est Christianum hominem non esse qui non eadem fidei certitudine credit Dominum Iesum esse filium Dei se per eum esse percepturum vitam aeternam VVe professe â—aith Bucer Brentius Georgius Maior vvith other Lutheran Divines disputers against the Catholikes in that conference that he is not to be taken for a Christian man who beleeveth not with the same certitude or assurance of faith both that Christ our lord is the sonne of God and that him self in particular by Christ shal possesse life eternal This is that vvhich M. B. meaneth vvhen he saith that the applying of Christ eating of Christ by faith is to beleeue that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes to me VVhich iustification and remission of sinnes being in particular beleeved of the Protestant in such sort as is any article of his â—aith thereby geveth a spiritual manducation to him vvhich the Catholike hath not Thus writeth M. B. afterwardes vvhere he spendeth many pages in magnifying this â—aith This faith â—aith he workes a wonderful assurance and persuasion that God loves me that he wil saue me that meâ—â—â— life saluation at perteynes to me This works the seeling of mercy in our hart a particular application whereby we claime Christ and God as proper to vs as if no man bâ—â— title to him and his promises but we Again This particular application is 〈…〉 difference the chief marke and note whereby our â—â—ith who are iustified in the blud of Christ is discerned 〈…〉 faith of the Papists c. For the Papist 〈…〉 promise of mercy to his ownesowle He countes it preâ—â—â—tion as in truth it is and for presumption counted and coâ—demned by the Apostle Rom. 11. 20. 21. â—â— Corint 9. â—7 Philip. 3. 11. 12. Hebr. 4. 1. 2. c. to say I am an elect I â—â— saueâ— iustified This is the vvonderful faith of the Protestants vvhich to them is al in al. This M. B. calleth their iustifying faith By this thy eate Christ so as no man doth 〈…〉 theâ—â— By this they are sure of heaven in heaueÌ„ to be felowes equal vvith S. Peter S. Paule yea vvith the blessed virgin mother of God For so Luther foundeâ— and first inventor of this faith writeth expressely Quâ—â— hac side renati sumus pares sumus in dignitate honore D. Paulo Petro S. Deiparae virgini ac divis omnibus VVâ—â— now that at last vvâ— know exactly vvhat faith it is vvhich geveth the Protestants so deep holdfast in their spiritual maÌ„â—ucatioÌ„ let vs retouâ—â—â— to our principal purpose And as by this vvhich hath bene said of this special Protestant faith I confesse M. B. hath a sufficient ground to chalenge such kind of eating by this faith I meane to him self and his companions Protestants and to exclude out al Catholikes be they as holy as S. Peâ—er or S. Paule vvho never had such a special faith and therefore could never thus â—aâ—e Christ so yet the blocke lyeth stil in M. B. vvay and the rest of his consâ—aternitie that by this saith evil Protestants receive Christ no lesse then good For among the Protestants the most detestable and most blasphemous heretikes have this assurance of their iustification and remission of sinnes no lesse then M. B. or Iohn Calvin or Luther him self vvho by the helpe of an old man whose name Luther expresseth not saith M. Fox but belike it vvas the same man vvho in an other forme frequeÌ„ted Carolostadâ—ê° instructed him first of al inveÌ„ted this special iustifying faith For as after Luther al Lutherans have it most assuredly and after Zuinglius al Zuinglians and after Calâ—in al Calvinists so the Anabaptists more then any of those former sects and Libertines Familie of love by vvord and deed by life and death most confidently chalenge to them selves this assurance that they in Christ have remission of their sinnes that Christ died for them that he shed his blud for them that they are spiritually vnited to Christ they are inwardly so fed by him and outwardly so clothed vvith him that as it is testified by sundry stories many such Protestants both men vvemen and maydens long sithence in Bohemia and of late in Holland at none dayes in the sight of thousands vvould vvalke naked thorough the streetes preaching the vvord of the Lord and could not be vvithdrawen from that furious vnnatural madnes by the terror of present death continually even to death and in death some crying Praise the Lord others Open your eyes ye blind Papists others Revenge O Lord the blud of thy servants and thus not by vvords as M. B. doth but by deeds and facts by patient suffering of death approved they their confidence and assurance of such special faith as M. B. teacheth and Luther the Calvinists describe If then the Anabaptists to make stay and exeÌ„plifie this matter by them vvhom Calvin condemneth for heretikes and vvhose martyrs though in shew marvelous holy and in number never so many he accounteth and calleth martyres diaboli the devils martyrs by vvhich name likewise the Lutherans cal the martyrs of Calvins sect have this sure faith that Christ dyed for them in special and that Christ shed his blud for them in particular and they in this sort spiritually eate Christ how vvith vvhat prohabilitie can M. B. deny such eating to al Protestants of his owne sect though evil livers vvho much more certainly have this faith and therefore much more spiritually eate Christ If an heretike can have a constant persuasion in the death of Christ and then al goes wel and he therefore truly receives Christ by faith according to M. B. definition how much more may a vvicked Calvinist vvhom M. B. accounteth no heretike reteyne this constant persuasion Hath an Anabaptist a â—â—â—th of the sowle apt for such receiving hath not a Calvinist Is evil life a greater bar to such receiving then naughty faith vvhereas this receiving is vvrought only by faith not by life And vvhat need I to rest exemplifie this by Libertines or Anabaptists vvhereas the best surest ground to refute M. B. in this point is the general doctrine of Calvin and Calvinists and the same preached at large by M. B. him self in these Sermons For as M. B. is sure that he is iustified he is elect he is saved he hath this special faith vvhich applieth Christ to him so properly and peculiarly as though no man had interest in Christ but him self alone so this faith vvhich is the right perfit iustifying faith and proper to the elect being once obteyned is never after lost nor never can possibly depart from them commit thy sinnes never so greavous and horible Thus teacheth Beza in the Confession of his Christian Geneva faith most plainly This Calvin in his Institutions
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
church as we learne by Theodore Beza VVhere there is no vse of bread wine or no store thereof as it chaunceth at some certain time there the Lords supper is orderly ministred if in steed of bread and wine that be taken which supplieth the place of bread wine ether by common vse or at such tymes And he obserueth rightly enough Christs meaning who not for nouelties sake taketh in steed of bread wine such things as haue though not equal yet like proportion or analogie of foode As in like mâ—â—ner if water be wanting yet the baptizing of some child may not wel be differred with edification I truly wold baptise with any other liquor as wel as with water By warrant whereof in many places of Christendom where bread wine is haâ—d to come by stockfish with single ale more coÌ„mon in vsual diet there the Protestant communion is wel orderly ministred if the minister with 3. or 4. brethern go together into a tauerne eate a litle stockfish drinke a draught of ale he bid them to remember the Lords death For whereas the words of Christs institution are no waves necessarie but al dependeth on the faith of the bretherne which communicate here we learne that bread wine are not so requisite but that other meate drinke may supply the want thereof whereas in this coÌ„munion which here I note is both the matter and also the forme of a Protestant supper who can deny but it is a veâ—â—e complete perfite coÌ„munion And that not only if a man vse stockfish but also by like reason any other meate that nourisheth though not in equal degree as bread doth yet in some like sort And then as any flesh â—apon pâ—g goose beef or mutton may serue for the one kind so match-beer strong or smale ale good water metheglin or any such vsed liquor may serue for the other So that we now draw somwhat nigh to the perfectioÌ„ esseÌ„t al forme of that which ouâ— gospellers cal the supper of the Lord which we see may be had at euery breakefast at euery dinner supper beuer where there is bread beere or cheese water oâ— flesh and wine or any such â— things which nourish our bodies as bread wine do though not in so large maner yet with this sober caution that the bretherne which meete at this coÌ„munion remember the death of Christ vse these other kinds of meate not for loue of â—â—eltie but for loue of Christian libertie hatred of Papistrie because forsooth they wil shew that they hate the Catholike church which vseth superstitiously as they suppose those only 2. elements But now let vs go one step farther put the case that 3. or 4. gossips meete together at a drinking and after much good how shold talke in sine they remember them selues then one willeth the other to remember the death of the Lord so drinke one to the other and eate some such gossiping meate as they haue brought some applepie or flawne or so forth whie is not this as true a Protestant coÌ„munion as any yet mentioned Here is the matter of the coÌ„munion that is some foode that nourisheth the body here is faith which is the forme here is remembrance of Christ and his death then what wanteth to make vp and perfite the coÌ„munion Truly I can not imagine any default touching the substance essence but that this is as ful complete a communioÌ„ as any at this day ministred in England or Scotland For that which perhaps some man may obiect to be here wanting vz. a minister is an obiection more â—it for a Papist or Catholike then a Protestant or heretike Among whom very few there are who haue written especially bookes of coÌ„mon places but they discourse at large wemen no lesse then men to be priests of the new testament although for maners sake they may not in al places vse practise such their priesthod I in paâ—t agree with them that euery woman is as â—it lawful a minister as any who ministreth in the Scottish and English congregations Certainly Luther hath made long treatises heapeth tegether a number of allegations out of the holy scriptures to proue al that are baptized wemen no lesse then men to be priests by vertue thereof to haue power both to preach minister sacraments In the second Tome of his works he particularly rehearseth al ecclesiastical functions proueth as wel as he can that the execution of them al is a like common to al that are baptized Among much other talke to that purpose thus he writeth The first office of a priest is to preach the word of this depend al the rest But this is coÌ„mon to al. Next is to baptize and this also may al do euen wemen when they baptize they execute a lawful priesthod an ecclesiastical ministerie which is proper to priests only The third is to consecrate bread wine But this also is commoÌ„â—o al no lesse then priests And this I aduouch by the authoritie of Christ him self saying do this in remembrance of me This Christ spake to al there present to come afterwards who so euer should eate that bread drink that wine Ergo what so euer was there bestowed was bestowed on al. Nether can the Papists oppose any thing against this besides their Fathers Councels custome This also is witnessed by S. Paule who 1. Cor. 11. repeating this applieth it to al the Corinthians making them al as him self was that is to say consecrators c. Forthwith after a few words he concludeth Igitur si quod maius est collatum est omnibus etiam mulieribus c. If then that which is greater be geuen indifferently to al men and women I meane the word and baptisme then that which is lesse I meane to consecrate the supper is geuen also to them VVhich argument as a most principal he vrgeth againe a few leaues after VVhen the office of teaching the word is graunted to any together therewith al that is vsed in the church is graunted I meane to baptise to consecrate to bynd to lose to pray to iudge For the office of preaching the gospel is the chief a very Apostolical office which geueth the foundation to al other offices which al are built thereon The like hath he in sundry places and bookes Only he requireth that whereas the right power thus to minister is coÌ„mon to al that are baptized wemen no lesse then men yet that nether men nor wemen vse this right of theirs but where there is want of better ministers then also that they do it with modestie To which purpose clearing of his assertion he maketh an obiection to himself in an other booke thus But the Papists obiect the saying of the Apostle Let wemen hold there peace
remit the reader Concerning the priest who only can say the masse one thing required in him that so necessarie as without it he can not be a priest is that he have power geven by the bisshop to consecrate which power is iustified by the vnction and shaving of his crowne as truly as the ministers power geven him by the Superintendent as in England or by the assembly of ministers and Elders as in Scotland is iustified by hauing a faire long beard and a sister in the lord to keepe him companie at bed and at bourd I omit a number of other falsities vttered in this place by him for that they are not particular but general agreing to him vvith the rest of the ministerie as that a priest hath no calling nor office now in the church of God that he â—ffereth sacrifice withâ—ut a commaund that he should speake out cleerly in â—knoweâ— language so forth these are coÌ„mon lies therefore I vvil not heâ—e lay theÌ„ to M. B. his charge Albeit he may take that to him self vvhich is an vntruth ioyned vvith ignorance and I thinke not avouched by any of the more learned Calvinists that sorsooth vve make two things necessaâ—iâ— to the actiâ—n without which the action can not be VVâ—â—h uâ— the lor â—â—â—â—â—ver it can not be without the â—ive words of the institution it can â—â—â— le For if he vnderstood vvhat is meant by the action in the masse he should find that vvithout the lords praier if by it he meane the Pâ—â—â—r noster the action mâ— le and tâ—erof â—re that he falsely and ignorantly coupleâ—h together as things of like necessitie the wordes of the Iâ—stituâ—ion and the Lordes praâ—â—r Touching the forme of consecration so far as I vnderstand of it saith he it standes in these 5. wordes Hoc est enim corpâ—â—â—eum and in the whispering of them For if ye whisper theâ— not ye tine the fashion of incantation For the thing that we câ—â— sanctifying they cal whispering Here is again vntruth vpoÌ„ vntruth only somwhat excusable for that he pleadeth ignorance adioyning to his assertion so far as I vnderstaÌ„d vvhich is almost as litle as nothing For nether do they sanctifie the bread vvine nor can they by their doctrine ioyne any sanctification vnto it and M. B. him self albeit he vse the terme of sanctification yet in this very place refuteth al true sanctificatioÌ„ of the bread vvine we cal not sanctifying whispering no more then they cal it gâ—pling or halowing as hunters do a fox because after Caluin M. B. requireth and urgeth very carefully that the minister preach proclame his sermon publikely with â— cleare lowd voyce As for the vvords of consecratioÌ„ whether by a lawful priest they be pronounced a lowd vvith an audible voyce as from the beginning vntil this present hath bene the vse of the Greeke church and of old it seemeth to have bene so likevvise in the Latin church or vvhether the vvords be pronouÌ„ced as novv the vniversal custom is vvith vs in a lovv voyce and in silence the effect is al one and no Christian of any vvit ever doubted but as of old in both churches so novv in the Greeke vvhere the vvordes are vttered alovvd as vvel as in the Latin church vvhere they are pronounced othervvise the effect of consecratioÌ„ folovveth in both alike That in the auncient church the priest spake the vvords alovvd vve find in S. Clement the Apostles felovv in S. Ambrose â—â— others and that the people vvere then accustomed to say Amen and by open confession to acknovvlege for true the priests vvords VVhereof vvriteth S. Ambrose thuâ— The priest saith it is the body of Christ and thow answereâ— Amen as much to say as truly so it is That thow confesseâ—â— with they tonge reteyne and hold fast in thy hart and mind For in vayne saith Leo the great do they answere Amen to the priests words who dispute and make arguments against that which is there received The like vsage of answering Amen by the people appeareth in the most auncient Masses or Liturgies of S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom and others And that at this present the same order stil continueth in the East churches it is testified by Bessarion Patriarch of Constantinople in his booke of the sacrament c. The priest saith he pronounceth the words of consecration with a lowd voyce iuxta orient â—is Ecclesiae rituÌ„ according to the maner of the East church and the people seuerally first at the consecration of the body then againe of the blud answere Amen truly so it is And by answering Amen to those words verily say they these giftes are the body and blud of Christ So we beleeve so we confesse Thus Bessarion And to ioyne hereto one 〈◊〉 example vvhich may serve in steed of many as being takeÌ„ out of the Liturgie or Masse called VNIVERSALIS CANON vsed vniuersally by al Christians in a maner over al Africa especially in the most large and ample kingdoms of Aethiopia at the consecration of ether part of the sacrifice the people likewise geve assent and approbation to the priest in this sort The priest speaketh Christ the night in which he was beâ—rayed tooke bread in to his holy and immaculate hands looking vp to heaven to thee O God his father geve thankes blessed sanctified it saying take eate ye al of this This is my body which shal be delivered for yow to remission of sinnes The people answere Amen Amen Amen truly truly truly so it is VVe beleeve and trust and praise thee O our God Hoc vere tuum corpus est This here is truly thy body The priest procedeth Christ likewise taking the chalice geuing thankes blessed and sanctified it and said to them Drinke ye al of this This is the chalice of my blud which shal be shed for yow and for the redemption of many The people answere we beleeve and trust and praise thee O Lord our God Hic vere â—â—us sanguis est this truly is thy blud This is the order of the Christian churches in the East and South in Asia Africa this vvas sometimes the custom in the VVest in Europe And if it vvere now reteyned it vvould not â—arme tyne or hinder the veritie of consecration or Christs real presence but it vvould harme hinder and discover perhaps many faithles godles and Christles Calvinists vvho now sometimes like hipocrites are present at the church sacrifice because they are not driven to make such Christian confession of their faith in this behalf as vvas the auncient custom in both churches East and VVest and at this present continueth in al churches of the East And therefore vvhen M. B. speaketh as here he doth every vvord he speaketh is a fowle vntruth It is a fowle vntruth to say that vve cal whispering that
and such like it may be answered in his behalf that to require of him or any other of his profession to make their doctrine ech part agreable to other in places so far distant is vnreasonable and against the tenor and qualitie of their gospel vvhich euermore varieth and altereth VVhich libertie also M. B. closely insinuateth and chalengeth to him self in these Sermons vvilling his auditors in the second of them to take this for the present vntil he have more insight in these matters and it appeareth his insight vvas more in the 4. and 5. Seâ—mons then it vvas in the third I omit also vvhich yet is very markable and diligently to be noted that for al these blind contrarie assertions he stil alleageth scripture as vvel for one part as the other That faith is lost by evil life he proveth by scripture That faith is never lost by any meanes he proveth at large and more abundantly by scripture That faith is a substantial ground an assurance and certaine pâ—rsuasion without al doubting he proveth by S. Paul That faith may stand vvith doubting looke to the Apostle saith M. B. the Apostle saith we always are in doubt but we despaire not For vvhich text refeiring it to faith as he doth that we always are in doubt of our faith or any part thereof vve may looke for it in the Apostle til our eyes be out and never find it That the holy ghost can not abide and remayne in a sinful sowle is proved by scripture That the holy ghost never departeth from the elect commit they sinnes never so fowle and filthy for this also he alleageth scripture and so forth for the rest that faith is ever vvorking wel by charitie sometimes not vvorking wel c. scriptures especially S. Paul is ever at hand to iustifie al. ¶ But the most absurd and grosse contrarietie is that he maketh the very frame body of his discourse plaine repuguant to his beginning ending he setteth as it vvere the head feet of a horse to the body of a man as though he vvould protest him self to be of the number of those of vvhoÌ„ the Apostle speaketh They covet to be taken for doctors of the law and preachers of the gospel vvhereas they vnderstand nether what things they speake nor whereof they affirme For what is his discourse in these 2. Sermons touching preparation Forsooth that to the vvorthy receiving of the Lords supper is required preparation vvhich conteynes many parts that the communicant have true faith in Christ love God love his neighbour pray be merciful bring forth good fruits glorisie God in vvord and deed be sorie for sinne coÌ„mitted â—heretofore diligently eschew it for the tyme to come hate sinne and also have sorow for it For it is not inough to hate it if thow lament not the committing of it and with a godly sorow deplore it vvherein he speaketh like a Papist or Catholike not like a Gospelling Protestant this being flat against the common vvriting of his maisters Luther Calvin Musculus Melanchton Beza c. yea against his owne Scottish communion booke For it was one of Luthers capital articles condemned by the Romane See and after stubbornely mainteined by him and his sectaries as an article most true Christian and godly plane manifeste Christianissimus that such contrition and lamenting for sinne as here M. B. commendeth maketh one an hipocrite yea a greater and more grevous sinner before God facit hypocritam imo magis peccatorem and the Scottish communion booke speaking of this verie point saith that the Lord requireth no other worthines on our part lut that we vrfaynedly ackowlege our naughtines and imperfection briefly and in summe the person that vvould vvorthely receive the supper must trie his conscience in these 2. points first to know whether it beat peace with God secondly whether it be in love charitie and amitie with his neighbour This preparation vvhich thus in these last Sermons he most prosequuteth may seeme both to incite his auditors to great holynes and to make others suppose that he hath a verie divine and high opinion of their supper to the receiving vvhereof such great preparation is required But vvilt thow see good reader al this overthrowen in one sentence Marke his first proposition in the first page of these last Sermons wherein he avoweth preparation to be always at al times as wel necessarie for hearing the siwple word as for receiving the visible sacrament and like preparatioÌ„ requisite for the one as for the other For so he foloweth on vvith his discourse The Apostle in the words that we have read 1. Cor. 11. v. 28. gives his commaund that we should not come to the table of the Lord we should not come to the hearing of the word rashly but with reverence we should prepare and sanctifie our selves in some measure VVith the same conclusion he shutteth vp both these sermons thus speaking in the last leaf Thus ye see in what points every of yâ—w ought to be prepared Ye man be indâ—ed with loue â—aith if ye haue these in any smal measure go baldly to the hearing of the word and receiving of the sacrament VVhy Siâ—is this the vvay to make your auditors to amend them selves their life and maners or to engender iâ— them reverence towards the supper to tel them that like preparation is required for hearing the simple vvord as for receiving the sacrament To leâ— rest for a vvhile the grosse absurditie and vile consequence vvhich dependeth hereon lâ—â— vs first learne vvhere yow find this kind of Theologie Yow answere The Apostle in the words which yow have read to your auditors 1. Cor. 11. ver 28. interpones his counsel and geves advise and not only that but also geves his admonition and commaund that we should not come to the table of the lord we should not come to the hearing of the word rashly but with reverence c. Let vs consider the text in the Apostle The place by yow quoted is this according to the translation of Calvin and Beza Let every one try him self and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh to himself damnation for that he discerneth not the lords body VVhere find yow here that a man must come vvith such reverence as yow tel vs of to heare the word Yea vvhere find yow the vvord mentioned at al ether in that verse or in the vvhole chapter VVhat grosse impietie corruption is this to publish so vvicked vnreasonable pestilent doctrine then to father it on the blessed Apostle and namely in this place vvhere it is most repugnant to the vvhole drift of the Apostles atgumeÌ„t VVhat one I vvil not say of the Apostles or primitive fathers and auncient Doctors but vvhat man indued vvith any meane learning
