a whole Caluinian Synode speaketh were receiued vvithal then truly S. Paul in calling such a Sacrament a weake and beggerly ordinance had bene a very vveake Apostle an vnfit instrument to publish Christs name before nations and Princes of the vvorld vvho of Christs diuine person of his pretious flesh and blud the price raâ—â—â—om of the world reconciliation of al things in heauen and earth had had so meane and beggerly aâ— opinion But because most sure it is that b. Paule was â—â—â—nom any such beggerly or rather beastly ethnical â—og 〈◊〉 the Calumâ—â— who in this deteâ—â—able â— aâ— pâ—â—mous conâ—cite â—oloweth Calâ—in know that tâ— hâ—m S. Paule speaketh and he shal once to his eterna payne vnlesse â—e in time repent â—â—ele true that which S. Paule threatneth in eueÌ„ for this particular blasphe â—â—â—s heresie of matching the base Iewish ceremonies with Christs most heauenly and diuine Sacraments A man making frustrate the law of Moyses is adiudged to death therefore by the verdite of 2 or â— witnesseâ— How much more deserueth he more extreme punishmentâ— which thus treadeth the sonne of god vnder foote and esteemeth the blud of the new testament polluted by making it nothing superior to the blud of beasts and so hath done contumelâ—e to the sp rite of grace beyond al measure abased most vily and contemptuously the diuine state and maiestie of the new testament Let the discreete reader know that against this Iudaisme the Christians euer from the begâ—nning of Christianitie haue had touching their sacraments a more excellent faith and diuine perswasion as who vpon warrant of Christs words haue euer beleeued that in the one sacrament was deliuered the body and blud of Christ the same in veritie and truth of substance that was sacrificed on the crosâ—e as before more largely hath bene deduced And for the other sacrament for I mention no more because thâ—se men acknowledge no more the holy scriptures and writings of the Apostles and the church ensuing haue yelded vnto it as to an instrumental cause higher grace vertue then to any sacrament of the Iewes law or al their sacraments and sacrifices ioyned in one For proofe whereof when Christ was baptized the heauens opened and the holy ghost descended to signifie that by baptisme the way to heauen shut before is made open to is the holy ghost powred in to vs as Christ him self by word and deed taught most manifestly except a man be borne of water the spirite he can not enter into the kingdome of god And to testifie that aâ—â—uâ—â—dly and that in baptisme Christians are made partakers of the holy ghost in the begin â—â—â—g of the church the holy ghost â—â—sibly deseended rested on them that were baptized by the Apostles and first preachers of our faith And the gospel Apostolical writings euery where teach that â—â—bert the baptisme of Iohn
vsed by Caluin Beza Martyr Musculus and lightly euerie other sacramentarie that the Iewish Manna vvater out of the rocke their passing ouer the sea and baptisme in the cloud vvas as good and effectual as our sacraments of baptisme the Eucharist and that the Ievves in those figures receiued the self same foode in the one spiritual benefite in the other as vve do in these sacrameÌ„ts of ours the ansvvere is that they al sovvly corrupt and peruert the Apostles vvords and sense The Apostle saith not that the Ievves had the self same spiritual foode which Christians baâ—â— as though he compared Ievves and Christians together but that the Ievves amonge them selues good bad iust and vniust receiued those benefites there mentioned For the Ievves al alike passed the redde seaâ— they vvere al directed alike by the cloud they al alike did eate of Manna vvherein the evil men had as great preeminence as the good they did al alike so did their beasts drinkâ— of the water which issued out of the rocke albeit most of them were wicked men in whom god was not pleased This is al that the Apostle saith These vvere temporal benefites bestowed vpon the Iewes which in no place of the Scripture haue annexed vnto them spiritual grace or remission of sinnes as haue the Christian sacraments wherevnto they are impiously opposed And therefore S. Basil with great zeale mueâ—gheth against them which make such odious comparison as men who vtterly disgrace and extenuate the maiestie of the nevv testament For saith he what remission of sinnes what regeneration or renouation of life was geuen by the sea what spiritual gift was geueÌ„ by Moyses what mortificatioÌ„ of sinne was wrought by his ceremonies or sacraments As for the vvord spiritual applied by S. Paule to Manna the vvater he calleth it spiritual partly because it proceeded from a spiritual diuine miraculous cause as in the storie is noted partly because it signified as did almost al things in the old lavv euen the very stones and timber of Salomons temple spiritual things which vvere to be exhibited in the nevv testament in Christ and his church For that of it self it vvas not ordeyned for a spiritual foode but for a corporal the very text proueth which assigneth the vse of it to al indifferently no lesse to euil men then to good yea no lesse to beasts then to men and our Sauiour him self vvho plainlie separateth it from the diuine Manna of the nevv testameÌ„t directly affirmeth it to haue bene geuen for a corporal foode to differ as much from his diuine body geuen in the sacrament of the nevv testament as doth any vulgar bread or flesh And thus do the auncient fathers agreably to Christs words expound it acknovvleging it for his proper and peculiar vse to haue bene an earthly foode though besides it vvere a signe a figure an image a shadovv and signification of Christ the spiritual Manna and heauenly bread vvhich in deed came from heauen in vvhich first vvord of the definition of our sacraments for every sacrament is a signe that Manna and water of the rocke agree with our sacraments and therefore some times so far forth they are by S. Austin compared together but touching the effect of grace never made equal And now if it shal please the reader to conferre these last 6. rules or obseruatons gathered out of the doctrine of Caluin and the Caluinists with that his first magnifiing of Christs real presence in the Sacrament of the Supper he shal very easely discouer him to be a vvicked hipocrite and also find everie parcel point of that whole paragraph gainsayd and refuted by ech one of these 6. obseruations ensuing vvhich if a man vvould gather in to a table after the example before shevved he should fil a great deale of paper and find at the lest so many contradictions in these later against that first as be sentences perhaps lines in that first He shal vvithal be able to frame to him selfe some certaine and sure knovvledge to sure at lâ—st as may be gathered out of the vvritings of such vvethercockes vvho according to the Apostles vvords are tossed vp and dovvne vvith everie nevv conceite as a light clovvde is caried here there vvith every puffe of vvind vvhat the Caluinian supper is to vvit after his ovvne description bread and vvine or some like nutriment voyd of Christs body and blud or any vertue thereof or any other grace instituted for this only purpose to put vs in remembrance of Christ in no respect or comparison better then the significatiue bread or sheeps flesh vsed by the Iewes in their Paschal suppers ¶ And thus much touching the equalitie of their sacrament with the Ievves as they graunt vve accept so herevpon a litle farther we proue vvhich perhaps they vvil deny that the Ievvish sacraments vvere better then thens not only for that the Ievvish had their Institution from god and his holy prophets vvhereas this supper proceedeth directly from the deuil his Ministers but also for that comparing the sacraments thus by them described in them selues the Ievvish much excelled VVhereof this only reason in their diuinitie is a most sure demonstration The preper vse institution and end of the sacrament is this and in this confuteth the benefite thereof that it stiriâ—th vp our â—aith moveth ouâ— external and internal 〈…〉 to consideration of the thing signified that is Christ his death VVhereof â—â—â—â—lâ—vvâ—th that where this 〈…〉 is most â—ound where a signe is most lâ—â—â—â—y 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to moue ouâ— senses 〈…〉 iy to quicken ouâ—â—aith and excite our mynds to the consideration of Christ his death that â—gâ—e hath in it so much the more singularly and in a more high and excellent degree the nature of a sacrament But this was saâ— better and more effâ—â—â—â—ally wrought by 〈…〉 ng a lamb by pâ—wâ—â—g out the â—lud thereof then by 〈…〉 bread and drinking beare 〈…〉 or wine I or both the lamb is a more noble câ—eatuâ—e then is bread therefore more apt to â—gâ—â—â—â—c Christs body the noblest creature that euer was the innocency of a lamb to signifie Christs innocencie that lamb killed that flesh that blud was a more lâ—â—â—ly signe or this lamb of god killed for â—s of his body of his blud giuen for â—s then breaking of bread drinking of any wine or beare be it neuer so strong Therefore in that wherein consiâ—â—eâ—â— the proper nature of a sacrament the â—ewâ—â—h excelled ours Againe an other saâ—â—â—mental signification and the same very principal 〈…〉 they in this that as the bread and wine nourisheth our bodies corporally so Christ caâ—e by faith nourisheth our sâ—wâ—es spiritually But that Iewish supper hauing in it yong tender nourishing flesh of a lamb together with bread and vvine nourished corporally and so signified Christ body nourishing
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
This is very good sound doctrine For in deed such grace vertue haue sacraments of the nevv TestameÌ„t namely and especially these two principal baptisme the Supper vvhich as yet the Protestants accept for sacrameÌ„ts that they are signes exhibiting conserâ—ing and haue conioyned with them the thing vvhich they signifie as is the general doctrine of al Catholike wâ—ters yet so which also M. B. very wisely marketh that we always put a distinctioÌ„ betwene the principal efficient deliuerer which is God and the instrumental efficient which are the sacraments which not of them selues but by God are made p tent instruments to deliuer that same thing which they signifie Al which being true M. B. proceedeth very vvel against such Zuinglians Calvinists as make the sacrameÌ„t only a figure representing or signifying a thing absent For if that were so then any picture or dead image should be a sacrament For there is no picture as the picture of the king but at the sight thereof the king wil come to youre mynd So if the sacrament did no further al pictures should be sacraments But the Lord hath appointed the sacraments as hands to deliver exhibite the thing signified and for this deliverie exhibition chiefly they are called signes This doctrine I much commend in M. B. And would to god he could continue in it especially if as he very directly playnely and Catholikely describeth the nature of these sacramental signes so he can geue vs as true and sincere a description of the things signified vvhich by these signes are delivered And that also he performeth very vvel For against Caluin and some Calvinists that vvil haue the thing signified and received to be a vertue and grace flowing from the flesh of Christ and not Christs true real substance he setteth dovvne in plain and sincere maner that the things signified received by the bread wyne are not the benefits of Christ or the vertue that floweth out of Christ only but the very substance of Christ him self the substance with the vertues giftes graces that flow from the substance whole Christ god man without separation of his natures are the things signified For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I be partaker of the substance it self It is not possible that my stomak can be refreshed with that meate the substance whereof commeth not to my mouth So it is impossble that I can get the iuyce vertue that flowes from Christ except I first get the substance that is Christ him self And is it true then that with the sacramental signes is truly ioyned not only in figure vvhole Christ god and man yea his very substance Is this the special reason why the sacrament is called a signe because it exhibites and deliuers the thing that it signifies to the sowle and hart so sâ—ore as the signe is delivered to the mouth To vvhat end should this be and what need is there of such miraculous conâ—unetion vvhereas othervvise if Christs body be as far distaÌ„t from our bodies as is heauen from earth vve seeing the bread broken and vvine povvred out may remember Christs body and blud and so by faith eate him Again to vse Zuinglius common argument vvhich aftervvards M. B. him self vrgeth to the same purpose vvhereas the sovvle