CommunioÌ„ is an vnion with Christ and an enioying of all his benefites by faith To this belongeth the similitude of the Body and the Members of the Vine the Branches which hath no reference to any corporall eating This communion both was is common to all the godly from the beginning of the world to the end therof But they could not eate it bodily That wee may growe in him of whome the whole body is coupled He that cleaueth to the Lord is one spirit with him And wee are all baptised by one Spirit into one bodie But this wee knowe that wee dwell in him and he in vs in that he hath given vs of his Spirite This vnion then is that communion which is by the holy Ghost and therefore spirituall For breade caÌ„not be this communion but only by a figuratiue speech called Metonymie 2 GVILTY OF THE BODY He that is guiltie of the body of Christ eateth it They that receiue veworthily are guiltie of the body of Christ Therefore they eate it corporally For spiritually they can not for if they should so care they were not guiltie Ans I doe deny the Maior For he is guilty of the bodie of Christ who by his sins crucifieth it and despiseth the benefite of Christ Now vnto this guâ—lte there is no neede of anie bodily eating but not to receiue Christ by faith when he is offered vnto vs. So the iniurie offered vnto the Arke is said to be offered vnto the Lord. 3 Nor discerning the bodie of the Lord. They that discerne not the bodie of the Lorde eat it The guiltie discerne it not Therefore they eate it Ans We grant if the Maior be taken sacrameÌ„tally viz. of that bread which is named Christs bodie it is true if properly it is false For not to discernâ— is not to yeeld honor therevnto due to contemne him and not to receiueth thing signified So Heb. 10. ver 29 they are said to treade vnder feete the Son of God and to account the bloud of the covenant an vnholy thing which contemne him Arg. 5. Drawne from the testimonies of the Fathers and godlie antiquitie in the vncorrupt Church Ans The sayings of the Fathers are to be taken Sacrament allie or of the spirituall Communion They saie often that the bodie and bloud of our Lord is giuen vnto vs with the bread wine If theÌ„ they allowe of Corporall presence they allowe also of the Papistes Concomitancie or the separation of the blouds from the bodie 1. Augustine saith Thou receiuest that in the bread which hange on the Crosse that in the cuppe which waâ—shed from Christ his side Ans In the bread as in a signe that is togither with the Signe thou receivest the thing signified WheÌ„ we receiue the bread we are sure that we haue Christ 2 Cyrillon Iohn saith By a naturall participatioÌ„ 〈…〉 spiritually but also corporally not only according to the spirite but also according to the flesh corporally and essentiallie Auns Cyrill speaketh not of the manner of eating but of the thing eaten he sheweth that we are made partakers not only of the spirit but also of the humane nature of Christ Now he meaneth the spirituall communion 1 Vpon it he citeth the places of Ioh 6. 54. 1. Cor. 6. 15. where there is no mention made of any corporall eating 2 He speaketh of the presence of Christ not in the bread but in vs. 3 He proveth this abiding of Christ by the vse of the supper not by the corporall eating of it 4 He so describeth it as that he faith it shall endure in the life eternall 5 He speaketh of that CoÌ„munion which is proper to the Saints now that is spirituall For else it should also happen to the wicked III. The Shiftes of thâ— Consubstantials in eluding some not al for there are more obiected against thâ—â—â— of â—ur obiections 1 We doe not meane say they a naturall and 〈◊〉 eating Ans We obiect not this against them but only we aske whether Christ be eateÌ„ bodilie either after a grosse or subâ—â—e manner How so ever they answere there is too much idolatrie in their opinion For Christ refuting the Capernaites distinguisheth not the eating of himselfe into a grosse subtile manner but he simply saith that his body cannot be taken with a bodily mouth For hee saith that he shall ascend and that the words which he speaketh are spirit and life Ob. 2. We mainetaine not the vbiquitie For thereof is not one word mentioned Ans Here is to be noted the disagreement of ouâ— adversaries about Vbiquitie Neither is there one word mentioned to this purpose that the body of Christ is at once in many places For it is a properly belonging only to his divine nature to be 〈◊〉 once in many places Moreouer vpon this opinioÌ„ of theirs followeth the Vbiquitie for hee which at once is all in divers places must needs be infinite therefore necessarilie everie where Ob 3. We doe not destroy the article of Christs ascension Aunsw But they stumble at it For whilest they avouch that as often as the Lordes Supper is celebrated CHRIST is eaten corporally they must needes say that hee remayneth invisibly vpon earth whereas indeede hee is saide to haue left the worlde to haue ascended from an inferior to a superiour place there to remaine in heaven vntill he come to iudgment or that he descendeth from heauen as often as the Lordes supper is celebrated This is allready refuted How then is he in the breade Obiect 4. Wee take not awaie the doctrine of the proprieties of his humane nature Ans Yes quite awaie For they will haue his humane nature to be such as is neither seene felt nor circumscribed Repl. But Christ layde a side these infirmities and reserued his naturall proprieties Ans Nay these are his naturall proprieties which being taken awaie the truth of his humane nature is also taken awaye Augustine take away the space dimension of bodies and they wil be no where Obiect 5. We do not abolish the doctrine of communicating proprieties Aunsw Yes they doe For they applie the properties of the divine nature which are attributed to the whole person in coÌ„crete vnto both natures I will be with you vnto the end of the worlde this they take as spokeÌ„ of both natures Which is as much as if saying Christ was circuÌ„cised I should thus vnderstand it Christ was circumcised both in his godhead and also in the flesh Repli This onelie wee adde that those articles concerne not this place Ans By this reason all sectes might shift of all testimonies of scripture But by their leaue they concerne this place for two reasons 1 Because They are wrighten of the body of Christ But the body of Christ concerneth the Lordes supper Ergo these articles also concerne this place For they teach vs how Christes body is to be eaten 2. Because no one article of faith is contrarie to an other but everie one is