by S. Cyprian and Bibliander 1. that in place of al the auncient legal sacrifices should succede in the new testameÌ„t an eucharistical sacrifice in bread wine 2. that that bread wine should be the true flesh blud of the Messias 3. that in such sacrifice should consist the priesthod according to the order of Melchisedech Al which might easelie plainely inough be deduced out of the scriptures for if Melchisedech so offered in prefiguration of Christ Christ must needes likewise so offer to fulfil that figure which being neuer by Christ accoÌ„plished but at his last supper most sure certain it is that there he offered after the order of Melchisedech were it not that the Protestants especially the Sacramentaries herein cheifly in the first original ground of all the rest that is in the sacrifice of Melchisedech meÌ„tioned in Genesis shew them selues incredible wranglers Sophisters in cauilling vpon the Hebrew letter without al reason ground heretikes beyond measure in trusting to them selues alone condemning al others who since the time of Melchisedech both Hebrewes Christians haue acknowledged in this place a sacrifice Amongst which heretikes the chief both Caluin Zuingli very saucely impudeÌ„tly shame not to say that in this matter al the auncient fathers writers wrote spake without iudgement more vainlâ— then vanitie it self not content with Christs institution the wisdom of god inuented the oblatioÌ„ of their owne heads They al erred in so belâ—â—â—ing writing deuised to them selues a sacrifice whereof Moses the holy Gost neuer thought They followed there owne inuentions saw lesse in the scriptures then the rude ignorant people And Illyâ—icus that they in so expounding the scriptures violently naughtely hunted after allegories as was always their fashion Although our English doctor doctor Iewel whose Theologie consisted vpon words phrases haue a farther shift peculier to him selfe beyond al other vz. that the Hebrew word vsed by Moyses is doubtful signifieth as wel a prince as a priest therefore nether priesthod nor sacrifice could necessarily be inferred thereof VVhich is a right way to checke reproue both the prophet Dauid Apostle Paule who long sithence determined the Hebrew word to one certain signification which I suppose they knew somwhat better then M. Iewel did The declaration of which matter to make it plaine to common capacities because it would require some longer time then I thinke needeful to spend for that it is somwhat obscure subtile dependeth vpon gramatical cauils of the Hebrew toÌ„ge I wil here omit especially for that otherwise sufficient seemeth to haue bene said of the words of Christs supper which are also so very manifest euident of them selues that the more learned gospellers from the first original of this new gospel haue stood in defence of the real presence do at this present against the tropical construction of the Caluinists VVherefore ceasing to speake any more hereof I wil procede on as I intended to shew the continuance of this beleefe if yet first I shal note in a word or two that Christs speach vttered in the institution of this sacrament cary such weight to induce establish a sactifice that so much in part is confessed graunted by Ihon Caluin him selfe who in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the words of the Apostle S. Paule Corpus quod pro vobis frangitur The body which is broken for yow writeth thus This is not lightly to be passed ouer For Christ geueth vs not his body sleightly or without any condition adioyned but he geueth it as sacrificed for vs. VVhere ore the first part of this sentence declareth that the body of Christ is deliuered or exhibited to vs the second part expresseth what fruit cometh to vs thereby to wit that thereby we are made partakers of the redemption wrought by Christ the benefit of his sacrificess applied to vs. VVhich words how soeuer he vnderstand them signifie wel truly that Christ in that his last supper deliuered his blessed body to his disciples in them to al Christians not as borne of the virgin not as conversant in this world not as risen from death ascending to heauen or sitting there on gods right hand but as offered to god sacrificed for vs to the end that by that coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice the fruite of Christs redemption procured vniuersally to al mankind by his death on the crosse might be really effectually applied to al faithfull Christians members of Christs catholike church who haue coÌ„munication in that sacrifice ¶ And thus with this opinion was this sacrament practised by the Apostles in the first Apostolical church immediatly after Christ as we learne by S. Luke the Apostle S. Paule by S. Luke when he noteth in the Actes of the Apostles that the holy Ghost chose out certaine of them as they were doing publike service ministerie to our lord ministrantibê° illis domino VVhere the word vsed by the Evangelist signifieth a publike ministerie service of the church such as properly the sacrifice is And therefore Erasmus translateth it according to the proper signification of the Greeke word sacrificantibus illis domino while they were doing sacrifice to our lord VVhich Beza also could be content to admit were it not it draweth to nigh to the church sacrifice But howsoeuer in that respect he refuseth it sure it is al the old fathers Apostolike men from thence in that sense called the christian sacrifice or masse the Liturgie as the Liturgie or masse of S. Iames the Liturgie or masse of S. Basil the Liturgie or masse of S. Chrysost as also Erasmus doth interprete it in this sense of a publike sacrifice doth S. Luke otherwhere vse the word S. Paule by this word properly expresseth our Sauiours priesthod and his most publike general sacrifice VVhich Apostle also mentioneth this the Church sacrifice when as writing to the christians of Corinth he dehorteth them from coÌ„municating with the Gentiles in their idolatrous sacrifices by an argument taken from the nature of al sacrifices the excellencie of this Christian sacrifice For the nature of al sacrifices is to ioyne the coÌ„municants with him vnto whom the sacrifice is offered whether it be god or the deuil As among the Iewes saith the Apostle they which did eate of the thing sacrificed were thereby made partakers of the sacrifice by such sacrifice did concrre to the honor of the true god in like sort they which take part of things ofsered to Idols thereby are made partakers of the Idolatrous sacrifice so together with idolaters honor the deuil Then how straunge a thing is it that yow who partake of the table sacrifice of Christ who there coÌ„municate receiue his pretious body and blud for the chalice there blessed is the coÌ„munication
bishops in vvhich he againe vvas confuted and yelded so that with his ovvne hands he burnt the bookes vvhich he had made in defence of his heresie But not persisting in his faith and oth geuen after certaine yeres he vvas againe persvvaded to come to Rome there to defend his opinion by such learning as he could in a great synod of bishops gathered for that purpose vvhere being convinced by al maner proofe vvhich he desired by scriptures by fathers by Councels by vniuersal and vncontrolled tradition and vniforme consent of al Christians and christian churches that euer vvere since Christ be being then an old man hauing some more feeling feare of death of hel of his ovvne damnation then before acknovvledged his impietie requested pardon of the supreme Pastor and other bishops there present and as it may be credibly thought vvithout al fiction or hypocrisie abiured his heresie in these vvords Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor c. I Berengarius beleeue in hart confesse with mouth that the bread and wine is conuerted into the true propre and life-geuing flesh and blud of Christ our lord that after consecration there is the true body borne of the virgin which suffred on the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father the true blud which issued out from his side that it is present not only in signe or vertue but also in proprietie of nature and veritie of substance As here in this writing is conteyned as I reade it and as yow vnderstand it so I beleue wil neuer teach contrarie And aftervvards being at the point of death vvhich befel on the day of the Epiphanie vvhich is as much to say as the Apparition of our Sauiour remembring by his hererical preaching what numbers of poore ignorant sovvles he had seduced vvith great sorovv and repentance he vttered these vvords This day which is the day of Christ Iesus his Apparition shal he also appeare vnto me for my glorie as I hope because of my repentance or for my eternal punishment as I feare because of so many as I haue deceaued I verelie beleue that after the consecration those mysteries are the true body and blud of our Sauiour And I am induced so to beleue both by the authoritie of the primitiue church by many miracles shewed of late And â—o vvith great signes of sorovvfulnes and repentance died a true Catholike man as is recorded by good autentical vvriters From Berengarius tyme vntil this present albeit there haue not bene any such great numbers as vvere in Berengarius tyme yet scarce any one age hath missed some notorious heretike vvho among other heynous he resies hath vpholden also the heresie of BereÌ„garius As on the other side there hath not vvanted great Clerks and Saints of excellent holynes learning vvho haue maynteined the Catholike and Apostolike faith deliuered to them from their fathers Such vvere in the age of Berengarius besides those before named Adelmanâ—us bishop of Brixen Hugo bishop of Langres Iuo bishop of Chartres Hildebertus first bishop of Mantes after archbishop of Tours S. Bruno and sundry others After solovved S. Bernard Petrus Clumacensis Petrus Lombardus Hugo Richardus de S. Victore Euthymius S. Thomas S. Bonauenture the general Councel of Laterane vnder Innocentius in vvhich vvere present as vvitnesseth M. Fox 61. Archbishops Primates 400. Bishops 800. other men of great learning an other general Councel holden at Vienna item a third general Councel holden at Florence besides that of Constance vvherein the Greeke church and Latin professed their consent and vniforme faith touching the veritie of this diuine sacrifice and sacrament as likevvise many Greeke Bishops vvrote sundry treatises in iustification thereof Samonas Bishop of Gaza Nicolaus of Methone Marcus of Ephesus Nicolaus Cabasilas Bessaâ—ion the Cardina ' as likevvise of late they haue testified the same in their ansvvere to the ProtestaÌ„ts of Germanie vvho sued to enter in to some communion vvith them against the Romaine church But the Greekes vtterly refused them as condemned heretikes both for other their sundrie heresies namely for this of the sacrament vvhereof I speake vvherein the Greeks very constantly hold the same faith vvhich al Christians heretofore haue and euer ought vvhich is deliuerâ—d in the late general Councel of Tient ¶ Thus much is to be noted in this discourse that from Berengarius vnto Luther no one man hath bene a patrone of this opinion but he hath bene also defiled vvith some very sovvle grosie heresies beside such as the Protestants them selues hold for heresies count the defenders of them heretikes As for example to begin vvith Beregauê° him selfe vvhen he maynteined this sacramentarie heresie he his partakers denyed withal the grace of baptisme denyed that men coÌ„mitting mortal sinne cou'd euer obtayne pardon therefore Besides this he was an enemie to mariage and al stayned from meates which god had created and from fat as things vncleane VVhereby it appeareth that he vvas not only a Sacramentarie but also an Anabaptist a Ievv and vvhich in the Protestant gospel perhaps is greatest of al an enemie to mariage and good fare For vvhich cause Occolampadius though in the matter of the sacrament a right Berengarian yet iudgeth him to be an heretike vvorthely condemned Berengarium a Concilio Romano non iniuste condemnatum arbitror c. I saith he am of opinion that Berengarius was iustly condemned by the Councel holden at Rome For besides the matter of the Eucharist he defended some things against mariage the baptisme of children in the verie matter of the Eucharist he seemeth hoâ—ely to haue set him selfe a worke rather desirous of victorie and vaine glorie theâ— of opening the truth ¶ Next ensued one Petrus Brusius and Henricus author of the sect called Albigenses vvhich so horribly for many yeres tormented Fraunce as novv do the Caluinists and these in many articles agreed iust vvith the Sacramentaries of this tyme. For vvhich reason Ioannes Crispinus him self a sacrameÌ„tarie one that hath gathered together in to a storie the french sacramentarie mar tiâ—â— as M. Fox hath done the English the like vvhereof euerie sect especially the Lutherans and Anabaptists haue done for the Martirs of their peculiar Gospels this Crispinus of Geneua in his Martyrologe acknovvledgeth them for bretherne of his congregation and for martyrs those that dyed in defence of their opinions as also M. Fox in his Acts monuments greately aduaunceth them And vvhat men vvere they In matter of the Sacrament so far forth as now it is ministred in the church for in an other point they differed they vvere of Berengarius faith beleeuing that the body of Christ was present there no otherwise then it was in any other bread VVithal they denyed prayer for the dead and Purgatorie defaced Images brake downe
crosses And thus far they joyne vvith French English Scottish gospellers as likevvise in much sacrilegious spoile of churches ouerthrovving of altars calling in the Mores and Mahometans of Africa to assist them against the Christians But vvithal they held many articles vvhich the Protestants as yet coÌ„demne for vvicked heretical as that with Manicheus they taught that there were two first creators beginnings of al creatures a good and a bad god the deuil and that god created some things and the deuil other some 2. VVith the Sadduces they denyed the resurrectioÌ„ beleeuing the sowle to dye with the body neuer to returne againe 3. They scorned at praier for the dead beleeuing no purgatorie nor yet hel 4. They refused baptisme as altogether superfluous vnprofitable These vvith some fevv other of like qualitie vvere the faith of the Albigenses in defence whereof there vvere ouethrovven slaine in one battaile a 100. thousand in an other 70. thousand and many being taken and hauing free offer to abiure their opinions liue or els to be burnt to death if they stoode stil in them made voluntary chose rather to suffer death by fyer then to forsake their heresie At the same time rose Almaricus vvhom M. Fox in his martyrologe calleth a worthy learned man and of a simple doctor maketh a great bishop as though he had bene some Archpâ—otestant This man in his opinion against altars images and especially the Sacrament vvherein he acknovvledged vvith the forenamed Albigenses the body of Christ to be no otherwise then it was in any other bread or creature may be and is iustly chalenged oâ— the Sacramentaries for a brother of theirs but for some other bad heresies they must I thinke needs abhorre him as a detestable hâ—â—â—tâ—ke as for that he denyed 1. the resurrection of our 〈◊〉 2. he denyeâ— both heauen heâ— â—aing that vvho so had in him the knowledge of god he had in him heauen on the other side vvho so coÌ„mmitted mortal sinne he had in him hel 3. he said that god spake in Ouid as vvei as he did in S. Augustin 4. besides certaine other most vile opinions against god For al vvhich his doctrâ—ne by solemne sentence of the church is adiudged not so much heretical as playn mad frantike for vvhich cause belike our great prelate M. Ievvel against M. Fox Crispine the martyr-makers refuseth both Almaticus and the Albigenses as no â—ight gospellers saying plainly of them we haue no skil they are none of ours ¶ Finally our countreman Ihon VViclef albeit he by the more part of Protestant vvriters be accompted for a perfect Protestant vvhom M. Fox calleth the valiant Champion of the truth no lesse famous Diuine of whom he vvriteth that vvhen al the vvorld vvas in most desperate and vile estate the lamentable ignorance darknes of gods truth had ouershadowed the whole earth then this man stepped forth like a valiant champion vnto whom that of Ecclesiasticus may be iustly applied Euen as the morning star in the middest of a cloud as the moone being ful in her course and as the bright beame of the sunne so doth he shine glister in the temple church of god yet this notwithstanding that he vvas both a vile heretike as a most pernicious flatterer parasite applied his vvhole learning gospellizing to please the humors of certaine noble men his favourers vvhich gaped for the spoile of the church his ovvne preaching teaching doth abundantly conuince For to let passe other heresies against god him self recorded by Catholikes and to make stay vpon a fevv of the articles vvhich as most plausible M. Fox reciteth as I graunt that he ioyneth vvith them in many namely in that he taught vvith M. Fox the sacraments to haue bene instituted by Christ only for memorials that Christ is not in the Sacrament truly really to omit these and some other agreing vvith our Caluinists vvho can deny but it is both grosse heresie and palpable flatterie vvhen he teacheth 1. thâ—â— a prelate or bishop excoÌ„municating any which hath appealed to the king or to the kings Councel is thereby him selfe a traitor to the king and the realme 2. Thâ—t temporal lords may according to their owne wil and discretion take away the temporal goods from the church men when so euer they offend 3. That it is against the scripture ecclesiastical ministers to haue any temporal possessiens 4. That tenthes are pure almes that parishioners may for the offence of their Curates deâ—eyne kepe them backe bestow them vpon others at their owne wil and pleasure â— That if a bishop or priest be in deadly sinne he doth not order consecrate or baptize Yea that so long as he is in deadly sinne he is nether bishop nor prelate in the church of god 6. That who soeuer geue almes to friers are accursed Do not these articles â—â—evv manifestly that his gospel â—or so M. Fox vvil needs haue it tended only to spoyle the church clergy to spite his aduersaries to gratifie the temporaltie among vvhom by his seditions preaching he had gotten a litle estimation Doth not Caluin Beza the vvhole consistorie and church of Geneua detest condemne as prophane and Antichristian the first article of suspeÌ„ding the right of excoÌ„municatioÌ„ vpon the vvil of the temporal magistiate Do the Ministers approue the second and third that the Lords temporal parishioners may take avvay at their discretion their liuings rents services tithes geue to them as almes hovv much vvhen in vvhat sort they please Do they beleeue that it is against the vvord of god that ministers bishops enioy ecclesiastical liuings Or make they voyd al their baptilmes suppers orderings if he that ministreth the sacraments be in mortal sinne in vvhich they liue euery hovvre and moment can not be vvithout them being of opinion as is Luther Caluin and al the crue of Protestants that vve sinne perpetually yea the iust man sinneth in euerie good vvorke as Beza saith euery the least cogitation of the least sinne is a mortal sinne and deserueth hel syer eternally I omit other things specified by M. Fox vvhich in my opinion should quit exclude VViclef from being a gospeller saue that euerie heresie scemeth sufficient to make a gospelleâ— some vvhereof are good Catholike some most vvicked Satanical but for a conclusion let this suffise that VViclef no lesse then Berengarius saue that VViclef dyed an heretike tvvise or thrise relapsed periured recanted al his gospelling noueltie at the lest thrise as M. Fox signifieth And therefore if these men vvil needs haue him a Protestant because he some times in some things sayd as they say surely they haue no cauâ—e so extremely to brag of him as M. Fox doth seyng he so oftentymes reuoked such sayings
which shal be deliuered for yow is this An exposition much like to that vvhich Musculus mentioneth geuen by certain his bretherne in these vvords Corpus meum quod pro vobis dabitur in ordine rerum spiritualium est hoc c. my body which shal be geueÌ„ for yow in order of spiritual things is this to vvit a mysterie of spiritual foode this bread of life After this and certain other of like qualitie râ—hersed by Luther he addeth that besides those six vt septenarius numerus compleatur sunt qui dicunt non esse articulos fidei c. to fil vp the number of seuen other there are which say this is no article of faith and therefore men should not striue for it but euerie man be left to his owne opinion to iudge what he listeth These men treade vnder their feete and destroy al. And yet saith he the holy ghost is in euery one of these and none wil be reproued of his error in these so diuers contrarie expositions whereas the text can beare but one direct true sense So grossly the deuil moâ—keth vs. Hovvbeit al those diuersities and contrarieties obiected by Luther Zuinglius taketh for no absurdities but vvith great facilitie as he thinketh econcileth and iustifieth al as very good Euangelical specially that of Carolostadius vvhom the Sacramentaries acknovvledge for one of their first principal Doctors Zuingliê° vvords are Carolostadius that good and godly man doth expound the words of the supper as though Christ had directed them not to the bread but to him self Take eate for I must yeld vp this my body for yow And ansvvering some vvho obiected this diuersitie of opinions vvhich vvere amoÌ„g his felovves comparteners he vvriteth thus Apud nos de Eucharistia nihil vere est dissidij c. Amongst vs concerning the Eucharist truly there is no discord One thinketh there is an Apostrophe turning away of the word Hoc This. An other maketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it that is thinketh that to be put in the first place which should be in the last Againe an other supposeth and auoucheth that a trope and figure is in the worde est is an other wil place the figure in the words body and blud Al which haue one meaning and their diuersitie ought not to offend any man As when captaines entend to ouerthrow some aduersarie fortresse they caÌ„ not be said to disagree albeyt one be of mynd to batter it with gunnes an other wold vndermyne it a third wold get it by scaling for they al agree in one that is to ouerthrow the fortresse By vvhich conclusion vve may learne one good and sure rule to vnderstand the true mynd and meaning of the Sacramentaries as they novv are commonly called or Caluinists or Zuinglians or BerengariaÌ„s for these vvords must I needs vse not only to expresse the difference betvvene them the Catholikes but also betvvene them the Protestants of Germanie commonly named Lutherans and vvho is rightly to be accounted of their side The rule is that any sectarie if he so vvrite or preach or beleeue in this matter that he gainsay the Catholike faith deny the real presence of Christ he is a true gospeller of the Sacramentarie side hath the right sense of their gospelling faith vvhich laboureth only or principally to abolish that former Catholike faith of Christs real presence in place thereof to establish a real absence And so vvriteth Musculus very expresly Omnes vt a me vel inter se in hac causa dissideant c Al men â—ith he how soeuer they disagree from me or among theÌ„ selues in this matter of the sacrament so they mainteyne not the Papistical impietie embrace them as my louing brethern in the lord The reason is for that they al be they Berengarians old or nevv or Petrobrusians or Albigenses or Anabaptists or Trinitarians they entend the ouerthrovv and destruction of the Catholike faith of Christs presence and labour to bring in the Zuinglian absence vvhich is the matter that these men principally desire And therefore so as they agree in this al other errors are venial and pardonable vvhat so euer they teach and hovv so euer they erre and if they may be said at al to erre yet at last they erre in the letter not in the spirite in a circumstance not in the substance as Zuinglius vvriteth in the place last quoted And in an other place vvhen Luther obiected to him that there were among his folovvers diuers sectes he ansvvereth It is starke false There are no sectes no diuisions amongest vs. VVe al both I and Oecolampadius and Carolostadius and the rest agree in this that there is in the sacrament only a figure and symbole Mary we shift the words of Christ diuers wayes as we can Asserimus symbola tantum esse sed verba diuersimode expedimus VVhereof him selfe yeldeth a number of examples vvorth the noting of vvhich many are gathered together out of diuers his books by loachimus VVestphalus a great gospeller but of an other stampe Out of the heape I vvil here recite 4. or 5. Thus are his vvords Zuinglius in his second treatise of the supper of the Lord saith that in these words This is my body the word body must be taken for the passion death which Christ susteyned in his body The like he hath in his answere to a frend touching the words of Christ The bread which I wil geue is my flesh Here saith Zuinglius by the word flesh is meant death as likewise when he saith This is my body which is delivered for vow by the word body he vnderstandeth his death passion How beit in an other treatise of the supper he saith the bread and flesh-which Christ here mentioneth is nothing els but faith And yet in an other booke he is of an other iudgement that the word flesh is to be taken for the deitie For saith Zuinglius Christ vsing the word flesh vnderstandeth the diuine nature which toke flesh so by a certain figure speaking of his mortal nature whereas he meaneth his nature immortal he vseth the word flesh but meaneth the spirite that is his diuinite which geueth life to the flesh In his epistle to Luther he taketh it for the memorie of Christ It is called the body saith he not for that this solemne meeting or the bread which then is broken is in deede Christs body but for that the memorie of his body death is then recorded In his second answere to Luthers Confession he taketh it for a thankesgeuing in these words The Sacrament is nothing els but a certaine diuine and very manerly holy assembly of the people and congregation of god when they meete together to the body of Christ that is to the Eucharist or thankesgeuing for Christs death which is therefore called Christs body
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
infinite difference betvvene that antiquitie this noueltie that faith this infidelitie that sacrifice and sacrament of Christ and this sacrilegious bread and vvyne or perhaps some vvorse matter invented by Carolostadius his Sprite so if vve proceed on a litle farther to the practise and administration of this nevv deuised Communion vve shal yet somvvhat more throughly see in to the essence thereof and haue better helpe to iudge betvvene the one the other For before I come to Caluins opinion vpon vvhich I must lest most of al although in substance it be al one vvith these precedent I thinke it good for the better vnderstanding of the reader to let him see hovv the Protestants vse to administer this their supper vvithout superstition and most nighly to this order prescribed by Carolostadius Zuinglius Bullinger and the Tigurine gospellers after Zuinglius fasshion ¶ A Germane Protestant of this time in his booke vvhich he hath made conteyning 50. reasons vvhy one of his sect a Lutheran may not in any vvise become a Caluinist among other things vvriteth that the Caluinists or sacramentaries do so haâ—e the words of Christs Institution that they can not abide ether to see or to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them Ioachimus VVestphalus obiecteth to Caluin that the Ministers of his sâ—â—te in East Fâ—â—â—â—land minister the Eucharist vvith these only vvords Eate this bread beleeue and remember that the body of Christ offered on the crosse is the true sacrifice for your sinnes VVhich maner of administratio Caluin in his ansvvere iustifieth is as al men may perceiue very conformable to the assertioâ—s of Zuinglius of Bullinger of Oecolampadiê° those other before rehearsed The Anabaptists in this respect are perfite sacramentaries and Caluin in his booke against them vvhere he seuerally reciteth their errors and refuteth them confesseth that in the receiuing and administration of the supper they say nothing which we graunt not vnto them yea which we our selues teach not daily Nihil dicunt saith he quod ipsis non concedamus imo quod non quotidie doceamus So that in seeing the communioÌ„ of the Anabaptists vve see the communion of Caluinists and the forme and fashion of the one is a true and exact paterne of the other Novv that the Anabaptists vsually leaue out the vvords of Christs institution it is no lesse notorious to any man that knovveth their â—aith gospel and Communions whereof their practise in Munster the chief citie of VVestphalia where they began their kingdome the yere 1534 may seâ—â—e for a sufficient proofe One day as Sleidan reheaâ—seth the storie the king coÌ„maunded the brethern to meete in a certen place Being come thither some thousands in number they found their supper prouided beef mutton tost sod with such varietie as the country and time velded This supper being now almost exded the king him self reacheth bread to ech one vsing withal these words Take eate shew forth the death of the Lord. His Quene immediatly folowing deliuereth in like sort the cup saying drinke shew forth the death of the Lord. M. Fox our English Martyr-maker writing the storie of Anne Askew Iohn Lassels others in the end of king Henry the 8. his reigne setteth downe a long epistle writen by the said Lassels in which is conteyned their faith of the sacrament which faith also M. Fox seemeth wel to approue for that he saith This martyr confuteth the error of the Papists which are not contente with the spiritual receiuing also he doth câ—t oâ— tâ—e sinister interpretatioÌ„ which many make vpon the words of the institutioÌ„ Thus are the words of this martyr S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. saith That which I deliuered vnto yow I receaued of the Lord. For the lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread thanked brake it and said take ye eâ—e ye this is my body which is broken for yow Here me seemeth S. Paule durst not take vpon him his Lord masters authoritie he durst not take vpon him to say This is my body It was the Lord IESVS that made the supper which also did finish it and made an end of the only act of our saluation both here in this world also with his father in heaven Now if any man be able to finish the act of our Sauiour in breaking of his body and shedding of his blud here also to finish it with his father in heauen then let him say it But I thinke if men wil looke vpon S. Paules words wel they shal be forced to say as S. Paule saith The Lord IESVS said it once for al which only was the fulfiller of it For these words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM This is my body were spoken of his natural presence which no man is able to deny Thus these martyrs By which discourse it appeareth that they acknowledge first the words of Christs supper to be spoken of Christs natural presence and body which they say is so playne that no man is able to deny it Next that this so apperteyneth to Christ alone that he only and no man euer after him could minister this supper â—or so it foloweth The act was finished on the crosse as the storie doth plainely manifest it to them that haue eyes Now this bluddy sacrifice is made an end of the supper is finished This seemeth to agree in part with Carolostadius in that it denyeth the words spoken by Christ at his last supper to perteyne to our Eucharist But it agreeth much more with the sansie of Petrus de Bruis author of the sect of the Albigenses For he taught directly that only once to wit in the last supper which Christ made with his Apostles was his body truly geuen vnder the forme of bread but afterward neuer as witnesseth Petrus Cluniacensis who then liued and reâ—uted this error of his VVhereas then these gospellers wil haue the words of Christs institution quit remoued from the administration of the supper some perhaps would gladly know in what sort they would haue it ministred Forsooth as before the Caluinsts of Fâ—isâ—laâ—d and Anabaptists in VVestphalia vsed VVhich M. Fox declareth thus Here now foloweth the administration of the supper of the Lord which I wil take at Christs hands after the resurrection although other men wil not be ashamed to bring their wicked Councels or foolish inuentions for them And it came to passe as Christ satte at meate with them he tooke bread blessed it and brake it gaue it vnto them their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight and the Apostles did know him in breaking of bread Here we learne what is the supper not after the wicked Councels foolish inuentions of men for so I thinke it would be although by error the pâ—â—nter set it otherwise but after the Lords owne order
word SacrameÌ„t inuented by man not rather the vvord Signe or Seale appoynted by god As yovv haue altered the Masse in to the Communion Bisshop in to superintendent priest in to minister church in to congregation c. so why in like maner chaunge yovv not sacraments in to signes and seales and then inscribe these your sermons Sermons not vpon the sacraments but vpon the signes and seales But this fault vvere lesse and more pardonable if these men vpon the self same word vvhich they condemne did not buyld the vvhole frame of their cauilling and sophistical Theologie vvhen they ether vvrite against their aduersaries be they Catholiks or Lutherans or in sermons preach to the people because the word being in deed ambiguous ministreth them more occasion to multiplie words to shuffle from one sense to an other to abuse their simple auditors and to saue them selues from plain and direct expressing of that which in deed they stil entend although at some times they are loth to vtter Ioachimus VVestphalus the Lutheran in his last ansvvere to Caluin vvriteth that Carolostadius the first father of the sacramentaries in our daies in his disputations and bookes of the supper of the lord vtterly reiected the word sacrament as new and not found in scripture But our aduersaries the Caluinists saith he because they find the word apt for them to shift and lurke vnder very greedely embrace it and make it their chief ground and ankerhold So Caluin braggeth that this is to him a wal of brasse that Christs words are to be expounded sacramentally This one word he bosteth is sufficient to ouerthrow al the arguments of the Magdeburgenses Hereon he frameth his rules herevpon he bringeth in his tropes If a man marke him he shal fynd that euer he maketh his retreat to this one word sacrament and as a sure buâ—kler he euer opposeth a sacramental maner of speech when he hath nothing els to say In one place he writeth that al this controuersie might forthwith be ended if we could be content to admit a sacramental speech c. Thus he vvhere vve perceiue that although no man be more fierce and eager then is Caluin against words inuented by man out of the compasse of holy vvrite yet him self is content to make his most aduantage chief buckler thereof And this one vvord he not only vseth and vrgeth continually vvhich in him is a great fault but also maketh it to signifie vvhat him self best pleaseth vvhich is intolerable But VVestphalus ansvvereth him rightly that he his Lutheran bretherne are not so simple nor so careles of their faith and saluation as that they can or wil hazard their cause vpon a word obscure ambiguous c. withal stand to rules deduced thence at the pleasure of the Zuinglians VVolâ— Musculus in his common places vvhere he entreateth of the sacraments because he refuâ—eth that name and calleth them sacramental signes for his defence in so doing that good men be not offended very religiously layeth for his discharge â—â—o principal doctors Luther and Melanethon of vvhich Luther writeth thus If we wil speake as the scripture teacheth vs then haue we but one sacrament Christ and three sacramental signes the supper baptisme and penance Melanothon thus That which the common people calleth a sacrament we wil cal a sacramental signe because Paule calleth Christ him self a sacrament So that their proper name it signes and sacramental vvhich Musculus ioyneth is no more then holy or Christian or appointed by Christ vvhom the scripture acknovvlegeth only for a sacrament and only calleth a sacrament and so these fignes are called sacramental because they vvere ordeyned by him signifie him vvho is the sacrament as also a chapiter of S. Matthevv or S. Paul may be called a sacrameÌ„tal chapiter because it entreateth of Christ the only sacrament in which sense al figutes sacrifices many chapiters of the old testament were likevvise sacramental figures chapiters VVhereas then the scripture calleth not the supper by the name sacrameÌ„t but applieth this word only to Christ is it not straunge that the same maÌ„ almost in the same place debating this very question of Christs presence in the supper betvvene his felovves the Zuinglians the Lutherans the Catholikes vvheÌ„ as he should speake most plainly most distinctly intelligibly vvould yet â—un against his ovvne knovvlege and conscience to cover him self to obscure and confound and trouble both the matter vvhereof he treateth and his auditors or readers by such ambiguous and darke vvords vvhich him self vvith such religioÌ„ disliketh and condemneth as not agreable to the vvord of god Yet this man forsooth vvhen he cometh to expound the words of Christ concerning this sacrament not by the vvay or accidentally but fully and directly and of purpose placeth the entier summe substance of his resolution vpon this terme sacrament sacrameÌ„tal For pretending great reuetence to the vvords of Christ protesting that his desire is most religiously to hold fast the words of Christ not to alter any one iote of them that he may thus do he refelleth a number of his bretherne as he calleth them Carolostadius Occolaâ—â—padius Zuinglius Luther and the Lutherans for their expositions of Christs words This is my body for that they al depart from the precise letter and text of the gospel And I saith he can not say as they do that Christs body is with the bread quia ab ipsis verbis domini discedere neâ—uâ—â— because I may not depart from the very words of Christ and if I should thinke as they do haec cogitatio me ab ipso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abduceret such thinking would withdraw me from folowing the plaine and precise letter After this much more to like effect in fine coming to his ovvne exposition Let is now consider saith this doctor how bread may be the true body of Christ that same which was delivered for vs on the crosse so that nether the bread leefe his owne nature and substance and yet receâ—ue in it the substance of Christs body which also remayneth immutable Nam omnâ—no sunt haec omniuÌ„ verissima For 〈…〉 both these are most true that the bread which our lord geueth is his owne body yet as verely bread as it was before the communion c. VVhere by the vvay the reader may see the vvicked and feared conscience of these prophane heretikes vvhom not vvithout great reason S. Paule teâ—meth damned in their owne iudgement vvho feyning a great regard and religious dread to depart from Christs words in the self same instant pervert his words most malitiously For vvhere sayd Christ euer This bread is my body oâ— This wine is my blud what Apostle doth witnesâ—e it what EuaÌ„gelaâ— recordeth it Certainly Christ neuer sâ—ake 〈…〉 contrativvise by his divine wisedome so tempered his words that it is not possible to frame