is a spirite and Christs flesh and blud things corporal hovv can these corporal things vvorke any benefite to that vvhich is altogether spiritual If they do not vvhy then are they conioyned vvith the signes by vvhich coiunction there cometh no good at al To the first M. B. ansvvereth and yeldeth great reason hereof To the end saith he that this sacrament may nourish thee to life everlasting thou must get in it thy whole Sauiour whole Christ god man with his whole graces and benefites without separation of his substance from his graces or one nature from the other Touching the second obiection though saith he Christs body flesh and blud be in it self true flesh and true substance as it was in the womb of the virgin yet in the supper it is called spiritual a spiritual thing spiritual foode in respect of the spiritual end where vnto it serues to my body and sowle because the flesh and blud of Christ serues to nurish me not to a temporal but to a spiritual and heavenly life and to a heavenly celestial and spiritual end In respect of this end the flesh of Christ and Christ in respect of his flesh is called the spiritual thing in the sacrament and also for that the flesh of Christ which is geven in the sacrament is receâ—â—ed by a spiritual and secrete maner which is not seene to the eies of men ¶ Here I haue to desyre the Christian reader that he marke vvel and carye avvay these good instructions in this place geven him by M. B. First that in the sacrament the signe hath the thing signified truly conioyned vvith it so that the one is not present in Edinburgh the other absent in London much lesse the one present in Edinburgh the other as far absent distant as the highest heauen is from Edinburgh but the thing signified is truly conioyned with the signe The next is that the thing signified is not Christs divinitie not the merits of his death and passion but his very flesh and blud the true natural substance thereof and therefore the true natural substance of Christs body blud being the thing signified is also truly conioyned with the signe and therefore present where the signe is and exhibited and delivered by the signe and vvith the signe vvhich is called a signe especially for this reason because it exhibits delivers the thing which it signifies Thirdly that this coniunction of Christ with the sacrament for our vse is hard to conceiue because it is a high and divine misterie it is a mystical secrete diuine and spiritual coniunction as the coniunction betwixt vs and Christ is ful of mysterie which is not possible to tel and expresse by câ—ular demonstration But who ever would vnderstand that coniunction his mynd must be enlightened with an heavenly eye to see this mystical and secrete coniunction that is betwixt the sonne of God and vs in the sacrament And except ye haue this heavenly illumination ye can never vnderstand nether your owne coniunction with Christ nor yet that coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament Fourthly albeit both the coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament be mystical and spiritual as likewise the very body and flesh of Christ vvhich is exhibited and ministred to vs in the sacrament and vvith the sacrament is called spiritual both because of the spiritual life and spiritual end of life everlasting and immortalitie
where vnto it nourisheth our body and sowle as also because it is received by a secret and spiritual maner not apparant to the eye of man yet therefore we must not deny nor doubt but that the true flesh and blud the true substance of Christ god and man is there geven vs in the sacrament Fiftly the reason why it is thus geuen â—s in the sacrament vz. to nourish vs both in sowle body not to a temporal life but to a spiritual and heavenly life to nourish I say body and sowle to a heauenly celestial and spiritual end that is to life eternal to eternal ioy and resurâ—ection as Christ him self declareth this is a wâ—ightie motiue besides al the premisses to establish a true real corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament which also M. B. very wel declareth thus VVhat availes it to see my health in a box standing in the Apothecaries booth what can it work towards me if it be not applied So it is not enough to see Christ in heaven by faith but he must be geven vs oâ— els he can not work health and salvation in vs c. VVhich similitude ioyned to two other going before in this sermon and formally repeated again in the next haue this plaine and direct meaning if vve regard the plain direct vvords and stand to them As it is not possible that my stomake should be refreshed with that meate the substace where of I receiue not into my mouth nether possibly can my drouth be slaked with drinke which never cometh within my body nether can the medicine in the Apothecaries shoppe do me any good or helpe my disease if I regard it only standing in the shoppe and applie it not vnto me in like maner if vve vvil haue benefite by Christs flesh blud if we vvil cure our spiritual diseases purific our sovvle comfort both body and sovvle and make them capable of resurrection and immortal life vve must not thinke it sufficient to regard him by faith in heauen having besides meanes to receiue him really in earth But seing for our good and to vvorke vs such benefites he hath truly conioyned his body vvith the holy sacrament made that a potent instrument to deliuer and exhibite his divine body vnto vs as the Apothecaries box doth deliuer and exhibite vs the composition or medicine vve must truly and really receiue the one as vve do the other if vve looke for helpe to our body and sovvle to come by the one as vve hope to recover helth of body by the other Othervvise looke how vnpossible it is vnto thee to be fed with that fâ—od that neuer comes into thy mouth or to recouer helth of that drâ—ge which was neuer applied nor came never out of the Apothecaries booth it is as vnpossible for thee to get thy helth of the body of Christ except thow first eate his body and drinke his blud Thus M. B. And to this very end purpose did the most auncient fathers applie these and the like similitudes shevving most excellently that as in humanitie many good thing vvere vvrought for the body by the sovvle and many thinges for the sowle by the body so in divinitie many good vertues graces of God proceede from the sowle to the sanctificatioÌ„ and glorification of the body as faith hope charitie patience c. many also as consession of Christs name suffering of afflictions almes geving fasting praying baptisme confirmation c. vvere wrought by the body to the beautifying and more sanctification of the sowle Among vvhich the receiving of Christs diuine body in the sacrament was one vvhereby the body fust and consequently the sowle is indued with grace of resurrection of life eternal So writeth that most auncient martyr S. Ireneus As a grain of corne falling in to the earth and dying ryseth in his tyme by the power and spirit of God so our bodyes nourished by the Eucharist which is the body blud of Christ though they be buried in the earth and resolued into dust yet shal rise in their time the word of god that is Christ geving them resurrection to the glory of god the father Again with what face say the heretikes that our flesh perisheth neuer to rise again quae a corpore et sanguine Domini alitur which is nourished to eternal life by the body blud of Christ VVhich is the argument also of Tertullian in his booke de resurrectione carnis Gregotius Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great disputeth altogether in like soâ—me As a litle leauen saith he maketh the whole masse of dow like to it even so the immortal body of Christ entring into our body altereth chaungeth it And as a poison mingled with that which is wholesom marreth and corrupteth it so the immortal body of Christ maketh that where in to it is received like to an immortal nature And a litle after in the same place The body of Christ is ioyned to the bodies of the faithful to the end that by such a contunction with an immortal body man also maybe made partaker of immortalitie The very like comparison vseth S. Cyril archbisshop of Alexandria Aâ— asparkle of her put in straw or hey seueth al on fier so Christ IESVS the word of God by meanes of the Eucharist ioyned to our corruptible nature causeth it wholy to rise immortal Much to like purpose writeth S. Chrysostom alluding yet rather to M. B. similitude of the Apothecaries shop and receit Let vs al that are sicke saith he go for remedie to Christ with great faith For if they which only touched the hem of his garment were forthwith healed how much more shal we be strengthned if we receiue him wholy in to vs And to be brief nothing is more vsual in the auncient fathers then to argue and proue the resurrection of the body to life eternal by this reason for that we receiue Christs immortal and glorious body in the blessed Sacrament For this cause the auncient and general Councel of Nice calleth the sacrament a pledge or symbole of our resurrection S. Athanasius a defence and preservatiue to the resurrection of eternal life S. Optatus a pledge of eternal life and hope of resurrection The like whereof is found in many other fathers namely S. Hilarius Al vvhich reasons speeches and comparisons are grounded vpon that sentence of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud hath life eternal and I wil raise him vp in the last day VVhich place the fathers interprete of receiving Christ in the blessed Sacrament Namely to allege one in steed of many S. Cyril writeth that not only our sowles were to be elevated by the holy ghost to life everlasting but also this rude grâ—sse terrestrial body of ours is to be reduced to immortalitie by eating the agreeable food of Christs body And when Christ saith I wil
raise him vp he meaneth Corpus meum quod comedetur my body which shal be eaten in the Sacrament shal raise him Al which sayings of Christ and those blessed Martyrs and byshops the reader must not so interpret as our adversaries cavil most peevishly as though we or they taught that no man could be saved or rise to life everlasting but such as receiued Christ in the sacrament For nether they nor we doubt but the Pa 〈…〉 s and good men in the old testament as like wise children diuers others in the new shal be saved who yet never came to the actual participation of this diuine mysterie But as our Sauiour and al the church maketh marryrdom a soveraine and principal meane to attaine eternal life not excluding for al that other good vertues as preaching praying fasting almes geving c. and on the contrary by like assured ground of Christ and al scripture heresie and infidelitie is the high and brode way to hel albeit vitious life covetousnes vsury rayling and lying and such other qualities let men thither fast inough in like maner this communication of Christs immortal and glorious body in the sacrament is a special grace and singular prerogatiue in the nevv testament whereby our bodies sovvles are set in possession of life eternal although gods infinite goodnes hath provided vs other meanes besides VVhich singular and excellent grace whereas vve see attributed not to the eating of the Paschal lamb nor to Manna not to the Iewes bread not to reading the scripture not to preaching not to beleeving that Christ dyed and rose again for our iustification in al vvhich yet we being faithful men eate the flesh of Christ spiritually and also drinke his blud but only to the eating of this dreadful mysterie hereof it foloweth invincibly that both Christ in thus speaking the church in thus beleeving the auncient fathers martyrs bysshops and Councels in thus expounding vnderstood Christs body to be truly really and in deed receiyed in this Sacrament far othervvise then by only faith by vvhich he vvas eaten in the old figures ceremonies of the lavv as vvel as in the nevv testament or any sacrament hereof according to the ProtestaÌ„ts opinion Of Christs body no vvays ioyned nor deliuered vvith the sacrameÌ„t The Argument M. B. hereticalls in words magnifieth the sacrament whereas in truth he most abaseth it making Christs body to be ioyned therewith as sâ—enderly as with any creature in the world more slenderly then it is ioyned with a word spoken Christ is more â—ighly ioyned to a picture or image then to the 〈◊〉 or Scottish sacrament Two properties appointed by M. B. to their signe the first that it reâ—embleth Christ which it doth no more then any other creature The â—â—â—â—â— that with the bread Christs body is ioyntly offered to the communicants in such sort at the minister offereth bread This is confuted first as wicked and prophane It is further confuted by order of the Scottish Communion bâ—â—ke by the doctrine of the Protestant writers and al â—â—â—â—nists Christ is no otherwise ioyned to the Geneua Supper or eaten therein then in any vulgar meate or in beholding any creature â—â—der heauen By the Caâ—u nists owne doctrine and M. B. also Christ is not as al receiued in their Supper CHAP. 7. THat M. B. were of the self same iudgement with those auncient fathers touching Christs real presence in the sacrameÌ„t I should gather out of these his words novv râ—hâ—arsed and very plainly do they import so much his speaches comparisons and similitudes vvaighed in them selves implie conclude the same nether could a man make any doubt thereof were it not that he being an heretike the nature of heresie maketh vs suspect that he speaketh not plainly roundly sincerely in simple faith as did those old good fathers And our Sauiour teacheth that the maner of heretikes is to cloth them selues with sheepes clothing to preteÌ„d simplicitie to speake Catholikely to couer and colour their impietie with the phrase words speech of the church of Catholikes Catholike pastors whereas inwardly they are rauening wolues they meane daÌ„nably they meane as heretikes Apostataes by such pleasant sweet speeches and benedictions inteÌ„d nothing els but to seduce the harts of innocents and simple plain meaning Christians and as S. Peter teacheth they being lying masters first vvorke their owne destruction after by seyned counterfeit words make marchandize of other men seeking to draw them also to like damnation whereof before I haue shewed very euident example in Caluin a chief father of this heresie and here M. B. ensueth his steppes as like him as one Protestant may be like an other For hauing by thus many arguments persuaded his auditorie that he had a maruelous high reuerend opinion of the Sacrament immediately as being possessed with that spirit of giddines which guideth al men of his stamp he geueth furth as many arguments to the contrary The first which is the around foundation of the rest is this Ye may perceiue 〈◊〉 by your owne eyes that the signe and the thing signified are not locally conioyned that is they are not both in one place Ye may perceiue also by your outward senses that the holy of Christ and the signes are not conioyned corporally Their bodies touch not one the other Ye may perceiue also they are not visibly conioyned Al this hitherto if a Iew or Pagan be present at the supper he seeth as wel as the minister and therefore thus far furth their faith is much alike But this is a negatiue and priuatiue disioyning separation of the signe and thing signified let vs heare of their vnion coniunction VVe can craue no other coniunction then may stand and agree with the nature of a sacrament â— therefore here is no other then a sacramental coniunction I graunt nether doth any Catholike require any other But what meane yow by a sacramental coniunction any thing els besides a tropical figuratiue or significatiue representation speake plainly that the reader may know where to fynd yow what yovv beleeue vvhat yovv vvould haue him to take vnto The coniunction saith he betwixt Christs body the sacrament is a relatiue coÌ„iunction Looke what coÌ„iunction is betwixt the word which ye heare and the thing signified which comes to your mind the like coniunction is bewixt the signe which yow see and the thing signified in the sacrament Ye heare not the word so soone spoken but incontinent the thing signified comes to your mynd Speake I of things past to come or neuer so far absent I can not so soone speake of them in this language but the things signified comes in your mind no doubt because there is a coniunction betwixt the word the thing signified Hauing explicated this at large in fine thus he draweth to his conclusion Alwaies
the Communion vvas ended and the CoÌ„municants had drunke their parts didst not thow forbid me to powre backe again in to the tankard the wine that remained VVhen the breads appointed for the Eucharist were spent and new were to be taken and deliuered out didst not thow repeate againe the institution of Christ and that in solemne musike VVhen as in the congregationâ— would not willingly permit to thee the administration of the cuppe didst not thow commaund thy colleag that in the face of the congregation he should take the cup from me by force And for that cause did not I hold it fast and with both my hands So bissie vvas this good minister to hold fast the cup lest he should leese his drinke and to omit al the former vvranglings bravlings quarellings by your Diuinitie so bissie was Christ in heauen also to make correspondeÌ„ce as yow cal it concurrence and ioynt effering with him to resemble the action of this minister ¶ Again hovv chaunceth it that yovv forget so soone the forme of ministring your Communion vvhere it is precisely noted that the people not the minister distribute and diuide the bread among themselues and so this your sacramental signification of Christ as bissie as the minister when as the minister sitteth stil and doth nothing is cleane lost and Christ left as quiet and voyd of such bissines in heauen who in deed medleth nothing vvith your communions as he vvas before Thirdly which is the chief I maruel you perceiue not your owne vvrong and false application of your communicating vvhen yovv so expresse eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blud by the ministers action deliuering the bread as though the only instrument of deliueringâ— vvere the minister and the broad and as though vvith the bread it were stil deliuered when as yow make such a ioynt-offering and concurrence as here yovv describe that the signe and thing signified are offered both together one time and in one action say other where that so 〈◊〉 is the body blud of Christ conioyned with that bread 〈…〉 wine that as soone as thou receiuest that bread in to thy mouth if thow be a faithful man or woman so soone thow receiuest the body of Christ in to thy sowle that by faith Know yow not that this doctrine is refuted by every SacrameÌ„tarie Protestant I suppose that ever wrote of the sacraments VVho is there among them al that ever wrote a booke of common places but he hath one railing invectiue against the Papists because they taught that Gratia dei est alligata sacramentis Gods grace his body and his blud remission of synnes is ioyned or annexed to the sacraments For by alligata they meane not tyed or bound as a thief is with ropes but as by gods creation phisical vertue is ioyned to causes natural moral vertues to causes moral and theological graces to sacraments which are like causes efficient and instruments theological by Christ ordayned to such effects and ends Reade vvith a litle more diligence Calvins Institutions whereas yovv vvil haue the body and blud of Christ truly conioyned with your bread and vvine and likevvise grace of regeneration vvith the vvater of baptisme yovv shal synd that Caluin chargeth yovv in any case not to say so nor to thinke that any vertue at al much lesse that fountayne head-spring of al vertues is conioyned with any sacrament Reade his commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Ephesians and yovv shal see him most strongly after the principles of your gospel to beate dovvne al this ioynt offering and ioynt receiving The libertie of gods spirite and grace of god is not tyed to the signes saith he and many receiue the signe that are not partakers of the grace not only through their fault because they refuse it but euen by the very nature of the sacrament and ordinance of God therein For that the signe is common to al good and bad but the spirite which delivereth the thing signified is â—euen only to the elect chosen Reade Zuinglius and he vvil teach yovv that herein yovv erre notably Some there are saith Zuinglius which suppose the sacraments to be such signes as when we vse them that is inwardly done in our harts which outwardly is signified by the sacrament But this is false For so the libertie of gods spirite should be bound if he were driuen to worâ—â— inwardly vpon those whom we marke with the sacraments outwardly Reade Musculus and yovv shal find that be vpon the like ground condemneth your opinion as vnreasonable according to the Protestant theologie VVhen Christians are baptized saith Musculus the things signified by the external sacrament are wrought in the elect as pleased the spirite of Christ ether before or after or in the very act of baptizing And therefore let no man thinke that the spirite is so tyed to the external sacrament that he worketh spiritually and effectually ether in the harts of al that be baptized or ever in the very act of baptisme He is a mad man that so thinketh c. And it is very absurd to tye the operation of the holy ghost which is most free to the external act of baptisme Reade Bullinger and he vvil teach yovv that faithful Christians do not then first receiue gods grace and beauenly gifts when they receiue the sacramental signes But first they haue the things signified after at leasure they take the signes c. So when we baptise children we protest clearely that we do not then first in baptisme geue them the grace of god which before they wanted but by baptisme we seale and confirme that which they had receiued before and in like maneris it in the supper eodem modo fit in caena Finally reade Peter Martyr Bucer Beza Occolampadius any Zuinghan Caluinist or Anabaptist and yovv shal find them to reproue this your opinion as Papistical And vvhat need I to obiect particular doctors vvhereas the vniuersal scope and preaching of al Caluinists and Caluinisme is plaine contrarie So soone saith this man as thow receiuest the bread into thy mouth if thow be faithful thow receiuest the body of Christ by faith in to thy sowle So soone say yovv and no sooner not before VVhen at your supper there be 2 or 3. hundred doth not the last maÌ„ â—ate Christ by faith before his turne come to receiue the bread into his mouth Al the time of the Sermon al the time of the thankes geuing al the time of the communioÌ„ when he seeth the bread brâ—ker and wine powred cut and he by occasion thereof thinketh on Christs passion doth he not spiritually by faith eate Christ Do not yovv defend this to be the proper spiritual eating of your supper It is evident and manifestly declared before VVherefore this is a very iest and plaine mockety to say that so soone as thow
receiuest the bread into thy mouth so soone thow receiuest Christs body by faith whereas it is receiued as wel before as wel after and no more nor no sooner vvith that bread then vvithout it ¶ Yovv vvil ansvvere I suppose that vvhat so ever your vvords are yet your meaning is that this coniunction ioynt offering is only sacramental that is after your sense tropical significatiue as in a signe and so the minister deliuereth Christs body and blud and vvith the bread vvine the body and blud is truly conioyned for that as aftervvards yovv say that signe wakeneth al the outward senses and putteth vs in remembrance of Christs body and blud vvhich is the only coniunction that yovv or your maisters can stand to See novv vvherevnto this your great wonderful coniunction as treacherously yow cal it is come to Christ is conioyned vnto it because vvhen vve see bread broken and vvine povvred out this wakeneth our senses causeth vs to remember Christ As much doth bread eaten and vvine povvred out of the flagon in the feast of every good Christian man or if it do not at lest the vvine and bread is as apt to signifie so much at every Christian mans breakefast dinner beâ—uer and supper as in your communion the nature of the bread being al one and Christian men having euer sâ—ue faith as vve must presuppose vvhich is nothing bettered by the breaking of the bread in one place more then in an other As much doth the cutting vp of a capon of a hen eating of a good peece of beef or mutton or vvhat so ever soode besides For any one of these or the like vvakeneth al our outvvard sensés as vvel as your bread and vvine And then supposing this to be eaten of good Christians who as the Apostle teacheth vvhether they eate or drinke or vvoorke or play geue thankes to god for al things in the name of Christ Iesus and so questionles haue a faith by vvhich only and no other vvaies Christ is eaten in the communion as M. B. teacheth and is the vniuersal doctrine of the sacramentaries and Caluinists hereof it folovveth cleerly and plainly that the second part of his coniunction of Christ with the sacramental bread al this ioynt offering ioynt receiving al this concurrence this secret and mystical coniunction for by these many vvords laborious affectatioÌ„ of divers phrases he wovld make his auditory imagine some great matter in their bread vvine is as vvel truly found performed vvheÌ„ ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ together eate any kind of meate or drinke any kind of drinke