iudgement hath at al times among the learned bene much esteemed with whom the Catholike writers D. Allen Cardinal D. Harding D. Sanders D. Stapleton c. vvhom he termeth the yonge Louâ—nian Clergy may not wel compare in the profound knowledge of the Doctors without blushing VVherefore this man so wel esteemed among the learned of so profound knowledge in the Doctors concerning this matter vvriteth thus Protesting his ovvne faith vz that he had rather be drawen in peeces then to become of Berengarius opinion and thinke of the sacrament as the Zuinglians do that he vvold rather susteine al miserie then to defile his conscience vvith so fowle a sinne therein depart out of this life the reasons of this his constant persuasion thus he yeldeth I could neuer be induced to beleeue otherwise then that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament for that the writings of the gospel Apostles expresse so plainly The body which is geuen The blud which is shed for that this thing so wonderful wel agreeth with the infinite loue of God towards mankind that whom he redeemed with the body and blud of his sonne those after an inexplicable maner he should also feed with the body blud of the same his sonne and by this secrete presence of him at is were with a sure pawne or pledge comfort them vntil he shal returne manifest and glorious in the sight of al. Thus for the scriptures the gospels and S. Paule and the cleare euidence of this faith touching the sacrament vttered by them vvhich vvas to him as he vvriteth an vnmoueable foundation to ground vpon Novv for the auncient fathers Councels of the church thus he procedeth Seing then we haue so manifest warrant from Christ and S. Paule whereas besides it is most evidently proued that the auncient writers vnto whom not without cause the church yeldeth so great credit beleeued with one consent that in the Eucharist is the true substance of Christs body blud whereas vnto al this is ioyned the constant authoritie of Councels and so great consent of Christian people let vs also be of the same mynd concerning this heauenly misterie and let vs in a darke sort feed of that bread and cup of our lord vntil we come to eate and drinke it after another sort in the kingdome of God And I wish with al my hart that they who haue folowed Berengarius in his error wold also folow him in his repentance Thus Erasmus a man of profound knowledge in the auncient Doctors vvith vvhom if the yonge Doctors of the Catholike Clergie may not wel compare without blushing much lesse may the yonge scholers preachers of the Scottish and English congregations vvho for sound learning substance of Diuinitie so long as they liue I suppose vvil not be vvorthy to carie the books after those former And therefore being content that on both sides such great peerles authoritie be geuen to Erasmê° as M. Ievvel chalengeth for him thereof I coÌ„clude that the auncient fathers according to the plaine scriptures alvvaies thought and taught that in the holy Eucharist is the substance of Christs body and blud that a Christian man vvere better to suffer any torment and most cruel kind of death then to be of an other opinion And vvith Erasmus I vvish and our Lord of his mercy graunt that those of our poore Iland both English and Scottish who haue folowed Berengarius in his impudent error for so Erasmus termeth it may also foloâ— him in his repentance execration of the same impudent error whereunto Erasmus persuadeth them OF BERENGARIVS HERESIE RENEVVED IN THIS AGE The Argument Luther is to be accompted in some sort the very original ground and cause of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our time But more precisely directly Carolostadius a wicked man and very familiar with the devil and altogether possessed of him To whom succeded Zuinglius and after him Oecolampadi agreing with Carolostadius in substance of denying Christs presence but differing in particular interpretation of Christs words touching the institution of the sacrament Diuers other interpretations of Christs words one against an other al which are iustified by Zuinglius for that they al concurre to remoue from the sacrament the real presence and establish in steed thereof a mere priuatiue absence As the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine in the primitiue church attribute the real presence of Christ in the sacrament to the vertue force of Christs words vsed in the consecration so the Sacramentaries by a contrarie opinioÌ„ account such consecration magical and therefore remoue the words of Christ teaching their Sacrament to be made as wel without them as with them Examples of the sacramentarie Communion practised without the words of Christ by the Protestants of England Scotland Zuizzerland and els where which they both by their practise writing iustifie as a very ful and perfite communion The resolution of the church of Geneua that the supper may be ministred in any kind of meate drinke as wel as in bread and wyne VVhereof is inferred that according to the Protestant doctrine that 2. or 3. Euangelical gossips meeting together to refresh them selues eating such vitails as they bring with them haue as true perfite a Communion as the Sacramentaries haue any both touching matter forme also a lawful Minister which ministerie or priesthod euen to preach minister their sacraments the Protestant-gospel alloweth to wemen no lesse then to men CHAP. 2. HAuing novv declared the truth of the Catholike beleef touching the blessed sacrament hovv the faith thereof vvas continued from the first primitiue church of Christ and his Apostles vvith very smale gainsaying in the first thousand yeres somvvhat more in the next 500 vntil the time of our fathers vvherein Luther certaine other vvith him began that vvhich novv is called the Gospel by the Protestants but an vniuersal gulph of heresie and Apostasie by Catholiks it