illis and was â—â—edient to them and therefore somwhat esteemed them Before he tooke flesh of his mother he replenished her vvith al grace and made her blessed among al women vvith this prerogative that al Christian nations and generations vvhich vvere to be borne should ever honour her and account her for blessed in a singular sort Here vvas some esteeme of carnal cognation VVhen the Angel from God said to her Tâ—ow hast â—ound grace with God Ecce â—â—ncipies in vtero paries filiâ—â— behâ—ld thow shalâ— conceive in thy woâ—â—â— and beare a sonne accounting this verie conception and childbearing a great grace here vvas some reverence and regard of carnal band VVhen Christ hanging on the crosse in the extreme anguishes of death commended his mother to S. Iohn it vvas a signe he had some esteeme of her Briefly vvhereas he said in his law vvhich he gave to Moses Maledictuâ— qui non honoraâ— patrem suâ—â—â— matrem suaâ—â— Cursed is he shal esteemeâ—â— â—â—â—â—reth not his father mother vve may assure our selves that this is a cursed collection whereby this propnane minister gathereth out of Christs vvords that he honored not noâ— reverenced not esteemed his mother or the carnal band vvhich he had with her which if he had done or had bene ashamed of her he vvould sever have bene borne of her as noteth S. Chrysostom vpon that place of S. Matthew ¶ An other of his collections as good and Christian â—â— this foloweth in these vvords Saith not Christ him self Ihon 6. to draw them from that finister confidence that they had in his flesh only My flesh profiteth nothing it is only the spirite that quickens In these few vvords M. B. sheweth 2. or 3. very heretical trickes First in perverting the sense of this question like a Capernaite or Nestorian and drawing it to the flesh only as though vve reasoned of Christs flesh only to be geven in vulgar and grosse maner as the Capernaites imagined or as though we conceived it to be the only flesh of a man separated from the spirite Jivinitie the founteyne of life and so vnable to geve life vvhich vvas the sense and meaning of the Nestorians Next he plaieth an heretical part in geving to Christs words vvhat interpretation and meaning him self pleaseth expounding that of Christs only flesh vvhich the very drift circumstance of the place proveth not to be meant of Christs flesh or any flesh at al but only of fleshly and carnal vnderstanding of Christs spiritual vvords according to a common phrase of scripture For after these vvords The flesh profiteth nothing it foloweth immediatly The wordes that I haue spoken to yow are not flesh but spirite life But there are certaine of yow which beleeve not Therefore did I say to yow that no man can come to me vnles it be geven him of my father VVhich vvordes have this plaine and necessarie coherence My wordes are spirite and spiritually to be vnderstood and so geve they life They are not flesh nor to be vnderstood after a fleshly sort as do these Capernaites For so they are not life They are to be vnderstood comprehended by faith not by sense or reason which faith because yow want and folovv your sense and carnal conceites therefore yovv are offended at them So true that is vvhich I said to yovv that no man can come to me and in this sort eate my flesh except it be geven him of my father except my father draw him and illuminate his vnderstanding For flesh and blud hurnainâ— vvit discourse and intelligeÌ„ce can not reveale these matters but only my father vvhich is in heaven This is a plaine evident and true sense of Christs vvords and thus every part aptly ioyneth iustifieth one another vvhereas if in the first ye take flesh for Christs flesh the spirite for Christs spirite there vvil be made ether no sense or a very hard sense of the vvords folowing as the Christian reader by diligent conference of the place may perceive And thus the auncient fathers interprete the place S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Austin Theophilact and others of vvhich S. Chrysostom to alleage one in steed of many as it vvere of purpose writing against M. B. The flesh profiteth nothing saith he Christ speaketh not this of his flesh Absit God defend we should so thinke but he speaketh of those who vnderstand his words carnally The flesh profiteth nothing is not meant of the flesh it self but of the fleshly vnderstanding And in the same place flesh fleshlynes here is spoken of them vvho make doubt move questioÌ„ Quomodo possit carnem su on nobis dare mandâ—candam Hoâ— Christ cangeve vs his flesh to eateâ— But Christâ— words are spirite and life that is are spiritual conteining no carnali ie or natural consequence in the maner of geving his flesh but are free from al earthly necissitie and the lawes of this life as declaring the true geving and receiving of his flesh to be after a divine mystical supernatural vvay The suÌ„marie sense of it is geven in these vvordes of S. Paule Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus the sensual and carnal man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirite of God for it is foolishnes to him he can not vnderstand them But the spirite of God it is vvhich revealeth them A third heretical part and the same vvorse then ether of these two is that he addeth to Christs vvords thereby most vvickedly corrupteth them Christs vvords are as he telleth vs It is the spirite only that quickens and my flesh profiteth nothing But vvhere hath Christ these words VVhere maketh Christ any such opposition betwene his flesh and the spirite VVhere saith he that it is the spirit only that quickens VVhat impudent sawcines vvickednes is this to thrust in of your owne this particle only and to ioyne it to the spirite thereby to take from Christs flesh al force and vertue of quickening vvhich Christ in this same chapter ascribeth to his fâ—esh most expressely Again VVhere saith Christ my fâ—eâ—â— profiteth nothing vvhat a vvicked and execrable and double iniquitie is this First to say that Christs flesh is vnprosirable and then to father this blasphemous â—â— truth vpon Christ him self Saith not Christ him â—â—â— again and again the cleane contrarie Saith he not a the chapiter by yow noted I am the living bread which came downe from heaven If any man eate of this bread he â—â—â— live for ever and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh â—â—â— I wil give for the life of the world Saith he not in the same place He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud haâ—blâ— everlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day Are â—â— these Christs owne vvords my flesh is meate in deed â—â— my blud is
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
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.