VVhat need I to stand vpoÌ„ the termes of meate drinke vvhereas Christ is as truly eaten vvithout al meate aud drinke yea better a great deale vvhen vve fast and eate nothing For the eating of Christ by faith vvhich only they acknovvledge and the same no lesse out of the supper then in it is vvhen by any occasion vve thinke on Christ VVhich vve may do far better vvhen vve fast then vvhen vve feast vvhen vve absteyne from breakefast dinner and supper then vvhen vve supper as also by considering any creature of God vve haue cause to thinke of Christ that is thus to eate Christ as vvel as vvhen vve see the bread of their communion broken or the vvine povvred out VVhen vve see the Sunne or Moone shine and thinke that Christ is the light sent in to the vvorld by faith we eate Christ as vvel as in this communion bread VVhen vve looke vpon a riuer or founteyne and thinke that his spirite is the founteyne of living vvater vve truly eate Christ VVhen vve see a lamb a covv a calf or any thing vvhich hath any resemblance of Christ and by it remember Christ vve eate Christ by faith yea vvhen vve see an heretike or thinke on them and blesse our selues desire God to keepe vs from them as S. Iohn did vvhen he savv Cerinthus vve eate Christ and in al these a thousand like yea as hath bene said in al creatures of the vvorld vvhen they occuâ—re to the remembrance of a good Christian and put him in mind of Christ he eateth Christ and Christ is as truly offered to his sovvle and there is the very self same ioynt offering and ioynt-receiuing and concurrence and secret mystical coniunction vvith and in euery sticke stone tree vniuersally euery creature to euery good Christian and faithful man as is vvith their bread in their bread euery one of these creatures as much wakeneth the outward senses vvherein coÌ„sisteth the vertue efficacie of their signe as doth the bread and vvine in their Scottish or Geneuian supper hovv so ever they set a face and floorish on the matter to make it seeme somvvhat els ¶ Nay if M. B. could learne once to speake plainly and properly and agreably to his ovvne doctrine as I feare he vvil neuer he should not attribute to the receiuing of the bread and vvine any communication of Christs flesh and blud at al but only a sealing and ratification of the same flesh and blud afore eaten by faith For as the â—eale of the evidence to vse his ovvne explication sense similitude vvords geueth not the right of any thing but the consent of the parties and bargaine or contract betvvene them made before vvherevnto being drawen in to an autentical forme and instrument the seale is ioyned for confirmation and ratification of such antecedent contract euen so these men in their communion hauing first seene the bread broken whereby their sight informed did conuoy to the mynd the remembrance of Christ vvhich is the eating of his flesh or hauing heard the word preached distinctly and al the parts opened vvhich also is eating of Christ by faith thereafter receiue the sacramental bread and wine as seales appended to that former eating vvhereby they are assured that they haue eaten rightly This is also our English theologie in this case the same most agreable to Iohn Caluin Although saith M. Ievvel vve vse to say that the sacrament ioyneth vs to God God to vs yet in plaine speach it is not the receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t that worketh our ioyning to God consequently by like reason nether the ioyning of god or Christ to vs. For who so euer is not ioyned to god before be receiue the sacraments he eateth and drinketh his â—â—â—â— iudgment The sacraments be seales and witnesses and nâ—â— properly the causes of this coniunction And M. B. him self within a few pages after vtterly destroyeth this ioynteffering of Christs body with the bread and in very precise termes flatly denyeth that which here he affirmeth whereof forth with I shal entreate One thing first of al the reader may note that whereas this man so magnifieth the worke of our renovation from the state of sinne to gods grace and saith that this worke of our new creation
is ten thousand times greater then the worke of our first creation then to worke this our new creation appointeth for a meanes this wonderful coniunction of Christ with the sacramental signe and addeth farther that except he be not only receiued but also both deuoured for so he speaketh and digested he can do vs no good and yet in fine to procure and worke our second creation ten thousand times greater then our first creation assigneth for the meane such a graceles bit of bread ten thousand times yea ten thousand millions of times of lesse force then vvas the vvorker of our first creation to speake the lest a man may iustly deeme of him that he very negligently considereth the greatnes of these creations ether the first or second and that he vttereth these vvords rather like a mery iester or player on a stage then a sober preacher of gods vvord from the pulpit A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter The Argument M. B. to the more disgrace and abasing of their supper proposeth certain questions with their answeres which as they are partly true in the Scottish or Geneua supper so are they false in the Sacrament of Christs church The first two are 1. VVhether one man geue the signe the thing signified that is Christs body 2. in one action which he denieth land therein manifestly contradicteth him self because saith he no man hath such power no more then he hath to remit sinnes Against which it is proued that man hath pover to remit sinnes and therefore may haue that other power also VVithal is shewed the great difference betwene Christs baptisme and S. Iohns which M. B. ignorantly wickedly confoundeth M. B. his first question is plainly answered and resolued by S. Chrysostom against him and therein is conteyned an answere to his second question The third assertion that Christs body is not promised nor geueÌ„ to be receiued corporally is likewise refuted by plain scriptures which teach a real and corporal eating and not only by faith Such corporal receiuing of Christ M. B. can not auoyd but by foolish and shameful peruerting of Christs words whereof he geueth in this place a faire example to the manifest abasing of the Scottish Communion CHAP. 8. ANd yet as though hetherto he had not sufficiently against his former words disgraced abased his poore tropical bread he goeth much farther folovving the right principles of his ovvne Theologie vvhere sacraments signifie as vvords do vvhich euery natioÌ„ may alter as they list so he likevvise falleth more and more to chaunge and abase their Communion bread and drinke and in deed vseth it altogether as a signe of their ovvne inuention For vvhich as hetherto he hath alleaged no one text or syllable of scripture to proue I meane the thing in questioÌ„ betvvene him and the Catholiks touching this sacrament for impertinently one or tvvo places he hath quoted otherwise so here he somvvhat more dravveth from it al estimation due to a sacrament of Christ and his church though vvhen he hath left it at the vvorst it is good inough for the ministerie of Iohn Caluin and Iohn Knox and their congregations 4. questions he proposeth ansvvereth the first VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to the communicants by one man or no He ansvvereth No. Next VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to them in one action He answereth No. Thirdly VVhether it be geuen to one instrument The ansvvere is No. Fourthly VVhether the signe and thing signified be offered receiued after one maner The answere likevvise is No. Al thâ—se he vvilleth his auditors to marke diligently then saith he litle difficultie shal â—e find iâ— the sacrament vvhich I confesse For al these negative ansvveres standing for true there is no more difficultie in their sacrament then in any other moâ—sel of bread or meate vvhich vve eate euery day And these ansvveres being restrayned to their Scottish and Geneua signes I admit for good and so let them passe But that the Christian reader be not deceiued and thinke likevvise of the sacraments of Christs church in that respect I wil severally shevv the vanitie and falsitie of them especially the first three and examine his reasons if he bring any to iustifie these negatiue answeres For the first thus he argueth The signe and thing signified are not both geven by one man and this ye see clearly For the bread and wine ye see your self that the ministers offers he geues yow the sacrament As that signe is an earthly and corporal thing so an earthly and corporal man geues it Now the thing signified iâ— spiritual and heavenly incorruptible the geving whereof Christ hath reserved to him self only Therefore there are two geveâ—â— in this sacrament This first reason how strong so ever it seeme in the Caluinian Synagoge touching their signe yet is it but weake anb slender in the catholike church where the veritie of the sacraments is not tried by the clearenes of the eye sight for so sometimes the ministers dog that standeth by him seeth perhaps more in the sacrament then he yong men that haue good eyes more then old whose eye sight is dim therefore need spectacles but by Christs ordinance the cleareâ—es of faith And this being vvith vs more sure and certaine M. B. his Therefore folovveth not very vvel that Therefore there be two gevers of this sacrament To this phisical reason which yet is the very ground of al the rest â—or from phisick and philosophie and sense and their â—iesight proceedeth al their â—aith or rather infidelitie against this diuine mysterie he ioyneth certaine theological as The minister geues the earthly thing Christ keepes the ministerie of the heauenly to him self and he dispenses his owne body and blud to whom and when he pleases For why â—f any man in the world had power to geue Christs body and â—lud no question that man should haue power to clense the hart and conscience for the blud of Christ hath that power with it and consequently should haue power to forgeue sinnes Now it is only God who may forgiue sinnes and therefore it is not possible that the ministerie of the heauenly thing can be in the â—over of any man In these vvords the reader may first â—â—cal to memorie M. B. contradiction to his former â—â—ords vvhere he taught hovv the sacrament signifing and the thing signified that is Christs body were coâ— ioyned For the second part of that coniunction he there made to consist in a continual mâ—â—â—al concurring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and thing signified were both offred together receiued together at â—â—â— time and in one action c. And immediatly after The second point of this coniunction stands in a ioynt-offering and ioynt-receiuing and this I cal a concurrence Here he
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
me seemeth if partly to avoid superstitioÌ„ partly to correct their ovvne error principally for truthes sake they vvould from hence forth cal their coÌ„mumons rather breakefasts then Suppers For so should men thinke of them as divinely as they deserve and whereas the Protestants cal it a supper imitating that vvord in the Apostle where certainly he calleth not the sacrament but other feasts by the name of our lords Supper they should amend that oversight and vvithal speake more soundly and according to truth as P. Martyr hath very discreetly noted vvriting vpon that same place of the Apostle For in respect of the time and our emptie stomake it were saith he more reason to cal it a breakfast or dinner then a supper And this is the true right issue of the nevv vvord devised by Iohn Caluin and approved by M. B. of that word which they require to the essence of their sacrament a vvord which maketh al singular their communions and sacraments to be of a cleane different nature from that sacrament vvhich Christ instituted for that their sacrament is framed in an other mould hath though not always an other matter yet ever an other forme which geveth the essence to every thing then that of Christs institution theirs receiving al life sovvle perfection and integritie from the ministers cleere voyce and sermon or the receivers faith whereas Christs sacrament receiued his integritie and perfection other ways not by such meanes Again this word of theirs maketh not only their sacrament no sacrament being compared vvith Christs Institution but maketh it also nothing els but common bread for the most part being examined even by this very word which them selues haue inuented as hath bene now declared and the learned reader shal doubtles find most true if he examine the communions and suppers vsed in England France Geneua Zurick ZuizzerlaÌ„d c. by this vvord here appointed as necessarie to separate their sacramental supper from vulgar prophane