resteth that I plainly sett forth hovv that heresie of Berengarius novv maynteyned in England Scotland began first vvhen Luther broched this nevv Gospel ¶ The original hereof is to be referred to Luther him self noâ— only in general for that he brake al order discipline of the church refusing the obedience vvhich by Christs ovvne precise ordinance vvas due vnto it the gouernors thereof so gaue free libertie by his ovvne craÌ„ple by vvriting arguing disputing to interpret the scripture as ech man listed vvithout regard to antiquitie vniuersalitie consent of al Christendom besides of al fathers Bishops auncient Councels vvhich example and behauiour vvas in general the cause and founteyne of al heresie Apostasie and Atheisme vvhich from such contempt self liking arrogancie must needs arise as vve see by experience but also in special the first origin and spring of this Berengarian
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
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
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
looke what coniunction is betwixt the simple word and the thing signified by the word that same sort of coniunction is betwixt the sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament For the sacrament is no other thing but a visible word VVhy a visible word Because as the audible word conueyes the signification of a thing spoken by the eare to the mind so the sacrament conveyes the signification by the eye to the mind Here is the right and entier description of al that which he calleth a coniunction which in deed is no coniunction but only a relation and a relation voluntarie depending as al vvords do be they visible or audible vpon the vvil of man who hath authoritie to alter and chaunge them and therefore ioynes things absent no more then the power of man is able to ioyne them which is nothing at al. For let vs a litle better examine and consider these words because in them lieth the pith and substance of these mens nevvly inuented sacramental signe M. B. after againe precisely diligently and at large repeateth them as very important and excellent wel describing the coniunction of Christs body with their signe Euen saith he as when we heare named Paris France Calecut the king north south things past and done in the beginning of the vvorld things to come to be done in the end of the vvorld such vvords cause mē if they marke them wel to conceiue and in mynd to imagine the thing signified which could not be except there were a coniunction betwene the word and the thing signified euen so the bread and vvine cause vs to conceiue and imagine of Christs body and so they are conioyned to Christs body and Christs body to them But by what reason is this called a coniunction A coniunction of things importeth the things first to be next to be ioyned and coupled together But things which were done in the beginning of the vvorld are not things which shal be done in the end of the vvorld are not they haue no essence no being they are nothing and therefore can not be conioyned with any thing And though Paris France Hierusalem Calecut be some things and extant in the world yet vvhen M. B. spake of them in his Sermon they were no more cōioyned with his vvord then those other things past to come which are not because the vvord spoken is stil of one nature and representeth al things signified a like So that in truth this is no coniunction at al. And what can be more absurd then vvhen an angel reproueth the devil or a good man blesseth him self from him vvhen God cursed the serpent vvhen Christ rebuked Satan bad him avoyd to say that angels and the deuil good men and the deuil are conioyned God vvas conioyned vvith the Serpent Christ vvas conioyned vvith Satan vvhen he mentioned him Al which notvvithstāding of M. B. or some froward minister for honour of their Supper vvil needs haue it called a coniunction any Christian man may sensibly tel him that it is the pitifullest coniunction in the vvorld as vvhich allovveth no other coniunction betvvene their signe or supper Christ body then is betvvene Christ Iesu god most glorious and his immortal enemy Satan the great deuil of hel VVhich point I vvish the reader careful of the truth diligently to marke cary in remēbrance vz. that these men fynd no other coniunction betvvene Christ their Signe or Supper then is betvvene things most contrarie and opposite then is betvvene God and the deuil light and darknes heauen and hel Christianitie and Turkerie vvhite and blacke For as vve reade of Iulianus the Apostata that being once among his cōiurers who had raised vp the deuil he suddenly affrighted by the sight remembred god therevpon signed him self vvith the signe of the crosse so very naturally one contrarie induceth the memorie of an other blindnes maketh vs remēber sight sicknes helth ignorance learning light darknes and so furth and consequently according to this mans preaching doctrine doubtles these are conioyned one with an other the deuil is conioyned vvith God hel vvith heauē sicknes vvith helth black is conioyned vvith vvhite Catholike doctrine vvith heresie and vvit vvith folie and euen such is the coniunction of their signe or supper vvith Christs body VVhich hovv vvorthy a coniunction it is and fit for a sacramental signe of Geneua or rather of Gehenna I leaue to the Christian readers iudgement And yet furthermore against this coniunction riseth a harder obiection and vvhich vtterly refelleth euen such coniunctiō I meane so much as is betvvene vvords signifying things signified so much as is betvvene nothing the vvord nothing in deed For albeit M. B. vvil needs haue them like that as by the vvord Paris or king pronounced by by I remember the things signified so as soone as we see thebread in the ministers hand incontinent the body of Christ comes to our mynds yet I can not allovv thus much For as before hath