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
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
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
looke what coniunction is betwixt the simple word and the thing signified by the word that same sort of coniunction is betwixt the sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament For the sacrament is no other thing but a visible word VVhy a visible word Because as the audible word conueyes the signification of a thing spoken by the eare to the mind so the sacrament conveyes the signification by the eye to the mind Here is the right and entier description of al that which he calleth a coniunction which in deed is no coniunction but only a relation and a relation voluntarie depending as al vvords do be they visible or audible vpon the vvil of man who hath authoritie to alter and chaunge them and therefore ioynes things absent no more then the power of man is able to ioyne them which is nothing at al. For let vs a litle better examine and consider these words because in them lieth the pith and substance of these mens nevvly inuented sacramental signe M. B. after againe precisely diligently and at large repeateth them as very important and excellent wel describing the coniunction of Christs body with their signe Euen saith he as when we heare named Paris France Calecut the king north south things past and done in the beginning of the vvorld things to come to be done in the end of the vvorld such vvords cause mē if they marke them wel to conceiue and in mynd to imagine the thing signified which could not be except there were a coniunction betwene the word and the thing signified euen so the bread and vvine cause vs to conceiue and imagine of Christs body and so they are conioyned to Christs body and Christs body to them But by what reason is this called a coniunction A coniunction of things importeth the things first to be next to be ioyned and coupled together But things which were done in the beginning of the vvorld are not things which shal be done in the end of the vvorld are not they haue no essence no being they are nothing and therefore can not be conioyned with any thing And though Paris France Hierusalem Calecut be some things and extant in the world yet vvhen M. B. spake of them in his Sermon they were no more cōioyned with his vvord then those other things past to come which are not because the vvord spoken is stil of one nature and representeth al things signified a like So that in truth this is no coniunction at al. And what can be more absurd then vvhen an angel reproueth the devil or a good man blesseth him self from him vvhen God cursed the serpent vvhen Christ rebuked Satan bad him avoyd to say that angels and the deuil good men and the deuil are conioyned God vvas conioyned vvith the Serpent Christ vvas conioyned vvith Satan vvhen he mentioned him Al which notvvithstāding of M. B. or some froward minister for honour of their Supper vvil needs haue it called a coniunction any Christian man may sensibly tel him that it is the pitifullest coniunction in the vvorld as vvhich allovveth no other coniunction betvvene their signe or supper Christ body then is betvvene Christ Iesu god most glorious and his immortal enemy Satan the great deuil of hel VVhich point I vvish the reader careful of the truth diligently to marke cary in remēbrance vz. that these men fynd no other coniunction betvvene Christ their Signe or Supper then is betvvene things most contrarie and opposite then is betvvene God and the deuil light and darknes heauen and hel Christianitie and Turkerie vvhite and blacke For as vve reade of Iulianus the Apostata that being once among his cōiurers who had raised vp the deuil he suddenly affrighted by the sight remembred god therevpon signed him self vvith the signe of the crosse so very naturally one contrarie induceth the memorie of an other blindnes maketh vs remēber sight sicknes helth ignorance learning light darknes and so furth and consequently according to this mans preaching doctrine doubtles these are conioyned one with an other the deuil is conioyned vvith God hel vvith heauē sicknes vvith helth black is conioyned vvith vvhite Catholike doctrine vvith heresie and vvit vvith folie and euen such is the coniunction of their signe or supper vvith Christs body VVhich hovv vvorthy a coniunction it is and fit for a sacramental signe of Geneua or rather of Gehenna I leaue to the Christian readers iudgement And yet furthermore against this coniunction riseth a