lost banished and damned man which with a sacrilegious mouth you blasplemously affirme that Christ endured in his soule Damnable doctrine not of men but of diuells not from Heauen or earth but issuing out of Hell whither they that hold it iustly deserue to be condemned vnlesse they roote that doctrine out of their hart and with their tongue publish a contrarie Of these crimes I accuse you with what iustice I shall make appeare Nothing had bene done saith a Calu. 2. Instat c. 1. §. 10. Nihil actum eratsi corporea tantum morte defunctus fuisset Christus sed aliud maius excellentius pretiū fuisse quod diros in anima cruciatus dānati perditi hominis pertulerit Caluin you know for how great and admirable a prophete b Danaus in Anti-Bell Bezaep 6. you esteeme him if Iesus Christ had died onely a corporall death but it was a greater and more excellent price to haue suffered in his soule the cruell tortures of a damned and lost man In this torment saith c Beza in Lucam 22. v. 44. In hoc cruciatu pisita est nestra pacis cum Deo recenciliationis summa is placed the summe of our Peace and reconciliation to God To satisfie in the name of sinners saith your d 10. Sunday Cathechisme it was necessarie that he should feele that horrible distresse in his ovvne conscience as though he had bene forsaken of God yea euen as though God had bene wrothfull against him That is to say it was necessarie that he should haue bendamned as your ensuing words doe more clearly conuince signifying his dolours in the word damnation and saying that what is perpetuall to others whom God in his wroth punisheth was onely temporall in him Vvherby is apparent that according to your opinion Christ Iesus suffered the paines of the damned and this to satisfie for the sinns of man as though his death had not bene of sufficient valour a Scarpus de iustif contro 16. Yea one of your owne men relates that there were diuers Protestants of opinion that those places of scrip wherin Christ was said to dy for vs were not to be vnderstood of a corporall death but onely of the sense of Gods wroth nor indeede did his corporall death contribute any thing at all to the expiation of sinne nor was it therfore to be esteemed as a part of satisfaction for sinnes Some peraduentures may here apprehend that you will betake your selues to your old solution which consistes in the libertie you take at your owne liking to reiect all authoritie and at your pleasure to deney your owne Masters Yet seeing that Vvhitakere Vvittat l. 8. cont Durand sect 18 Caluinus verissime secri sit nihil actum fuisse si mortem tantū corporeā Christus obiisset one of your prime moderns insteede of vsing this euasion seconds and sustaynes Caluine in his blasphemie saying that he wrote most truly that nothing had bene done if Iesus Christ had onely suffered a corporall death Nor can I doubt but you will imitate him therin and therfore take his as your answere I demand of you whether so many pricking thornes so many stripes spittings blowes derisions nayles and to comprehend all in a word that innumerable number of paynes to which was annected the ignominious and cruell death of the onely sonne of God did contribute nothing to the saluation and redemption of mankind Vvhat doth occurre in Sctiptures ether more frequently or clearly then that we are redeemed by the blood and death of Christ Matt. 26. this is my blood which shall be povvredout for many for the remission of sinns Heb. 9. Christ an high Priest by his ovvne blood entred in once into the Holyes eternall redemption being found And againe in the same place if the blood of oxen sanctifieth to the cleansing of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse our conscience from deade workes and Apoc. 5. Thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood In the 7. to the Ephes the first chap. to the Coloss In the first of S. Peter the first Chapter In the first of S. Iohn first Chapter In the first Chapter of the Apoc. it is said that we are sanctified washed cleansed by the blood of Iesus Christ In S. Mathew S. Marc Matth. 