And if their supper be no sacrament of Christ according to Christs order nor yet according to their owne rules and Theologie vvhat regard would they haue vs to make of it How shal vve esteeme of it as diuine sacred and celestial vvhen as them selues conclude and proue that it is nothing but a common peece of bread an earthly creature voyd of al grace and spirite a dead element not worth â— straa fitter for Pagans then Christians more meet for dogs then men M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ The Argument M. B. very notably contradicteth him self in this first serâ—â—â—â— touching the lords Supper as is shewed by sundry examples As before cap. 10. it is proved that they haue no sacrament for want of the word which is the formal part of the sacrameÌ„t so here by a brief repetition of sundry things wanting in the material part which things M. B. consesseth to be of the substance of the sacrament it is manifestly concluded that their supper is no sacrament of Christs institution in respect of the matter no lesse then of the forme CHP. 11. And thus much concerning the word the formal part of the sacrament by vvhich as the more principal vve see proved that their Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ Novv for a conclusion of this first Sermon I vvil gather proue as much by the other part vvhich is the matter of the supper according to M. B. his ovvne division out of both vvhich the Christian reader shal be able to gather a most strong and sure resolution that it possibly can not be any sacrament vvhich saulteth both in the one part and in the other vvhich nether hath right matter nor right forme Only first of al I vvil in fevv vvords put the reader in remembrance of M. B. notorious contradictions vsed in this short sermon vvhich I vvisn the rather to be marked partly for that they shew this man to be a right scholer of Iohn Caluin whom he so narowly folovveth eveÌ„ in this blind kind of vvriting and preaching partly for that the original cause of this such opposite doctrine in them both is one that is to say an ambitious affectation vvith high ample and maiestical vvords to vvin some good opinion to their single bread and drinke among their simple auditors vvhom by such glorious speach as it vvere by a baite and pleasant allurement they vvould gladly dravv to some honest opinion of their late devised fantasie These contradictions albeit they be scattered thorough out this vvhole treatise yet the 7. chapiter and 8. and 9. yelde better store of them as for example The bread not only signifieth the body of Christ but hath it also truly conioyned with it For if it signified only a picture were as good And yet the bread is so far from having this coniunction that it vvanteth the signification of a picture I say it signifieth not so much as doth the picture vvhich repre'enteth Christ vnto our remembrance of it self and by it self and so doth not the bread and vvine vvithout a sermon yea and then also it representeth him very doubtfully Againe the bread and wine truly and really deliver the substance of Christ vnto vs For except first we receiue the substance we can haue no participation of the fruit and merits And therefore the bread wine are a very hand which delivereth vs that substance and with that hand is Christs fiesh verely conioyned as a medicine in the boâ—e of the Apotecaries shop And yet the bread doth no wayes deliver or exhibite the body of Christ but only signifie the same For it is a sacrament and ye must looke for no other coniunction then sacramental that is for no other coniunction then significatiue and figuratiue For that is al that a sacrament valueth with these men Again that which we receiue in the sacrament is signified by the bread and vvine is not the benefites of Christ or vertue which fleweth from him only but the very substance of Christ him self For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I first get the substance it self And yet the blud of Christ vvhich vve receiue is not the substance of Christ nor any part of his substance For it is no other thing but the quickening vertue and power that fâ—wes from Christ and the merites of his death And we drinke of that blud when we drinke of the lively power vertue that flowes cut of that blud Again there is a wonderful high and mystical yet very true and real coniunction betvvene the bread Christs body yet for al that the bread is no more coÌ„iovned there vvith then Christ is â—oyned with the devil For there is no other coniunction then is betvvene the vvord spoken and the thing vvhich the vvord signifieth and so vvhen Christ commaunded the devils out of
here in the end iterateth againe and affirmeth as a most irrefragable and vndoubted veritie In the beginning he told vs that in the sacrament are two sorts of signes signes elemental as bread vvine signes ceremonial He told vs vvithal that there was neuer a ceremonie which Christ instituted but it was as essential as the bread and wine VVhat ever Christ commaunded to be done what ever he spake or did in that whole action it is essential it must be done and no ioâ—e can be omitted but ye pervert the whole institution Here for a conclusioÌ„ he saith VVhen the sacrament is spoyled of the essential forme it is no sacrament There is an essential forme in baptisme and there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the vse of the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is I baptize thee in the name of the father of the sonne of the holy ghost Leave out any of these 3. or do it in the name of any one of the three persons only ye tyne the essential forme of baptisme In the supper if ye leaue â—uâ— the least ceremonye ye tine the essential forme and so it is no sacrament This being true that euery ceremonie that Christ did euery word that Christ spake every action of his vvas so essential that no iote thereof may be omitted but vve destroy the sacrament hereof I conclude that their Scottish sacrament is no sacrament of Christ for that it lacketh many of these so necessarie signes and essential ceremonies First because Christ before the delivering of his sacrament vsed a ceremonie signifying the lovvlines of hart the puritie and cleanes of conscience required in them vvhich come to receiue the sacrament After he gaue them a very diuine instruction and commaunded them in most effectual vvords to do the like vvhich coÌ„maundement according to the tenor and maner of speech carieth vvith it as precise severe an obligatioÌ„ aâ— any vvords of Christs supper to a Protestant it should vveigh as deepely binde as much For that precept Do this in remeÌ„brance of me examined in coÌ„mon iudgement and according to the sound and poise of the vvord bindeth no more nor so much as being vttered vvith lesse circumstance fevver vvords importing a necessarie coÌ„maundement then vvhen Christ saith after that vvasshing I haue geven yow an example that as I haue done to yow so yow do also Amen Amen I say to yow a servant is not greater then his lord nether is an Apostle greater then be that sent him If yow know these things yow shal be blessed if yow also do them Here is one ceremonie which Christ did many wordes which he spake at the InstitutioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t Nether this ceremonie vse the Scottish ministers at their supper nor speake they these vvords ergo they omit somvvhat vvhich Christ did and spake Al vvhose doings and speeches being essential so essential that in omitting any one ye tyne and destroy the sacrament hereof it folovveth that their Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ Next Christ 3. taking the bread in to his hands gaue thankes to his father and vvithal 4. blessed sanctified the bread after he 5. tooke the cuppe in like maner and geving thanks to his father 6. vvithal blessed sanctified the cuppe as both the Evangelists S. Paule Caluin Ievvel and Beza confesse The Scottish supper hath no such blessing no such sanctification of the bread vvine but purposely omitteth it and therefore here are 2. more essential ceremonies tvvise vsed by Christ and yet neuer at any time vsed but neglected and contemned by them in their ministration therefore their supper vvanteth somvvhat perteyning to his essence and so is no sacrament Further more 7. Christ did not once only breake the bread tooke to him self a portioÌ„ willing them to breake the rest and distribute among them but him self did distribute and breake it to them and delivered it with his owne hands signifying by that action that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except him self gaue it In the Scottish supper the minister breaketh not the bread to everie communicant he delivereth it not with his owne hand as Christ did and so he leaveth out a very important ceremonye and therefore their supper can not be accompted Christs Sacrament After Christ had taken the bread geven thankes blessed broken so forth finally for declaration that they might vnderstaÌ„d where vnto al the premisses tended he spake these words which were most essential and concerned the substance of the sacrament This is my body which is geven and broken for yow This is the new testament in my blud which is shed for yow These vvords of Christ vsed by Christ in the Institution of his sacrament the Scottish ministerie vseth not in the ministration of their supper Ergo their supper is no Sacrament of Christ To M. B. his supposed reply that the vvords of Christ are not omitted for that before the sermon the minister historically out of the pulpit mentioneth Christs institution ansvvere is already made that this nothing helpeth them but much more shevveth their infinite pride and contemptuous breach of Christs order For Christ first of al tooke the bread in to his hands blessed it brake it after pronounced those vvords they cleane contrary first of al reherse those vvords out of the pulpit vvhere there is no bread high them much lesse haue they the bread in their hands as Christ had I ansvvere furthermore that such historical narration being told an hovvre or 2. before the coÌ„munion and the entier Sermon coming betvvene can haue no relation to the blessing or sanctifying of their Supper For as M. B. here telleth vs there is an essential forme in baptisme there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is saith he I baptise thee in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost And according to the order of the communion booke the minister as he speaketh these words taketh water in his hand layeth it vpon the childs forehead VVhereby vve see that the essential forme is to haue the words ioyned with the element if the minister speake the words at one hovvre lay on vvater the next vvithout the vvords he tyneth and destroyeth the essential forme of baptisme and so it is no sacrament Ergo by like reason vvhereas the sacrament of Christs body hath a like essential forme as baptisme hath the Minister making a narration of Christs vvords before the sermon as it vvere at 9. of the clocke and after an hovvre at ten delivering bread and vvine vvithout the vvords of Christ tyneth and destroyeth the sacrament of the supper and so the Scottish supper is no sacrament of