harder obiection and vvhich vtterly refelleth euen such coniunctiō I meane so much as is betvvene vvords signifying things signified so much as is betvvene nothing the vvord nothing in deed For albeit M. B. vvil needs haue them like that as by the vvord Paris or king pronounced by by I remember the things signified so as soone as we see thebread in the ministers hand incontinent the body of Christ comes to our mynds yet I can not allovv thus much For as before hath bene said vvords spoken in some certain language as Scottish or English vvhich clause M. B. addeth for good reason signifie one thing by the consent of that nation as M. B. exemplifieth by the name of Paris of a king c. so that so soone as I heare Paris named if I be an English or Scottish man I streightvvay thinke vpon the citie of Paris in France likevvise of a king or Quene But so is it not in your bread of the Supper For that signifieth not any certain thing by consent of any one nation but his signification dependeth of the ministers sermon vvithout vvhich it is nought els but common bread For so M. B. teacheth Ye shal not so soone see the wine but after the preaching and opening vp of he parts of the sacrament the blud of Christ shal come to your mynd And again more plainly The word that is preached whereto the elements are annexed is the thing which quickens the whole action which serues as it were a sowle and geueth life to the whole action So that vvithout the ministers sermon your bread and vvine is without sowle without life like to a dead stocke or carion it is no sacrament and so signifieth nothing Mary after the sermon it putteth yovv in remembrance of Christ and then lo vvhen then minister hath preached and opened al the parts Christ shal come to our mind not by vertue of the bread but by reason of the minister who before hath told vs so much So that if the Minister make his sermon as cōmonly against the Pope Catholikes that they in executing heretikes Anabaptists Zuinglians Trinitarians such other Gospellers haue powred out the blud of the Lords martyrs thē the wine wil as aptly make the Communicants remember such martyrs blud If a Catholike in mynd though schismatike in external behauiour or some Lutheran be
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
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
laboureth to prove very earnestly and diligently This M. B. out of Calvin and Beza preacheth very directly and expressely and by scripture wickedly perverted seeketh to establish It is sure saith he and certain that the faith of Gods children is never wholy extinguisted Though it be never so weake it shal never vtterly decay â— perish out of the hart Howsoever it be weake yet a weake faith is faith and such a faith that the lest parcel or drop of â—ssureth vs that God is fauourable frindly and merciful â—â—â— vt Minima fidei gâ—â—ta facit was certo inâ—uiâ—â— contemplari fâ—ciem Dei pâ—acidam sereâ—em nobisoâ—e prâ—pitiaâ— as writeth Caluin M. B. hauing run a good vvhile in this veyne concludeth For conformation of my argument howsoever 〈…〉 bodies â—e 〈…〉 â—o al dissolution â—et after our effectual calling within our sewles suppâ—â—e the fier be covered with â—shes yet it it â—ier therâ— wil no man say the fier is put out suppose it â—e covered No more is faith put out of the sowle supâ—ose it â—â— so covered that it shâ—w nether how nor light outwardlâ— Finally he repeateth as a most sure principle It is certaine that the faithful have never the spirit of God taâ—e from thâ—â— wholy in their greatest dissolutions though they 〈…〉 〈…〉 thâ—rers adulterers c. VVhereas then every Calvinist vvho once hath tasted of Calvins iustifying faith as hath M. B. can never possibly leese that faith but must of necessâ—â—â—â— reteyne it perpetually though he fal into never so great dissolution and filthines of life become he a murtherer an adulterer a robber of churches a sinke of iniquitie as many such iustified and elect Calvinists are vvhereas I say al that notwithstanding he is not forsaken of the spirit of God nor deprived of this special and singular faith vvhich M. B. so oft hath told vs is the only mouth of the sowle the only meane to eate and fâ—â—d oâ— Christ how can he possibly vvith any face or modestie vvith any learning or reason deny that vvicked men receive Christs body vvhereas he alloweth and that infallibly to the most detestable men the spirit of God and this special faith this month of the sowle by vvhich most truly effectually spiritually the body of Christ is