bene said vvords spoken in some certain language as Scottish or English vvhich clause M. B. addeth for good reason signifie one thing by the consent of that nation as M. B. exemplifieth by the name of Paris of a king c. so that so soone as I heare Paris named if I be an English or Scottish man I streightvvay thinke vpon the citie of Paris in France likevvise of a king or Quene But so is it not in your bread of the Supper For that signifieth not any certain thing by consent of any one nation but his signification dependeth of the ministers sermon vvithout vvhich it is nought els but common bread For so M. B. teacheth Ye shal not so soone see the wine but after the preaching and opening vp of he parts of the sacrament the blud of Christ shal come to your mynd And again more plainly The word that is preached whereto the elements are annexed is the thing which quickens the whole action which serues as it were a sowle and geueth life to the whole action So that vvithout the ministers sermon your bread and vvine is without sowle without life like to a dead stocke or carion it is no sacrament and so signifieth nothing Mary after the sermon it putteth yovv in remembrance of Christ and then lo vvhen then minister hath preached and opened al the parts Christ shal come to our mind not by vertue of the bread but by reason of the minister who before hath told vs so much So that if the Minister make his sermon as cōmonly against the Pope Catholikes that they in executing heretikes Anabaptists Zuinglians Trinitarians such other Gospellers haue powred out the blud of the Lords martyrs thē the wine wil as aptly make the Communicants remember such martyrs blud If a Catholike in mynd though schismatike in external behauiour or some Lutheran be
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
a lamb p. 10. 11. 12 Exod. 12. 11. It is phase that is the passeover of our lord pa. 375. 376. 377. 378. Exod. 16. 15. Mauha what thing is this pa. 111. 112. Exod. 24. 8. This is the blud of the covenaÌ„t or TestameÌ„t which God hath made with yow pa. 5. Psal 109. 4. Thow art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec pa. 13. 14. 15. Daniel 3. 22. 50. The fiery fornace burning to the ChaldeaÌ„s cold to the. 3. children 387. 388. Mat. 3. 11. I baptise yow in water but he shal baptise yow in the holy ghost and fier pa. 198. 199. Mat. 9. 6. The sonne of man in earth hath power to forgeve sinnes pa. 196. 197. Mat. 12. 48. VVho is my mother who are my brethreÌ„ 318 Mat. 26. 26. Christ blessed the bread pa. 152. 153. 154. 159. 337. Ibidem This is my body pag. 123. 124. 369. 370. Ibidem v. 29. I wil not drinke of this fruit of the vine pa. 158. Marc. 2. 7. He blasphemeth VVho can forgeve sinnes but God pa. 196. 197. Mar. 6. 5. 6. He could not do any miracle there because of their incredulitie pa. 327. 328. Mar. 5. 28. If I shal touch but the hem of his garmeÌ„t I shal be safe Pa. 327. 328. 329. 330. 332. Mar. 16. 19. Christ assumpted in to heaveÌ„ sitteth at the right hand of God pa. 353. 354. 355. Luc. 22. 20. This chalice the new testament in my blud vvhich shal be shed for yovv pa. 5. 6. 7. 8. 371. 372. Luc. 24. 39. Handle and see For a spirit hath not flesh and bones pa. 352. Ihon. 6. 14. And I wil raise him vp in the last day pa. 170. Ihon. 6. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing et c. pa. 320. 321. 322. Ihon. 13. 5. Christ vvashed his disciples feet pa. 147. 148. Ihon. 14. et 16. 28. I leave the vvorld 356. 357. Ihon. 20. 19. The doores being shut Christ stood in the middest of his disciples pa. 384. 385. Ihon. 20. 23. VVhose sinnes yovv forgeue they are forgeuen pa. 195 196. 197. Act. 3. 21. VVhom heaveÌ„ must receive vntil et c. pa. 350. 35â— Act. 13. 2. As they vvere ministring to our lord pa. 17. Rom. 4. 11. He received circumcision a seale of iustice pa. 130. 131. 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. Al did eate of the same spiritual food and al drank of the same spiritual drinke pag. 107. 108. 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock vvas Christ 372. 373. 1. Cor. 10. 21 Yovv can not be partakers of the table of our lord and of devils pa. 17. 18. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eate our lords supper pag. 244. 245. 246. 1. Cor. 11. 27. VVho soever shal eate this bread or drink the chalice of our lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the body blud of our lord pa. 288. 289. 290. 294 Hebrew 9. 20. This is the blud of the Testament et c. pa. 5. Hebrew 11. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for â—t c. pag. 314. 315. FINIS Errors some in al copies some in certain only are thus to be corrected Pag. 17. Lin. 9. Deest in margine 5 Pag. 42. Lin. 1. in margin obseus obsessus Pag. 31. Lin. 11. 138r 1381. Pag. 57.  in marg remo remoued Pag. â—1  in marg 710. 71. Pag. 150. Lin. 4. 21. 12. Pag. 236. Lin. 19. in marg deest The fift Before p. 167 Pag. 237. Lin. 4. in marg deest The sixt Pag. 265. Lin. 4. in marg deest The third first end Pag. 327. Lin. 31. in marg Marc. 5. 5. 6. 6. 5. 6. Laus Deo ANNO 1553. Narrati 〈…〉 de dissipa ta Belgan ecclesia caet Acta apu 〈…〉 regeÌ„ Daniae a pa. 24. vsque ad 110. Heb. 7. â— 1â— 1 Cor. 10. 1â— Christ in his last supper iâ— stituted a true sacrifice Genes 4. â—â—â— et cap. â— â—â—â— Exod. 24. Malâ—ch 1â— Christs body 〈…〉 in his supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Cor. 11. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â— â—â— 20. Maâ— 26. 28 Maâ— 14. â—â— Gal. 1. 4. 1. Tim. 2. 6. Tiâ— 2. 14. Ioan. 19. 33. 36. Chrysost in 1. 〈…〉 â—â— Christs blud in the chalâ—câ— Exod. 24. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Luc. 22. â—â— Leo â—â—â—m 7. de passione Domini August â—pist â—6 â—â—â—â—â— l. Chrysost â— â—â— ad N oplytoâ— hom 45. in Ioan. â—â—â—â—m 61. ad â—oâ—ul Aâ—tioch Magdeburg Câ—â—t 4. in pâ—â—sâ—t Plane â—â—â—câ—ant testamentum Domini Muscul in â—o â—â— commun cap. de canâ— Domini nu 〈…〉 2. Pag. â—â—2 Christs testaâ—â—â—t made as â—â— last supper VVhat vvas required to â—he making thereof 1 â—â—ber ac sui 〈…〉 Matth. 