Christ These fevv instances and exceptions for example sake I geue to the Christian reader vvho may find a number of this sort if he please advisedly to consider that vvhich bath bene said of this matter heretofore And if novv according to M. B. his resolution a man leaving out the least ceremonie vsed by Christ in his supper perverteth the whole institution and marreth the sacrament so as it becommeth no sacrament vvhat horrible prophaners perverters and destroyers of gods sacraments are these vvho leaue out so many and those not the least but the greatest vveightiest ceremonies And if they haue no sacrament vvho lacke in the administratioÌ„ any signe elemental or ceremonial any material part because they be al substaÌ„tial how far are these men from having any shew colour pretence or similitude of Christs Sacrament who lack so many signes ceremonial substantial besides vvhich is the head top leaue out cleane al the vvords of Christ vvhich in deed is the formal therefore the chief soveraine and principal part of the sacrament hovv soever it please these proud ministers to take that honour froÌ„ the vvord of Christ attribute it to their owne vvord Truly as the Catholike for sundry other reasons hath iust cause to abhorre their bread and vvine as polluted as schismatical as heretical as leading the high vvay to Gods vvrath and indignation to hel damnation so these arguments and reasons geven published by them selues suffise to proue as much to proue their communion a schismatical communion cleane divided from Christs communion a perverting a corrupting and destroying of his holy sacrament vvith vvhich it hath no more resemblance by this their ovvne confession then hath an ape vvith a man copper vvith gold heresie vvith religion and an angel of darknes vvith an angel of light Yea many times spiritually sprites of hel doubtles counterfeit Saints and Angels and many apes or munkeys sensibly counterfeit the actions of men vvith more likelihood colour and probabilitie then these mens apish and spritish communion resembleth the Divine Sacrament ordayned by our blessed Saviour Of names attributed to the Sacrament The Argument Of names by which the blessed Sacrament is called in the scripture It is not there called the Lords supper as M. B. falsely supposeth nor yet the Communion Toat it is called mensa domini our Lords table maketh nothing against the sacrifice but rather for it Of names by which the B. Sacrament according to M. B. opinion is called in the auncient fathers It is not called a publique action as by any proper name nor yet a banquet of loue VVhy it is called the Eucharist It was also called the Masse in the Primitiue church when that church generally and especially the church of Rome was most pure and therefore that name savoureth nothing of Idolatry as M. B. ignorantly concludeth But most commonly it was named the sacrifice of Christs body and as a true and real sacrifice was offered vnto God in the church euer since Christs time and first institution of it M. B. argument made to the contrarie answered CHAP. 12 Many of the things which M. B. handleth in these later Sermons or as he calleth them lessons and exercises are by him particularly vttered and entreated of so far furth as concerneth the Sacrament in the first sermon or lesson likewise so much hath bene said of them by me as I thinke convenient ether for proofe of the truth or confutation of error For which cause I shal when they occurre hereafter passe them over in silence or touch them more sleightly The first nevv matter mentioned in this lesson is about names geven to the SacrameÌ„t in holy scripture auncient fathers wherein he speaketh some truth which therefore I gladly embrace as that it is called in the booke of god The body and blud of Christ and never the figure trope signe or seale of that body and blud and therefore belike that being the proper name conteyneth also in proprietie of speech what it is Also it is called the coÌ„munion and participation of Christs body and blud vvhich implieth the former truth It is also called saith M. B. the supper of the lord not a prophane supper not a supper appointed for the belly for Christ had ended the supper that was appointed for the belly or ever he began this supper which was appointed for the sowle In this M. B. is somewhat deceiued as likewise in his explication of the next vz that it is called also in the bible The table of the Lord. It is not called the altar of the lord but the Apostle calâ— it a table to sit at and not an altar to stand at a table to take and receiue and not an altar to offer and propine That M. B. supposeth S. Paule to name the sacrament dominicâ—â— caenam our lords supper it is his error and not S. Paules meaning For albeit at the same time and in the same place whereof S. Paule speaketh Christs sacrament was also communicated vnto the faithful for which cause and also in regard of the time when Christ first instituted it some auncient fathers sometimes inscribe their treatises of the Sacrament De caena domini yet that the booke of god that is the bible and scriptures of god geue not this appellation to it it is plain inough by that place of S. Paule where only in al the scriptures of god that word is vsed For S. Paule mentioning that at these suppers of our lord some devoured al and had to much some could get nothing and rose a hungred some were drunke c. declareth thereby that this place can not directly be vnderstood of Christs sacrament except M. B. be of the opinion with some Puritans whom my self haue heard vpon this place to argue that at their Lords supper there should be not only bread and drinke but also varietie of other meate flesh fish rost and baked wine and beere according as it is in other suppers and feasts Vnto vvhich conceit M. B. by his discourse after ensuing seemeth somewhat to incline But the common opinion of learned men is otherwise that this place meaneth the church-feasts of old time termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were called dominicae caenâ— our lords feasts or suppers because they were kept at night in churches which were in the primitive church and also after called Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our lords howses whence I suppose our name kirke cometh to vvhich feasts the rich sort contributed liberally for the benefite and relief of the poore Before vvhich as S. Chrysostom supposeth though others thinke after the Sacrament vvas also received But that the vvords of S. Paule meane not the sacrament S. Chrysostom is very plaine the circumstance of the place proueth sufficiently This supper saith S. Chrysostom might rather be called humaine then divine potius humana quam dominica rather
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
his vvit and memorie be but very indifferent especially vvhen he is first vvarned by the minister and after seeth the bread and vvine conceive thus much as vvel as the most honest man in the congregation For let M. B. marke vvel vvhat it is to eate Christ spiritually in their sacrament By his ovvne definition and the coÌ„mon consent of his maisters this eating hath no relation or dependence of charitie of honestie of vertue of good life but only of faith Bring with yow to the table saith M. B. not one mouth only of your body but also the mouth of the sawle VVhat is that A constant persuasion in the death of Christ and al goes wel This persuasion my Protestant of vvhom I speake vvanteth not For I presuppose him to be no apostata though I graunt him to be an heretike and therefore he doubtles hath this mouth of his sawle and therefore eates Christ and so al goes wel Again As the mouth of thy body takes the bread so them â—â—â— of thy â—awle takes the body and blud of Christ by faith For by faith and a constant persuasion is the only way to eate the body and drinke the blud of Christ â—nwardly Then inwardly doth this evil Protestant eate Christs body and inwardly doth he drinke his blud For being a Christian though a bad one he must needs have a faith and constant persuasion of Christs death Christ saith Peter Martyr in the 6. of S. thou promised to gâ—ve his flesh to be eaten And that which he then promised he performed in his lâ—st supper But not then only He also performeth it now so often as we truly beleeve that he hath dyed for vs. VVhat need I repeatâ— that vvhich is most evident that the vvicked have this faith of beleeving Christs death therefore eaâ—e spiritually the flesh of Christ Calvin goeth one point further requiring that they beleeve Christ not only to have died vvhich only M. B. and Peter Martyr vâ—ge but also that he beleeve Christ to have risen again VVhâ—â—â—as I sinâ— in Beza is a question of great 〈◊〉 and not beleeved of many Protestants But yet I presuppose â—â—â— Protestant not to be proceeded so far but â—esting in the vulgar heresies of Calvins Institutions or the Scottish confession of faith not to deny Christs death or resurrection and then nothing yet is said but that he eateth Christ truly by faith be his life never so detestable And thus vvhereas M. B. saith that no evil receive Christ I must conclude rather that al evil receive him after their doctrine as now appeareth But yet remaineth one farther subtilitie vvhich M. B. afterwards toucheth and greatly magnifieth Learne me saith he to applie Christ rightly to thy sowle and thâ—w hâ—â— wonne al thow art a great Theologe Let vs in the name of God learne this high mystical point Is there any other applicatioÌ„ of Christ then by faith by beleeving his death and rejurrection No doubtles as Calvin Beza Martyr M. B. him self have often told vs. Then this is not so mystical a point nor able to make so great a Theologe except every â—inker and cobler that beleeves his Creed be among the Protestants a great Theologe because perhaps most of their chief Ministers and preachers beleeve not so much Na saith M. B. there is yet a farther degree deeper mysterie in this eating and application Let vs once have a plaine descriptioÌ„ thereof that we may know vvhere to rest and vvherevnto vve shal trust That M. B. geveth in these vvords The eating and drinking of the sowle is no other thing but the applying of Christ to my sowle the applying of his death and passion to my sowle Yet this must be made somwhat more plaine and intelligible For as M. B. obiecteth afterwards Christ him self his body and blud can not be geuen or applied to thee seing that looke how great distance is betwixt heaven and earth as great distance is there betwene the body of Christ and thy body or sowle even so touching Christs death passion that is now long sithence past and as the Apostle teacheth he being risen from death dieth no more but liveth at the right hand of God â—â—â—nally and how then applâ—e yow his death and passion to â—â—â—â— sowle Thus and this must vve take for the chief last resolution vvhich this man here geveth vs and vvhich 〈◊〉 learned maketh vs great and profound Theologes The eating of the sawle is no other thing but â—â—e applying of Christ to the sawle that is to beleeve that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes for me This as being the very key and summe of that he preacheth concerning this matter in his next sermon he enlargeth thus VVe eate the flesh of Christ by faith and drinke his blud chiefly in doing two things first in calling to remembrance Christs death and passion how he dyed for vs. The second point of this spiritual eating stands in this that I and every one of yow beleeve firmely that he died for me in particular that his blud was shed on the crosse for a ful remission and redemption of me and my sinnes In this staÌ„ds the chief principal point of eating Christs flesh VVel then now vve know a thorough perâ—ite definition and explication of this spiritual eating and drinking to vvit that every man in particular is bound to beleeve that Christ died for him for so I interpret M. B. his meaning and not that every man is bound to beleeve that Christ died for M. B. shed his blud for M. B. and purchased remission of sinnes for him as his vvords sound to conclude my purpose I say vvhat Protestant if he be a Christian doth not thus applie Christ vnto him self doth not thus eate the body of Christ and drinke his blud except he be in desperatioÌ„ or as hath bene said be an Apostata so no Christian For no man can have the name of a Christian â—â—cept he beleeve the death of Christ vvhich vvas suffered according to Christs owne teaching his Apostles both for the sinnes of every particular Christian also of the vvhole vvorld He is the lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world He came in to the vvorld and vvas incarnate to save his people from their sinnes To Christ al â—he prophetes geve testimonie that al receive remission of sinnes by his name vvhich beleeve in him He is the raunsom and propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours only but also for the whole world and so forth in every Gospel Epistle and almost in every chapter of ether Gospel or Epistle so plainly that no creature having the name of a Christian can doubt but Christ died for him and by his death purchased remission of his sinnes therefore every Christian be he never so evil applieth Christ