26. Mars 22. Luc. 22. Cor. 11. S. Luc and S. Paule Iesus Christ saith This is my body giuen deliuered broken for you Heb. 10. we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ and in another place by one oblation he hath consummated the sanctified for all eternitie The scripture saith that we are redeemed by the blood which he shed for the remission of our sinns That he doth cleanse our conscience of dead workes that by him we are purged and washed that the body of Iesus Christ is deliuered and giuen for vs that by him we are sanctified You contrariwise say that nothing had bene done without the interposition of some other thing To which must we giue credit to the misteries of the scripture or to your blasphemies in refutation Vvherof I will spend no more tyme since they are of the same kind with those of which S. Hierome speakes when he saith that to discouer them is to vanquish them there being noe neede to conuince that which by it owne confession is blasphemous SECTION VI. MINISTERS NOr other merit before God then the obedience which he offered vp to his father for vs. ANSWERE THat it may be perspecuously vnderstoode what is in this place in controuersie betwixt vs we are first to note that there is a greare difference betwixt saying there is no other merit but the merit of Christ and there are no meritorious workes but the workes of Christ For he that affirmes that there are no other meritorious workes but those of Christ doth exclude the workes of men from all merit but he that sayes that there is no other then Christs merite is to be vnderstood not that the workes of men are of no merit but that they haue no efficacie but in vertue of the merits of Christ since it is manifest by the reasons aboue alleaged in the like case that diuers actions which haue subordination amongst themselues doe not establish diuers merits Your religion is not hated for the first point that is for that it doth teach that ther is no other merite before God but Christ his obedience for as we haue said that we grant but by reason of the second for as much as you teach that this obedience of Christ doth contribute no force to any man wherby he may merit pretending forsooth that this is preiudiciall to the dignitie of Christ and derogating from the price of his merits which is not so And that we hold no other merit then the obedience of Iesus Christ it is euidēt because as we haue shewen out of Scripture Fathers and by the light of reason these words an
is iustified by onely faith which is found in no part of the scripture Doe you not then contradict the Scripture you doe it so openly in this point Confess Heluet c. 15. docemus peccatorem iustificari sola fide Luth. in cap. 22. Gen. Iacob delirat Deuteron 30. circumcide cor tuum cor seminis tui vt diligas DominuÌ„ DeuÌ„ tuum in toto corde tuo in tota anima tua Psal 118. Dauid ait in toto corde meo exquisiui te Et 3. Reg. 14. sequutus est me in toto corde suo Et 4. Reg. 23 dicitur de losia quod reuersus est ad Dominum in omni corde suo in tota anima sua in vniuersa vitasua Cal. 2. Inst c. 7. §. 5. neminem Sanctorum extitisse dico qui corpore mortis circundatus ad eum dilectionis scopum pertigerit vtex toto corde ex tota mente ex tota anima ex tota potentia Deum amaret Paraeus lib 4. de iustif c. 11. Talem dilectionem ex tota anima ex tota mente ex omnibus viribus nemo sanctorum habuit vel habere in hac infirmitate potest manet quidem in Sanctis aliquid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hypocriseas Math. 26. Marc. 13. Luc 22. 1. Cor. 11. that Luther not being able to reconcile the place of S. Iames with that which he taught saith that this great Apostle dotes The scripture saith that we may loue God with all our hart you say that none can loue God with all his hart This is not found in all holy writ Doe you not then contradict the holy scripture The scripture saith that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Iesus-Christ En la forme d'administrer les SacremeÌ„s Contentons nous d'auoir le pain le vin pour signe tesmoignage Et en leut Ca techisme au traité de la Cene. Tu n'entends pas done demaÌ„de le Ministre que le corps soit enclos dedans le pain le sang dedans le Calice Non respoÌ„d l'enfant mais au contraire Et cap. 1. Pet. 3. v. 21. saluos facit baptisma and that with addition of such words as designe the true body and true blood You say that it is not the body and blood of Iesus-Christ but onely the figure the signe and testimonie which is not found in any part of the holy pages Doe you not then contradict the scripture The scripture saith that baptisme saues vs that we are washed regenerated by the lauer of water You say that baptisme doth not saue doth not clense doth not regenerate but that it is onely a Symbole of our saluation clenseing and regeration which is not found in all the bible doe you not then contradict the scripture 5. The scripture saith that Preists remitt sinns you say Ephes 5. v. 26. Vt illam sanctificaret mundans lauacro aquae Ioan. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua Melancthon in locis cap. de signis Non iustificant signa vt Apostolus ait circumcisio nihil est ita baptismus nihil est participatio mensae Domini nihil est sed testes sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diuinae voluntatis erga te Calu 4. Instit c. 14. §. 17. Cauendum ne in errorem nos abducant quae ad amplificandam sacramentorum dignitatem paulò magnificentius à veteribus scripta sunt vt scilicet arbitremur latentem aliquam virtutem Sacramentis annexam affixamque esse quo ipsa per se Spiritus sancti gratiam nobis conferant cum hoc tantum illis diuinitus iniunctum sit munus testicari nobis acsancire Deiin nos beneuolentiam Matth. 18. v. 18. Quacumque ligaueritis super terram erunt ligata in caelo quacumque solueritis super terram erunt soluta in caelo that they doe not remitt sinns but onely that they beare testimonie that they are remitted which is found in no place of the holy scripture doe you not then contradict the Scripture 6. The scripture saith that if a virgine marrie she sinns not you say that the iuste man offends in all his workes Ioan. 20. v. 23. Quorism remiseritis peccata remiâ—tuÌ„ti eis quorum retinuericis retenta sunt which is not found in all holy writt Doe you not then contradict the Scripture 7. The Scripture saith that there be some of the wicked and reprobate Calu. Instit 3. cap. 4. §. 23. Absolutio quae fidei seruit nihil aliud est quà m testimoniuÌ„ venia ex gratuitae euangelij promissione suÌ„ptum 21. Corinth 7. si nupserit virgo non peccauit Luth. art 2. Iustus in omni opere binopeccat idem Calu 3. Instit c. 12. §. 4. Omnia hominum opera si su a dignitate cense antur nihil nisi inquinamenta sunt sordes quaiustitia vulgo habetur ea apud Deum mera est iniquitas Ioan 12. v. 42. multi crediderunt in eum sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebamtur vt è Synagoga non ei cerentur dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quà m gloriam Dei Act. 8. v. 13. Tunc Simon ipse credidit Calu. 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 9. 10 talibus fidei testimonium tribuitur sed per catechesin Item verum haec fidei seu vmbra seu imago vt nullius est momenti ita indigna est fidei appellatione Luc. 8. v. 13 Quia ad tempus credunt in tempere tentationis recedunt who beleeue in Iesus-Christ you say they beleeue not but that they haue onely a shadovve of Faith which is not found in all the scripture doe you not then contradict Scripture 8. The Scripture saith that ther are some Calu. 3. Instit c. 2. § 11. NuÌ„quam disperit semen vitae electorum cordibus insituÌ„ in harmon Matth. 1 v. 20 fidem quam semel insculpsit piorum cordibus euanescere perire impossibile est who for a tyme haue faith and beleeue not in another tyme you say that there are none who beleeue for a tyme and loose their faith in another but that he that beleeues once neuer looseth his faith which is not found in all holy Scripture doe you not then contradict Scripture 9. The scripture saith if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements you say there is no neede to keepe the commandements Matth 10. v. 19. Si vis ad vitaÌ„ ingredi serua mandata yea that euen to say so is to deney Iesus-Christ and to abolish his Faith which is not in all the holy scripture Luth. 2. Gal. Papistae docent fides in Christum iustificat quideÌ„ sed simul seruare opertet etiam praecepta Dei ibi statim Christus negatus fides abolita est Heb 6. v. 4. Quisemel illuminatisunt gustauerunt etiam donum caeleste participes factisunt Spiritus S. v. 6. Et prolapsi sunt rursus renouari ad paenitentiam
for the a Act. 3. 15. Ad Rom. 3. ad Ephes 3. ad Titum 3. 1. Petr. 1. 1 Iacob 2. Prou. 15 16. Scripture in diuers passages in most formall termes saith that we are purged purified iustified cleanced by faith by workes by Sacraments and that the b Cyprian de lapsis epist 26. 55. Tertul. de poenit cap. 3. Origen in Leuit cap. 15. Aug. in Enchir. lib. 1. de symb c. 6. Hieron de obitu Fabio Ambr. ep 82. de Elia ieiunio c. 22. fathers grounding vpon holy Vvrit teach in a hundred places that by Baptisme Penance teares workes Marcyrdome sinnes are purged washed cleanced remoued redeemed blotted out abolished consumed expiated And in diuers others that God is appeased by workes that he is made propitious by workes In a word as S. c Lib. de Elia c. 20. Habemus plura subsidia quibus peccata nestra redimamus Et alibi multis locis Ambrose saith that we haue diuers meanes by which we redeeme our sinnes And sundrie remedies by which we are washed and purged of our offences SECTION V. MINISTERS NOr other sacryfice propitiatorie for our sinnes then