is called the Lords supper not because it must needs be solemnised onlie in the evening or at supper time but because it was instituted by Christ in the last supper that he made with his disciples before his death The Lords table it is called because therin the Lord feedeth vs. The sacrameÌ„t of the bodie and bloud of Christ because therein are these thingâ— communicated vnto vs. The Eucharist because therein are solemne thanks giuen vnto Christ for his death and benefits towardes vs. Synaxis or assembâ—â— because it must be celebrated in assemblies and meetings of the church It is also amongst ancient wrighters named a sacrifice because it is a representation of that propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ perfourmed on the crosse with an Eucharisticall sacrifice or sacrifice of thaÌ„ksgiuing therefore 2 The Lords supper is a sacrament of the newe testament wherein by commandement of Christ the bread and wine is in companie of the faithful distributed and receiued in remebrance of Christ that is that Christ maie witnesse vnto vs that hee feedeth vs vnto eternâ—ll life with his bodie and bloud giuen and shed for vs and we render vnto him solemne thankes for these benefits 3 The first principal end vse of the Lords supper is that Christ may thereby witnesse vnto vs that he died for vs and with his body and bloude feedeth vs vnto eternal life that by this witnessing he may cherish and increase in vs our faith by consequent this spiritual feeding The second is a thanks-giving for these benefit of Christ with a publique solemne profession of them and our duty towards Christ The thirde is a distinction of the Church from other sectes The fourth that it may be a bond of mutuall charitie amongst Christians seeing they are all made members of one bodie The fite that it may bee a bonde and occasion of frequent assemblies of the church seeing Christ would haue one bread and one cup to be distributed amongst many 4 Hence hath the Lordes supper that first vse which is a confirmation of our faith in CHRIST because CHRIST himselfe by the hand of his Ministers reacheth dealeth vnto vs this bread and cuppe in remembraunce of himselfe that is that by this token and signe as by a visible word hee may admonish vs that he died for vs and that he is vnto vs the meate of eternal life whilest hee maketh vs his members and because he annexeth a promise vnto this rite that he will feede with his owne bodie and bloud such as eate this bread in remembraÌ„ce of him when he said This is my bodie and because the holy Ghost by this visible testimony moueth our minds and harts with more certainety to beleeue the promise of the gospell 5 There is then in the Lords supper a twofold kinde of food and drinke one externall visible and earthly namely the bread and wine the other internall invisible heavenly namely the body and bloud of Christ there is also a twofolde eating and receiving the one externall visible and signifying which is the corporall receiving of bread wine that is such a receiving as is perfourmed by the handes mouth and corporall senses the other internall invisible and signified which is the fruition of the death of Christ and a spirituall engraffing vs into the bodie of Christ that is such an eating as is not performed with the hands and mouth of the bodie but by spirit and faith Lastly there is a twofold minister of this foode and cup one externall of the externall foode and cup which is the minister of the church deliuering to vs with his hand the bread wine the other an internal minister of the internal food and cup which is Christ himselfe feeding vs with his owne body and bloud 6 The signes and elements serving for coÌ„firmatioÌ„ of our faith are not the body bloud of Christ but the bread and wine for the body bloud of Christ are receiued that we may liue for euer but the bread and wine are receiued that we may bee confirmed in the certaintie of that celestiall food and more and more enioy it 7 Neither is the bread changed into the body and the wine into the bloud of Christ neither are the bread and wine abolished that so the bodie bloud of Christ may succeede in their places neither is the very body of Christ substantially present in the bread or vnder the bread or where the bread is but in the lawfull vse of the LORDS supper the holy Ghost vseth this signe and Sacrament as an instrumente to stirre vppe faith in vs whereby he dwelleth in vs more and more and ingraffeth vs into Christ making vs become iust for him and by him to gaine everlasting life 8 But when Christ saith This that is this bread is my bodie and this cup is my bloud it is a sacramental or metonymicall kinde of speech whereby is attributed to the signe the name of the thing signified that is we are taught that the bread is the Sacrament or signe of Christs bodie that is doth represent and witnesse that Christs body was offered for vs on the crosse and giuen to vs for foode of eternal life and is therefore an instrument of the holy Ghost to continue increase this foode in vs as Paule saith The bread is the communion of Christs body that is that thing whereby we are made partakers of Christs body and else where We haue al drâ—nke of one drinke into one spirit The same is meant wheÌ„ it is said that the bread is called the body of Christ by similitude which is betweene the thing signified and the signe namely because the body of Christ nourisheth our spirituall life as the bread the corporall life and because of the sure connexion of receiving the thing and the signe in the lawfull vse of a sacrament And this is that sacramentall vnion of the bread the body of Christ which is expressed by the sacramentall speech not that local coniunction which by some is devised 9 As therefore there is one body of Christ properly so called and an other sacramental which is the bread in the Eucharist or Lordes supper so also the feeding on Christs body is of two sortes the first sacramentall which is an external corporal receiving of the signe namely the bread wine the second real or spirituall which is the receiving of the body of Christ and it is to beleeue in Christ and by faith dwelling in vs by his spirit to be engraffed into his body as members ioyned to the head and branches to the vine so to be made partakers of the life death of Christ Wherby it appeareth that they which teach thus are falsely accused as if in the Lords supper they did admit nothing besides the bare and naked signes or participation of the death of Christ or his benefits or the holy Ghost alone excluding