11. 27. Hebr. 1. 2. Hebr. 8. â—â—â—â—â—om â— 1. 2 3 4 1. Cor. 4. v. â— 5 Ibi. pag. â—â—â— Christs blud deliuered in his last supper Exod. 24. 6. 7. â— Hebr. 9. â—â— Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper â— 3 â— Ioan. 13. 34. cap. 14. 16. cap. 15. 9. 10. â—â—c Cap. 16. 12. Cap. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Hâ—br 9. 17. Christ offered him sâ—lf at his â—â—â—t supper Greg. Nyssenus orat 1. de ` Resurrectione Hesiâ—hius 〈…〉 Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 4. â—â— lib. 6. cap. 23. Muscul vbi supra pa. 3 â—4 Beâ—â— annot â— Mattâ— â—â— 26. v. 28. The sacrameÌ„t in steed of the Paschal lamb Musâ—â—l vbi supra 3 23. Comparison of our sacrament vvith thâ— paschal lamb Num. 9. 5. Exo. 1 2. v. 6 Matth. 20. v 17. 20. Exo. 12. 11. est enim phâ—se 1. transâ—tus Domini Luc. â—2 19. Ioan. 13. 1. Exod. 12. v. 6. 8. 11. Deuteron 1â— v. 5. 6. Hieron tom 2. epist ad DamaiuÌ„ Papam Aug. sermo 18 1. de teÌ„pore cap. 12. Num. 9. 5. Exod. 1â— 43 45. 1 Cor. 11. 28 Exod. 12. 42. 1 Cor. 11. 25 26. Exod. 12. 6. Christ sacrificed at his last supper 1. Cor. 5. â— Tertullian Cyprian Ambros Nazianz. Hiâ—râ—nâ—m Chrysost August Leo. Hesichius Beda Marc. 14. 12 Hostia â—n â—â—stiam transit Gaud. tract â— in Exod. Mâ—lâ—â—isedâ—â—â— sacrifice Gâ—â—â—s 14. Psal 109. Vide Vâ—â—â—â— Râ—gium responâ—â—â—â—â—â— Eâ—â—â— dâ— Missa cap. 13. Fâ—â—câ—as Mâ—dâ—â—â— de â—â—â—â— siâ— lib. 4. ca. 19. Ibid. lib. â— â—e Ecclâ—siâ—â—â—act 11. dialog 1. pa. â—1â— Christ in his â—â—sâ— supper offered after Melchisedeâ—â—s order Cyprian libr. â— epist 3. Melchisedeâ—â— sacrifice in the nevv Testament Bibliander de summa tâ—â—n lib. 2. pa 89. Galat. de arcanis Cath. verita lib. 10. Cap. 4. Cap. 6. Cap. 5. Genes 14. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ConteÌ„pt of the auncient fathers Caluin dâ— vera ecclâ—sia reformanda ratione â—psâ— vanitatâ— vanius Idem ad Hebra ca. 7. v. 9. Zuingâ— â—â— â— Epichir de canone Mâ—â—sâ—â—ol 183. Thyr glâ—sâ— iâ— Hebra â—7 v. 1. Ievv Defence of the A 6. logic part poâ—a 11. pa. 650. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 9â— 6. Genes 14. 18. Psal 109. 4. Helra 7. 1. Luther Vrbanâ— Reg. M 〈…〉 n Pomeranuâ— Biâ—â—rus Brentius Kâ—mnâ—â—â—us â—â—â—yrâ—cuâ— Caluin in
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
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 places is that Christ is not so in the world as for â—â—â— sake he was in the world 33. yeres poore afflicted mortal In this sense we truly vnderstand Christs words Me your shal not haue alwaies with yow For we haue not Christ as in the time of his dispensation be liued with his disciples and as they desired to have Christ always present in the external conuersatioÌ„ of this life Visibly as then he conuerseth not with vs he eateth not he drinketh not he sleepeth not he needeth not to be enterteyned in our howse or table or to be anoynted as Simon and Lazarus enterteyned him a certaine woman anoynted him The Apostles desired to haue in Christ carnal comforts and earthly benefites So Christ was not to remayne with them in the world So it was conuenient for them that he should depart should forsake the world and not be in the world In this sense the Apostle Paule saith that he knoweth no man no not Christ according to the flesh But these places and al other of like effect conclude no more then we graunt that Christ is not in the Eucharist after a wordly maner according to philosophical and earthly properties of a body as is to be circumscribed and shut vp in a place and such like qualities of this mortal and worldly life But yet truly he is with vs in his power and maiestie and most specially in the boly supper and that in his flesh and blud according to his owne worde Other arguments against the real presence ansvvered The Argument Five other arguments made against the real presence are answered It is not necessarie that al such things be present in the sacrament or administration of the sacrament as are signified by bread and wine the material parts thereof How it is horrible wickednes to eate Christs flesh how therefore such speech is vnderstood mystically spiritually yet without hindering the real presence but rather confirming it CHAP. 19. THE arguments proposed in the last chapter are M. B. his principal argumeÌ„ts which as very principal have bene heretofore pressed againe and againe by the greater Rabbines of the sacrameÌ„tarie synagoge and because they seeme consonant to humane reason and are beautified vvith the name of one auncient father of greatest estimation may seeme to cary some credit though being indifferently wayed they are very light and prove nothing The rest that folow are for the most part as I ghesse his owne For so the povertie and miserablenes of them maketh me to thinke One or other of them vvas at the beginning vsed by Zuinglius and Occolampadius but are al of one fashion and grace some Iudaical some heretical some founded vpon manifest lyes some plaire derogatorie to Christs glorie al sond and contemptible vvithout any pith vvhich therefore I vvil the more briefly runne ouer The first is The effect of the sacrameÌ„t is spiritual But of a corporal presence no spiritual effect can euer â—â—â—â— So this corporal presence must ay tend to a corporal end which is directly coÌ„trarie to the end why the sacrameÌ„t was instituted This argument is more meet for a Iew then a Christian It is as good against Christs real incarnation death and passion as against the sacrament For if a corporal presence of Christ can vvorke no spiritual effect then nether did his incarnation any good nor death nor passion The next If the bread â—e chaunged in to the body