his death and passion ANSWERE THat we teach no other propitiatorie sacryfice then that of lesus Christ the reason which aboue we deduced at large doth make good the word other signfying a thing of a diuers kind when it is taken absolutly as the Ministers in this place doe take it So that the Euchariste cannot be called other then that of Iesus Christ vpon the Crosse because being subiect to that and deriuing from it its force and efficacie it is not of a diuers kind but onely of another order as being farr inferiour not by reason of the Hoste which is the same but in regard of the effects and the visible actiō by which it is immediatly offered This is yet more confirmed in that we doe accnowledge the sacryfice of the Eucharist to be one and the same with that of the crosse by a triple identitie Both by reason of the hoste offered which is one in both it is one hoste saith a Ambr. in Heb. 10. Vna est hostia non multae S. Ambrose and b In Heb. 10. Primasius and not many hostes Vve offer still the same saith c In Hebr. 9. eumdē semper offerrimus non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem S. Chrisostome not now another but alvvayes the same And also by reason of the prime and principall offerer which is Iesus Christ now Iesus Christ is offered saith d lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Nunc Christus offertur sed offertur quasi homo quasi recipiens passionem offert se ipse quasi Sacerdos vt peccata nostra dimittat S. Ambrose as man suffering passion and as preist he offerrs himselfe to the end he may pardon our sinns And lastly by reason of the manner of the oblation which is like for euen as Iesus Christ truly dyed vpon the Crosse and as his blood was really seperated from his body so is he dead in the Eucharist in apparance as we will explicate more fully in the sixt Chapter Vvherupon e Cypr. ep 63. Amb. lib de officiis cap. 48. Alex. Papa ep ad omnes Orthodoxos Isych l. 2. in Lenit c. 8. Nyssen erat 1. de resurrect Chrys hom 24 in 1. Cor. Greg. l. 4. dialog c. 38. hom 37. in Euang. the Fathers call the sacrifice of the Eucharist the passion of Iesus Christ the renevved passion of Iesus Christ yea further they say he is slayne and as it were suffers his passion for though he nether dy nor suffer indeede yet doth he both die and suffer in a misticall manner And therfor grounding vpon this triple identitie we feare not to say with f Hom 2. in 2 ad Tim. Oblatio eadem est S. Chrisostome that the sacryfice of the Crosse and the Eucharist is one and the same sacryfice and with a In cap. 8. ad Heb. Clarum est nos non aliud sacrificium offerre Theodorete that it is manifest that we offer no other sacryfice then that of the Crosse And that the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist doth not destroy the propitiation of the sacryfice of the crosse it is euident in that it is not opposite vnto it but contrariwise is substituted subordinate and of a far lower degree the sacryfice of the Crosse being propitiatorie of it owne vertue as the proper satisfaction for our offences wheras the Eucharist is onely propitiatorie in vertue of the sacryfice of the Crosse the fruite of whose propitiation it applies vnto vs. The oblation of the Masse is not propitiatorie as though the sacryfice of the Crosse were not alone sufficient to appease Gods wroth and to make him become propitious but it is onely propitiatorie in vertue of the plentuousnes of the sacryfice of the Crosse whose vertue is so great that it can communicate a part therof to others and the will of the sacryficed is such that as he is able so also he is willing to communicate it Establishing his glorie not in reseruing the whole propitiation of the sinnes of man to the sacryfice of the Crosse but also in imparting some part therof to the sacryfice which men doe celebrate as his ministers in memorie of his passion And like as he who hath an excellent fruite tree shewes himselfe far more liberall if making a present of his ripe fruite he adde also a young shoot therof which of it selfe may yeeld fruite so Iesus Christ is much more bountifull in bestowing vpon men not onely the fruite of his propitiation which sprung from his owne person in the sacryfice of the Crosse but euen another sacryfice which as an excellent shoote is able to bring forth fruites like to those which we gathered vpon the tree of the Crosse Vvher fore so farr is the propitiation of the sacryfice of the Eucharist from preiudicing the propitiation of the sacryfice of the Crosse that on the contrarie side it makes the perfection and excellence therof more