three or fovver bretherne eating and drinking their symbolical bread and vvine hovv can ether that confirme to vs the child to be saved or this that such eaters and drinkers eate spiritually Christs flesh and thereby shal haue eternal life Certainly if the minister out of the vvord did not tel them so much before the bread and vvine vvould neuer confirme nor scarce signifie such spiritual eating much lesse eternal life ensuyng thereof So that vvhereas ordinarily in common practise vvhence these men take their Theologie in this point seales confirme words and vvritings among men and vvithout a scale the vvord and vvriting is of no great force or value in lavv to make a bond and obligation the seale geuing al strength force thereto here it is cleane contrarie For al dependeth of the vvord and the vvord geueth strength vertue and force to the seale not the seale to the vvord and the vvord vvithout the seale is altogether sufficient carieth vvith it ful entier and perfit authoritie vvhereas the seale vvithout the vvord is nothing at al but as M. B. truly saith a common peece of bread so that truly to speake the vvord is rather to be accompted a seale to the bread then the bread a seale to the vvord Again these men in making such comparison vvaigh not the true nature and difference of vvords and seales as they are vsed in things diuine humane In humane because men are mortal and mutable and false so that vve can not take hold of their vvord vve are enforced to vse other meanes for our assurance and certification as first to put their vvords in vvriting and then to ratifie both vvord and vvriting by sealing But in God and things diuine it is not so But for so much as God is immortal immutable and constant vvhose vvord is vvorking and vvhose vvord once vttered is as sure certaine infallible and irreuocable as if it vvere vvritten in faire velem in a thousand exemplars confirmed by as many seales here can be no vse of any such seales as is amoÌ„g men because no such seale can add any more authoritie or certaintie to his vvord as it doth to ours How beit it pleaseth him some times to vse some kynd of confirmation vvhich may not vnfitly be compared to a kind of sealing as vvhere the Euangelist saith that vvhen Christ was ascended his Apostles preached euery vvhere our lord working with them and confirming their dostrine and preaching with signes and miracles of vvhich kynd of confirmation the storie of the Acts of the Apostles is ful But these were miraculous noâ— sacrameÌ„tal seales applied truly properly to speake not to coÌ„firme gods vvord or promises but to confirme vnto the heaâ—ers the authoritie and credit of the preachers the prophets Apostles and disciples of Christ as euery vvhere appeareth both in the old testament nevv And therefore as S. Paul teacheth such miraculous signes and seales properly are not for faithful men Christians but for faithles and infidels to dravv them to faith and Christianitie And this is a far different kind of seales from the sacraments vvhereof vve here entreat vvhich neuer any learned father or vvriter called seale in the Protestant sense For albeit sometime S. Augustin vseth the vvorde and applieth it to the sacraments as also do some other Doctors yet they neuer meane nor applye them as do the Protestants but cal them seales ether because they signe the faithful vvith such a marke vvhereby they are distinguished from the vnfaithful or because they conteyne in them a secret holy thing that is inuisible grace in vvhich sense the booke of the Apocalyps is said to be signed vvith 7. seales in both vvhich senses S. Austin S. Gregorie Nazianzene calle them seales or because they geue perfit and absolute grace vvhereby a Christian being vvashed from his sinnes and made the child of god in baptisme receiueth farther strength to persist and stand fast in his Christian prosession and fight constantly against the enemies of Christ and his church the deuil and his ministers is confirmed in hope and hath as it vvere a pledge of eternal life in vvhich sense S. Cornelius an auncient Pope and martyr and after him S. Leo the Great calle the sacrament of confirmation a seale The vvords of the first are VVhereas Nouatus the heretike was only baptised but afterward tooke not such other things as by order of the church he ought neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus suit nether was signed with the seale of our lord by the bisshop in the sacrament of confirmation how I pray â—ow receiued he the holy ghost to strengthen him in his Christian saith S. Leo in his 4. Sermon de natiuitate Domini Stand fast in that faith in which after yow were baptised by water the holy ghost yow receiued the Chrisme of saluation the seale or pledge of eternal life In these senses and perhaps some other tending to like effect the auncient godly fathers calle the sacraments seales as questionles euery sacrameÌ„t and especially that of the most blessed Eucharist is a most admirable signe and seale and confirmation and demonstration of gods infinite mercy and Christs infinite loue towards mankynd But the sense of the Protestants as it is foolish fond nevv vvithout al vvit and reason and not only so but also wicked impious heretical Anabaptistical as hath bene shevved neuer taught by the holy scriptures of god by any Apostle Evangelist auncient father or Councel so I can not greatly enuy at Bezaes glorious triumph vvhich he maketh to him self and his maisters for the first invention thereof wherein he so flattereth and pleaseth him self that hauing expressed the same in such sort as here M. B. doth and I before out of Beza haue alleaged he suddenly from explication of the scripture breaketh out in to admiration of him self and his companions in these vvords This my exposition coÌ„cerning circumcision a seale of iustice al other sacraments seales in like maner if a man compare with such things as not only Origenes but also sundry other of the auncient fathers albeit for godlines and learning most famous haue written vpon this place he shal doubtles find what greâ—â— abundant light of truth the lorde in this time hath powred out vpon vs of al other men most vnworthy thereof No doubt a vvorthy doctrine for such Doctors and in deed to be vvondered at vvhich being so necessarie for the church as these men make it for it conteyneth the true faith of the sacraments vvhereas Origen S. CypriaÌ„ S. Austin S. Ambrose S. Leo. S. Basil S Gregorie Nazianzene and sundry other for holines and learning most famous as he confesseth could neuer find it out and yet these men Caluin Beza and Iohn Cnox for learning not very famous and for horrible filthines and abomination of life not to be named and not heard
of the crosse and blotted out the offences of the world finally the same thing to be receiued outwardly with our mouth which inwardly we beleeue in hart id ore sumitur quod â—ide creditur do not these speeches declare that the body and blud of Christ is offered to the mouth of Christians Or when Christ bad his disciples to take and eate that body in the chalice to drinke that blud of the new testament meant he that they should eate and drinke only by faith Do his words import not that they should eate with their mouth but only vvith their eyes and eares which only two instruments M. B. allovveth for eating Christs body by faith the eare serving for conueyance of the audible word preached to our sovvle the eye for conveyance of the visible word that is the bread vvhen it is broken in their Communion by vvhich tvvo meanes only we eate Christ spiritually by faith as he teacheth vs If he thus say yet S. Marke wil somwhat gainsay him and if he haue any conscience make him gainsay him self reuoke his saying For that as Christ deliuered thâ—m his chalice and bad them drinke it so S. Marke testifieth that they al dranke of it vvhich drinking could no more be done vvithout their mouth vvith their only eyes and â—ares then with their heeles And therefore in the bible vve find that Christs blud both in the word in the sacrament is offered to the mouth of Christians And therefore to ioyne â—un on vvith M. B. a litle vvhereas he denieth that there is in the Bible any receiuing of Christ but by faith vvhereas he biddes vs find that in any part of the bible he is then content to turne Christ ouer to vs vve accept his offer And if he can so interprete these places of the Euangelists vvhose vvritings are part of the Bible that lie dravv them al â—o a mere spiritual eating by only faith vvithout corporal and real communion as the church teacheth I vvil confesse he hath as good a grace in interpreting scripture as euer had Carolostadi the first sounâ—â—yne of this sacramentarie heresie yea or the heauenly prophete vvhether it vvere the deuil or the deuils dame â—s Luther saith that instructed him ¶ And yet that I make not my self to sure of my vvinâ—ing before hand I must needs acknovvlege that M. B. already geueth a sâ—â—ewd presumptioÌ„ that he vvil vvring Christs words after a very straunge fashion before he yield so much as any reasonable man pressed with these â—ords must graunt necessarilie and perforce For besides that he is of one spirite vvith them that haue already geven vs vvonderful constructions of these fevv vvords This is my body vvhich body Christ vvilled his disciples to receiue and eaâ—e as that by it according to 〈◊〉 Christ meant his passion and death or els he meant faith or his deitie or a memorie or at lest a thankes geuing or lâ—st of al the churchâ— or if al this serue not he meant thereby an action as Ioannes a Lasco rather thinâ—â—eth and then the sense must needs be spiritual for â—â—oubtles vve can not take and eate nether Christs passion and dâ—â—â—h nor faith nor yet his deitie nor a memorie noâ— a thankesgeuing nor the church vvhether Zuingli meane 〈◊〉 vvals and stones of the church or the people noâ— aâ— action but after a mere spiritual or rather spiritish maâ—â—â— besides thâ—â—e I say of al vvhich he may choose any one vvhich he pleaseth with as good â—ight as they did he geueth an other of him self as vvonderful as any of al these For saith he we find in Christs institution a promise and a commaund The commaund is this Take eate which obligeth vs to obey craues obedience The promise is conteyned in these words This is my body The promise craues faith and beleefe as the commaund craues obedience VVhich exposition seemeth to me as straunge as any of the precedent as straunge it is to cal these vvords of Christ a promise as to cal it a promise if one say to a poore man Take receiue here is a pennâ— or a peece of bread if this be a promise I vvonder hovv we shal define the performance But let it stand for good for these men haue power to make al things sound as they list especially in church matters articles of â—aith with which the Eldership or as the phrase is in the Scottish coÌ„munion booke the Assembly of the ministers Elders and deacons may dispense varie and alter at their good pleasure But what shal become now of these words what sense shal vve geue them forsooth this Take eate a promise or take eate here is a promise which is delivered for yow And if he thus meane then in deed he is far from any corporal eating And if he meane otherwise as Caluin doth vvhom perhaps he foloweth for he vttering no more theÌ„ I haue set dovvne leaueth me in doubt I can but gheasse his true meaning that the vvords of Christ are a promise annexed to a condition and so not fulfilled except the condition be accomplished vvhich goeth before as Caluin teacheth even so his meaning is as straunge wil dravv after it as straunge and vvonderful a communion For saith Caluin these words Take eate is a coÌ„maundement This is my body is a promise like as the lord commaunded Cal on me and immediatly adioyneth the promise I wil heare thee If now any man would bost of this promise That God vvil heare him and not performe the commaundement annexed To cal vpon god might be not be counted a mad soole Euen so here this promise This is my body is made and geuen to them who obserue that which Christ commaunded Out of which this we may and must directly gather that if This is my body be a promise depending of that condition and commaunde Take eate which goeth before then when soeuer man on his part fulfilleth the condition commaunde God on the other side questionles performeth that he hath promised And it were blasphemous impietie to thinke or say otherwise that men doing as God appointed God faileth in performing that vvhich he promised This therefore being a most sure vnremoveable ground if these vvords This is my body be a promise depending vpon that commaund Take eate then by like assured consequence and conclusion when so euer Christian men take and eate especially if they doe it in remembrance of Christ vvhich albeit it be not in the commaund Caluin requireth it not yet I am content to adde it for more suertie then such bread to such eaters is the body of Christ and so vvhen soeuer Christian men vvith such remembrance eate they eate Christs body vvhen soeuer they drinke they drinke his blud For like as he is a mad foole in Caluins iudgement vvho thinketh he can enioye the promise of Christs body except he
Minister is iniuried and it is against his profession out of the pulpit vvhence the only vvord of the Lord should sound to preach such inventions of men Next vvho can doubt but thus to prescribe one certain rule as necessarily to be obserued is the right vvay quit to disanul as many mo thousandâ— of their baptismes communions For vvho can imagin that the vnruly ministers folovv any one certain rule Or vvho knovveth not that it is in a maner against their professioÌ„ to admit any such vnâ—â—â—iâ—ie And yet this very order intended I suppose by Caluin and exactly and particularly thus defined by M. B. is most essential For seing the bread and vvine are material pâ—â—â—s and by their condition apt to signifie in general a hundred things as hath bene declared whereas the determination and reducing of it from general to special from signifying things prophane to signifie things sacred among a number of things sacred one several singular vz. the eating of Christs flesh by faith dependeth vpon the vvord of the minister thus determining it assuredly this vvord bringing vvith it this determination and so separating and abstracting the bread from al other things is most necessary most essential For as a peece of wax vvhich is to receiue the kings seale or image is indifferent before the staÌ„pe to receiue the image of a serpent of a dog of a tree of any living creature man or beast but after by the staÌ„p is limited to one certain forme and representation even so the bread being the matter and as it vvere the vvax which is to be sealed is of it self indifferent to as many stampes images But vvhen the minister cometh and according to M. B. and Caluins direction telleth them that as the bread feedeth their body to life temporal so the flesh of Christ feedeth both body and sovvleto life eternal c. â—ow this word putteth a certain print a certain image a certain stamp signe on the bread vvhereby it receiveth this one sacramental significatioÌ„ This is it vvhich putteth life in to the dead element and this vvord is the life and sovvle of the communion VVhich being so thereof I conclude plainly directly that thorough out al Scotland and England are very fevv true communions very fevv sacraments of Christs body For if there be a Sermon made not an homilie read yea if the sermon entreate of the sacrament and not of other matters yet if the minister preach not as here M. B. and Calvin appoint ether for frowardnes because he wil not be commaunded or els of very conscience because he is no Calvinist but a mere Zuinglian vvho defineth the sacrameÌ„t to be nothing but a badge a token a memorial and that it hath no such vertue of sealing and confirming vvhich the Zuinglian condemneth as Anabaptistical this sermoÌ„ is not the vvord vvhich geueth life to the sacrament but leaveth it as blockish dul and dead an element as it was before Because although the minister vnto this wax of bread and vvine put a seale a staÌ„p a signification yet he putteth not the right seale the right stamp the right signification although he preach the vvord yet he preacheth not that word vvhich should quicken and geue life to this action he preacheth not that word vnto which this seale is to be appended for confirmation Much more may I conclude that al English ministers if they be not Puritanes but folow their Archbisshop my lord of Canterbury vvho condemneth for Anabaptistical no lesse then Zuinglius though for an other reason this opinioÌ„ of geving life to the sacraments by preaching the vvord â—l they can never possibly haue any right communion any right sacrament they can haue nothing but commoÌ„ bread but a dead element because they admit not but contrariwise o great sacrilege impugne that vvhich is the very sowle and should geue life to the sacramet n I conclude thirdly that if a Scottish perfit Calvinian minister make the sermon except he humble him self to preach not only this former word of the promise inveÌ„ted by Calvin found no vvhere in the Gospels nor only the word of the mystical similitude betvvene the bread and Christs body required by M. B. borowed out of the doctors but also besides with a cleer voyce preach distinctly open al the parts of the sacrameÌ„t which thing here M. B. in general requireth in special reherseth explicareth nether is such a CoÌ„munioÌ„ the right sacrament to the essence coÌ„plement vvhereof it is necessarie not that one or two or a fevv but that al parts of the sacrament and sacrameÌ„tal receiving be opened declared vz. 1. that a lawful minister 2. vvith a cleere voyce 3. in a familiar homely language 4. publikely proclame and denounce 5. the bâ—il parts of the Supper or CoÌ„munioÌ„ 6. what is the peoples part 7. what is his owne part 8. how he ought to deliuer that bread and wine 9. how the people ought to receive it 10. how they ought to receiue the body and blud of Christ signified by it 11. how they should come with great reverence to the table Besides al vvhich he must also speake 12. what soever Christ spake in that whole action of his supper without omitting any one iote Al this is comprised in the name of the VVord al this must be preached by the minister before it can be a sacrameÌ„tal signe or supper and omitting any of these quite marreth and destroyeth the vvhole supper as where many parts are required to the nature and substance or essence of some certain body or creature the missing of any one destroyeth the whole as in man or beast the losse of any one essential part as hart lungs c. bringeth certain death to al. So then if the minister do not in particular prosecute ech one of these parts in his sermon if he folovv not precisely and religiously this M. B. his appointment if he play the Minister and sting out in to other matter against Pope and Catholike church and perhaps inveigh against this formal prescription of M. B. for that the spirite of the Lord in them is not to be bridled by men that they know their dutie herein and how the sacrament is to be ministred as vvel as Iohn Caluin Iohn Knox or M. B. him self that they wil stand in defence of their libertie not become servants of men c. if he thus preach or in any other sort so that he omit any part of that word vvhich is before declared the bread and vvine distributed to the people after that kind of preaching is not a sacrament but stil remayneth common bread not worth a straa for want of the right perfit word And so there was never a communion ministred according to the Scottish communion booke since these ministers got rule in Scotland which had ought
me seemeth if partly to avoid superstitioÌ„ partly to correct their ovvne error principally for truthes sake they vvould from hence forth cal their coÌ„mumons rather breakefasts then Suppers For so should men thinke of them as divinely as they deserve and whereas the Protestants cal it a supper imitating that vvord in the Apostle where certainly he calleth not the sacrament but other feasts by the name of our lords Supper they should amend that oversight and vvithal speake more soundly and according to truth as P. Martyr hath very discreetly noted vvriting vpon that same place of the Apostle For in respect of the time and our emptie stomake it were saith he more reason to cal it a breakfast or dinner then a supper And this is the true right issue of the nevv vvord devised by Iohn Caluin and approved by M. B. of that word which they require to the essence of their sacrament a vvord which maketh al singular their communions and sacraments to be of a cleane different nature from that sacrament vvhich Christ instituted for that their sacrament is framed in an other mould hath though not always an other matter yet ever an other forme which geveth the essence to every thing then that of Christs institution theirs receiving al life sovvle perfection and integritie from the ministers cleere voyce and sermon or the receivers faith whereas Christs sacrament receiued his integritie and perfection other ways not by such meanes Again this word of theirs maketh not only their sacrament no sacrament being compared vvith Christs Institution but maketh it also nothing els but common bread for the most part being examined even by this very word which them selues haue inuented as hath bene now declared and the learned reader shal doubtles find most true if he examine the communions and suppers vsed in England France Geneua Zurick ZuizzerlaÌ„d c. by this vvord here appointed as necessarie to separate their sacramental supper from vulgar prophane And if their supper be no sacrament of Christ according to Christs order nor yet according to their owne rules and Theologie vvhat regard would they haue vs to make of it How shal vve esteeme of it as diuine sacred and celestial vvhen as them selues conclude and proue that it is nothing but a common peece of bread an earthly creature voyd of al grace and spirite a dead element not worth â— straa fitter for Pagans then Christians more meet for dogs then men M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ The Argument M. B. very notably contradicteth him self in this first serâ—â—â—â— touching the lords Supper as is shewed by sundry examples As before cap. 10. it is proved that they haue no sacrament for want of the word which is the formal part of the sacrameÌ„t so here by a brief repetition of sundry things wanting in the material part which things M. B. consesseth to be of the substance of the sacrament it is manifestly concluded that their supper is no sacrament of Christs institution in respect of the matter no lesse then of the forme CHP. 11. And thus much concerning the word the formal part of the sacrament by vvhich as the more principal vve see proved that their Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ Novv for a conclusion of this first Sermon I vvil gather proue as much by the other part vvhich is the matter of the supper according to M. B. his ovvne division out of both vvhich the Christian reader shal be able to gather a most strong and sure resolution that it possibly can not be any sacrament vvhich saulteth both in the one part and in the other vvhich nether hath right matter nor right forme Only first of al I vvil in fevv vvords put the reader in remembrance of M. B. notorious contradictions vsed in this short sermon vvhich I vvisn the rather to be marked partly for that they shew this man to be a right scholer of Iohn Caluin whom he so narowly folovveth eveÌ„ in this blind kind of vvriting and preaching partly for that the original cause of this such opposite doctrine in them both is one that is to say an ambitious affectation vvith high ample and maiestical vvords to vvin some good opinion to their single bread and drinke among their simple auditors vvhom by such glorious speach as it vvere by a baite and pleasant allurement they vvould gladly dravv to some honest opinion of their late devised fantasie These contradictions albeit they be scattered thorough out this vvhole treatise yet the 7. chapiter and 8. and 9. yelde better store of them as for example The bread not only signifieth the body of Christ but hath it also truly conioyned with it For if it signified only a picture were as good And yet the bread is so far from having this coniunction that it vvanteth the signification of a picture I say it signifieth not so much as doth the picture vvhich repre'enteth Christ vnto our remembrance of it self and by it self and so doth not the bread and vvine vvithout a sermon yea and then also it representeth him very doubtfully Againe the bread and wine truly and really deliver the substance of Christ vnto vs For except first we receiue the substance we can haue no participation of the fruit and merits And therefore the bread wine are a very hand which delivereth vs that substance and with that hand is Christs fiesh verely conioyned as a medicine in the boâ—e of the Apotecaries shop And yet the bread doth no wayes deliver or exhibite the body of Christ but only signifie the same For it is a sacrament and ye must looke for no other coniunction then sacramental that is for no other coniunction then significatiue and figuratiue For that is al that a sacrament valueth with these men Again that which we receiue in the sacrament is signified by the bread and vvine is not the benefites of Christ or vertue which fleweth from him only but the very substance of Christ him self For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I first get the substance it self And yet the blud of Christ vvhich vve receiue is not the substance of Christ nor any part of his substance For it is no other thing but the quickening vertue and power that fâ—wes from Christ and the merites of his death And we drinke of that blud when we drinke of the lively power vertue that flowes cut of that blud Again there is a wonderful high and mystical yet very true and real coniunction betvvene the bread Christs body yet for al that the bread is no more coÌ„iovned there vvith then Christ is â—oyned with the devil For there is no other coniunction then is betvvene the vvord spoken and the thing vvhich the vvord signifieth and so vvhen Christ commaunded the devils out of