eateÌ„ let him vvith better advise marke this his owne preaching and doctrine of Iohn Calvin and his Geneva church and conferre it diligently vvith his other fansie of evil men not receiving Christs body in their signe he shal find this opinion to be altogether false vnprobable and vnpossible to be conceived or beleeved and â—â—â— against their owne preaching and teaching And doubtles besides this special point of Calvinisme vvhich is so pregnant and direct to prove against M. B the general sway of their doctrine induceth the same which is it provoketh men to licentious and dissolute life in that it preacheth only faith to serve for Christian iustice so the verie issue of that solifidian iustification is this vvhen men in life are become most beastly and vitious then to make them most vaunting and glorious for this â—â—stant persuasion that by only faith in Christ they are saved and iustified for that as Luther taught nothing but only infidelitie could 〈…〉 such faithful Protestants of his sect as Zuinglius wrote al such if they beleeve as he preached they forth with were in as great favour with God â—â— Christ Iesus him self and God would no lesse deliver them from â—el no lesse open heaven to them then to his only begotâ—â— soâ—â—e as our first English Apostles and martyrs taught and â—ealed vvith their blud whâ—â— we labour in good workes to come to heaven we do shame to Christs blud For having that particular persuasion vvhereof is spoken if we beleeve that God hath promised vs everlasting life it is impossible that we should perish VVe can not be damned except Christ be damned nor Christ saved except we be saved VVe have as much right and as great to heaven as Christ vvhat soever our life or vvorks be For al they erre that thinke they shal be saved when they have done many good workes For it is not good life but alonely a stedfast faith and trust in God that may bring vs to heaven be our sinnes never so great and that it seeme vnpossible for vs to be saved c. This is the very pith substance of the Lutheran Zuinglian Calvinian English and Scottish Theologie touching only faith this inferreth cleane contrarie to M. B. that vvicked â—nd instructed in the Protestant schoole may have and by coÌ„mon reason and discourse have as constant persua 〈…〉 to be iustified in Christ as men of more honest life And therefore vvhereas M. B. saith that such bad Protestants lacke a mouth of the sowle that is lacke a constant per 〈…〉 in Christs death vvhereby Christ is eateÌ„ he speaketh l 〈…〉 man that lacketh a face that lacketh a forhead or 〈…〉 that lacketh vvit that lacketh knowledge that hath no skil in his owne Theologie in his owne religioÌ„ which by plaine manifest reason and proofe yea by expectence ocular demonstration assureth vs the contrarie The rest of this Sermon vvhich is principally in coÌ„mending and magnifying the vertue of faith that by faith vve have an interest title and right in Christ by faith we possesse Christ that true faith is a straunge ladder tâ—â—â— wil climb betwixt the heaven the earth aâ—cord that gâ—â—â— betwene heaven and earth that couples Christ and vs together c. al this and much more as it is wel spoken of â—â—â— Christian and Catholike faith so being applied to the Lutheran Calvinian Anabaptistical and Scottish presumption that rash and brainsick imagination 〈…〉 described vvhich the Protestants cal faith never I vvord of it is true By that vve have no right title oâ—â—â—terest in Christ but the devil hath a right title 〈…〉 in vs. By it we possesse not Christ but are possessed of his enemie It is no ladder reaching to heaven no cord that goes thether but it is a steep breakeneck downefal sending to helâ—a rope or cable of pride by vvhich as the first Apostata Angels vvere pulled downe from heaven to hel and there tied vp in eternal darknes so by the same pride arrogancie presumption albeit these men baptise it by the name of faith al prowd schismatiks and heretikes Apostataes from Christs Catholike church despisers of that their mother and therefore true children of that first Apostata Lucifer their father must looke to have such part and portion as their father hath vvhose example and as it vvere footesteps in this arrogant and Satanical presumption and solifidian confidence they folow Of tuitching Christ corporally and spiritually The Argument M. B. guilefully magnifieth the spiritual manducation by faith to exclude the spiritual manducation ioyned with corporal manducation in the sacrament The definition of faith geven by S.