gloriously appeare Vvhence it followes that you are truly worthy of hatred by reason of the calumnies which you falsely impose vpon vs making vs odious to your adherents as though forsooth we taught some thing in this point preiudiciall to Iesus Christ Nor is this all you are in this bee halfe worthy of hatred for a reason much more odious then that which I haue mentioned aboue You make a remonstrance that you are hated for sustayning that there is no other propitiation then that of the death and passion of Iesus Christ but you are indeede worthy to be abhorred for holding that the blood and death of Iesus Christ is in no sort propitiatorie that his death and pretious blood haue not appeased Gods wrath towards mankind that there was yet need of a more excellent price and that this price was the torments of a
But if you replie that you are bound to obserue the essentiall parres of the misteries done by Iesus Christ yet are permitted to chaÌ„ge that which he did in indifferent things it rests that you proue out of scripture why these things which you change are more of that nature then those which you condemne vs for changing Or if you cnnnot doe it Lib. 2. contr aduersa legis Hoc vanitas non ueritas dicit confesse that your words are as S. Augustine saith vanitie and not veritie and that vniustly accusing vs you iustly condemne your selues True it is we ate in tirly and throughly to followe our sauiours example in that which is intrinsicall and substantiall in the misteries in this all disputes and contention being layd aside we are bound to contayne our selues with in that sobrietie and moderation which he prescribed and are to doe and speake as he did And. I would to God you did so then should you confesse that the substace of the Euchariste is the body and blood of our sauiour Iesus-Christ Matth. 62. Accepit Iesus panem benedixit acfregit deditque dicipulis suis att accipite comedite Hoo est corpus meum and not a meere energicall figure of them both For to what end doth the a scripture deliuer in words most expresse not once onely but foure tymes by the mouthes of three Euangelists and one Apostle that the Eucharist is the body and bloode of Iesus-Christ Marc. 14 Accepiâ— Iesus panem benedicens fregit dedit eis ait sumite Hoe est corpus meum without euer saying in any one place that it is not his body but onely a figure if it intend to haue vs beleeve the oue which it saith not and not the other which it affirmes If scripture ought to be the rule of faith Luc. 22. Accepto pane gratias egit fregit dedit seis aâ—cens Hoc est â—â—rpus meuÌ„ quod pro voâ—is datur hoc â—atise mmed â—ommemerationem 1. Corint 11. Dominum Ieumin qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem gratias agens fregis dixst accepite manducate Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis â—â—adetur we are necessarily bound to beleeue that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ which it so often affirmes nor ought we to beleeue that it is not the body and blood of Christ since that is not found in all scripture nor yet doe we euer find that it doth frequently and clearly affirme that a thing is that which it is not with out expressing in somme other place that it is not the said thing If the scripture be instituted to teach vs the connsells of God and of his sonne Iesus-Christ who by it speakes vnto vs who will euer be induced to beleeue that the scripture to teach vs that the sacrament of the Euchariste is bread and wine not the body and blood of Christ who I say would euer imagine that to moue vs to this beliefe it should so frequently inculcate that it is the body and blood of Christ and yet neuer once pronounce that it is nether of them Who will euer frame this iudgement of it vnles such as hauing their braynes inuerted will haue euery thing to be vnderstood preposterously and aganist the sense one contrarie by another and the negation of a truth by the affirmarion of the same Christ is no moâ—ker of men nor is he ignorant of the vsuall manner of their speach he tells them not one thing to moue them to beleeue another Wherfor seeing he doth so planely tell the Apostles that what he gaue them in the Eucharist to eate was his body nor could he find words in which he could more clearly deliurer himselfe there can be no doubt made but he deliuered his owne verie body vnto them other wise it must needes be said that ether he deludes men Aug. l. 33. contr ffaust c. 7. Quid ergo eum legimus obliuiscimur quemadmodum loqui soleamus Anscriptura Dei aliter nobiscum fuerat quam nostro modo loguutura yea and