in shorter time cast a number from of the bridge into the stream then deliuer one only from the perill and danger of drowning In like manner it was a worke of more ease to destroy all mankind then to restore one man out of that generall ruine and destruction That the Devill was able to doe and Adam also was able to doe it this none but Christ could perfourme Wilde beastes and calamities haue power to hurt and murther man but it is in the power of no creature to repaire mans losse of salvation and life eternall but this was reserved to the power of GOD alone creator of all thinges wherefore the death of Christ had beene of greater force then the sinne of Adam yea though it had restored but one only man vnto life And certaine it is and an vndoubted truth that the blessings recovered by Christ so far surpasse those whose losse we sustained by Adam as heavenly things and things eternall excell earthly and corruptible things For Adam as the Apostle witnesseth is of the earth earthlie but Christ is heaveâ—lie Adam is a living soule but Christ is spirituall Adam cast vs out of an earthly paradise but Christ hath pâ—â—ced vs in an heavenly Paradise and hath given vs everlasting happines Thus 〈◊〉 haue thought it meete and convenient to proceede 〈◊〉 setting downe the 〈◊〉 of Christs death and resurrection which all appears came to them all and them alone who sticke fast vnto Christ by faith in making answere to the cavils and slaunders of Heretiques c. A SHORT INTRODVCTION TO the CoÌ„trouersie of the SacrameÌ„t of the Lords Supper vnfolding the substaunce of the cheifest questions coÌ„troversed or not controuersed therin bâ—tweene the professors of the Gospell Compiled and written by D. Dauid Parry Foure generall Premises 1 LEt our yong Diuines carry in memorye that the questions touching the Ceremonies and rites of the Supper are to bee distinguished from the doctrine which is the promise of the Gospell annexed vnto the outward and visible rites 2 Let them also learne to put a difference betweene the questions coÌ„troversed and not controuersed aswel concerning the rites as concerninge the doctrine 3 Let them knowe that the questione controversed about the rites and ceremonies are not so principal nor of such circumstance as the other which concerne the doctrine and that for the most part they may and ought to be decided in equitie according to the circumstances of 〈◊〉 place and person yet with this caueat that all be done for edification 4 Let them know moreover that the maine question touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper not controversed hitherto by any are three and againe on the other side the questions controversed are also three wherunto all the rest may easily be refered Touching both these I will verie briefely instruct the yonger sorte The three questions touching the Lords Supper not called into doubt or controversy are these I. What the Supper of the Lord is All the professors of the Gospell agree in this pointe that the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament of the new Testament instituted and ordeined by Christ wherin together with the taking of bread and wine the true body and bloud of Christ is receiued and the communion or participation of Christ with all his blessinges and benefites is sealed vp in the heartes of the faithfull beleeuers II. What are the endes or vses of the supper instituted by Christ Herein also all the professours of the Gospell agree in one that this receiuing of the Sacrament confirmeth our faith of the promises of grace both because this 〈◊〉 the generall and common vse of all Sacraments whatsoeuer also because Christ himselfe hath said of this Sacrament Doe this is remembraunce of mee And This cuppe is the newe Couenant in my bloud III. What is giuen receiued iâ— the Lords Supper In this also there is a mutuall consent of all that the bread and wine are giuen and receiued visibly corporally by the hand and month of the minister communicants but the body bloud of our Lord with all the benefits of his passion are invisible and spiritually giuen and receiued by them both In all these I say there is a ioynt agreement betweene al diuines which professe the Gospell as for vaine brablers whose brawles and iaries may not be the measure wherby to iudge of the consent or controverses of the churches professing the Gospell they neyther agree in these nor in any other The three questions called into doubt or controuersie are these The first question What is the vnion of the Signe signifying or the Thing signified in the Lordes supper whether it be Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or only a mysticall reference or relation of the one to the other To this question we make an answere consonant to the Catholicke faith in three seuerall propositions the two of which are Negatiue and third Affirmatiue 1 Proposition The Sigâ—es and the Things are not vnited by Transubstantion that is by such a charge as in which the substance of â—he Signe are transformed into the substaÌ„ce of the Thinges the accidents onely remaining The reasons of the first proposition 1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which haue a Sacramentary proportioÌ„ in the Eucharist which the Accidents of bread and wine the substance of the body and bloud of Christ can by no meanes haue 2 The second reason is deduced out of the wordes of Christ who saied This is my body not let this bee or bee made my body 3 The third reason is because the bread is termed bread both before the action of Consecâ—â—tion in the action and after the action 4 The fourth reason is because the sounder Fathers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Supper and when they speake by way of Hypeâ—bâ—le of chaÌ„ging of the bread they will be vnderstood to speake Sacramentally As Theodoreâ— Diolog 1. witnesseth saying it was the will of Christ that they who vse the Sacraments should not bend and set their mindes on the nature of the thinges which are seene bâ—t should beleeue that which was made through grace by alteratioÌ„ of the names Here in the same diologue he teacheth that we must vnderstand a sacramentall change in these wordes Christ honoured the visible signes with the title and name of his body and bloud NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME but by adding grace to the nature The second proposition II. The Signes and things signified are not vnited by Consubstantiation that is by a reall Existence of two bodies in the same place or by the close conveiance of one within the other such as we see is of the corne in a sacke of 〈◊〉 in a mans purse of an Infant in his cradell or of 〈◊〉 in a roundler For this is a likelihood of things vnited in substance The Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first reason is because the words of Christ This is