here in the end iterateth againe and affirmeth as a most irrefragable and vndoubted veritie In the beginning he told vs that in the sacrament are two sorts of signes signes elemental as bread vvine signes ceremonial He told vs vvithal that there was neuer a ceremonie which Christ instituted but it was as essential as the bread and wine VVhat ever Christ commaunded to be done what ever he spake or did in that whole action it is essential it must be done and no ioâ—e can be omitted but ye pervert the whole institution Here for a conclusioÌ„ he saith VVhen the sacrament is spoyled of the essential forme it is no sacrament There is an essential forme in baptisme and there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the vse of the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is I baptize thee in the name of the father of the sonne of the holy ghost Leave out any of these 3. or do it in the name of any one of the three persons only ye tyne the essential forme of baptisme In the supper if ye leaue â—uâ— the least ceremonye ye tine the essential forme and so it is no sacrament This being true that euery ceremonie that Christ did euery word that Christ spake every action of his vvas so essential that no iote thereof may be omitted but vve destroy the sacrament hereof I conclude that their Scottish sacrament is no sacrament of Christ for that it lacketh many of these so necessarie signes and essential ceremonies First because Christ before the delivering of his sacrament vsed a ceremonie signifying the lovvlines of hart the puritie and cleanes of conscience required in them vvhich come to receiue the sacrament After he gaue them a very diuine instruction and commaunded them in most effectual vvords to do the like vvhich coÌ„maundement according to the tenor and maner of speech carieth vvith it as precise severe an obligatioÌ„ aâ— any vvords of Christs supper to a Protestant it should vveigh as deepely binde as much For that precept Do this in remeÌ„brance of me examined in coÌ„mon iudgement and according to the sound and poise of the vvord bindeth no more nor so much as being vttered vvith lesse circumstance fevver vvords importing a necessarie coÌ„maundement then vvhen Christ saith after that vvasshing I haue geven yow an example that as I haue done to yow so yow do also Amen Amen I say to yow a servant is not greater then his lord nether is an Apostle greater then be that sent him If yow know these things yow shal be blessed if yow also do them Here is one ceremonie which Christ did many wordes which he spake at the InstitutioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t Nether this ceremonie vse the Scottish ministers at their supper nor speake they these vvords ergo they omit somvvhat vvhich Christ did and spake Al vvhose doings and speeches being essential so essential that in omitting any one ye tyne and destroy the sacrament hereof it folovveth that their Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ Next Christ 3. taking the bread in to his hands gaue thankes to his father and vvithal 4. blessed sanctified the bread after he 5. tooke the cuppe in like maner and geving thanks to his father 6. vvithal blessed sanctified the cuppe as both the Evangelists S. Paule Caluin Ievvel and Beza confesse The Scottish supper hath no such blessing no such sanctification of the bread vvine but purposely omitteth it and therefore here are 2. more essential ceremonies tvvise vsed by Christ and yet neuer at any time vsed but neglected and contemned by them in their ministration therefore their supper vvanteth somvvhat perteyning to his essence and so is no sacrament Further more 7. Christ did not once only breake the bread tooke to him self a portioÌ„ willing them to breake the rest and distribute among them but him self did distribute and breake it to them and delivered it with his owne hands signifying by that action that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except him self gaue it In the Scottish supper the minister breaketh not the bread to everie communicant he delivereth it not with his owne hand as Christ did and so he leaveth out a very important ceremonye and therefore their supper can not be accompted Christs Sacrament After Christ had taken the bread geven thankes blessed broken so forth finally for declaration that they might vnderstaÌ„d where vnto al the premisses tended he spake these words which were most essential and concerned the substance of the sacrament This is my body which is geven and broken for yow This is the new testament in my blud which is shed for yow These vvords of Christ vsed by Christ in the Institution of his sacrament the Scottish ministerie vseth not in the ministration of their supper Ergo their supper is no Sacrament of Christ To M. B. his supposed reply that the vvords of Christ are not omitted for that before the sermon the minister historically out of the pulpit mentioneth Christs institution ansvvere is already made that this nothing helpeth them but much more shevveth their infinite pride and contemptuous breach of Christs order For Christ first of al tooke the bread in to his hands blessed it brake it after pronounced those vvords they cleane contrary first of al reherse those vvords out of the pulpit vvhere there is no bread high them much lesse haue they the bread in their hands as Christ had I ansvvere furthermore that such historical narration being told an hovvre or 2. before the coÌ„munion and the entier Sermon coming betvvene can haue no relation to the blessing or sanctifying of their Supper For as M. B. here telleth vs there is an essential forme in baptisme there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is saith he I baptise thee in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost And according to the order of the communion booke the minister as he speaketh these words taketh water in his hand layeth it vpon the childs forehead VVhereby vve see that the essential forme is to haue the words ioyned with the element if the minister speake the words at one hovvre lay on vvater the next vvithout the vvords he tyneth and destroyeth the essential forme of baptisme and so it is no sacrament Ergo by like reason vvhereas the sacrament of Christs body hath a like essential forme as baptisme hath the Minister making a narration of Christs vvords before the sermon as it vvere at 9. of the clocke and after an hovvre at ten delivering bread and vvine vvithout the vvords of Christ tyneth and destroyeth the sacrament of the supper and so the Scottish supper is no sacrament of
Christ These fevv instances and exceptions for example sake I geue to the Christian reader vvho may find a number of this sort if he please advisedly to consider that vvhich bath bene said of this matter heretofore And if novv according to M. B. his resolution a man leaving out the least ceremonie vsed by Christ in his supper perverteth the whole institution and marreth the sacrament so as it becommeth no sacrament vvhat horrible prophaners perverters and destroyers of gods sacraments are these vvho leaue out so many and those not the least but the greatest vveightiest ceremonies And if they haue no sacrament vvho lacke in the administratioÌ„ any signe elemental or ceremonial any material part because they be al substaÌ„tial how far are these men from having any shew colour pretence or similitude of Christs Sacrament who lack so many signes ceremonial substantial besides vvhich is the head top leaue out cleane al the vvords of Christ vvhich in deed is the formal therefore the chief soveraine and principal part of the sacrament hovv soever it please these proud ministers to take that honour froÌ„ the vvord of Christ attribute it to their owne vvord Truly as the Catholike for sundry other reasons hath iust cause to abhorre their bread and vvine as polluted as schismatical as heretical as leading the high vvay to Gods vvrath and indignation to hel damnation so these arguments and reasons geven published by them selues suffise to proue as much to proue their communion a schismatical communion cleane divided from Christs communion a perverting a corrupting and destroying of his holy sacrament vvith vvhich it hath no more resemblance by this their ovvne confession then hath an ape vvith a man copper vvith gold heresie vvith religion and an angel of darknes vvith an angel of light Yea many times spiritually sprites of hel doubtles counterfeit Saints and Angels and many apes or munkeys sensibly counterfeit the actions of men vvith more likelihood colour and probabilitie then these mens apish and spritish communion resembleth the Divine Sacrament ordayned by our blessed Saviour Of names attributed to the Sacrament The Argument Of names by which the blessed Sacrament is called in the scripture It is not there called the Lords supper as M. B. falsely supposeth nor yet the Communion Toat it is called mensa domini our Lords table maketh nothing against the sacrifice but rather for it Of names by which the B. Sacrament according to M. B. opinion is called in the auncient fathers It is not called a publique action as by any proper name nor yet a banquet of loue VVhy it is called the Eucharist It was also called the Masse in the Primitiue church when that church generally and especially the church of Rome was most pure and therefore that name savoureth nothing of Idolatry as M. B. ignorantly concludeth But most commonly it was named the sacrifice of Christs body and as a true and real sacrifice was offered vnto God in the church euer since Christs time and first institution of it M. B. argument made to the contrarie answered CHAP. 12 Many of the things which M. B. handleth in these later Sermons or as he calleth them lessons and exercises are by him particularly vttered and entreated of so far furth as concerneth the Sacrament in the first sermon or lesson likewise so much hath bene said of them by me as I thinke convenient ether for proofe of the truth or confutation of error For which cause I shal when they occurre hereafter passe them over in silence or touch them more sleightly The first nevv matter mentioned in this lesson is about names geven to the SacrameÌ„t in holy scripture auncient fathers wherein he speaketh some truth which therefore I gladly embrace as that it is called in the booke of god The body and blud of Christ and never the figure trope signe or seale of that body and blud and therefore belike that being the proper name conteyneth also in proprietie of speech what it is Also it is called the coÌ„munion and participation of Christs body and blud vvhich implieth the former truth It is also called saith M. B. the supper of the lord not a prophane supper not a supper appointed for the belly for Christ had ended the supper that was appointed for the belly or ever he began this supper which was appointed for the sowle In this M. B. is somewhat deceiued as likewise in his explication of the next vz that it is called also in the bible The table of the Lord. It is not called the altar of the lord but the Apostle calâ— it a table to sit at and not an altar to stand at a table to take and receiue and not an altar to offer and propine That M. B. supposeth S. Paule to name the sacrament dominicâ—â— caenam our lords supper it is his error and not S. Paules meaning For albeit at the same time and in the same place whereof S. Paule speaketh Christs sacrament was also communicated vnto the faithful for which cause and also in regard of the time when Christ first instituted it some auncient fathers sometimes inscribe their treatises of the Sacrament De caena domini yet that the booke of god that is the bible and scriptures of god geue not this appellation to it it is plain inough by that place of S. Paule where only in al the scriptures of god that word is vsed For S. Paule mentioning that at these suppers of our lord some devoured al and had to much some could get nothing and rose a hungred some were drunke c. declareth thereby that this place can not directly be vnderstood of Christs sacrament except M. B. be of the opinion with some Puritans whom my self haue heard vpon this place to argue that at their Lords supper there should be not only bread and drinke but also varietie of other meate flesh fish rost and baked wine and beere according as it is in other suppers and feasts Vnto vvhich conceit M. B. by his discourse after ensuing seemeth somewhat to incline But the common opinion of learned men is otherwise that this place meaneth the church-feasts of old time termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were called dominicae caenâ— our lords feasts or suppers because they were kept at night in churches which were in the primitive church and also after called Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our lords howses whence I suppose our name kirke cometh to vvhich feasts the rich sort contributed liberally for the benefite and relief of the poore Before vvhich as S. Chrysostom supposeth though others thinke after the Sacrament vvas also received But that the vvords of S. Paule meane not the sacrament S. Chrysostom is very plaine the circumstance of the place proueth sufficiently This supper saith S. Chrysostom might rather be called humaine then divine potius humana quam dominica rather
private then publike of private miserie rather then publike charitie because everie man devoured vp his ovvne supper and gaue no part to his poore neighbour vvho had brought nothing But Dominica caena the supper of our Lord vvho is charitie it self the supper of charitie should be common to al. In an other place he called this supper coÌ„mune praudiuÌ„ a coÌ„mon feast For examining the coherence of the Apostles vvords he obiecteth to him self hovv to vvhat purpose the Apostle bringeth in the storie of Christs Institution of the b. sacrament v. 23. Qualis est haec consequentia what maner of sequele is this saith S. Chrysostom Thow hast hitherto disputed of a common feast or banquet and doest thow new come in with Christs sacraments VVhich question he ansvvereth very vvel as also doth the learned Greeke doctor Theodoretus in his coÌ„mentaries vpon this same place that he brought in the storie of Christs sacrament for examples sake docens eos facere communes mensas in ecclesiâ—s ad sacram illam mensam respicientes teaching that it vvel became them to make their church feasts common to the poore by regarde and consideration of Christs holy table that seing he vvithout respect or choise or such distinguishing betwene rich poore indiffereÌ„tly gaue to al his ovvne most pictious body aud blud it might wel become them vvith like equalitie and indifferency â—o coÌ„municate their earthly and fleshly bankets And thus much is after a sort confessed both by Calvin and Beza though they yet cal the sacrament by the name of the Lordes supper For Calvin graunteth that as among the Iewes and also Gentils it was a custome to accompanie their sacrifices made in the honour of god with frindly banquets amoÌ„g themselues so the first Christians brought the same fashion of banquetting in to the church and called them agapas charities or feastes of charitie vsed them vvith the administration of this sacrament VVhich after grovving to an abuse the Apostle seeketh here to amend And Beza vvriteth that the first Christians were wont to minister the holy supper of the Lord amonge these feastes which were called agapae vvhich in an other place he calleth sacra coÌ„viâ—is sacra ecclesiae conviuia and fraterna ecclesiastici caetus câ—nvivia holy feasts holy church feasts and brotherly banquets of the ecclesiastical congregation among vvhich feastes that the supper of the lord vvas also ministred it may appeare saith Beza by S. Paule 1 Cor. 11. where he goeth al out to correct that custom which was many ways corrupted VVhich being so that S. Paule here goeth about to correct that abuse then must needs those vvords vvhich go before the institution of Christ beginning after versu 23 be vnderstood of such church feasts so abused and then dominicae caena can not apperteyne to the sacrament vvhich after is brought in thereby to correct that custom and abuse of our Lords supper vvhich is expressed before as sovvly corrupted And the vvords of them selues if they be taken as S. Paule vvrote them the old Translation expresseth them and not as they are peruerted in the Geneva translation and examined vvith indifferent iudgement can beare no other sense For these vvords VVhen yow meete together this is not to eate our lords supper for that every one preventeth and falleth to his owne private supper and one is a hungred another is drunke can haue no other proper natural resolution then this vvhen yow meete together that vvhich yovv eate is not that publike ecclesiastical brotherly supper of charitie of god of Christ and his church vvhich should be common to al the societie of Christians but it is a private peculiar supper voyd of al charitie brotherly loue vvhere one devoureth al an other hath nothing one hath to much and is drunke vvith abundance vvhen many other poore Christians stand by get never a morsel of bread or draught of drinke This is the true sense of the place of S. Paule of this vvord vsed in that only place no vvhere els in the scriptures this sense both Beza and Caluin geve after those auncient doctors And therefore M. B. hath litle reason to cal the sacrament the lordes supper by this authoritie And if the compilers of the Scottish Publike prayer booke had no other reason but this they might as vvel haue called their sacrament as our Enghish do by the name of CoÌ„munion which cometh somwhat neerer to S. Paules phrase then this of the Lords supper vvhich is not so probable to be S. Paules meaning Albeit nether is that vvord Communion truly to speake geuen to the sacrameÌ„t ether by Apostle or Evangelist in al the scripture For as the lordes supper so the Communion in the scripture never signifieth as Beza also noteth communion in the sacrament but in civil offices of loue and charitie in imparting our goods and substance as mony cloth meate and drinke to our brethern vvhich need so is it takeÌ„ Rom. 1â— 26. 2. Cor. 9. 13. Hebr. 13. 16. Pro sacris vero mysterijs nusquaâ— legi in novo testamento absolute positum hoc nomen CoÌ„munionis But â—â—ne ver read in the new testament that the word CoÌ„munion put absolutely signified the holy mysteries saith Beza And if it be not found in the nevv testament I suppose it is not found in the old and so nether the English in calling their signe a Communion nor the Scottish in terming theirs the Lords supper folow the word of the Lord but ether their owne vvord or the vvord of some man vvhom they make lesse account of then of them selues ¶ The other name our lordes table is in deed referred to this sacrament But vvhereas M. B. after Caluin argueth from that vvord that because it is a table not an altar therefore vve should sit at it not stand we should take and receiue not offer and propine these arguments are such as become ministers to make For first of al the vvord table in the scripture is indifferent for a table an altar as appeareth continually in the old testament in description of the tabernacle first and Salomous temple after vvhere there vvere tables mensae not for the priests and their vvives to sit at but for the priests alone to stand at to do things apperteyning to sacrifice And the prophete Malachie in one verse both according to the Hebrevv Greeke and Latin calleth it mensam Domini also altare Domini the table of god and the altar of god signifying an altar or place to offer sacrifice on by ether vvord indifferently And the Prophete Esay rebuketh the Iewes for that they forsaking our lord erected a table mensam to fortune and offered sacrifice on it VVhich the English Bibles both of king Edwards time this present time translate ye haue set vp an altar vnto the false goddesse the vvord Mensa according to the most common vse