of Christ thâ—â— this sacrament wanteth a signe which is to nurrish vscorporally as the body of Christ doth spiritually But the accidents cannot nurrish vscorporally This argument is false in evenâ— part and parcel and flat repugnant to the last For 〈…〉 Christs corporal presence can not worke any spiritual effect vvhat need vve to have bread to signifie that And if Christs body being present can not nurrish spiritually much lesse can it absent as by M. B. his divers reasons and similitudes vve haue bene before instructed Secondarily the signe in the sacrament vvhich he and his felowes most vrge vvhich is to moue the external senses more properly is found in the external accidents then the internal substance vvhich no man can see and therefore can not be moued vvith the sight thereof by his eye to informe his mind of Christ the spiritual bread VVherefore as to a sacrament is required only that there be an external signe representing the internal gift so this is fully don by the external figure alone as the brasen serpent in the old testameÌ„t vvas a sacrameÌ„t of Christ very fully and sufficiently represented him albeit in that vvere no true substance and nature of a serpent but only the external shape Thirdly I demaund vvhere findeth M. B. in al the Euangelists in S. Paule in Christs words that this sacrament vvas appointed to signifie spiritual nurriture vvhich vvas in deed appointed to nurrish spiritually to life eternal Again it is false that the accidents in the sacrament do not nurrish and true it is that even in ordinarie food meat and drinke doth nurrish by reason and meane of the accidents Furthermore as the fathers teach vs that to the sacrament is required bread for this signification of spiritual nurriture so the same fathers tel vs and so doth S. Paule him self though not so plainly that the sacramental bread signifieth our mystical vnion and coniunction one vvith an other Our Lord saith S. Austin commended to vs his body in those things which of many are made one Of many vvheate cornes is made the bread of many grapes is made the vvine vvhich is also the similitude of S. Cyprian and very largely prosecuted in the English and Scottish communion vvhere thus the brothers and sisters singe And that vve should not yet forget VVhat good he to vs wrought A signe Christ left our eyes to tel that he our bodies bought in bread and vvine here visible c. VVhich signification is there artificially and Rhetorically thus dilated As once the corne did live and grow and vvas cut downe vvith sith And thresshed out vvith many stripes out from his huske to driue And as the mil vvith violence did teare it out so smale c. And as the ouen vvith fier hote did close it vp in heate c. So vvas the Lord in his ripe age cut downe by cruel death Again And as the grapes in pleasant tyme are pressed very sore a pitiful case And plucked downe vvhen they be ripe And let to grow no more So Christ his blud out pressed was c. Thus much for ech part in seueral now for conclusicâ— vvhat both these parts ioyntly signifie And as the cornes by vnitie in to one loaf is knit So is the Lord and his whole Church Though he in heauen sit As many grapes make but one wine So should vve be but one In faith and loue c. These significations and
more be in the sacramental bread and vvine of the English and Scottish Communion And yet as I suppose nether the English not the Scottish ministers thinke it necessarie that vvhen they minister the communion there be present in the congregation reaping and thresshing grinding and baking and so forth nether yet that in their cup being made of vvine or ale there be many ale cornes or many grapes or in the bread many wheat cornes to signifie the vnitie of the lord with the congregation as also the vnitie of the bretherne and sisterne one vvith an other in faith and love but it is counted sufficient that to the matter of the sacrament these things vvere requisite before it could be made bread or vvine If he thus thinke and answere as he must of necessitie then he answereth him self that it suffiseth this sacrament in the Catholike church to be made of bread and vvine vvhich signifie spiritual nurriture though after consecration the substance of nether remayne vvhich yet nurrish even then sufficiently to performe that vvhich his argument requireth Finally this argument is condemned by Iohn Calvin him self and the vvhole consistorie of Geneva For vvhereas this man argueth that vve haue no sacrament because we want a signe if the substance of the bread be chaunged although that notwithstanding vve reteyne al properties qualities effects and operations of bread Calvin vvith his consistory as before is noted holdeth the sacrament to be perfite and absolute though there be no bread at al though there vvant both substance and qualities of bread al shape forme and nature of bread and vvine both internal and external And vvhereas against that opinion or licentious dispensation there vvas obiected belike by some minister of M. B. his conceite this argument vvhich here he opposeth the Consistorie answereth very gravely This analogie or signification of bread made of many graynes and wine of many grapes to declare our mutual coniunction although it be not to be contemned yet nether is it so precisely to be vrged but that it may suffise vs to testifie that coniunction and faith by like signes in general by other meate and drinke If then the Geneva bretherne may have a very perfit sacrament vvithout any kind of bread and vvine â—ther in substance or accident M. B. his reason proceedeth of smal vvit in denying vs a sacrament vvho reteyne the formet al necessarie properties of bread suâ—ficieÌ„t fully to signifie although according to Christs expresse vvord vve beleeve the substance of bread to be changed in to the substance of a more celestial and divine bread vvhich came from heauen Thirdly saith