the true reall and spirituall communion of the bodie it selfe of Christ 10 The lawfull vse of the Lords supper is when the faithfull obserue this rite instituted by Christ in remēbrance of him that is to stir vp their faith and thankefulnesse 11 As in this vse the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally and really so without this vse as by infidels and hypocrites it is indeede eaten Sacramentallie but not reallie that is the sacramental signes as bread and wine are indeede receaued but not the things themselues signified by the signes namely the bodie and bloud of Christ 12. The doctrine of the Lords supper is grounded vpon manie those very forcible argumēts All places of scripture which mention the Lords supper do cōfirme it And Christ doth not cal any invisible thinge in the bread his bodie giuen or brokē for vs but that verie visible bread which he brake which because properlie it could not be so meant himselfe addeth an exposition that hee woulde haue that bread receaued in remēbrance of him which is as much as if hee had saide that this bread was a sacrament of his bodie Also he saith that the supper is the new testament which is spiritual one and eternall And Paule saith that it is a communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ because all the faithfull are one bodie in Christ which can haue no fellowshippe with the divell Also he maketh the same engraffinge into Christes bodie by one spirit in baptisme and the holy supper The whole doctrine and nature of sacraments doth confirme it which represent vnto our eies the same spiritual cōmunion of Christ to be receaued by faith which the worde or promise of the Gospell declareth to our eares and therfore they are called by the nāes of the things signified and haue not except in the lawful vse the receauing of the verie thinge annexed vnto them The articles of our faith cofirme it which teach that Christes body is true humane not present in manie places at once and that now it is receaued vp into heauen and shall there remaine vntill the Lord returne to iudgment that the cōmunion of the godlie with Christ is wrought by the holie Ghost not by enterance of Christs body into the bodies of men therefore al the purer antiquitie of the church with verie great and open consent professed the same doctrine 13 The Lords supper differeth from baptisme 1 In rite and manner of signifying because the washing signifieth remission and clensing of our sins by the bloud and spirit of Christ and societie of the afflictions and glorification of Christ But the distribution of breade and wine signifieth the death of Christ imputed vnto vs for remission of sinnes and that wee beeing nowe ingraffed into Christ are become his members 2 In special vse because baptisme is a testimony of our regeneration or covenant betweene God and vs and of our admission or being receiued into the church but the Lords supper witnesseth that we are perpetually to be nourished by Christ abiding in vs and that the covenant which we haue once made with God shall ever endure steadfast and that we shall for ever abide in the church and bodie of Christ 3 By the persons to vvhom they must bee ministred Baptisme is due to all which are to be accounted for members of the church vvhether aged or infantes the Lords supper to them onely which can vnderstande and celebrate the benefites of Christ and examine themselues 4 In often vse Baptisme must only once be received because the covenant of God once begun is ever firme and steadfast to them that repent But the Lords supper must be often receiued because the renuing of that league and often remēbrance thereof is necessary for the strengthning of our faith 5 In the order of vsing because baptisme must be ministred before the Lordes supper never but after baptisme 14 They come worthily to the Lords table which examine themselues that is which are endued with true faith and repentance Which who so do not finde in themselues they must neither presume to approach without them least they eate and drinke iudgement to themselues nor deferre repentaunce whereby they may approach least they pull vpon themselues hardnesse of hart and eternall punishments 15 The church ought to admit to the Lords supper all that professe that they embrace the foūdation of Christian doctrine purpose to obey it and to prohibit all such as being admonished by the church and convicted of their errors will not for all that desist from their errors blasphemies or manifest sinnes against conscience 16 The Pope hath done wickedly in taking the breaking of bread from amongst the rites of the the Lords supper as also in barring the people the vse of the cup. He hath also done wickedly in adding so many ceremonies never commanded by the Apostles Hee hath fowly transformed the Lords supper into a theatricall masse that is into a foolish imitation of Iudaical traditions stage-like gestures But most impious idolatrous are those devises to perswade that the masse is a propitiatorie sacrifice wherein by the Masse-Priests Christ himselfe is offered vp to his father for the quicke and dead and by vertue of consecration is substantially present and so abideth as long as the bread and wine remaine vncorrupt and bestoweth the grace of God and other benefits on them for whom he is offered and by whom he is eaten with the bodily mouth without any good motion of their owne and also that he is to be adored worshipped as he is included and borne about vnder those two kindes namely bread and wine For these damnable and abominable idols it is very necessary that the masse bee banished from the Christian church A FVNERALL ORATION OF D. FRANCES JVNIVS Professor of Divinity in the famous Schoole of Neustade vpon the death of D. ZACHARY VRSINE a most worthy man and vigilant Doctor and Professor of Divinity in the saide Schoole of Neustade WE haue lately lost noble and worthy auditors the most faithfull servaunt of God Zacharie Vrsine a reverende vvitnesse of our Lorde Iesus Christ a right vertuous man my sweete fellow-professor and one most beneficiall to Gods church of this man are we deprived and this our orphan-schoole left destitute of her parent The greatnesse of which losse if I woulde amplifie I shoulde but giue occasion of more heavinesse to your mindes that are already in this case too tenderly affected and faile exceedingly of that excellency of discourse which in so excellent a subiect may iustly be expected For though faine I would and could hartily wish that I might speak much to this purpose yet I neither thinke it fit considering I should but minister fuell to the fire of your affection nor accompt my selfe able as well for divers defects which I feele in my selfe of wit learning exercise continuance of conversing with that man of happy memorie whereby I am