apperteines not to one or two to thanke god only but as we are al partaken of his temporal and spiritual benefites so we ought al publikely to geue thankes therefore These are al his reasons against private receiving of the sacrament by several persons which reasons a man of common iudgment and sense might suppose to haue bene vttered in mockeâ—ic and derision of these mens learning and Theologie were it not that M. B. doth preach them to his audience so formally and thus setteth them sorth vvithout any other assistaÌ„ce helpe or authoritie to coÌ„mend or support theÌ„ For to begin with the last what prophane blindnes witles impietie is it to say that we may not make a private thankes geving for a publike benefite in which vve privately haue as great an interest as any Is it against the preaching and teaching of the Scottish ministrie for the brethrene privately in their chambers at morning or evening to geue god thankes for the publike benefites vvhich they receiue ether spititual or temporal for their creation for their sanctification for their rest by night or day for the goods of the earth for their peace by sea and land and so forth If because Christ is a coÌ„mon thing not private therefore the sacrament may not be received of one but al the brothers and sisters must meete together vvhy baptise they any one severally seing Christ signified by that sacrament is a common thing and the same thing vvhich is signifyed by the bread and drinke of their supper VVhy say they ever in private the Lords prayer seing god is a common thing not private and the very first vvord is not my father but our father VVhy doth M. B. severally enioy the light of the sunne the benefite of the ayer vvater land c. vvhich be al publike and general benefites not restrayned or limited to him or to any one in particular Are these men Christian reader in their right vvits vvho vvith such mad braynsick devises dare oppose them selues to the most auncient pure Apostolike church the Catholike church of al times ages But S. Paule calleth the Sacrament a Communion or Câ—munication of Christs body True And vvhat maketh this against private coÌ„munion vvhich it rather coÌ„firmeth For vvhy may not one man alone as vvel coÌ„municate receiue Christs body in this sacrament as one alone may coÌ„municate receiue remissioÌ„ of his sinnes in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme By what reason or shew of reason doth the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christ embarre any private man from the sacrament May a private man evermore and every vvhere by faith communicate Christ truly really and perfitely vvhich is the greater matter and may he not at the ministers hand priuatly receiue bread and wine vvhich is by many degrees the lesse May he commendably enioy the principal the body and must he be excluded from the accessoâ—e from the shadow How vehemently doth Caluin refute this in his disputation against the Anabaptists vvhen he argueth in this very sort Si pueri rei sigâ—â—tae sunt participes cuâ— a signo arcebuntur c. If children before baptisme and vvithout baptisme be partakers of the thing signified by baptisme why should they be debarred from the signe If already they pessesse the veritie why should they be kept from the figure And hovv rashly is it auouched by him that this seale man be ministred publikely otherwise it is no sacrament and the definition of it requireth that the seale be ministred publikely not privately in a societie and congregation of the faithful otherwise ye â—â—â—â— the communion vvhereas the next reformed congregatioÌ„ of his Genevian bretherne preach and practise the contrarie Knovveth he not the maner of the English Church is not there allovved communion of the sicke in their private hovvses Is it not there expreslely declared defined against his definition that in the time of plague sweate or such other contagious sicknesses the minister alone may communicate with the sicke person Do the English ministers tyne destroy the sacrament so abuse mocke the poore sicke brother vvho is novv to depart the vvorld Do they pervert Christs Institution for that they minister the seale not publikely in the coÌ„gregation in a societie of faithful â—â—â— privatly in a chamber to one alone vvhere to such societie of the faithful bretherne is assembled â—â—â—s iâ— M. B. Iohn Calvins vvisdom Theologie vvherein they resemble one the other very aptly that is not to caâ—â— vvhat they say nor vpon hovv â—nvoloâ—â— and 〈…〉 〈…〉 in they speake nor vvhom they condemne so that like vvise and grave Theologes they may 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 their ovvne inventions For even vpon these most vvitles and childish sophismes did Calvin condemne in the Lutherans such private receiving and ministration of the sacrameÌ„t as not agreing vvith the rule of Christ and disallowed by the nature and definition of a communion Vnto vvhom and iâ— him to M. B. thus answereth VVestphalus setting vvithal against his three trifling cavils twise as many substaÌ„tial reasons The summe effect of vhich in his ovvne vvords I vvil briefly comprehend because they serve also against a number of our English preachings pamphlets VVhereas Calvin obiected Christs rule vvhich requireth a multitude VVestphal demaundeth VVhere is any such rule any such law made by Christ Christ saith he never made any such law concerning tyme place or number He never commaunded that the whole congregation should meete together and in one time and place receive the sacrament Yow Calvinists are they who make such a law at your pleasure Christ never forbad that a few three two or one should participate this helthful foode He promised to be present in the middest of two or three gathered together in his name signifying that the church was where two or three godly disciples were And wil he not stand to his promise VVil he not be present to two or three or one when â—â— receiveth the holy Eucharist Thus much for that first argument For the second taken from the nature of communion vvhich M. B. also much grateth on vz. that it is a common supper and banquet and therefore not to be received privatly this learned Protestant vpon that they ground maketh an argument cleane contrarie Quid audio câ—nâ— non erit contra communicationis c. VVhat say yow shal it not be accompted a supper Is it against the nature of a supper of a communion or communication if one alone or with a few be refreshed at iâ— CHRIST mercifully ordeyned his supper to refresh hungry sowles He ordeined a communion By order of his institution no man that desireth it is to be excluded but by right of this common supper is to be admittâ—â— though he be alone And the very law of Communion requireth that no man be debarred from participation of this supper except by
only such as be of naughtie life but also of evil and heretical faith if they be not plain Apostataes Of the Calvinists special iustifying faith by which last refuge as al Catholikes be excluded from their spiritual communicatioÌ„ of Christ so yet other most detestable heretikes thereby receiue Christ as wel as the Calvinists And their doctrine of special faith the very roote of dissolute life plainely directly concludeth against M. B. that in their supper the worst Calvinists receiue Christ as wel as the best CHAP. 15. THe next matter not handled before is a couple of arguments vvhich M. B. obiecteth as in the behalf of Catholikes for the real presence The first is this The Apostle saith He that eates of this bread vnworthely is guiltie of the body and blud of Christ There iâ— their ground VVhereof they frame this argument No man can be guiltie of that thing which be â—â—â— not received Evil men receiue not the body of Christ Therefore they can not be guiltie of it This is the argument as he maketh it His answere to this as likewise to the next is out of Calvin thus First I say the first proposition is very false For they may be guiltie of that same body and that same blud suppose they never received it But take heed to the text The text saith not that hey eate the body of Christ but that they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely And yet because they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely they are counted before God guiltie of the body and blud of Christ not because they received him for Christ can not be received of any man bâ—â— worthely but because they refused him For when they did eate that bread and drinke that wine they might if they â—ad had faith eaten and drunken the flesh and blud of Christ Nâ—â— because thow refusest the body of Christ offered vnto thee thâ—â— contemnes it and so art guiltie of it In this answere whereas M. B. wisheth the reader or hearer to take heede to the text so do I to so shal he find M. B. to be as right a minister that is to say as right a falsifyer of the text as are coÌ„monly his felow ministers For where findeth he in the text except it be a false corrupted text that such men eate that bread and drinke that wine vnvvorthely Certainely not in any text of S. Paule For thus stand the words even as I find them translated by Beza and Calvin Therefore who so ever shal eate of this bread and drinke of this cup vnworthely shal be guiltie of the Lords body and blud But let every one proue him selfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh damnation to him self for that he discerneth not the Lords body These are the words of the Apostle and thus are they translated by Calvin Beza And novv take as good heed as yow can to the text VVhere find ye that evil men eate bread drinke wine VVhat godles dealing is this to wil your auditour to take heed to the text then your self to abuse the holy scripture to corrupt the text coosen your auditor or reader most vvhen most yow pretend honestie simplicitie vvil him to take heed to the text And let not the reader suppose that the corruption is smale or of no great moment For it is vile grosse and in this place so heretical that he had bene as good to have made a text of his owne as to have made the Apostle thus to speake For the Apostles vvords are divinely exactly set downe and Apostolically expresse the real presence For in naming this bread in vrging and repeating that bread vvhich in greeke is significantly put and declareth a singular bread he meaneth that bread of God which came from heaven that bread which geueth life that body vvhich in the old testament sometimes and in the Gospels oft times in one chapter of S. Iohn a dosoÌ„ times at lest is called bread vvhich bread our saviour him self assureth vs to be his flesh which was to be geven for the life and salvation of the world In naming the cup or that cup vvhich is Christs owne vvord and vvhich vvord being common to any thing conteyned in the cup be it the blud of the new testament which was shed for vs be it wine be it water be it ale or beer or any maner drinke to al vvhich the vvord cup may vvel agree our saviour restreyneth to the blud of the new testament shed for remission of sinnes and so restreyneth that it can not be referred to wine or any other thing S. Paule most assuredly meaneth the same and so in the one and other truly describeth the Catholike faith of the church Against vvhich M. B. telling vs that the Apostle saith such evil men eate that bread and drinke that wine most vvickedly by thrusting in his wine redueeth the vvord bread to a vulgar base signification because talking of bread and wine no man can conceive othervvise vvhereas the vvord bread being in scripture common to al foode vvhereby man liveth and the vvord cuppe being in his kind as large and general doth not signifie nether that our vulgar kind of bread nor this wine more then it signifieth flesh and ale or fish and vvater and being o 〈…〉 self indifferent other places of the scripture necessarily determine it to one certain more high and divine signification as hath bene declared Now vvhereas M. B. maketh a discourse that a man may be guiltie of a thing vvhich he receiveth not which no vvise man doubteth of and so a man may be guilty of Christs body and blud vvhich yet is not eaten oâ— drunken ether corporally or spiritually vvhich is a plaine case for Pagans and persecutors are guilty of Christian blud vvhich vniustly they shed though yeâ— they drinke it not and Pilate Herode Caiphas and the Ievves vvhich crucified Christ vvere guiltie of his death of â—ath body vvhich they eate nether vvay nether as Catholiks nor as Protestants al this is labour spent in vaine and talke to no purpose VVe argue not vpon vvords of condemnation or guiltines in general but vpon the vvords as they are put in the Apostle and ioyned vvith other vvords of his so they clearly prove a real presence and M. B. his interpretation is maledicta glâ—ssa a cursed glose and exposition because it is cleane not besides but against the text For saith M. B. the fault of these men vvhom S. Paule reproveth is because they eate not that divine bread nor drinke that diuine cup S. Paule saith their fault is because they do eate it and drinke it M. B. putteth the indignitie and vnworthines in refusing not receiving it S. Paule in receiving it not refusing For they do receiue eate it but
vnworthely S. Paule maketh their sinne to be that they make no differeÌ„ce betwene the body blud of our lord other meates therefore are giltie of that body and blud vvhich they so despâ—se M. B. admitteth not that they proceed so far but coâ—deÌ„nâ—th them before hand before they eate vvhich is â—â—â— against S. Paules coÌ„patison vvhich standeth in this that as those men came to other tables to those ecclesiastical feasts of charitie there did eate drinke vvithout any prâ—câ—dent 〈…〉 al of them selves or examination of their consciences so came they and receiued the body and blud of Christ at this divine table not distinguishing this food from that but vvithout any convenient preparation honor regard or separation of one from the other eating and drinking this divine sacrament as they vvould coÌ„mon meates drinkes VVhich words of necessitie implie an eating drinking on both sides or els there is no comparison and consequently no condemnation of the one side vvhich condemnation remayneth resteth in the vvant of reverence regard and distinction made betwene those vulgar tables and this body and blud of our saviour both vvhich they received but alike and vvith like honor and reverence vvherein they sinned and dishonored Christ whose body they discerned not and therefore received it vnworthely And thus the auncient fathers vnderstood this text and out of it concluded the real presence and real receiving of Christs body though to the condemnation of the receivers So for example S. Austin He that vnworthely receiveth our lords sacrament albeit him self be naught yet that which he receiveth is good Corpus enim domini sanguis domini nihilominus erat illis c. For as to good men so was it the body of our lord and the blud of our lord no lesse vnto them of whom the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthely eateth his owne iudgement The same Doctor intending to shew that the evil vse of good things harmeth greatly what shal I speake saith he of the very body and blud of our lord the only sacrifice of our salvation Of which albeit our lord him self say that it geveth life yet doth not his Apostle teach vs even that to be pernicious to them which vse it noâ— wel when he saith who soever shal eate that bread and drinke that chalice not vvine of our lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud In vvhich place vvhereas â—e nameth it ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini the very body and blud of our Lord and the only sacrifice of our salvation â—e most certainly noteth not bread and vvine but an other thing except bread and vvine be the very body of Christ and the only sacrifice of our redemption So in his epistles he vvriteth that our Lord suffered Iudas that traytour among his innocent disciples to receiue that which thâ— faithful know our raunsom or redemption quod fideles norâ—â—t pretium nostrum In an other place he calleth it sacrificiâ— pretij nostri the sacrifice of our redemption vvhich vvords of sacrifice raunsom price redemption c. quit exclude M. B. his tropical bread and vvine and prove that Iudas vvith the other disciples received the same body which was delivered for vs the same blud which was shed for vs according to the plain text of al the Evangelists This same veritie and exposition of S. Paules vvords is geven by the other auncient and learned fathers Greeke and Latin as namely S. Basil lib. de baptis cap. 3. S. Chrysost in sundry places in 1. Corinth cap. 11. homil 24. hom 27. â—omil â—3 in Matth. hom 45. in Ioan. S. Cyper sermo de coena Hieron in â— cap. Malach. Treophilact S. Ambros and Theodoret. expounding this place of vvhich the later vpon those very words vvhereon M. B. maketh his cavilling he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud vvriteth expressely thus By these words the Apostle signifieth thus much that aâ— the Iewes dishonored Christ shamefully abused him so they also dishonour and shamefully abvse him who receiue his most holy body with their impure handes and take it in to their defiled and vilanous mouth in pollutum incestum â—â— So that M. B. his conclusion or rather straunge paradox that no man can receive Christ vnworthely vvhich out of the sacrament Herodâ— Annas and many other publicanes Iewes Gentiles other did or might have done and in the sacrament many evil Christians continually do is quit opposite to the Apostles scope and discourse in this place vvhich against al drift of the text and sense of the vvords and exposition of auncient fathers he peevishely laboureth to pervert For albeit sometimes some fathers and namely S. Austin in one or two places vvhich Calvin citeth deny to the vvicked rem sacramenti the thing of the sacrament yet thereby he meaneth not Christs true body as S. Austin declareth his owne meaning but the iustifying grace the fruit and commoditie thereof the vertue and sanctification vvhich by Gods ordinaÌ„ce redouÌ„deth thence to al worthy receivers Nether doth it greatly helpe M. B. that he laboureth to approve his saying by the example of wordly princes who wil not suffer their maiestie to be interessed in the smallest thing But if thow disdainfully vse their seale which is but wax and contemne it and stamp it vnder thy secte thow art compted as gilty of his body and blud as if thow put thy hands on him much more if thow so handle the seales of the body and blud of Christ this I say litle helpeth the matter For first the comparison is nothing like For S. Paule speaketh not of stamping vnder feet of such disdainful abuse and contempt but of vnreuerent receiving vvhich differeth much and therefore if M. B. vvould speake to the purpose and applie his talke to the subiect here handled he should take such examples for the one side vvherein is like coniunction of things signified vvith the signe as he â—â—ineth to be in his Geneva signe or supper and for the other side vvhere men shew such vnteverence towards them as is here likewise presupposed Christ saith he and so say the Protestants of his sect is ioyned vvith the bread as as he is vvith a vvorde spoken as he is with a sermon as he is vvith an image as a king is represented in his picture in his seale in a peece of vvax Suppose then that some man stamp not vnder foote the Testament in despite and disdayne of Christ for so S. Paule speaketh not nor meaneth but that he reade some chapter of the Testament not discerning it from a chapter of S. Hierom or S. Austin is he gilty of our lords body If he heare a sermon preached and perhaps sleepe at the sermon time so receive not Christ inteâ—nally as by the vvord he is offered no lesse then in the Supper is he gilty of the body of the
est eos spectare ad manifestam in hoc articulo Apostastam And as it is croniâ—led by those that vvere present eye-vvitnesses Richerus vvhom Calvin sent from Geneva as an Apostle to preach his gospel in the nevv France ioyning to America among his Calvinists there preached the eating of Christs body to be peculiar and proper to the sowle as here M. B. teacheth for that hope of resurrection was only for the sowle and not for the body And being after convented examined vvhat he meant to preach so he ansvvered that he vvould stand to his preaching and iustifie it repeating againe this reason quia spes vitae non est corporum sed animarum for that the hope of eternal life apperteyneth not to the bodies but to the fowles Briefly one Pappus a Lutheran Doctor of Strasburg a dosen yeres since vvriting against Sturmius a Caluinist Rhetorike reader in the same citie rehearsing in fine the Caluinists Creed vvith this preface I wil saith he frind Starmius â—â— cite to thee the Creed of these Calvinists whom thow dost defend not as they protest openly in wordes but as their mind is and intention which also they vtter in their writing and â—â— not able to conceale in their familiar talke And beginning vvith Credo in Deum patrem multipotentem c. I beleev is God the father who can do many things c. vvhen he cometh to this article of the resurrection thus he vttereth it Credo noncarnis quae ad vitam non alitur nec sustintatur in sacra Eucharistia sâ—d animae tantum resurrectionem vitam aeternam I beleeve the resurrection and life eternal only of the sowle not of the flesh which is not â—ed and nourished iâ— the holy Eucharist to eternal life VVherevnto immediatly he adioyneth these vvords vvhich I vvish M. B. to coÌ„sider Here thoâ—r Sturmius wilt vse I doubt not al maner of exclamations and cryingâ— out against me But that skilleth â—â— For thow hast taught in thy Rhetorike that al such Rhetorical exclamations and amplifications are nothing but repetatio priâ—cipiâ— idâ—e repeating of that which is in question words and wind without matter OsteÌ„de si poâ—es si bonus es quicquam iâ— isto abominando blasphâ—mo Sâ—mbolo falso imputari ijs â—â—â—uÌ„â—u causam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendendaÌ„ suscepisti shew me if thow be able and if thow be a honest man anything in tâ—â— abominable and blasphemous Creed which is falsely attributed to these Calvinists whoâ—e cause thow a wicked râ—etor ciâ—â— hast taken vpon thee to defend These vvords touch M. B. to the quicke For his preaching as directly tendeth to denial of the Creed and namely this article as lightly may be â—ound in any other of his false bretherne be they Calvinists never so pure and zealous ¶ One more collection and this shal be the last to like effect as the former that is to disgrace al corporal communication vvith Christ he maketh in these vvordes So it is that never no mâ—n was better for carnal tuitching iâ— Christ As the woman troubled with the bluddy issue vpon thâ—â— persuaâ—â—on that Christ may cure both body and sowle she coâ—es to him and as the text sais she preases through the multitude til she come to him and when she comes to him it is not said that she tuitched his flesh with her hand in case the Papistes would ascribe the vertue which came out of him to her carnal tuitching O how careful this man is to vvithdraw al vertue from the flesh of Christ and real tuitching thereof but it is said she tuitched only the hem of his garment and with faith which is the hand of the sowle she tuitched Christ Hereof he concludeth To let yow vnderstand that she tuitched him by faith he saith to her Go thy way thy faith hath saued thee She tuitched him not so soone by faith but incontinent there comes a power out of him So that this tuitching of him hath ever bene is and shal be profitable as the corporal tuitching of Christ never was profitable is not nor neuer shal be profitable These vvords as the Christian reader may easely see tend to evacuate and disanul most of Christ and his Apostles actions here in this vvorld If he had said that faith vvas requisite in those that songht to Christ for helpe as Christ him self teacheth like as the phisicion of his patient requireth credit and obedience that he trust him obey him before he vvil vndertake to cure him he had spoken like a Christian and like a true preacher and one that had a litle marked the scriptures vvhereof they talke so much and for ought may appeare vnderstand so litle But to attribute al to the faith of the partie and to vvithdraw it from al other actions vnto which it is as properly yea more properly due this is dishonorable to Christ and quit besides yea against the vvhole storie of the Gospel Christ coming in to the vvorld and preaching amonge the Iewes for this end that he might plant his faith amongest them ever vrged them to this faith required of them this faith vvithout this faith seeldom did any miracles somtimes as the EuaÌ„gelists expresle the matter could not do miracles in some places because the people vvere so ful of vnbeleefe and incrudelitie for that it vvas against Gods ordinarie providence Christs vvisdome to shevv his miraculous power vvhere men vvere bent to contemne mocke and laugh at him rather then take benefite by him among vvhich people to have shevved forth any such divine operatioÌ„ had bene nothing els then to have vvatered a dead tree aud sowed corne in the sand or vpon a rocke For this reason Christ so commenly required faith as being a qualitie necessarie to make men capable of his grace and benediction other temporal or spiritual Yet the vâ—ne storie of the gospel in the same place noted by M. B. sundry the like prove other things as coming to Christ praying requesting perseverance charitie c. to have bene as requisite as such credulitie and to have coÌ„ curred as effectually to the obteyning of such graces as did this faith or good opinion of Christs person Fâ—â— that by the vvay let the reader marke that the faith here and in like places coÌ„mended is not the Catholike faith of Christians vvhich vve vniversally professe in Christs Church much lesse the Protestant faith or solisidian coÌ„ ceit or rash presumption of their particular iustificatico and remission of sinnes but only a reverend opinion persuasion that Christ as a blessed man and prophete vvas of abilitie to do such things And thus Christ him self describeth this faith in diuers places namely and most expressely in S. Matth. VVhere two blind men crying on him to have their sight Christ called them vnto him and said to them Do yow beleeve that I can do this vnto you