that in a matter of greatest moment to saluation or verily that he was ignorant how to expresse his mynd vnto them Whervpon you will giue me leaue to make that demande to you in this occasion which as I noted aboue St Aug made to the Donatistes in the like occurrence Why when we reade doe we forgett how we are wonte to speake aught the scripture of the Almightie to vse any other maÌ„ner of speach to vs then our owne And wheras Iesus Christ doth say plainly and expresly that he giues vs his body deliuered for vs then which words we can desire none more significatiue none more cleare to moue vs to beleeue that it is his owne true body what can hinder you to beleeue that it is his true body which he giues vnto vs Would you haue him to haue said this is truly really properly substantially my body If some one of these aduerbes were necessarily to be added to manifest the truth of the thing affirmed we should not be obliged to beleeue the most part of the principall misteries of our faith which notwithstanding you beleeue as well as we to witt that Christ was borne of a virgine that he suffered and dyed for in deliuering these truthes the scripture makes vse of none of those Aduerbes nor had it any more expresse termes then those which it vsed to signifie the presence of the body of Christ in the Euchariste As therfore if one doubted whether a thing appearing a far of were truly a man it were not necessarie to giue assurance of the same to adde these words truly really but it were assurance nough to say absolutly it is a man for as the Philosophers hold this word true Verum non additenti addes nothing to the thing so likewise that Iesus-Christ might shew his body truly to be in the Eucharist it is sufficient to affirme it in plane words taken in their owne signification Which was especially to be done here where he doth not onely say this is my body but also my body giuen and deliuered for you which words doe designe the true body of Christ which alone was deliuered for vs. Howbeit it is euident that the nature and beeing of a thing is more clearly expressed by such words as affirme directly what it is then by others which doe onely point at it vnder a certaine name without affirming expresly that it is that thing vnder whose name it is signified and consequently we haue more reason to beleeue that the Euch râ—st is the body of Iesus-Christ because the scripture saith directly that so it is then to beleeue that it is breade because the scripture signifies it vnder the name of breade especially sith it addes Epâ—â—hites to this name of breade which remoue it from its owne signification and contrariwise when it affirmes that the Eucharist is the body of
Iesus-Christ being as well vnder one kind as both and the signification of the Mysterie remayning intire the people receaue Iesus Christ as truly vnder one kind and with as great beneciction of heauen as vnder both Nor doe we iniure the Sacrament because the essence therof doth not absolutly require the two kinds but that it may subsist vnder one onely without loosing any esseÌ„tiall part sitheÌ„s it doth possesse in one the body and blood of Iesus Ch. and innoyes all the significatioÌ„s which belong to its essence the species of bread most fitly signifying the nourishment of the soule by grace and the vnion of the faithfull in one bodie together with their head for as much as it nourisheth and its masse is composed of many cornes of wheate Now hauing shewen that the communion vnder one onely kind is nether iniurious to the people nor to the Sacrament I will not stay there but further I will make manifest that it is profitable and honorable to both To the Sacrament because it preserues it if not from iniuries at least from indecencies contrarie to the honour and reuerence due to the SacrameÌ„t and yet are most obuious for it is manifeste that if the species of wine were coÌ„municated to all men they could not auoyd sheding of it To the people because if it were still necessaire to giue both the kinds it could not easily be keept to communicate the people at all tymes all momeÌ„ts all occurences for besids that à sufficient quantitie of wine is not euery where found to communicate the faithfull ther are also some that doe so loath wine that they cannot onely not drinke it but not so much as smell it Whence we may well gather that Iesus Christ did not establsh the necessitie of communicating vnder both kinds 〈◊〉 Brentius in â—polo confess â—itemb Martyr 〈◊〉 Corinth 10. 