dissemble or take away the confirmation of faith But here masking wholy vnder a vizard of the Anabaptistes Infants saith he who while they are in baptizing crye struggle either vnderstand what is doing or not yf they doe not vnderstand neyther doe they beleeue and are in vaine baptized then the Anabaptistes preuaile yf they vnderstand then are they willfull sinners sacrilegious then againe the Anabaptistes preuaile Indeed the stage-man playeth his part cunningely But what if with an armed dilemma as he termeth it I should lykewise say The Iesuite that writt this is eyther a good man or a cauiller If a good man he should not so haue tyed then wee haue the better if a cauiller he should not be beleeued then againe we haue the better Is not this the like reason Either horne and part of the Iesuites dilemma is deceiptfull and in the former there is a double fallacy First froÌ„ that which is but partely true he concludeth as if it were simply and wholy true as where he reasoneth thus Infants do not vnderstand ergo they do not beleue it is true of the actes and vse not of the possibilitie of beleefe I meane that possibilitie not which wee haue by nature but by grace of that promise I will be thy God the God of thy seede Secondly he disputeth from that which is no cause as if it were a true cause thus Infants do not actually beleeue ergo they ought not to be baptized For the cause of baptizing of infants is not the actuall vnderstandinge or beleefe of infants but the promise pertaining vnto them as being children of the couenant Church as Peter wittnesseth Let every one be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ c. because to you and to your children is the promise made In the latter part of his argument is the same sophisme Infantes when they are to be baptized cry struggle often vse mishapen distorted motions But why is it because they striue against the sacred action of baptisme no but because some other thinge grieueth them as that they endure some passion paynefull to their tender infancye But what thinkes the Iesuit of those Infants which were vnder bloudy circumcision what thinkes he of Abraham an oldeman of the males of his familye of the Sichemites was there thinkes he no struggling no mishapen or distorted motion Or why should he rather terme infants sacrilegious then he doth his Vestal Nannes who in tune of their confession penance and communicating so lessoned by the Eâ—â—ers do often let fall many à tender teare who in sacred actions vse more misshapen motions then the Preist at Masse nay did the Iesuit himselfe never weep for devotion in saying Masse and so proue himselfe sacrilegious Bellarmineâ— so great a Doctor me thinke should be a shamed of so childish trifles Here what Austin sayth of this matter Wheras infants striue as much as they can by cryes shrinkings it is not imputed vnto them all their resistance is accounted nothing c. because they know so little what they doe that they are not thought to do it the like vnto this we may read in his 23 Epistle in his 4. booke 25. Chapter of Baptisme against the Donatistes In the end he dismisseth Luther with this fruÌ„p I pray 〈◊〉 what Gospell Apostle or Prophet did he euer read that Sacraments of the new Testament were seals of the worde of God was it belike in the Gospell of Saint Luther But where as he sayth were seales of the worde of God for were seales of the promise of grace it is but a cunning peece of forgery thereby to make vs seeme to repose all the authority of Gods worde on the Sacraments which we before haue refuted Thus he presumes to pul a dead lyon by the beard whose very lookes were he liuing he durst not abide But I pray Sir tell vs first in what Gospell you read that Sacraments are not seales of the promise of Grace nor confirme our faith but that they bestowe grace that they iustifie sanctifie if they be of the old testament by vertue of the very actioÌ„ of the receiuer if of the new by the worke done eveÌ„ without faith or any good inteÌ„t or motioÌ„ of the receiuers wheras contrary-wise the scripture speaketh playnly that Circumcision profittethâ— them that keepe the lawe but to the transgressors thereof it is vncircumcision Those which beleeue and are baptized shall be saued Wee must examine our selues 〈◊〉 so eate of this holy bread In what gospell I saye reade you this Belyke in som Layolan or GregorioÌ„ Calendar Now one the other side hearken where Luther hath reade that sacrameÌ„ts are seals of the promise of grace God sayth of circumcision That it may be a signe of the couenant betweene me and you But Paule interpreteth this couenant to be grace the righteousnesse of fayth Of the Passeover That bloud shall be vnto you for for a signe vpon those houses where yee are that seing that bloud I may passe over you But this Passeover did signifye the grace of Christ Of Baptisme Baptize all nations in the name that is in the authority commaundemâ—nt steede of the father the sonne the holy Ghost And Arise wash away thy sinnes And Baptisme is the washing of new birth Baptisme saueth vs. not that wherewith wee wash away the filth of 〈◊〉 but that whereby with a good conscience we make request vnto God Of the Lords Supper This cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood Also Doe this in remembrance of me This if you vnderstand you haue the thinge you sought for namely where in scripture Sacraments of both lawes are said to be seales of grace For why as you vse to say should sacraments of the new testameÌ„t be of worse conditioÌ„ theÌ„ those of the old if you do not vnderstand you are not worthy to be called a maister in Israel which know not that naturally it belongeth vnto all sacraments to signifie seale vnto the faithfull some promise of grace Listen farther vnto the Fathers of the Church as Basil who confesseth plainly what you deny impudeÌ„tly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is For baptisme is the seale of saith And Tertullian speaking of baptisme in this sort This washing is a seale of our faith And Austen who termeth the sacraments certaine visible seales of heauenly thinges Do you not now blush at your owne question Where red Luther this So dismissing Luther he settes vpon Zwinglius taking vpon him to lash for sooth scourge his opinion That Sacramentes are signes of engadging our selues vnto God But we haue already proved that here the Stage-maÌ„ doth but play the caviller At the length rouzing himselfe more terribly against Caluin Betweene Luther saith he Caluin this is the difference that whereas hath â—ake the