M. B. if there were such a wonderful thing as they speake of in this sacrament there would haue bene plaine mention made of it in the scripture VVhat playner mention can yow require then This is my body the self same which shal be deliuered for yow This is my blud of the new testament the same which shal be shed for the remission of sinnes for the redemption of the world Can M. B. vvith al his study devise vvords more plaine more effectual more significant Fourthly he much troubleth him self to find the veritie of this proposition This bread is my body vvhether it be true before the words spoken or after c. I answere first let him set downe a truth and not a falsitie and after propose his difficultie and then ether it shal be satisfied or vve wil acknowlege his deep and vnanswerable subtilitie But for ought appeareth in our testaments English Latin or Greeke Christ never vsed any such speech Christ never said This bread is my body but as hath bene declared before Christ so vttered his vvords as possibly they can not yeld that proposition Let M. B. marke vvel the words in the Euangelists and conferte them vvith his grammer rules ether in Greeke or Latin and if he can make Hoc to agree vvith panis or Hic vvith vinum then he may chaunce to trouble vs. Otherwise except he his vvil take vpon them to make vs a new Grammar a new Latin and Greeke language vvhich they may better do and vvith more reason then make vs a new faith new sacraments new Theologie as they have done he shal not find in al the testament that â—â—â—â— Christ said This bread is my body This wine is my blud ¶ Fiftly Austin saith lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana cap. 16. To eate Christs flesh and drinke his blud seemeth to commaund a wickednes or mischief Therefore it is a figuratiue speach whereby we are commaunded to communicate with Christs sufferings and with gladnes to locke vp in perpetual memorie that the flesh of our Lord was crucified and wounded for vs. For otherwise as the same Austin makes mention it were more horrible to eate the flesh of Christ really then to murther him to drinke his blud then to shed his blud S. Austins vvords answere them selues and so doth S. Austin in other places and even here the second place answereth the first because it notifieth how far forth this speach is figurative Only this may be added to the first that vvhen S. Austin saith that to eate Christs flesh is to coÌ„municate with Christs sufferings and to locke vp in perpetual memorie that Christs flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs he meaneth no other thing then S. Paule doth and the church also vvhen they vvil al Christians vvhich ether offer the mystical sacrifice or receive it to do it in remembrance of Christs bitter passion vvherein his flesh vvas truly wounded and crucified for vs as here it is not And that S. Austin thus meant and never meant by locking vp Christs death in perpetual memorie to shut out this real sacrifice and sacrament vvhich most directly and perfitly continueth that death and bluddy sacrifice in perpetual memorie let S. Austin him self be iudge in a number af other places vvhereof some heretofore have bene other hereafter shal be cited For this present this one may serue The Iewes saith he in their sacrifices of beasts which they offered after diuers sorts and fashions as was connenient for so great a matter practised a fore signification or representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse VVherefore now the Christians also celebrate and keepe the memorie of the same sacrifice past How by vvords only or cogitations or eating bread and drinking vvine as in the Scottish and Geneua English supper No but by a holy oblation and communication or receiving of the same body and blud of Christ Peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosanctâ— oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis c. This S. Austin thought the best vvay to locke vp Christs sacrifice and death in perpetual memorie And this perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice standeth wel and is best preserved by the churches mystical sacrifice and real presence of
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
of his blud the bread there broken is the participation of his body should also be partakers of the table sacrifice of deuils In which argument albeit the Apostle being brief and writing to Christians whom he accounteth skilful wei instructed in this thing by mentioning litle signifieth more setting downe one part willeth them to vnderstand the whole as Calvin also truly noteth and therefore vseth not in everie part of his comparison the terme of altar and sacrifice yet as otherwhere he acknowledgeth the Christians to haue a true altar to sacrifice on and consequently a sacrifice from which the Iewes were debatredâ— so here the very drift of his reason exact correspondence of ech part to other require that as the Iewes had an altar a sacrifice so had the Gentils so had the Christians As the Iewes offered to their god so did the Gentils to their false god so did the Christians As the Iewes by that seruice were partakers of the worship of the true god so were the Gentils by the like seruice concluded conuinced to worship a false god that is the deuil therefore could not haue any part or coÌ„munion in the worship of the true god which was performed by the dreadful sacritice of Christs body blud among Christians VVhich triple sacrifice that of the Gentils to the deuil these two of the Iewes Christians to the true god S. Chrysostom veâ—v we observeth writing vpon the same place His words are In the old testament Pagans idolaters offered the blud of beasts to their idols This blud god tooke to him selfe that so he might turne away his people from committing idolatrie which was a great signe of infinite loue But here in the new testament he provided