these places and M. B. his dealing in them is very corrupt and heretical and the sacramentaries vvho vsually care not for a thousand Austins nor a thousand Cyprians vvhen they make against them here make much of one Austin vvhen he seemeth to speake for them especially for that these places are in a maner the only vvhich these men have as very important are obiected by P. Martyr by Bullinger by Beza by Iohn Calvin I vvil briefly set downe in particular vvhat answere Calvins adversarie the Lutherâ—â— Protestant maketh to them Thus vvâ—iteth he The place of S. Austin to Dardanus I expound by very many plaine places of S. Austin wherein he declareth that the body and blud of Christ are geven and received in the sacrameÌ„t And both those many places of S. Austin and this one to Dardaâ—â— I examine and trye by the rule and touchestone of Christs word therefore I hope the indifferent reader wil iudge that I expound S. Austin a right Next he answereth that S. Austin in that epistle to Dardanus as likewise in his third ad Volusâ— axum in his 30 treatise vpon S. Iohn talketh not nor entreateth of the sacrament therefore his words are perversely applied against the real presence therein Against vvhich answere because Calvin stormed as Ioachimus writeth rayled most barbarously he iustifieth it by the authoritie of Philip Melanchton Calvins special frind and a frind of the sacramentaries and so a close favourer at lest no great enemy of M. B. his opinion and vvhom therefore Peter Martyr calleth a fingular incomparable man adorned with al kind of learning vertue VVestphalus words are these Before me even thus wrote that most famous maâ— Philip Melancthon in one litle booke geving thrise warning to the reader that Austin in that 30. treatise vpon S. Ithe where he saith the body of our Lord may be in one place corpus Domini in vno loco esse potest maketh no mention of the Lordes Supper It is a great matter and importeth much to marke in what place vpon what occasion a thing is spoken For we speake otherwise wheÌ„ we talke of any thing by chanâ—e by the way accidentally then when we entreate of it directly and of purpose and our words cary with them one sense in the one place which they do not in the other VVhere by the way let the reader note the intolerable coâ—â—uptioÌ„ of S. Austins words made by M. B. the Calvinists For where S. Austin saith Christs body may wel be in one place M. B. maketh him to say the body of Christ must of necessitie be in out place VVhich differ as much as these two propositions M. B. an heretike a corrupter and falsifâ—er of the fathers and scriptures to as shal appeare may become a Catholikâ—â— and M. B. such an heretike c. must of necessitie be a Catholike Again VVhere S. Austin to Dardanus vvriteth that Christ as man is in heaven and not every vvhere as he is according to his deitie M. B. for his better aduauntage maketh S. Austin to say that Christ it only in heaven and that according to the nature of a true body as though otherwise it vvere no true body vvhich is far from S. Austins vvords and being referred to the sacrament much farther from his meaning And now to retourne to Melanchton he saith further that he can never be persutded that Austin in that place here cited meant so to tye Christ to one place that he could not be in another especially for that the scripture never so teacheth and nothing can be brought to bind Christ to one place besides the iudgement of humane reason In an other place he affirmeth that he had rather suffer present death then say with the Zuinglians that Christs body can be but in one place And the self same is the effect of my answere to the place of Dardanus For Calvin or M. B. sindeth not in al that Epistle or any place of S. Austin that the truth of Christs body or nature is denyed if the veritie of Christs words be credited and his body beleeved to be received in the sacrament S. Austin never saith as Calvin doth that Christs body is only in heaven and not in the sacrament He never denieth the presence of Christs body there Let Calvin or M. B. bring furthâ— so much as one place where S. Austin affirmeth Christs body to be absent from the sacrament whereas we shew many in which S. Austin clearly teacheth and assureth vs that the body and blud of Christ is present is giuen and received there Concerning the last place taken out of S. Austin Epistola 146 that Christ is in heaven as he was in earth as he ascended vvhereof Calvin concludeth as doth M. B. But in eâ—rth and when he ascended he was circumscribed Ergo he iâ— likewise in heauen albeit the right answere be short plaine that these words must needs be vnderstood in respect of the substance only not of other properties and qualities for here he did â—aâ—e drinke sleepe as in heauen he doth not yet VVestphalus enlargeth it som what and iustifieth it by the vvords of S. Austin in the same place and sentence next eusuing and therefore telleth Calvin as I do M. B. that these words are nothing against vs. For we teach not that Christ is in the Eucharist visibly and localy of which forme S. Austin speaketh as appeareth by thâ—â— be citeth the words of the Angel As yow have seene him go in is heaven so shâ—l he come And S. Austin him self interpreteth that particle of similitude sie so of the substance and forme of Christ affirming that the same Christ which then ascended iâ— to heauen shal in the end of the world come to iudge in visible forme And this is a true plaine very sufficient answere to these places of S. Austin and S. Austin never speaketh otherwise if we take his sentence according to the general tenor forme of his writings agreably also to Christs owne words as this Protestant truly testifieth and not by peeces and quillets and snatches as do the sacrameutaries therein so filthely and shamefully as Luther writeth mâ—â—gle him for defense of their venemous heresie as nothing câ—â— be more tam foede contumeliose deformant vâ—â—ihil supra ¶ The text of the Acts yet resteth which as he telleth vs proveth most evidently that Christs body can be but in one place And vvhat are those vvords vvhich prove this so euidently These of S. Peter that heaven must conteyne Christ vntil al things be restored This perhaps proves that Christ must be in heaveÌ„ vntil that tyme but that he can be no vvhere els how is this proued by these words save only in the blind and reprobate sense of a sacramentarie who evermore stumbleth vpon this condusion that vvhen Christ is said to be in oue place he can
bread And therefore this opinion of real presence â—â—ghts directly against the articles of our beleef and the manifest place of scripture And is this al Then those articles of the Creed make not any other new argument but in effect and substance are the self same vvith the vvords of the Acts and therefore M. B. might have spared this but that he loveth to multiplie vvords and make a shew of some new thing of a second â—ort of argumeÌ„t vvhen the thing is stale and differeth nothing at al from his first sort of argument and both first and second is founded nether vpon any place of scripture as hath bene declared noâ— article of beleef as shal now appeare nor any authoritie of the church or general Councel yea or consent of the Protestants but only vpon a fantasie of Zuinglius and Carolostadius and their sectaries framed to them selves that Christs body being in heauen can not possibly be in the sacrament because forsooth a body of man such as is Ihon Caluin or Theodore Beza can not be in two places at once As for this article of our beleef of Christs ascension and sitting at the right hand of god his father it is so far from disprouing the real presence in the sacrameÌ„t that it much more establisheth it to any Christian yea to many Protestants And Luther writeth very flatly though vpon a wrong grouÌ„d that we are bound to beleeve Christs real presence in the sacrameÌ„t cum scripturae articali fidei constantissime id asseuerent for that both the scripture articles of our faith speaking of the self same vvhich here M. B. doth assure vs thereof most constantly And thâ—â— M. B. and those of his sect thinke otherwise it procedeth only hence as writeth Luther answering this argument in Zuinglius and Occolampadius for that they â—aâ—e a folish and childish imagination of Christ sitting at his fathers right hand as though hard by God his fathers throne Chrâ—â—â— sat in a golden chayre with a goodly crowne on his â—ead c. For saith Luther vnles they thought thus ignorantly and childishly of Gods right hand they would neuer herevpon dâ—â—y the body of Christ to be present in the supper Foâ— let vs take the meaning and explication of this article from Calvin him self and see vvhat argument can be deduced thence to M. B. purpose That Christ sitteth at the right hand of â—iâ— father saith Calvin thereby we must vnderstand that he is made Lord of heauen and earth and that by his ascension â—â— tooke solemne possession thereof which he shal keep and continue vntil the last day For so the Apostle declareth it whâ—â—as he saith that the father hath placed him at his right hand above al principalitie and power and vertue and domination and al thing not only in this world but also in the â—ther and that God the father hath subiected al things vnder his â—eet VVe see then what is the meaning of these words to wit that al creatures both celestial terrestrial hoâ—oâ— his diuine maiestie are gouerned by his hand obey his wil are subiect to his power And the Apostles have no other meaning when they make so common mention hereof then that al things are at his commaundement This now being the true sense of this article let vs draw thence M. B. his conclusion vvhich must stand thus Christ sitteth at the right hand of his father that is to say he is made lord of heaven and earth God hath placed him in supreme gouernemeÌ„t over al and al things in heaven and earth he hath subiected vnder him so that there is no creature but is obedient to his commaundement that is in one vvord He is omnipotent Ergo he can not make his body present at once in two places in heauen and in the sacrament This is M. B. his argument and this is that article of our beleef vvhich so directly destroyeth Christs real presence vvith vs. But vvil the reader see how M. B. vvhile he laboureth to multiplie his arguments and disgrace the Catholike faith as contrary both to scripture and the articles of our beleef disgraceth him self diminisheth and quit marreth his owne arguments and nothing impayâ—â—th the Catholike faith but rather establisheth and confirmeth it Let the reader take once againe a revew of that former text Act. 3. 21. vvhich as he saith proveth most evidently Christ to be locally so bound to one place in heaven that he can not be present in the sacrament For if vve shal geve credit to Calvin vvho in this â—ase deserveth more credit then M. B. both for the rare qualities and singular excellencie of the man as also for that he iustifieth his exposition by many places of scripture al truly alleaged against M. B. his one corrupted falsified peece of a sentence expounded by no authoritie besides his owne those words of S. Peter vvhich M. B. so â—oastâ—th of have no other meaning and sense then hath Christs sitting at his fathers right haÌ„d VVhich being al one then must that dreadful argument vvhich he so magnified as most evidently binding Christ to a certaine place so that he could not be in an other be framed as the former thus S. Peter Act. 3. 21. saith Christ is omnipotent and hath al power in heauen and earth geven vnto him Therefore being in heauen he can not be present in the sacrament ¶ The vanitie and peevishnes of vvhich ignorant sophistrie more fit for some rude cobler or taylour then such a minister as is M. B. Calvin knowing right wel in his later writings ether not at al or seeldom and sleightly vrged that article vvhen he disputed against his felow Protestants of this matter but rested cheeflly vpon such texts of scripture vvhich in deed vvere a litle more to the purpose as declare Christs absence from the world and leauing it as in S. Iohn once or twise But Christ in the same places and cls vvhere maketh his meaning plain inough vvhen he declareth that by the world he meaneth the state condition qualitie and conuersation vsual in this vvorld in vvhich sort he denyed him self to be of the vvorld vvhen yet he remayned in the vvorld and after his resurrection vvhen yet he talked vvith his disciples signified he vvas not then in the vvorld for that he vvas not vvith his disciples in such vvorldly maner as he vvas before his passion and so nether such places albeit they carie some more face and probabilitie then this article of Christs sitting at his fathers right hand any whâ—â— impayre the Catholike faith touching this sacrament And thus VVestphalus answereth Calvin rightly It is to be marked saith he that Christ telleth his disciples he wil leaue the world not that he wil leave his church For how could he leaue the church who promised to be present with the faithful for ever Therefore the meaning of these
more be in the sacramental bread and vvine of the English and Scottish Communion And yet as I suppose nether the English not the Scottish ministers thinke it necessarie that vvhen they minister the communion there be present in the congregation reaping and thresshing grinding and baking and so forth nether yet that in their cup being made of vvine or ale there be many ale cornes or many grapes or in the bread many wheat cornes to signifie the vnitie of the lord with the congregation as also the vnitie of the bretherne and sisterne one vvith an other in faith and love but it is counted sufficient that to the matter of the sacrament these things vvere requisite before it could be made bread or vvine If he thus thinke and answere as he must of necessitie then he answereth him self that it suffiseth this sacrament in the Catholike church to be made of bread and vvine vvhich signifie spiritual nurriture though after consecration the substance of nether remayne vvhich yet nurrish even then sufficiently to performe that vvhich his argument requireth Finally this argument is condemned by Iohn Calvin him self and the vvhole consistorie of Geneva For vvhereas this man argueth that vve haue no sacrament because we want a signe if the substance of the bread be chaunged although that notwithstanding vve reteyne al properties qualities effects and operations of bread Calvin vvith his consistory as before is noted holdeth the sacrament to be perfite and absolute though there be no bread at al though there vvant both substance and qualities of bread al shape forme and nature of bread and vvine both internal and external And vvhereas against that opinion or licentious dispensation there vvas obiected belike by some minister of M. B. his conceite this argument vvhich here he opposeth the Consistorie answereth very gravely This analogie or signification of bread made of many graynes and wine of many grapes to declare our mutual coniunction although it be not to be contemned yet nether is it so precisely to be vrged but that it may suffise vs to testifie that coniunction and faith by like signes in general by other meate and drinke If then the Geneva bretherne may have a very perfit sacrament vvithout any kind of bread and vvine â—ther in substance or accident M. B. his reason proceedeth of smal vvit in denying vs a sacrament vvho reteyne the formet al necessarie properties of bread suâ—ficieÌ„t fully to signifie although according to Christs expresse vvord vve beleeve the substance of bread to be changed in to the substance of a more celestial and divine bread vvhich came from heauen Thirdly saith M. B. if there were such a wonderful thing as they speake of in this sacrament there would haue bene plaine mention made of it in the scripture VVhat playner mention can yow require then This is my body the self same which shal be deliuered for yow This is my blud of the new testament the same which shal be shed for the remission of sinnes for the redemption of the world Can M. B. vvith al his study devise vvords more plaine more effectual more significant Fourthly he much troubleth him self to find the veritie of this proposition This bread is my body vvhether it be true before the words spoken or after c. I answere first let him set downe a truth and not a falsitie and after propose his difficultie and then ether it shal be satisfied or vve wil acknowlege his deep and vnanswerable subtilitie But for ought appeareth in our testaments English Latin or Greeke Christ never vsed any such speech Christ never said This bread is my body but as hath bene declared before Christ so vttered his vvords as possibly they can not yeld that proposition Let M. B. marke vvel the words in the Euangelists and conferte them vvith his grammer rules ether in Greeke or Latin and if he can make Hoc to agree vvith panis or Hic vvith vinum then he may chaunce to trouble vs. Otherwise except he his vvil take vpon them to make vs a new Grammar a new Latin and Greeke language vvhich they may better do and vvith more reason then make vs a new faith new sacraments new Theologie as they have done he shal not find in al the testament that â—â—â—â— Christ said This bread is my body This wine is my blud ¶ Fiftly Austin saith lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana cap. 16. To eate Christs flesh and drinke his blud seemeth to commaund a wickednes or mischief Therefore it is a figuratiue speach whereby we are commaunded to communicate with Christs sufferings and with gladnes to locke vp in perpetual memorie that the flesh of our Lord was crucified and wounded for vs. For otherwise as the same Austin makes mention it were more horrible to eate the flesh of Christ really then to murther him to drinke his blud then to shed his blud S. Austins vvords answere them selues and so doth S. Austin in other places and even here the second place answereth the first because it notifieth how far forth this speach is figurative Only this may be added to the first that vvhen S. Austin saith that to eate Christs flesh is to coÌ„municate with Christs sufferings and to locke vp in perpetual memorie that Christs flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs he meaneth no other thing then S. Paule doth and the church also vvhen they vvil al Christians vvhich ether offer the mystical sacrifice or receive it to do it in remembrance of Christs bitter passion vvherein his flesh vvas truly wounded and crucified for vs as here it is not And that S. Austin thus meant and never meant by locking vp Christs death in perpetual memorie to shut out this real sacrifice and sacrament vvhich most directly and perfitly continueth that death and bluddy sacrifice in perpetual memorie let S. Austin him self be iudge in a number af other places vvhereof some heretofore have bene other hereafter shal be cited For this present this one may serue The Iewes saith he in their sacrifices of beasts which they offered after diuers sorts and fashions as was connenient for so great a matter practised a fore signification or representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse VVherefore now the Christians also celebrate and keepe the memorie of the same sacrifice past How by vvords only or cogitations or eating bread and drinking vvine as in the Scottish and Geneua English supper No but by a holy oblation and communication or receiving of the same body and blud of Christ Peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosanctâ— oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis c. This S. Austin thought the best vvay to locke vp Christs sacrifice and death in perpetual memorie And this perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice standeth wel and is best preserved by the churches mystical sacrifice and real presence of