produce the opinions of Fathers and the sounder Schoole-meÌ„ who thus interpret the Scripture with vs I should lead you into a large field of discourse Notwithstanding it is not vnfitting my purpose to cite at the least some few of them for confirmation Let vs heere Cyrill thus recoÌ„ciling those words of Christ I pray not for the world with that sayinge of Iohn He is a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole worlde Iohn saith he seemeth to dissent from us Sauiour For our Sauiour heere refuseth to pray for the world but Iohn affirmeth that he is the propitiation and reconciliation not for our sinnes onely but for the sinnes of the whole worlde But the blessed Euangelist S. Iohn because he was a Iewe least the Lord should seeme to be an aduocate with his father for the Iewes onely not for other nations which as soone as they were called obeied of necessirie added for the whole world But the Lord Iesus separating you from them which are none of his saith I pray for them a loue who keepe my sayings and haue takeÌ„ my yoke For whose mediatour and high Priest he is he doth for good cause imparte vnto them alone the benefite of his mediation Hitherto Cyrill Let vs hear Prosper also in this answeare to Vicentius obiections clearly distinguishing on this manner As far forth saith he in his answere to the first obiection as you respect the greatnes and power of the price Or as you respect the our whole cause of mankinde so the bloud of Christ is the redemption of the whole world but they who passe the time of their life heere without faith and without the Sacrament of regeneration they haue no part in this redemption Wheras then in regard of the one whole cause of mankinde truely vndertaken by our Lord Iesus Christ all are well saide to be redeemed yet all are not freed from captiuitie withovt doubt the appropriation of redemption is theirs out of whome the prince of this worlde is cast dislodged and are nowe no longer â—ims of the diuell but meÌ„bers of Christ whose death was not so coÌ„municated vnto all mankind that it should effect the Redemption of these who were not to be regenerated and renewed in the spirit but so as that that which was by one example performed in behalfe of all might by the Sacrament be confirmed in some particulars For the potion of immortalitie being a confect of our infirmitie and Gods truth is of force in it selfe to profite all but if it be not drâ—nke it salueth not The same Prosper making answere to the demaÌ„ds of the FreÌ„ch-meÌ„ in plaine tearms alloweth of this phrase Christ died for the faithfull alone which these men condeÌ„ne as smelling of Turcisme his wordes are these Wheras then our sauiour is rightly said To haue beene crucified for the redeÌ„ption of the whole world in regard of the true and reall taking vnto him mans nature and in regard of the common losse wee sustained in the person of the first man Adam yet he may well be saide to be crucified only for those to whome his death was availeable For the evangelist saieth that Iesus should die for the nation and not for the nation onely but that he should also gather togeather in one the childreÌ„ of God which were scattered Thus far Prosper Gregorie saith The author of life gaue himselfe over vnto death for the life of the Elect. Innocentius 3. who liued a bont the 1200 yeere of our Lord thus writeth The bloud of Christ was shed FOR THE PREDESTINATE ALONE as touching the efficacy therof For the shedding of the righteous bloud for the vnrighteous was of so rich a price that if the whole world would beleeue in their Redeemer the snares of the Deuill should take bold of none Bernard saith Christ according to the fulnes of time indeed died for the wicked but according to Gods decree of Predestination for his brethren and friends Thomas on the 5. of the Apoc. writteh on this maÌ„ner Of the redeÌ„ptioÌ„ purchased by the passioÌ„ of Christ we may speak in a double sence signification either respecting the sufficiency therof so his passioÌ„ redeemed all because as coÌ„cerning himself he deliuered al For his passioÌ„ is sufficient to serue redeeme al yea if there were a thousand worldes as saith Anselme in his 2. booke and 14. Chapter Cur Deus homo c or els we speake therof respecting the efficacy in this sence he redeemed not all by his passion because all cleaue not fast vnto the Redeemer and therefore feele not nor perceiue the virtue of redemption The same authour againe saleth The merite of Christ as concerning the sufficiency thereof equally belongeth vnto all but not concerning the efficacy which happeneth partely by reason of free-wil partly by reason of Gods election by whome the effectes and fruites of Christs merits are mercifully bestowed on some and by the iust iudgment of God are withheld froÌ„ other some Lambard in his third book Distinct 22. ca. Christ offered himselfe vp to God the Trinity for almeÌ„ as touching the sufficieÌ„cie of the price paid but for the elect alone as touching the efficacy because he wrought salvation only for the Predestinate What should I say more where as these present proofes declare sufficiently that this interpretation of holy Scripture is not vpstart or profane but of ancient received in the Church and grounded on evident truth One only place of Peter Galatine a Monke indeed but yet a learned Divine and skilfull in the Hebrew I intend to alleadge that these clamorous punies novices in divinity may better see how that whatsoever is either vnknowne vnto them or standeth not with their monstrous inventions is not presently new-fangled heathenish Thus therefore he wel truely commenteth on these words of Esay My righteous servant shall iustifie many c. Although the passion of Christ ought to bee sufficient to wash away the sins of all men yet it washed not them all away but their sins only who shoulde beleeue in him repeÌ„t For this cause he saith And himselfe bare the sinnes of many Now omitting authorities let vs bring forth the reasons which this vpstart Pelagian progeny by their profane absurd opinion doth especiallie oppose against vs. They labour tooth and naile to prooue that Christ died for all why no man denieth it For this is the voice of Scripture They adde heerevnto that he died for all and everie particular man We deny not simply this their assertion although wee finde not where the scripture speaketh on this maÌ„ner They farther vrge that he died for all and evrâ—e particular both elect and reprobate for Cain David for Iudas and Peter for them which shall bee damned in like sorte as for them which shal be saved without all respect either of their faith or infidelitie This is a hard saying They run on still