drinke in deed He that eateth my flesh and â—â—keth my blud abideth in me I in him If these be Christ owne vvords and if to have life everlasting to be raised that life in the last day if to abide in Christ and Christ â—â— abide in vs be some profite and al this Christ him â—â— ascribeth directly to his flesh which is the chief and principal instrument conioyned vvith the diuinitie vvhereby God vvorketh these effects vvhat Iewish impudencie â— infidelitie is it to say that Christs flesh profiteth nothing which flesh geveth life to the whole world Doubtles â—â— Christs flesh had profited nothing Christ vvould neâ—â— haue takeÌ„ flesh nor come in to the world vvhich he diâ— to this end that in his flesh by his flesh he miâ—hâ— coÌ„dâ—â—â— sinâ—e that by his flesh he might make an end of that â—â—â—â—â— vvhich vvas ether betwene Iew and Gentil or â—â—â— and man and in the body of his flesh â— as the Apostle speaketh â—â—â—ght reconcile man to God and by the some 〈…〉 ouen for vs the vvay to heaven And therefore M. â— denying Christs flesh to be profitable vvere as goodâ—â—â—â— vvith our Familianes that Christ never came in 〈◊〉 but only in spirite and mystically and so al Christi 〈…〉 may say to him and of him vvith S. Iohn that he in not confessing that Christ came in slesh vvhich by plaine consequence he flatly denieth is roâ— of God but of the devil he is a very seduâ—er and an Antichrist A third collectioÌ„â—e maketh of like qualitie vvith the â—ormer in these words Suppose Christs body be not â—uâ— in the band â—â— mouth of thy body And wherefore should it Hâ—th he not appointed bread wine for the nurriture of thy body and may not they coÌ„tent â—ow Are they not sufficient to â—uâ—rish yeâ— to this earthly temporal life God â—ath appointed Christ to be deliuered to the inward mâ—uth of the sowle The flesh of Christ is not appointed to nurrish thy body but to nurrish thy sowle in the hope in the groweth of that immortal life And therefore I say suppose the flesh of Christ be not delivered to the land of thy body â—et is it delivered to that part this is should nurrish Here a man might demaunde of M. B. how he caÌ„ match these words vvith the last If Christs flesh profite nothing how nurrisheth it the sowle to life immortal If it may nurrish the sowle vvhy not the body or â—ow is Christ potent to profite the one and impotent to benefit the other Nay if it profite nothing how can it be beneficial ether to body or sowle Next the reader may marke how directly his vvords tend to denial of the rosurrectioÌ„ of our bodies which in deed is an opinion already much spread among these bretherne and this denial of our corporal communication vvith Christ helpeth it forward excedingly For as though there vvere no difference betwene the body of a man and of a beast both vvhich once dying should lie rotte eternally vvhat need Christs flesh saith he for the nurriture of our body May not bread and wine and flesh fish such other good cheere as vve have in Scotland content yow Are not the sufficient to nurrish yow to this earthly and temporal life Yes truly And if vve had no more to looke for but this earthly and temporal liâ—e vvhich belike is al that M. B. and his â—elow ministers care for then earthly and temporal vitailes vvould serve and suffise vs abundantly But vvhereas Christians have an other life vvhich they expect besides this earthly and temporal vvhereas they hope that not only their sowle but their body also shal enioy life immortal they can not content them selves vvith bread and wine and flesh and fish and such other belly cheere vvith vvhich these Sadduces and Epicures can nurrish their bodies to an earthly and temporal life there with wel content them selves looking no farther but they require such food such meate as feedeth both body and sowle to life eternal VVhich seing Christ promised and promised that to that end he vvould geve his owne body the bread of life vve therefore in respect hereof contemne this Geneva bakers bread and tapsters vvine and tel M. B. that in thus preaching he preacheth like an â—picure like Marcion like Cerdon like a number of his felow ministers and Gospellers of this age vvho vpon pretence of the immortalitie of the sowle deny the immortalitie resurrection of the body both vvhich our faviour by imparting his pretious body to both nurrisheth to life immortal and these vvicked and prophane Sadduces by denving that grace vnto the one take from it so great a help and instrument of eternitie immortalitie vvhich in time also they vvil doubtles deny and take from the other Hereof hath bene spoken before vvhere vvas shewed that the auncient fathers drevv from this coÌ„munication of Christs body vvith our body a very common and very effectual argument to prove the resurrection and immortalitie of our bodies Here let it suffise to vvarne the reader thus much that as of old in the primitive church Cerdon Marcion Basilides Carpocrates and such other Archheretikes denyed the resurrectioÌ„ of our bodies the Catholike fathers S. Ireneus S. Gregorius Nyssenus Tertullian S. Hilarie and others argued against them out of this Catholike veritie that our bodies being made partakers of Christs body in this B. sacrament vvere thereby assured of resurrection life eternal so in our daies not only Catholike vvriters bisshops but even Luther also the Lutherans accuse and condemne the Calvinists and Sacramentarieâ— as gilty of those damnable heresies because against the general faith of al the auncient fathers they denie to Christian men the corporal and real participation of Christs body VVhen as Zuinglius had reproved Luther for vvriting that Christs body cateÌ„ corporally nurrisheth and preserveth our bodies to the resurrection Luther at large defending this proposition both by the authoritie of Christ and of the auncient fathers in fine concludeth thus According to the old fathers our bodies are nurrished with Christs body and blud to the end our faith and hope may rest vpon a more sound foundation that our body naturally receiving the sacrament of Christs body shal also in the resurrection become incorruptible and immortal And for that cause Christ wil be naturally in vs saith Hilarie both in our sowle and also in our body according to his word Ioannis 6. VVhich thing because Zuinglius and OF colampadius denyed he therefore pronounceth sentence against them as plain infidels These gentil Sacramentaries saith Luther make a faire way to deny God Christ and al the articles of our Creed and for a great part of them they have begon already to beleeve nothing And certain it is that they tend to a verie Apostasie in this article of the resurrection Certum
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
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
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
contradiction But he real presence of Christs body in the sacrament implies a contradiction making the body of Christ visible and invisible local not local at one tyme. Therefore God may not wil such a thing it is vnpossible to be true Let this then staÌ„d for one part of my example that god can not wil nor make Christs body really present in the sacrameÌ„t it is a flat contradictioÌ„ it is vnpossible to be true and as before he hath told vs God can no more wil this nor do this then he can lye be changed decay and become corruptible Next to come to the other part of my example and contradiction M. B. forgetting him self that he had fathered this false argumeÌ„t on vs before here repeateth it as new in these vvords Last of al they are not yet content but say Christ can make the bread his body and therefore his body is really present VVâ—â— be it graunted that thus vve say now last of al vvhich yow made vs say a good vvhile sithence and so geve a great signe that yow have a very vveake memory vvho much need a better for mendacem oportet esse memoreâ— suppose v. e last of al say thus vvhat is your answere Is it as before vvhen very reverently yow told his maiestie that he could not wil it and could not make it present no more then he could wil and make a lye No but of a cleane contrarie guise in these vvords That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being God can do what so ever he wil. Only let them shew that Christ of bread â—â—â— make his real flesh and then this controversie is brought is an end And is it so Is the controversie brought now to this end Surely then have yow spent much tyme paper and vvynd in vvast For hetherto al your speech and preaching hath bene to proove that God could not vvil nether could he do it And how chauÌ„ceth it that so suddeÌ„ly yow geve over your inuincible argument vvhich eveÌ„ now yovv held so fast so much extolled saing So this second ground holds fast The real presence implies a contradiction and there fore it is vnpossible for God to worke it But to omit this here yow may learne and so may the reader a right contradiction and thereby measure other God can no more make Christs body present in the sacrament then he can lye then he can be chaunged it is vnpossible it implies a contradiction Again for the other side VVe graunt Christ can make of bread his body so he can make his body really present and this is not vnpossible and then assuredly it implies no contradiction Here is a right perfit contradiction For it is yea and nay denying and affirming of one and the self same thing in one and the self same respect vvhich contradiction vvhen he findeth in vs in the Catholike vvriters touching this sacrament then let him hardly cry out that they persist in their opinion of very malice for mere coÌ„tradiction to the end only they may gainstand the truth found out of late by these Apostataes vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other and scarce any one vvith him self But in the meane time it is far more apparant that these vvords touch M. B. and his companions vvho against the faith of al Christendom against the first article of their Creed against al divine humane learning malitiously gainstand the truth deny that to Gods omnipotency being enforced so to do by the very drift of their vvicked spritish and Satanical doctrine vvhich them selves again graunt to Gods omnipotencie being driven so to coÌ„fesse as may be thought by the very instinct vvorke and operation of nature and natural reason vvhich in that it acknowlegeth a God acknowlegeth him to be omnipotent even in that vvhich these mens brutish and sensles Theologie if so I may cal it taketh avvay and vvithdraweth from him As for that he saith the question is not here whether Christ can make his body present but whether he wil if vve can shew that he wil so then this coÌ„troversie is brought to an end for probation hereof I vvil say no more then I have already For if Christs most evident and pregnant vvords set downe in the Euangelists and S. Paule This is my body the same which shal be offered and delivered for yow This is my blud which shal be shed for remission of your sinnes if the sense and meaning of these vvords testified by the practise of al Christian people that ever lived since Christs time in al places of the vvorld in Europe Asie and Africa if the vniforme consent of al Fathers and general Councels from Christs tyme vnto our age if in this miserable haruest of heretical corruption the authoritie of the most learned the most earnest and principal Gospellers vvho vpon the invincible clearnes and force of Christs vvords vvere in a maner against their vvils compelled to mainteyne the real presence of Christ in the sacrament may serue to prove vvhat Christs meaning vvas then have vve shewed and if vve be required vvil more amplie shew that this vvas Christs wil. And if this serve not then I know not vvhat may serve And I vvil not labour to fynd any demonstration more cleare vntil I may learne vvhat clearer demonstration M. B. desireth And yet I thinke more cleare thâ—â— this him self can not devise ¶ And how so ever he promise faire and say that if vve can proove that such vvas Christs wil he then is content to yeld this controversie is at end yet his discourse and preaching here sheweth the cleane contrarie Foâ— again he falleth in to his commoÌ„ place that Christs body must needs be bound to the rules of phisicke and nature A man may iustly suppose that he is scarce vvel aduised he so commonly gainsayeth him self and runneth vp downe backward and forward and forgetteth in one leafe vvhat he vvrote in the next before Two points yet remayne in this Sermon vvhich I vvil shortly dispatch because I have bene somwhat long in the former and these 2. depend altogether or very much of that vvhich hath bene now said VVhen saith M. B. they are dung â—â—â— of this that Christ by his omnipotencie can make his body present from vvhence he hath dunged vs out by graunting and confessing it him self they make their laâ—â— refuge and yet vve vvere at our last refuge before vvhere our last refuge vvas Christs omnipotencie to say that Christs body is exemed from phisical rules His answere to this is much like the former that is yea and nay graunting and denying For first he graunteth that Theologie is not subiect to physicke and yet Christs body the principal part of Theologie is subiect to phisicke For by by hâ— inferreth that if ye exeme Christs body from the law of phisicke which is the