a sacrifice far more wonderful excellent both in that he changed the sacrifice withal in place of beasts killed in sacrifice he coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offered And this to be the true sense of the place Vib. Regius ioynt-Apostle with M. Luther in preaching this new gospel whom the Protestants of Germanie acknowlege cal a perfite absolute Diuine of infinite learning the Evangelist cheef Superintendent of the churthes of Christ in the Duchie of Luneburge as Luther was in the Duchie of Saxonie plainely graunteth Many there are saith he which thinke a sacrifice to be proued by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the societie of such as sacrifice to idols by arguments taken from the faith of the sacrifice vsed by the Iewes Gentils For he seemeth to compare sacrifice to sacrifice as Chrysostome teacheth his comparison so to stand that by it is gathered Christians in the Lords supper to haue a certaine peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our lord as the idolaters by their abominable sacrifice are made partakers of deuils VVhich if it be so me seemeth it may be answered that in the supper of Christians are the body blud of Christ which are a holy sacrifice but coÌ„memoratiue sacrosanctum sunt sacrificium sed memoriale By which later word albeit he thinketh to haue answered the Catholiks excluded the truth of the sacritice yet is he much deceiued therein For so far are Catholiks from denying the sacrifice to be commemoratiue that of al other sacrifices which euer were or can be imagined we graunt this to be moste coÌ„memoratiue as which most neerely liuely truly expresseth the verie condition efficacie nature of that sacrifice offered on the crosse with which being one in substance it differeth only in maner of offering generalitie of redemption And as Christs transfiguration on the holy mount before his passion vvas the best most persite sigure examplar representation of that eternal glorie which the same person of Christ vvas to enioye in heauen after his resurrection ascension in like maner vve are to iudge of this mistical coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice in respect of his sacrifice on the crosse yet not excluding the veritie of Christs presence in one place more then the other Nether is there any reason vvhy Vrbanus Regius a Lutheran should imagine the sacrifice to be disproued for that it is a memorial or done in coÌ„memoration of Christ more then the real presence is disproued reiected because that also in the Lutheran religion must needs be done in coÌ„memoration Christs vvords being most plaine do this in coÌ„memoration of me VVhich vvords doubtles haue no more strength to overthrovv remoue a sacrifice of Christs body as al Catholikes vrge then a true presence of the same body vvhich al LutheraÌ„s graunt So that out of these vvords of the Apostle is confirmed the mistical sacrifice that it vvas vsually frequented in the first Apostolical church vvhich rec aâ—ed directly from Christ and his Apostles the order administration thereof ¶ This sincere sound beleefe concerning both sacrifice sacrament continued in the catholike church for the first thousand yeres almost vvithout contradiction of any man or sect vvorth the naming Only as our Sauiour him self in the veâ—ie beginning vvhen he first promâ—seâ— that the bread which he would geue should be the same flesh which he was to geue for the life of the world signified obscurely that Iudas the traytour certaine other for want of faith vvere scandalized at his vvords repâ—neâ— at them so a fevv veres after it may be gathered that some there vvere of Iudas folovvers vvho likevvise denyed the truth of this heauenly mistery vvhereof S. Ignatius scholer to the postles vvriteth thus as his vvords are recorded by Theodoretus Some sectaries there are who like not nor approue the oblâ—â—ions sacrifiâ—e◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 for that they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Iesu the selfe same flesh that suffred for our sinneâ— which the father of his merciful goodnes raised from death But vvhat these men vvere vvhat svvay they bare vvhat scholers they had appeareth not by any ecclesiastical record therefore belike vvere sone put to silence in that happie time of our primitiue first faith vvhen the Apostles them selues and many by them instructed had the governement of the church VVherefore the beleefe first taught by Christ and his Apostles proceded on from hand to hand from age to age vvithout any notable resistance VVhereof being a thing at large treated proued in sundry bookes both latin and english set forth of late I vvil bring only thre or fovver testimonies but the same most auncient S. Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Fraunce martyr S. Cyprian bishop of Carthage in Africa a martyr likevvise and the first general Councels of Nice Ephesus in Asia S. Ireneus vvriteth thus Christ taking bread gaue thankes said This is my body and that which was in the chalice he confessed to be his blud and