Sermone de Euch. 〈…〉 Thinke not wheÌ„ yee come to these mysteries that yee receiue the Lordes body at the hands of a maÌ„ that is to say the Minister with many other such like places II. The second proposition The things signified I meane the body and bloude of the Lord are not received WITH IN and VNDER the bread and wine by the mouth of the body Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first is because they are not bodily present with in and vnder the signes as hath beene shewed quest â— propos 2. 2 The secoÌ„d iâ— because they passe into the belly which is the receptacle appointed for bodily meates 1. Cor. 6. 13. For all which entereth in at the mouth goeth downe into the belly Mat. 13. 3. The third is because the promise wherin the things are offered is not receiued by the mouth III The third proposition The thinges signified suppose The lordes bodie and bloud are receiued spritually by faith 1 The first reason is deriued from the conditioÌ„ of the whole kinde because in SacrameÌ„ts the things signified are receiued by faith by which alone as we are iustified so we receiue all the benefites of the new Testament 2 The second is because the promise of grace is not apprehended but by faith Nowe the communion of the body and bloud of Christ is the promise of grace See Vrsin Volum 1. Pag. 103. The argument of a certeine famous Disputant framed in defence of the eatinge Christs body with our mouth Ob. To whatsoeuer instrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth to the same the eating of the other ought to appertaine But the eating of one body that is the bread in the Lordes Supper appertaineth to the mouth Therefore the eating of the other which is Christs body appertaineth to the same Ans 1 The Maior is true in such meates as are naturally conioined of containe one the other of the which sort is a a Pye Now the bread and the body of Christ are not so ioined togither In these then it is false The Maior thus he proues Whosoeuer includeth in the same worde of eating both bread and wine the body blood of Christ affirmeth also that they are both receiued vvith the same instrument But Christ includeth both bread wine his body bloud in one the same worde of eating Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the same instrumeÌ„t of eating Ans 1. The proofe of the Maior faileth because an vniuersal affirmatiue should be concluded in Barbara 2 The Maior beggeth that which is in controversie and is denyed The falsenesse thereof appeareth Iohn the third where CHRIST includeth in the same worde of birth the spirit and the flesh and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the same manner or by the same instrument 3 The Minor also is false For this worde of eating is referred to the hollyed breade not to the bodie but by way of consequence For it properly pertaineth vnto that which the Lord tooke in his handes and brake which was bread and not his body This reason is vvorthy the marking for that according to the Papistes and such as simplie mainetaine Consubstantiation the bodie of CHRIST is not there before the wordes of consecration as they call them are pronounced but beginneth to bee there in the very last instante of the pronouncing of these wordes This is my bodie But according to the Vbiquitaries which are as it were chymicall consubstantiators it is there indeede as in any other breade but it is not yet edible vntill after consecration CHRIST then commaunded not to eate that with our mouth in the breade which as yet was not in the breade or as yet was not edible Then againe he proues the Maior of his former syllogisme A word having but one signification is to be taken but in one But eating both of the breade and of the body of Christ hath but one signification viz. with the mouth It is then to bee taken in one signification of both Ans 1. Heere againe faileth the proofe of the Maior being an vniversall affirmatiue which should haue bin concluded in Barbara 2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in coÌ„troversie The third question Vnto whom these things are offered and of whâ—â— they are receiued Heereunto is there made aunswere in tvvo Propositions both being affirmatiue 1. Proposition The things signified are receiued by the faithful aloÌ„e 1 Reason Because only they that beleeue receiue the promises by faith 2 Reason Because they alone that beleeue haue the spirit of Christ from the which his life-giuing fleshe cannot be separated 3 Reason Because in them onely that beleeue Christ remaineth and they in Christ Eph. 3 17. 4 Reason Because they alone that beleeue receiue and haue life Ioh 3 6. 2. Proposition The vngodly comming without faith receiue the signes without the things themselues Looke the reasons as they are set downe in the Church pag 58â— Looke the obiections for the eating of the vngodâ—y Ibid. pag. 5â—2 A BRIEFE EXPLICATION OF the whole controversie concerning the Lordes supper betweene the Consubstantials and the true beleevers The chiefe pointes of this explication 1 What errors the Consubstantials impute vnto vs. 2 The arguments of the Consubstantials against our doctrine of the supper 3 The shifts of the Consubstantials including some of our obiections 4 Arguments against the presence and corporall eating of the body of Christ IN WITH and VNDER bread 5 The arguments wherby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refelled and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed The errors which the Consubstantials falsly impute vnto vs with their refutation Ob. IN the doctrine of of the Lordes Supper there are say the Consubstantials two extreams to be avoided for both every vertue every truth standeth betweene two extremes The one is of the Papistes the other of the Sacramentaries and on each side it seemes to be fourfould The errors of the Papistes are 1 Transsubstantiation 2 The worshippe of bread 3. The sacrifice of the masse 4. A maiming of the sacrameÌ„t Ans They set downe indeede the errors of the Papistes but they cannot refute them because their opinion agreeth more with the opinion of the Papists then ours doth For first although they teach not Transubstantiation yet they teach Consubstantiation whereof there is nothing delivered in the word of God 2 Whereas they teach the bodilie presence of Christ it must needs be that they also worship Christ in the bread whom they suppose to bee bodily present in vnder with and to the bread which is a thing no lesse idolatrous then if they worshipped the bread For wheresoever Christ is whether in a visible or invisible manner there he is to be worshipped 3 They establish the sacrifice of the Masse because as it hath bin already said whilest they are bound to worship Christ in the bread they are enforced to aske of