it refuting it in sundry his vvritings by a number of places and examples of scripture calleth it an horrible error of the Anabaptistical sectâ— a Sâ—oical and exeâ—rable disputation Stoica est execrandâ— disputatio he nameth it furorem Antinomorum â—â—â—rious opinion of the Antinomians a sect of Protestants vvho reiected contemned the law by vvhich the vvhole law of God is made frustrate Finally he coÌ„deÌ„neth it as a most filthy heresie repugnaÌ„t to the whole body of scripture froÌ„ the very beginning for beginning at Adam Eva who had the spirit of God lost it by sinne he runneth thorough al the old new testamâ—t by both at large disproveth it to the ending as nothing can be more Thus it sensibly may appeare that this doctrine of M. B. of Calvin the Calvinists is the very bane poison as before of good life so here of true faith namely especially such articles of faith vvhereon good life and holy conuersation is principally builded If leaving these 2. later sermoÌ„s of preparation we shal a litle looke back revew 1 or 2. chapters of the former Seâ—moÌ„s namely such as more directly apperteyne to faith alone coÌ„cerne the priÌ„cipal heads of our beleef Christs incarnatioÌ„ his divinitie his omnipotencie it hath bene plainly declared that this maÌ„s preaching nether meane I as it is his properly alone but according as he draweth it froÌ„ Calvin the CaluiniaÌ„ schole disanulleth his in carnatiâ— denyeth any benefite to have come thereby denieth the omnipotencie of god most Antichristianly disproveth al miracles vvrought by God in the old or new TestameÌ„t by inâ—vitable coÌ„sequeÌ„ce destroyeth the faith of Christs pure nativitie resurrectioÌ„ destroyeth the vnitie of his divine person in two natures Al which depeÌ„de vpoÌ„ such verities as these wicked prophane godles meÌ„ reiect and condemne as being in their new Theologie vnpossible beyond gods reach and abilitie vnpossible I say for him in al his maiestie and omnipotencie to effect performe And vvhat ChristiaÌ„ is there be he not to far gone in the liceÌ„tious course of this new Gospel that is to say be he not in maner a plaine Apostata if he reteyne any sparkes or spoonkes of his old Christianitie vvhen he considereth these issues and sequeles of the Calvâ—nian doctrine vvhat Christian is there I say but he may and ought iustly to stand in horror of such a Gospel and such Gospellers vvho by so plaine and evident coÌ„clusion pul from him al forme and shew of old Christianitie vnder a grosle and impudent pretext of a reformed Gospel wrap him in a Iewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran I meane such a gulf of Paganisme and infidelitie as hath lesse resemblance and affinitie vvith the old auncient Catholike Christian and Apostolike faith then hath an ape vvith a man then copper vvith gold or Mahomets prophets Homar and Halis vvith S. Peter and S. Paule the Apostles of our Saviour Certainly as for that former Calvinian article of faith in the elect never lost and the holy ghost never departing from them in al their sinnes Melancthon vvith many Lutheran Gospellers coÌ„demneth the Calvinian Gospel of extreme impietie as hath bene said so two or three of these other articles defended likewise by the Calvinists and M. B. seeme to other Protestant preachers and vvriters so grosse and inexcusable that Lucas Osiander sonne to Andreas Osiander the first Protestant-Apostle of Prussia in his answere to Sturmius the Caluinist alleageth them for great reasons vvhy every Christian ought to abhorre the Zuinglian doctrine as erring in principal matters of the Christian faith For so are his vvords Nos ZuinglianuÌ„ dogma merito damnamus c. VVe Protestants of the Germane faith profession iustly condemne the Zuinglian religion for that it erreth in maximis rebus ad verae religionis conseruationeÌ„ aeternaÌ„ Ecclesiae saluteÌ„ pertinentibus in most weightie matters such as concerne the preservation of true religion and eternal saluation of the church And forthwith amonge most vveightie errors of the SacrameÌ„taries he reckeneth these 1. The Zuinglian or Caluinian doctrine gainsayeth the words of Christs testament For whereas Christ saith expresly This is my body This is my blud the Zuinglians reprove Christ God and man of a lye affirming the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Supper as is the highest heaven from the earth 2. The Zuinglian doctrine taketh from Christ his omnipotencie and affirmeth that it is vnpossible for God to make a true body to be in many places 3. The Zuinglian doctrine leaveth vs in the Supper nothing but bread and wine bare tokens without the body and blud of Christ and with those biddeth vs confirme our faith For these vvicked assertions or rather horrible blasphemies for so he termeth them this famous Gospeller together vvith a number of Protestant congregations and pastors ioyning vvith him al endued vvith the right Protestant faith and therefore elect as vvel as M. B. and so as sure of Gods favour and assistance of the holy spirit as he do vvil coüseil al men to detest the Calvinian sect for that it maynteyneth so fowle heresies so opposite to Christianitie And if thus they iudge and persuade in respect of 3. or 4. articles maynteyned also in these Sermons by M. B. how much more ought vve to detest the same Calvinian doctrine being able to lay to these few many other as wicked and execrable so many as that vve can make manifest demonstratioÌ„ that a man embracing Caluinisme renounceth in a maner the vvhole body of Christian faith the intier symbole or Creed of the Apostles for that beleeving the Calvinists or this preacher he can not possibly beleeve rightly nether in God omnipotent nor in Christ Iesus his incarnate sonne God man in one person nor his pure natiuitie of his mother a virgin nor the redemption vvrought by him in his flesh nor his descension in to hel nor the Catholike church nor remission of sinnes obteyned in the same nor the resurrection of our bodies to life eternal nor generally any peece of scripture old or new as hath heretofore bene noted incidently and shal hereafter vpon more occasion be layd open and confirmed more abundantly If Protestants vpon so good grounds abhorre Caluinisme as a poison of Christian faith can Catholikes be blamed if they folow the conseil of Protestants and vpon the same and other as substantial grounds detest Caluinisme from vvhich their owne bretherne so earnestly dissuade If Luther that man of God and first father of this Gospel canonized for a Confessor in the English and Scottish Kalenders and sent by God to illuminate the whole world as vvitnesseth the English congregation professe protest that he had rather be torne in pieces or burnt to death a hundred seueral times then to agree in
by S. Cyprian and Bibliander 1. that in place of al the auncient legal sacrifices should succede in the new testameÌ„t an eucharistical sacrifice in bread wine 2. that that bread wine should be the true flesh blud of the Messias 3. that in such sacrifice should consist the priesthod according to the order of Melchisedech Al which might easelie plainely inough be deduced out of the scriptures for if Melchisedech so offered in prefiguration of Christ Christ must needes likewise so offer to fulfil that figure which being neuer by Christ accoÌ„plished but at his last supper most sure certain it is that there he offered after the order of Melchisedech were it not that the Protestants especially the Sacramentaries herein cheifly in the first original ground of all the rest that is in the sacrifice of Melchisedech meÌ„tioned in Genesis shew them selues incredible wranglers Sophisters in cauilling vpon the Hebrew letter without al reason ground heretikes beyond measure in trusting to them selues alone condemning al others who since the time of Melchisedech both Hebrewes Christians haue acknowledged in this place a sacrifice Amongst which heretikes the chief both Caluin Zuingli very saucely impudeÌ„tly shame not to say that in this matter al the auncient fathers writers wrote spake without iudgement more vainlâ— then vanitie it self not content with Christs institution the wisdom of god inuented the oblatioÌ„ of their owne heads They al erred in so belâ—â—â—ing writing deuised to them selues a sacrifice whereof Moses the holy Gost neuer thought They followed there owne inuentions saw lesse in the scriptures then the rude ignorant people And Illyâ—icus that they in so expounding the scriptures violently naughtely hunted after allegories as was always their fashion Although our English doctor doctor Iewel whose Theologie consisted vpon words phrases haue a farther shift peculier to him selfe beyond al other vz. that the Hebrew word vsed by Moyses is doubtful signifieth as wel a prince as a priest therefore nether priesthod nor sacrifice could necessarily be inferred thereof VVhich is a right way to checke reproue both the prophet Dauid Apostle Paule who long sithence determined the Hebrew word to one certain signification which I suppose they knew somwhat better then M. Iewel did The declaration of which matter to make it plaine to common capacities because it would require some longer time then I thinke needeful to spend for that it is somwhat obscure subtile dependeth vpon gramatical cauils of the Hebrew toÌ„ge I wil here omit especially for that otherwise sufficient seemeth to haue bene said of the words of Christs supper which are also so very manifest euident of them selues that the more learned gospellers from the first original of this new gospel haue stood in defence of the real presence do at this present against the tropical construction of the Caluinists VVherefore ceasing to speake any more hereof I wil procede on as I intended to shew the continuance of this beleefe if yet first I shal note in a word or two that Christs speach vttered in the institution of this sacrament cary such weight to induce establish a sactifice that so much in part is confessed graunted by Ihon Caluin him selfe who in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the words of the Apostle S. Paule Corpus quod pro vobis frangitur The body which is broken for yow writeth thus This is not lightly to be passed ouer For Christ geueth vs not his body sleightly or without any condition adioyned but he geueth it as sacrificed for vs. VVhere ore the first part of this sentence declareth that the body of Christ is deliuered or exhibited to vs the second part expresseth what fruit cometh to vs thereby to wit that thereby we are made partakers of the redemption wrought by Christ the benefit of his sacrificess applied to vs. VVhich words how soeuer he vnderstand them signifie wel truly that Christ in that his last supper deliuered his blessed body to his disciples in them to al Christians not as borne of the virgin not as conversant in this world not as risen from death ascending to heauen or sitting there on gods right hand but as offered to god sacrificed for vs to the end that by that coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice the fruite of Christs redemption procured vniuersally to al mankind by his death on the crosse might be really effectually applied to al faithfull Christians members of Christs catholike church who haue coÌ„munication in that sacrifice ¶ And thus with this opinion was this sacrament practised by the Apostles in the first Apostolical church immediatly after Christ as we learne by S. Luke the Apostle S. Paule by S. Luke when he noteth in the Actes of the Apostles that the holy Ghost chose out certaine of them as they were doing publike service ministerie to our lord ministrantibê° illis domino VVhere the word vsed by the Evangelist signifieth a publike ministerie service of the church such as properly the sacrifice is And therefore Erasmus translateth it according to the proper signification of the Greeke word sacrificantibus illis domino while they were doing sacrifice to our lord VVhich Beza also could be content to admit were it not it draweth to nigh to the church sacrifice But howsoeuer in that respect he refuseth it sure it is al the old fathers Apostolike men from thence in that sense called the christian sacrifice or masse the Liturgie as the Liturgie or masse of S. Iames the Liturgie or masse of S. Basil the Liturgie or masse of S. Chrysost as also Erasmus doth interprete it in this sense of a publike sacrifice doth S. Luke otherwhere vse the word S. Paule by this word properly expresseth our Sauiours priesthod and his most publike general sacrifice VVhich Apostle also mentioneth this the Church sacrifice when as writing to the christians of Corinth he dehorteth them from coÌ„municating with the Gentiles in their idolatrous sacrifices by an argument taken from the nature of al sacrifices the excellencie of this Christian sacrifice For the nature of al sacrifices is to ioyne the coÌ„municants with him vnto whom the sacrifice is offered whether it be god or the deuil As among the Iewes saith the Apostle they which did eate of the thing sacrificed were thereby made partakers of the sacrifice by such sacrifice did concrre to the honor of the true god in like sort they which take part of things ofsered to Idols thereby are made partakers of the Idolatrous sacrifice so together with idolaters honor the deuil Then how straunge a thing is it that yow who partake of the table sacrifice of Christ who there coÌ„municate receiue his pretious body and blud for the chalice there blessed is the coÌ„munication