〈◊〉 â—mo Buceâ—â—s in colloq â—atisbonensi coÌ„â—sist esse indifâ—rens sumere â—â—am vel vtraÌ„quespecieÌ„ idemque concesserunt Thcologs Protestantes in Colloq Augustano Vade Hospinâ—an part 2 histo an 1536. Et in concordiae discordi cap. 41. Coccium lib. 6. do Eucharist c. 3. since he cannot oblige vs to impossibilities And therfor diuers of your authours doe grant that this hath place and is true in abstemious persons But it is you indeede who iniure the Sacrament and people while you deptiue them both of the reall and true body of Iesus Christ which we doe carefully preserue for them and you giuing onely the appearrences to the people vnder the species of bread and wine are iustly by Luthere coÌ„pared to one who hauing supped vp the meate of the egg doth carefully gather vp the shell to the people to eate Further you are most iniurious to the institution of Iesus Christ Beza Epist. â— Rite celebrabitur Coenae Domini siquod panis aut vini vicem vel vsu communi vel pro teÌ„poris ratione supplet panâ—s aut vini lâ—â—o adhibeatur in that you sustayne that albeit he instituted his Sacrament in bread and wine yet nether the one nor the other of those kinds are necessarie so that it maybe administred in other matters Let the Reader now iudge whether of vs are more iniurious to the Sacrament and more preiudiciall to the people and coÌ„sequently who are to be coÌ„demned Without all doubt you will be held faultie in the iudgement of any Reader yea which is more euen in your owne iudgment For albeit you conteÌ„ne the authoritie of the Church Hospinian l. 1. histo sacram lib. de concord disâ— c. 41. Luther in declarat Euchar â—lâ—bi yet by Gods speciall prouidence Luther deferrs so much vnto it in this point that by the relation of your owne Caluinsts he confesseth that it is not necessarie to giue both the kinds that the Church had power to ordayne one onely that the people are to be satisfied therwith Further he approues the Rule made by the Councell of Latran to that effect which being done so he would find it verie strange saith he if one Bishope of his owne authoritie should opposeit CHAP. VII MINISTERS YOur Maiestie should also see that our religion is disciphered vnto you quite otherwise then it is indeede for if the things which are imposed vpon vs to witt that we are enemyes of saintes and of the Blessed Virgine Marie and that we hold that good workes are not necessarie vnto saluation and that we made God authour of sinne were true we were abominable creatures vnworthy of the societie of men but they are forged calumnies to bring vs into hatred and are refuted by our writings sermons and our verie manner of life ANSWERE If you be men of your word Ennemies of Saintes it is high tyme for you to begin to trusse vp your baggage and to remoue your selues out of the societie of men since you haue sentenced your selues to that punishment in case you be guiltie of à crime of which you will neuer be able to cleare your selues Is it not to be enemy to the Saints to ascribe contumelious names vnto them which the Diuell Pagans and the old Heresiarkes condemned by the primitiue Church gaue them names I say which the Fathers doe disalowe and reiect by the authoritie of Scripture And yet witnes a Kemnitâ—us Exam Conc. part 3. p 228 Vsitat vocantur mortus Hoâ— 58. de S. Babyl Kernnitius one of your prime Authours you doe ordinarily tearme them deade no otherwise then the Diuell according to S. Chrysostome Iulian the Apostata in S. Cyrille b lib. coÌ„t Iulias Vigilantius in S. Hierome c lib. cont Vigilantium who together with the rest of the Fathers reprehend that manner of speach They are not deade saith S. Ambrose d Serm. 10. d. ss Pet Paul Non enim mor tui sunt quor curamus nata lem hodie sed renati viuuÌ„t c. we doe not tearme them deade saith S. Damascene e 4 de Fide c. 16 Eos qui in spresurrectionis si deque erga eun diem extremun clauscrunt mor tuos haud qua quaÌ„ appellamus He is not the God of the deade but of the liuing saith S. Hierome f lâ—b cont Vigit Non est Deu mortuorum seâ— viuorum Item sancti non appel laÌ„tur mortui seâ— dormientes following the Gospell The Saints are not said to be deade but to sleepe saith he againe Is it not to be enemye to the Saints to depriue them of all care and all charitie towards men making them who are in the state of perfection aboue lesse perfect then those that are here below subiect to worldly defectes and yet this you doe They doe not saith Caluine g Calu. in 1. Cor. 13. Charitatem praesentâ—b us offieâ—â—s minâ— me exercent noÌ„ sunt pro nobis soliciti charitatis perpotuitas nihil pertâ—net ad tempus intermedium Et in cap 1 Zachar officia charitatis scimus restringâ—