old testament we haue alreadie prooued before That there is a difference in the number and forme of rites appeareth by an induction For in the new testament it is plaine there are but two because no other ceremonies having a promise of grace annexed are commanded by Christ That sacraments of the olde testament shewe Christ to come of the newe alreadie come it is manifest by their interpretation delivered in scripture whereof we spake in their definition They differ in plainenesse because in the new testament are fewer and those signifying things alreadie fulfilled in the olde there are more rites and those shaddowing future thinges all whose circumstaunces were not yet knowne Lastlie by induction it appeareth that the old were commaunded onelie to Abraham and his posteritie and their servauntes the new to all even as manie as will be members of the church as Genesis the seventeenth Everie man childe of eight daies olde amongest you shall bee circumcised in your generations as well hee that is borne in thine house as he that is bought with monie of anie stranger which is not thy seede Exod. 12. No stranger shall eate thereof Math. 8. Teach all nations baptising them c. 15 Both Sacraments and preching of the gospel are Gods worde which hee exerciseth tovvardes his church by the Ministers because they teach offer promise vnto vs the same communion of Christ and his benefites and are external instruments of the holy Ghost wherby he moveth our hearts to beleeue and therefore maketh vs partakers of faith in respect of Christ and his benefits Neither yet is the working of the holy Ghost tied vnto these sacraments nor doe they at al profit but rather hurt such as with faith do not apply them to themselues as the very words rites do signifie The proofe That the Ministers do all in GODS name in administration of sacramentes and that by the sacraments God doth signifie that is teach offer promise vnto vs the communion of Christ we shewed before in our second proofe Whereupon followeth this other conclusioÌ„ that the holie ghost therby moueth our harts to beliefe For because sacraments are a visible promise they haue the same authoritie to confirme faith in vs as hath a promise made by word Whence also followeth a third coÌ„clusioÌ„ For that which serveth to kindle stir vp faith in vs the same also serveth to the receiving of the communion of Christ because wee haue this communion through faith The breade is the communion of Christ bodie Baptisme saveth vs c. And yet the holy Ghost doeth not alwaies by them confirme our faith because neither by the word doth it alwaies kindle faith in vs as the examples of Simon Magus and infinite others doe shew That the vse of sacraments without faith is hurtfull is alreadie prooved in the eleventh proposition 16 The word and the sacraments differ because the word signifieth gods wil towards vs by speach the sacraments by gesture by the worde faith is begun and confirmed by the sacraments onlie faith begun is confirmed the word euen without the sacraments doth teach and confirme which the sacraments doe not without the word without the knowledge of the word they that are of ripe years cannot be saued but without the vse of sacrameÌ„ts if it be not by contempt men may be both renued and saued the word is to be preached to the vnbeleeuing and vvicked the church must admit to the sacraments only such as God will haue vs account members of the church The proofe Sacramentes without the worde going before doe neither teach nor confirme our faith because their signification is not vnderstood but by preaching or expounding them by the word neither can a signe confirme any thing but what is before promised This maie be proved by example of the Iewes who either did or die obserue those ceremonies abolishing or not vnderstanding the promise of grace and of Christs benefits Men of yeares cannot bee saved excepte they haue knowledge of the word either by teaching after the ordinarie way or by revelation after an extraordinary waie Because Hee that beleeveth not in the sonne is alreadie iudged Ioh 3. 18. Faith is by hearing hearing by the word of God Rom. 10. 17. But without sacraments they maie be saued because though by some necessarie occasion they be hindred from them yet may they beleeue as the theefe on the crosse or if they be infants they may be sanctified according to the measure of their yeares as Iohn in the wombe of his mother manie other infants which died before the daie of their circumcision The word also must be preached to the wicked because it is ordained for their conversion The sacraments must be administred vnto theÌ„ which are to bee acknowledged for members of the church because they are instituted only for the vse of the church Act. 8. 17. If thou beleevest thou maist be baptised 17 This is common to Sacrameâ—ts and sacrificer that they are workes commanded of God to bee done by vs in faith but yet a sacrament and a sacrifice do differ because by a sacrameÌ„t God doth signifie and witnesse his benefits which he performeth vnto vs but by sacrifice we perfourme and offer our obedience vnto God The proofe That sacraments are workes commanded of God to be done by vs in faith wee haue shewed in the 1. 2. 3. and 10. proposition Both are mentioned Heb. 11. 4. By faith Abel offered vnto God a greater sacrifice then Caine c. That Sacraments are signes of Gods will towards vs it is prooved in the second propos 18 And therefore the same ceremonie may haue the nature of a sacrament of a sacrifice because thereby God giving vnto vs visible signes testifieth his blessings and benefits towards vs and wee by receiving them doe likewise testifie our duty towards him The proofe This is manifest by the Pascal lamb and other sacrifices also by the sabbaoth which were an obedience commanded by God whereby the godlie did worship him and shew themselues gratefull to him withall were signes of Gods benefits which they receaved by the Messias So baptisme is a profession of Christianisme and a signe wherby Christ witnesseth that we are washed in his bloud The Lords supper is a thankesgiuing for the death of Christ and an admonition that we are quickned for and by his death are made his members and shall as bide in him for ever AN ANSWERE TO SOME ARGVMENTS against the Sacraments Certaine obiections against the afore-said propositiâ—ns of Sacraments with short answeares of Vrsinus therevnto taken in a publique disputation Anno. 1567. 1 OBiection against that part of the seconde proposition Sacraments are signes of the eternall covenant The signes of an eternal covenant are eternal But these signes are not eternal Ergo neither is the covenant eternall The proofe of the maier denied is In relatiues one being taken away the other also is taken awaie Aunswer to the rule whereby the