so taught the new sacrifice of the new testament which the church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to god through the whole world Of which sacrifice the prophete Malachie foreprophecied thus I haue no liking in yow saith our lord almightie nether wil I take sacrifice of your hand o ye Iewes because from the rising of the Sunne to the going doune of the same my name is glorified among the Gentils incense is offered to my name in euerie place and a pure sacrifice The same argument and dedustion I haue noted before out of S. Cyprianâ— First that Christ our lord and god him selfe was high priest of god the father and he first of al offered him selfe a sacrifice to his father â—â—â—â—s last supper and commaunded the same to be done in commemoration of him Next that such priests occupie the place of Chist truly who do that which Christ did and then in the church offer they to god the father true ful sacrifice if they so offer as they see Christ him selfe to haue offered About some 100. yeres after S. Cyprian vvas gathered the first general Councel of Nice and about a hundreth yeres after that of Nice vvas the first general Councel of Ephesus in vvhich the bishops there assembled thus vtter their faith that is the faith of the vniuersal catholike church in this matter The vvoids of that most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice are On the diuine table let vs not basely regard the bread and cup set there but lifting vp our myndeâ— let vs by faith vnderstand that on that holy table is placed the lamb of god which taketh away the sinnes of the world who there is without effusion of blud sacrificed by the priests and that we truly receiue his preticus body and blud beleeuing these to be the pledges of our resurrection The vvords of the other general Councel of Ephesus are to the same effect thus VVe confessing the death of Christ according to his flesh his resurrection and ascension into heauen confesse withal and celebrate in the church the holy liâ—eâ—â—uing and vnbluddy sacrifice beleeuing that which is set before vs not to be the body of a common man like to vs as nether is that pretious blud but rather we receiue that as the proper body blud of the word which geueth life For common flesh can not geue life as him selfe witnesseth saying flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite that geueth life For because it is made the proper flesh of the word for this reason it is lifegeuing according to that our Sauiour him selfe â—aith As my liuing father hath sent me I liue by the father he that eateth me he shal liue by me This faith I say of Sacrament sacrifice in al sinceritie simplicitie thus passed on so vniuersally knovven beleeued that as vvriteth S. Leo in Italie S. Augustin in Africa very children vvere taught to acknovvledge the true flesh and blud of Christ to be offered in the sacrifice of the masse Tovvards 800. yeres after Christ one Bertram a litle before him one Scot â—s vvrote darkly of the truth of this sacrament Of the vvritings of the one of these nothing I thinke remayneth of the other a litle doth but the same vttered so doubtfully that as the Zuinglians vse his authoritie against the Catholikes so the Lutherans vse him to the contrarie yea they in maner reproue him as fauoring to much the faith of the Catholikes For of him Illyricus vvith his bretherne say that he hath in that his litle booke semina transubstantiationis the seedes original ground of transubstantiation But vvhat soeuer his priuate opinion vvere his publike speaches and vvriting â—ounded soâ—il in the eares of the Catholiks of that age that Paschasius an Abbat in France made a verie learned booke in refutation of him And al vvriters vvho about that age vvrote of this mysterie vsed more expresly to denâ—e the sacrament to be a signe trope figure image symbole c. in such sort as vvhereby the veritie of the real presence might be excluded as appeareth in the seuenth general Councel in Alcuinus scholemaister to Charles the great in Rabaâ—â—â— archbishop of Ments lib. de diuinis officijs Theophilact in Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Ioan. 6. Aâ—alarius Arch-bishop of â—reuirs lib. de mysterijs missae cap. 24. 25. Haymo bishop of Halberstat in 1. ad Corinth ca. 10. Remigâ—ê° bishop of Antissiodorum in Canonem missae Fulbertus bisshop of Chartres in epistola ad Adelman episcopum in lib. Paschasij Stephanus bishop in high Buâ—gundie Tom. 4. bibliothâ—cae Sanctorum patrâ—m and briefely al other that vvrote betvvene the time of Bertram Berengarius ¶ For after Bertram the next that appeared in fauour of this heresie vvas Berengarius vvho put forth him self a little after the yere of our lord 1000. vvhen as S. Ihon vvriteth in his Apocalyps the deuil was let lose to trouble the church This man as vvitnesseth our martyr-maker M. Fox like to those first heretiks in the Apostles tymes toke away the veritie of the body blud of Christ from the sacrament For vvhich cause he coÌ„mendeth him as a singular instrument whom the holy ghost raised vp in the church to ouerthrow great errors VVhat instrument he vvas vvhom he serued shal best appeare by his ovvne behauiour confession In the meane season this old heresie he published vvith greater industrie shevv of learning then his predecessors countenanced it with more credit assistance of many vnstable sowles and sinful persons as is noted by the godly and learned writerâ— of that tyme vvhich only kind of men ioyned them selues to him and that because his doctrine seemed to yeld them some quietnes securitie in their sinne from vvhich they vvere much withdravven by a reuerend feare and dread vvhich they had of Christs presence in the sacrament to the receauing vvhereof they vvere by order of the church at certaine times induced But as the heresie of this man spread farther then any of that kind in any age before so the church vsed more diligence in repressing the same by sundry publike disputations had vvith the same Berengarius by a number of most excellent vvriters against him among vvhom Lanfâ—ancus archbishop of Canterbury in England Guitmundus bisshop of Auersa in the kingdom of Naples Algerus a monke in Fraunce in that verie time excelled the supreme pastors of the church assembled sundry great synodes meetings of byshops and other doctors to discusse that opinion instruct those that erred after him first at Tours in Fraunce next at Vercellis in Italie then againe at Tours vvhere Berengariê° him selfe being manifestly conuicted 〈…〉 a solemne oth neuer to maintaine his former heresie VVhich oth vvhen as yet he performed not but returned to his former filth an other Councel vvas gathered in Rome of 113.