and such like places is that Christ is not so in the world as for â—â—â— sake he was in the world 33. yeres poore afflicted mortal In this sense we truly vnderstand Christs words Me your shal not haue alwaies with yow For we haue not Christ as in the time of his dispensation be liued with his disciples and as they desired to have Christ always present in the external conuersatioÌ„ of this life Visibly as then he conuerseth not with vs he eateth not he drinketh not he sleepeth not he needeth not to be enterteyned in our howse or table or to be anoynted as Simon and Lazarus enterteyned him a certaine woman anoynted him The Apostles desired to haue in Christ carnal comforts and earthly benefites So Christ was not to remayne with them in the world So it was conuenient for them that he should depart should forsake the world and not be in the world In this sense the Apostle Paule saith that he knoweth no man no not Christ according to the flesh But these places and al other of like effect conclude no more then we graunt that Christ is not in the Eucharist after a wordly maner according to philosophical and earthly properties of a body as is to be circumscribed and shut vp in a place and such like qualities of this mortal and worldly life But yet truly he is with vs in his power and maiestie and most specially in the boly supper and that in his flesh and blud according to his owne worde Other arguments against the real presence ansvvered The Argument Five other arguments made against the real presence are answered It is not necessarie that al such things be present in the sacrament or administration of the sacrament as are signified by bread and wine the material parts thereof How it is horrible wickednes to eate Christs flesh how therefore such speech is vnderstood mystically spiritually yet without hindering the real presence but rather confirming it CHAP. 19. THE arguments proposed in the last chapter are M. B. his principal argumeÌ„ts which as very principal have bene heretofore pressed againe and againe by the greater Rabbines of the sacrameÌ„tarie synagoge and because they seeme consonant to humane reason and are beautified vvith the name of one auncient father of greatest estimation may seeme to cary some credit though being indifferently wayed they are very light and prove nothing The rest that folow are for the most part as I ghesse his owne For so the povertie and miserablenes of them maketh me to thinke One or other of them vvas at the beginning vsed by Zuinglius and Occolampadius but are al of one fashion and grace some Iudaical some heretical some founded vpon manifest lyes some plaire derogatorie to Christs glorie al sond and contemptible vvithout any pith vvhich therefore I vvil the more briefly runne ouer The first is The effect of the sacrameÌ„t is spiritual But of a corporal presence no spiritual effect can euer â—â—â—â— So this corporal presence must ay tend to a corporal end which is directly coÌ„trarie to the end why the sacrameÌ„t was instituted This argument is more meet for a Iew then a Christian It is as good against Christs real incarnation death and passion as against the sacrament For if a corporal presence of Christ can vvorke no spiritual effect then nether did his incarnation any good nor death nor passion The next If the bread â—e chaunged in to the body of Christ thâ—â— this sacrament wanteth a signe which is to nurrish vscorporally as the body of Christ doth spiritually But the accidents cannot nurrish vscorporally This argument is false in evenâ— part and parcel and flat repugnant to the last For 〈…〉 Christs corporal presence can not worke any spiritual effect vvhat need vve to have bread to signifie that And if Christs body being present can not nurrish spiritually much lesse can it absent as by M. B. his divers reasons and similitudes vve haue bene before instructed Secondarily the signe in the sacrament vvhich he and his felowes most vrge vvhich is to moue the external senses more properly is found in the external accidents then the internal substance vvhich no man can see and therefore can not be moued vvith the sight thereof by his eye to informe his mind of Christ the spiritual bread VVherefore as to a sacrament is required only that there be an external signe representing the internal gift so this is fully don by the external figure alone as the brasen serpent in the old testameÌ„t vvas a sacrameÌ„t of Christ very fully and sufficiently represented him albeit in that vvere no true substance and nature of a serpent but only the external shape Thirdly I demaund vvhere findeth M. B. in al the Euangelists in S. Paule in Christs words that this sacrament vvas appointed to signifie spiritual nurriture vvhich vvas in deed appointed to nurrish spiritually to life eternal Again it is false that the accidents in the sacrament do not nurrish and true it is that even in ordinarie food meat and drinke doth nurrish by reason and meane of the accidents Furthermore as the fathers teach vs that to the sacrament is required bread for this signification of spiritual nurriture so the same fathers tel vs and so doth S. Paule him self though not so plainly that the sacramental bread signifieth our mystical vnion and coniunction one vvith an other Our Lord saith S. Austin commended to vs his body in those things which of many are made one Of many vvheate cornes is made the bread of many grapes is made the vvine vvhich is also the similitude of S. Cyprian and very largely prosecuted in the English and Scottish communion vvhere thus the brothers and sisters singe And that vve should not yet forget VVhat good he to vs wrought A signe Christ left our eyes to tel that he our bodies bought in bread and vvine here visible c. VVhich signification is there artificially and Rhetorically thus dilated As once the corne did live and grow and vvas cut downe vvith sith And thresshed out vvith many stripes out from his huske to driue And as the mil vvith violence did teare it out so smale c. And as the ouen vvith fier hote did close it vp in heate c. So vvas the Lord in his ripe age cut downe by cruel death Again And as the grapes in pleasant tyme are pressed very sore a pitiful case And plucked downe vvhen they be ripe And let to grow no more So Christ his blud out pressed was c. Thus much for ech part in seueral now for conclusicâ— vvhat both these parts ioyntly signifie And as the cornes by vnitie in to one loaf is knit So is the Lord and his whole Church Though he in heauen sit As many grapes make but one wine So should vve be but one In faith and loue c. These significations and
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