113. It is in the power of man to make as good a sacrament 270. 271. 272. 273. Actions of Christ in the Institution of the Sacrament pa. 147. 148. 150. 151. 155. He mingled his chalice vvth water 151. 158. 159. He blessed the bread and chalice 152. 153. 154. 155. The Sacrament vvhy called Eucharist pa. 251. 252. Carefully coÌ„ceiled froÌ„ knowlege of Ievves Pagans in the primitiue church 262. 263. 264. No heretike could be present at the administration thereof 254. 262. The Sacrament reserved sent abrode to private men in the primitive church pa. 278. 279. Yet beleeved to sanctifie and confer grace 279. Only heretikes thought contrarie 279. To receiving the Sacrament other preparation required then to receiving the vvord pa. 421. 422. 423. Sacraments of the Law Gospel much differ in conferring grace pa. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 108. The material parts of the Sacrament signifie many things not necessarily present pa. 359. 360. substance of bread not necessarie to it 359. 361. The Sacrament not called Dominica coena the lords supper in scripture pa. 245. VVhat that word meaneth in S. Paul 245. 246. 247. Nether is it called coÌ„munion in al scripture 247. 248. A Sermon not necessarie to the essence of any SacrameÌ„t p. 218. that opinioÌ„ is refuted by the English church 221. It is plainly Anabaptistical 222. 223. It maketh voyd most baptismes in England and Scotland 224. 225. and also coÌ„munions 226. 227. 228. 229. 235. It maketh the vvord or sermoÌ„ it self superfluous of no effect 230. 231. A Sacramental speech pa. 367. Sacramentaries condemned by Erasmus pa. 34. 35. By Luther 325. 354. 438. By Melancthon 348 349. By Pappus 326. VVestphalus 121. 283. 284. 285. Hosiander many other protestaÌ„t Doctors 344. 436. Euery heretike against the Sacrament an heretike for other matters besides as Berengarius pa. 26. 27. Petrus Brusius Henricus and the Albigenses 27. 28. Almaricus 28. VViclef 29. Christ at his last supper instituted a sacrifice pa. 3. proved by vvords of the Institution 4. 16. and conference of them with the vvords of the legal sacrifice of Moyses lavv 4. 5. Christs sacrifice ordeyned in steed of the Paschal sacrifice of the law pa. 9. 10. The exact coÌ„parison of them proveth ours to be a true sacrifice 10. 11. So al the auncient fathers teach pa. 12. 51. 252. 255. 256. 257. 258. 363. It is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 201. A true sacrifice though commemoratiue 19. 20. Sacrifice of Melchisedec a figure of Christs sacrifice pa. 13. 14. 15. 363. Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles pa. 17. Proved by S. Paule 17. 18. 19. Graunted by some chief Protestants 19. Beleeved in the primitiue church 20. 21. 22. 257. 358. Confessed by both churches Greeke and Latin 26. as Calvin graunteth 257. Sacrifice of the church testified by the auncient fathers 201. 249. 251. 252. 255. 256. 257. Seales divine miracles pa. 142. 143. ProtestaÌ„t Sectes of this age to what number they are grovven pa. 445. Sinne separateth man from God pa. 399. Al sinne mortal none venial with the Calvinists pa. 30. 399. Remission of Sinnes See priests The Protestants special faith invented by Luther pa. 301. 302. putteth them in assurance of their election and salvation 303. 304. Cause of infinite pride and presumption 304. 307. 308. 402. Of vile dissolute life 306. 307. CoÌ„mon to al kind of heretikes especially Anabaptists 304. 305. 4â—4 By this faith the vvorst Protestants eate Christ spiritually in their supper as vvel as the best 304. 307. 308. It leadeth to hel 308. 309. Seâ— Protestants Special faith destroyeth al Christian faith 433. Remission of sinnes in the church Keyes of the church Sacraments of the church pa. 433. prayer to God feare of God 433. 434. This special faith refuted by S. Paule pa. 316. By Caluinists theâ—â— selves 316. 317. By Melancthon 434. 435. This special faith once had can never be lost pa. 306. VVhat is necessarie essential to the Scoâ—tish or Geneva Supper pa. 146. 239. How it is ministred 156. It is nothing like to Christs sacrament for a number of defects 157. 158. 159. 160. 162. 200. 201. 239. 240. 241. 242. and superfluities 220. 223. 224. Any vulgar dinner or repast as good as that Supper 65. 163. It is ministred as wel by wemen and boyes â—â— by their Ministers 65. How Christs body is ioyned to the Geneua or Scottish Supper pa. 174. 175. 274. As to a word spoken 176. 177. 27â— Lesse then to a picture 178. No more then God is ioyned to the devil 175. 176. Nothing at al. 175. 176. It is altogether superfluous ridiculous 179. 180. VVickedly by M. B. preferred before gods vvord 210. 211. 212. The Supper described by M. B. pa. 182. prophanely 182. 183. 184. Striving for the coÌ„munion drinke 184. It is not vvorth a straa 193. 200. 229. rather to be called a breakfast then a supper 332. It is wicked and sacrilegious 242. 243. No sacrament of Christ 229. 233. Christ no othervvise received in the Scottish supper then in any common dinner pa. 187. 206. 275. 276. Then in seeing any creature 189. Christ received no vvayes in their Supper 189. 190. The flesh of priests Catholikes more eaten in the Geneva suppers then the flesh of Christ pa. 229. 230. Divers vncertain significations of the Geneua supper pa. 177. 178. 179. Many things signifie Christ as wel as that 180. 181. 182. How long it remayneth holy 276. 277. T Table See Altar Christs Testament made at his last Supper 6 8. VVhat was required to the making thereof 6. 7. 8. The real presence and sacrifice is thereof inferred 7. 8. 9. How his blud in the chalice is called the new testameÌ„t 371. 372. Difference of the old TestameÌ„t new pa. 98. 99. V No lawful VocatioÌ„ of preachers in Scotland or England pa. 407. VV VVemen may preach and minister the Protestants communion pa. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. VVemen have in them al power ecclesiastical 64. VViclef an heretike and a parasite pa. 29. 30. An heretike to the Calvinists 30. His often Recantation 30. 31. He is condemned by the Protestants 31. 32. The VVord required to make the Calvinists sacrament is a sermon pa. 134. 216. 220. 228. The Ministers preferre their owne words before Christs 216. 217. 218. The right word wanteth in most Scottish sacraments pa. 226. 227. 228. No such word found in scripture as they require 225. Christ vsed no such word pa. 220. 221. 233. See more in Sermon Z Zuinglius an Anabaptist pa. 140. His interpretation of Christs words more fond then that of Carolostadius 43. He learned it of a sprite in the night 376. 378. FINIS A TABLE OF PLACES OF SCRIPTVRE EXPLICATED IN THIS TREATISE ESPECIALLY SVCH AS APPERTEINING TO THE SACRAMENT ARE CORRVPTELY expounded and perverted by the Sacramentaries Genes 3. 15. In the sweate of thy face thow shalt eate thy bread pa. 267. Exod. 12. 6. The children of Israel shal offer
haâ—e faith besides the elect 1 At that pray pa. 273. 274 2 Al that forgaue Ibidem 3 Al that haue compassion Note pag. 213. 248. 249. 4 Al that liue honestly pa. â—14 Ibidem 5 Al that spâ—â—ke as they thinke pag. 214. 215. 6 Al that loue their neighbours 7 Al that beleeue in Christi death pag. 211. 212. Calv Instiâ—â— lib. 3. ca. 15. num 2. â—t lib. 2. cap. 17. num 6. ad Philippen cap. 2. v 9. pag. 249. August dâ— spiritu lit ca. â—â— Proâ—â—er in libro sentent num 46. Pag. 111. See before pa. 312. Pag. 272. Pag. 235. â—36 See before pa. 400. 401. â—â—costancie in â—â—e protestant Gospel Pag. 102. Scripture applud to proue contrary assertions Pag. â—â—â— pa. â—â— 9. 2â—0 â—â—1 252. pag. 111. pag. â—â—â— Pag. â—â—â— More general câ—ntradiction 1. Tiâ—â—â— 1. â— â—or preparation to recceiuâ— Pag. â—5 Art 6. Luth. tâ—m â— vvittemb â—o â—9 Fox Act. Monum vâ—t adiâ— p. 1459 1460. In the supper of the lord pag. â—47 Against preparation to recesue pag. 185. pag. â—â—6 pag. 2â—5 Notâ— S. Paul sovvly misreported 1. Cor. â—1 v. â—â— Other preparation required to receiue the Sacrament 1. Cor. 11. 28 Then to receiue the vvord â—â— Evang. et Actâ—â— Apostâ—lâ—â—â—â—â— passâ—â—â— â— Cor. 14. â—â— Câ—cil Carthag 4. ca. â—4 See before pa. â—6â— â—63 â—64 Luc. 7. f. cap. 11. Matth. 9. a. b. Maâ—â— â— b. Luâ— 6. c. cap. â— a. b. â—â—an 6. d. â— f. g. General preaching against preparation pag. â—â—6 pag. â—â—7 pag. â—â—â— Hebr. 6. 4. M. B. fully opposiâ—e to S. Paule A Gospel of Epicure Venus Before pag. 415. 416. 1 2 3 pag. 279. Before pag. 306. Before pag. 415. 416. pag. â—7â— pag. â—â—â— Maior The summe of M. B. Sâ—râ—â—s of preparation Minor Galat. 5. 22. Esaâ— 11. 2. â— Cor. 3. 5. Conclusion M. B. assurâ—â—â— heauen to Pagans no lessâ— theâ— ChristiaÌ„s See before pag. 417. pag. 1â—â— Rom. 1. â— pa. 189. 19â— Rom. 2. v. 14 Plato in Apolog Sociat Cicero delegibus Plutarch in moraâ—â—b vbi â— The coÌ„clusion of M. B preaching Matth. â—â— gaâ—t 5. Hebr. 11. Ioc. 1 2. pillers of al religion 〈◊〉 â— good 〈◊〉 Caluins gospel enemy to both 1 To good vvorkes Before pag. 399. Before pag. 415. 416. Before pag. 406. 41â— Before pag. 4â—4 4â—5 Only faith Before pag. â—â—â— Before pag. â—99 â— â—â—â—uinâ— gospel â—â—â—my to faith Before pag. 413. Before pag. 303. â—â—â— 41â— Special faith destroyeth â—â— Christiâ—â— faith â— Remission of sinnes in the church Before pag. 316. 317. 2 Keyeâ— of the â—â—â—â—ch Maâ— â—â— â—â— â—oan â—â— â—3 Maâ—th â—â— â—â— 3 Sacraâ—eÌ„â—s of the church Before pa. â—â— 105. 106 Before â—â— â—â— 4 â—rayer to god Psal 50. 4. 〈…〉 4. â—4 â—onâ— â— â— 9. Ioâ—â— â— â—3 14. Act. â— 22. ◠〈…〉 â— â—â— 5 of God Colâ—â—â—â— Gospâ—l condeâ—ned by the best Protestants Before pag â—4◠〈…〉 i◠〈…〉 â—â—â—â— â—lâ—â—â—â—â—â—iâ— Hoâ—â—â—â—ilis â—râ—â—â— Sectâ— Aâ—â—baptisticâ— Cap. de peaâ—â—â—â—is actualib cap. de pâ—â—â—â—â— cap. de 〈…〉 Anabaptist Calvins Gospel destroyeth the Articles of our Creed Before pag. 381. 382 383. Lucas Osiender in Antisturmio pa. 22 an 1579. Calvins Gospel Antichristian Articles there of 1 Before cap. â— 7. 8. 2 Before pag. â—â—7 â—â—â— â—â—â— â— Before cap. â— 4. pa. 21â— 214. Horrendas blasphemiâ—s Before pag. 303. 304. a See before pag. 137. 381. 382. c pag. 383. 317. 318. 321. 322. 329. pag. 388. p. 321. 322 403. 404. m pag. 403. 404. n pa. 49. 50 51. alibi passim †pag. 194. 195. 196. 197. * pag. 323. 324. 325. 326. 383. ††pag. 381. 382. Defence of the Apolog. ca. 4. par 4. p. 39. Centâ—â—s laniari velâ—ignâ— coÌ„ burt maâ—â—em Confessio orthodox ecclesiae Tigur fol. â—0 â— Before pag. 341. Matth. 7. Sheepes clothing vsed by old heretikes No such clothing vsed by the Caluinists Before pag. 41. 4â— 37â— Vide la vâ—â— dâ— Calvin ca. 1. 11. Before pag. 77. 78. 234 235. 236. â—â—7 389. 390. â—â—â—â—â—â—â—ap â—â— Ioan. 1. 9. Protestâ—â—tâ— coÌ„ demâ—â— their â—vvne Protestâ—â— Gospel Before pag. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. In the laâ—â— chapter Deirenses Bedâ—â—isâ— Eâ—clâ—sâ—ast lib. 2. â—â— 1. 2. Pet. 2. â—1 Matt. 12. 4â— August de ciuâ—t lib. â—1 cap. 25. Câ—â—ysoâ—â— â—pâ—re 〈…〉 in Mat. hâ—m 30 M. R. good opinion of the Scâ—ttish Nobilitie and youth p. 209 The CalviniaÌ„ Gospel ever â—haâ—nging pag. 219. 240. Before pag. â—9 40. Zuing. â—om â— Subsid de Eu charistiâ— sol â—44 Regius in â— paâ—t opeâ— â—â—â—pâ—st â—â—â—â—llican sol 3. Before pag. 4â— 45. Zuinglius â—ol 244. â—â—i supra Differeneâ—s be 〈◊〉 â—â— t◠〈◊〉 Gospel of Chrisâ— and this â—â—â—â— of Caluin Gal. â— â—â— â— 1. Pet. 1. â—â— Before po 4â— 4â— â—76 Matth. â—â— â—5 â— Prateolus â—â—â—nitâ—â— Elenchâ— Alphab anto annoâ— 24. sâ—ctas enumerat plusquam 170. Gâ—nebrardus aâ—â—quot post annâ—s in Chronol initiâ— lib. 4. pa 526. dicit esse plus quam 2â—â— Spongâ—e in defens pat Societ impressa â—nâ—olstad anno 1591. dicit excreuisse ad numeruÌ„ fere â—50 pag. 100. Bedinus in Methode historiarum cap. 5. dicit Sectas Geâ—â—â—â—â—â—â—â— pâ—â—â— innumerabilâ—â— 3 Before chap. 1. pa. â—â— 258. 259. 4 Before pag. 97. 98. 99. Before pag 90. 91. 92. 93. pag. â—03 â—06 5 Before pag. 194. 195. Matth. â— 6 Before pag. 437. 7 7
as these men forsooth haue taken it euen at Christs owne hands and that is that 3. or 4. of the bretherne go together take bread blesse it and geue it one to an other without vsing any farther ceremonie or words of Christ or consecration But here arise 3. or 4. great difficulties One whether there must necessarily be other meate and prouision besides the bread of the Eucharist as was at this supper whence these men take the paterne of their coÌ„munion A second how it wil stand with the sinceritie of their gospel to blesse the bread which blessing they so generally detest the English and Scottish coÌ„munion bookes refuse a late English Doctor in a large treatise hath condemned as superstitious wicked magical which words truly must needs proceede from a very prophane and Paganical hart mouth considering that Christ our Sauiour him self vsed it as here these martyrs tel vs. Thirdly which perhaps is greatest of al how they can frame their coÌ„munion by this paterne where is no mention of drinke And very probable coniecture there is that Christ vsed none for that as here the storie is rehearsed after Christ had deliuered them the bread their eyes were opened Christ forthwith vanished out of their sight And ioyne for a fourth that if the breaking of this bread were but breaking of common bread as our M. Iewel wil haue it an act of hospitalitie then foloweth it that the paterne whereby they frame out their communion teacheth them a coÌ„munion of such common bread as is vsed at euerie hosterie at euerie Inne and ale-house therefore they can not with reason blame Catholikes if they make no more esteeme of it But how soeuer this â—al out M. Fox with his Martyrs proceedeth oh wil needs proue that as Christ in the place before noted so his Apostles had no other communion nor ministred it in any otherwise For it foloweth Here also it seemeth to me the Apostles to folow their maister Christ to take the right vse of the Sacrament also to teach it to those that were converted to Christ as mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles where it is said They continued in the Apostles doctrine felowship in breaking of bread and prayer they did breake bread in euerie howse c. By al which he laboreth to perswade that the Institution of Christ as it is described by the Euangelists Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. should quit be remoued from the administration of the supper and only bread broken by the minister VVhich if he do and withal tel pronounce to the coÌ„municants the Lords death he maketh vnto them a persite and absolute supper according as these men haue receiued it at the Lords owne hands And the verie same ministration of the supper I fynd practised by the Scottish martyrs as writeth their friend and patâ—â—â—â— Bucâ—aâ—an About the yere 1545. one George Seâ—â—â—carde was aâ— S. Andrewes to be burnt VVhen the day of execution came the keeper of the castle and his seruants ready to go to breakfast asked George whether it would please him to take part with them He answered he would with a very good wil. But first quoth he I request yow to sitte downe here at the table with me and geue me leaue to make yow a short collation that I may pray vpon the bread which as brethren in Christ 〈◊〉 to eate so bid yow farewel In the meane season the table was couered bread being set on George began to entreate shortly plainely of Christs supper his paynes and death about halfe an hower Then he exhorted them especially to mutual loue that they wold become perfite members of Christ who continually prayeth to his father for vs that our sacrifice may with him be auayleable to life euerlasting VVhen he had thus spoken and yelded thanks to god he brake a lâ—fe of bread reached to euerie one a peece of it and likewise wine after him self had drunke a litle prayed them al that now with him in this Sacrament they would remember the death of Christ Afterward saying grace he retyred him self in to his chamber By these examples we learne how the communion is rightly ministred namely without al words of Christs Institution only that bread be divided among the bretherne and sisterne they willed to loue one an other and remember the Lords death VVhich seemeth generally to be the forme of the coÌ„munion among the Zuinglians in Suizzerland For as Zuinglius him selfe and Bullinger his successor rehearse the maner of it The people â—it al a long in order vpon formes and geue â—are to one who readeth to them the 13. chapter of S. Iohns gospel In the meane season is bread caried about in baâ—keâ—s or paâ—iaâ—s and wine in glasses One man geueth bread to an other likewise of the wine Thus endeth this coÌ„munion or Sacrament of the supper as Zuinglius termeth it And Musculus earnestly disputing against S. Chrysostom for that he attributed great force to the words of Christ by vvhich there is made in the Sacrament a sanctification alteration far surpassing the power of man as S. Chrysostom thought among other things thus reproueth him It is not needful that Christ should now againe sanctifie by a second repetition that which once for al he hath sanctified by the deed word of his Institution For that Institution once done hath sanctified the Sacramental signes for the churches vse euen to the end of the world And that being once done by him is of force through al churches to the worlds end without any other repetition or iteratâ—on thereof Once for al he said This is my body This cuppe is the new testameÌ„t in my blud Do this in remembrance of me and by these words once for al he instituted sanctified this ceremonie turned the bread from a natural vse to a Sacramental By which words especially conferred vvith those of Bullinger and Zuingliê° before rehearsed the practise of that church a man may perceiue that al these English Scottish Geneuian and Suizzer Protestantes agree in remouing Christs vvords from the supper and accompt the supper very sufficiently gospellike administred if the brethern diuide bread drinke amoÌ„ng them selues in memory of Christ without any nevv mentioning of his institution vvhich being once done by him selfe serueth for al without any more a do or new repetition of the same And this is the very exact forme of the Scottish coÌ„munion or supper now in practise as hereafter shal be declared ¶ Here before I end this chapiter I thinke it good to informe the reader of the resolution of the church of Geneua about the matter of this Sacrament for that of the forme we haue sufficient knowledge by this which hath bene said hitherto Concerning the matter this is the determination of that
They answere yea lord Then he touched their eyes saying according to your faith be it done vnto yow The like is mother places Now if vve vvel consider the maner of such histories vve shal easely find that other actions namely corporal touching of Christ vvas as requisite to obteyne such benefites as vvas this persuasion and that even in such places vvhere this faith persuasion is most highly commended VVhereof this verie storie mentioned by M. B. is a plain demonstration For as the 3. Euangelists vvhich al vvrite this storie describe it the faith of the vvoman vvas as good before she touched Christs garment as after and in the Protestants conceit much better for that before she touched his garment vvith her hand she touched Christ by faith that is she had ful confidence assurance that he vvas able to cure her perhaps that he would also do it whereas after the touching vvhen Christ called her she came trembling vvith great scare sel downe at his feet vvhich is cleane contrarie to the Protestants secure coÌ„fidence and courageous persuasion Yet this her great faith or coÌ„fidence notwithstanding she had not of Christ that she sought for so long as she touched him by faith only though it vvere never so strong But so soone as she had ioyned thereto corporal touching forthwith her disease left her VVhereby vve see that in this verie storie vvhich M. B. hath made choise of the corporal action vvas a more direct and immediat cause of helth then vvas her faith or good persuasion of Christ though that vvere requisite also And vvhereas M. B. like a right scholer of Calvin that is like a right Saracene rather then a Christian carefully sorevvameth his reader against the Papists that this vvoman touched only the hemme of Christs garment not his flesh or any part of his holy person left the Papists should ascribe this vertue to the carnal tuitching if he had but one dram of like honestie and faith as this simple vvoman had he vvould never have made such a brutish sensles note vvhereas any man not of Christian faith but of humaine wit and discourse may easely see that if the touching of his only garment or hemme thereof had such force and vertue by many more degrees his holy body and person had it For this vertue vvas in the garment or hemme thereof nether by vertue of the matter or forme nether of the sheep that bare the vvolle or vvever that made the cloth c. but only of the person vvho vvore it And this the vvoman could have taught him if he had so vvel marked her vvords by them to learne a truth as he malitiously expoundeth them to the dishonour of Christ thereby to feed his heresie For according to the Euangelist she said vvithin herself Si tetigero vel vestimen tum eius If I shal touch yea so much as his garment I shal be whole vvhich is in effect as if she had said I vvil not presume to touch his divine person his sacred flesh for that I am vnworthy of and I know that it is of infinite grace and efficacie it may suffise me if I may come to touch any peece or part of his shoe of his coate of the left thing that is apperteyning to him So that she vvith the Papists vvould much more ascribe this or a greater matter â—o his carnal tuitching that is to the tuitching of his holy person vvho vvas persuaded that it vvould serve hertuâ—ne if she might tuitch but his garment And whereas our saviour by that tuitching did immediatly â—uâ—e her he thereby declared that to receive him not only spiritually as she after a sort did but also corporally must needs conteyne great and vncredible benefite vvhen as the only tuitching of the hemme of his coate or gowne was so beneficial The like is to be iudged of al other vvho being persuaded that Christ vvas of abilitie to do them good and requesting it of him yet obteyned not that good by their tuitching of Christ by faith but only then vvhen besides other they tuitched Christ or Christ them actually and corporally VVhich thing the Euangelists against such prophane and Antichristian collectors do precisely note as vvhen the leprous man caâ—â—â— to Christ besought him kneeled downe to him and said to him If thow wilt thow carst make me cleane although here he had alredy tuitched Christ by faith yet thereby he vvas not cleansed but it soloweth in the Evangelists Christ having compassion on him stretched furth his hand and tuitched him and so cleansed him VVhen certain blind men cryed after him as he passed by the vvay Lord have mercy vpon vs thew sonne of Dauid although the multitude rebuked them for their crying and importunitie they for al that held not their peace luâ— cryed so much the more Lord have mercy vpon vs sonne of Dauid here vvas tuitching by faith Yet remained they blind notwithstaÌ„ding vntil our saviour vvith his hand tuitched their eyes and then immediatly they saw And so vvas it in the other storie of the 〈…〉 men rehearsed before And generally albeit such as came to Christ for â—elpe had faith in him yet the Evangelists make Christs tuitching to be the more immediat and â—â—e efficient cause of such help as they receiued For vvhich reason as S. Marke S. Luke vvnte multitudes of people both in the fildes and villages and cities vvhere he passed by as many as had any burtes or diseases pressed vpon him to touch him and they laid forth their sicke in the streates and besought Christ that they might touch but the hemme of his garment And as many as touched him were made whole vvhereas many other vvho had as good a faith as these and yet came not to tuitch him corporally vvent vvithout such comfort as these vvhich tuitched him obteyned For so much the vvords of the Evangelists necessarily import And therefore vvhereas M. B. out of this faith of the good vvoman maketh a general rule that tuitching of Christ by faith was euer profitable but the corporal tuitching of Christ never was Item Corporal tuitching of Christ hath never bene is not nor shal never be profitable although I defend not nor approve in our que 〈…〉 the one vvithout the other and the corporal receiving of Christ in the Sacrament vvithout faith and charitie also is not only not profitable but also damnable yet because this assertio of his tendeth to Christs dishonour is a manifest â—alsitie against the truth of the Evangelists I can not omit it but must needs tel him of it For Christs corporal tuitching vvas profitable to many vvho vvhen Christ â—o tuitched them nether had nor could have any povver to tuitch him by faith VVhen Christ by tuitching Peters mother in law healed her it appeareth not by any vvord of the text that she had any great faith in