one truth and that all differences amongst vs are almost onely in such matters as concerne not the life of religion but the exteriour shape and garment thereof And this by the guidance of our inuisible head Iesus Christ and his blessed spirit of truth in better and in a more excellent maner then they by their visible Iudge the pretended vicar of Christ vpon earth And touching the second that neither directly wee teach nor indirectly may bee deduced from our doctrines that God is the author of sinne is so euidently and sincerely discouered in this booke as none that readeth the same with aduisement can but account our aduersaries notorious callumniaters to lay so soule a crime to our charges vpon so silly a ground but no maruell seeing slandering and lying is one of the chiefe pillars of their kingdome These bee the profitable vses that may be made of this booke Now the God of all mercie direct all our thoughts words and works to the aduancement of his glorie and the edification of his Church And thus commending this booke to thy fauourable acceptance I commend thee to the grace of Christ Iesus Thine in the Lord and the poore seruant of Iesus Christ Thomas Beard Doctor of Diuinitie THE CONTENTS OF THIS DECLARATION FIrst there is placed a Preface of the cause and end of this Declaration After followeth the Declaration it selfe wherein are ten Chapters Containing as followeth The 1. Chapter That we haue not such a detestable faith as is measured to vs abroad The 2. Chapter What our faith is in very truth The 3. Chapter That we haue not founded and learned such our faith from blind reason much lesse from the reuelation of Satan as some calumniate vs also not out of the writings of failable men but onely and alone out of the infallible word of God through the gratious inlightning of his holy spirit The 4. Chapter That Doctor Luther of happie memorie did euen beleeue and teach as we beleeue and teach except that only one point of the holy supper And that also we differ not in the same point so much as many imagine The 5. Chapter Wherefore we cannot hold with Doctor Luther in all things about the point of the holy Supper The 6. Chapter That we do not beleeue and teach otherwise of the person of Christ then as Doctor Luther of happy memory did beleeue and teach excepting the vbiquitie of the body of Christ which he also at last renounced himselfe The 7. Chapter That wee doe not belieue and teach otherwise of the foreknowledge and almightie prouidence of God ouer all creatures and of the originall of sinne then as Doctor Luther of happie memory hath beleeued and taught thereof The 8. Chapter That we belieue and teach no otherwise of the euerlasting Predestination of God or of the free election by grace of the children of God to euerlasting life or which is all one from whence faith springeth then as Doctor Luther of happie memorie did beleeue and teach The 9. Chapter That we beleeue and teach no otherwise of holy Baptisme then as Doctor Luther of happie memorie published in the Smalkaldish Articles and in the Sermon of the blessed Sacrament of holy Baptisme anno 1519. deliuered his opinion The 10. Chapter That the Ceremonies which wee vse in our Churches are neither against the word of God nor Christian liberty These are the Chapters of this Declaration vpon which this conclusion followeth that for the same they haue no iust cause to condemne vs as heathens The Vollumes of Luther mentioned are his Dutch Vollumes OF THE END AND CONTENTS OF THIS DECLARATION CHristian louing Reader it cannot bee vttered what mischiefe the contention about the Sacrament hath done and yet dailie doth and is to be feared will doe more and more in the Protestant Churches Now we for our parts are not only readie to imbrace peace continually and for that ende haue tried all meanes to purchase the same whatsoeuer any Christians are bound to doe therein but so there are also many God fearing people on the aduerse part both of high and low degree who desire peace as gladly euen as we doe and would further it to the vttermost of their powers who also acknowledge that the meanes thereto propounded by vs that we namely whilest we agree in the foundation of faith should not condemne each other for difference in opinion about by-questions considering that it is vnpossible in this life that the perfection and vniforme confession of all the misteries of God should be holden by all members of Christ in all things as the Scripture witnesseth and experience hath alwaies manifested are Christian and agreeable to the word and will of God Onely they are hindrered by part of their portly preachers who say and write that it standeth not alone vpon some few by-questions but also that there is difference in opinion in the foundation of Christian faith and that we haue so many detestable errours that no Christian man can with good conscience acknowledge vs for brethren in Christ and according to the same hold peace and brothership with vs. That now this obstacle may bee remooued and that good-hearted people may know what to trust vnto about vs wee are willing once more adding to full measure to declare what we beleeue or doe not beleeue of all and euery point of doctrine and thereby also declare what wee vse for Ceremonies or doe not vse in our Churches with the causes added thereto wherefore we doe the one and not the other The merciful true God and Father be pleased to bestow his grace and blessing on such a work that the eies of many people may be opened thereby to the honor of him and benefit of his Churches Amen A FVLL DECLARATION OF THE FAITH AND CEREMOnies of the Pfaltzgraues Churches CHAP. I. That we haue not such a detestable faith as is measured to vs abrode by peace-hating people NOw to begin We protest before God and whole Christendome that wee haue not in any sort such a detestable faith as peace-hating people ascribe vnto vs whereas they say That we denie Gods omnipotency The 〈◊〉 thes◠〈◊〉 is to the◠〈◊〉 Cha◠〈◊〉 That we make God the authour of sinne That we make God to be a tyrant That we denie the Godhead of Christ That we denie the personall vnion of both the natures in Christ That wee say that the diuine and humane natures in in Christ haue in no sort any actuall and working fellowship one with the other That we denie originall sinne That wee say that the sonne of God died not for vs indeed and in truth but onely a bare man That we denie the power of the death of Christ That we denie the necessity of beleeuing in Christ and say that the vnbeleeuing heathens can be saued as well as the Christians That we make holy Baptisme of no effect That we deny the blisse making eating and drinking of the body and blood of
faith onely and alone vpon the word of God and beleeue men no further then they can shew what they say out of the word of God Psal 116.11 And that therfore for that we know that all men may faile though they be as highly inlightened and as holy as may possibly bee and that God is onely he that cannot erre And therefore we put no confidence in any man when he speaketh of himselfe But if hee say it standeth in Gods word which he speaketh then doe we search Gods word for it whether it be so or not And when we finde it true then beleeue we him not therefore that he is the speaker but therefore that wee see that God hath said it But if any man shall aske wherefore doe we hold the writings of the Prophets and Apostles to bee the word of God and not the writings of Zwinglius or Luther whereas neuerthelesse the Prophets and Apostles were euen as well men as Luther Zwinglius Philip Caluin c. To them giue wee this answere The Prophets and Apostles were indeed euen as well men as other teachers of the Churches of God But they did not speake and write as men but what they spake and writ in matters of faith that receiued they by inspiration from God 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Tâ—t 1.21 without meanes and were commanded to speake or write which amongst many other vnfallible marke-tokens may bee heereby manifested For where they said as they vsed to say this or this hath the Lord spoken there did the Lord confirme such their sayings that they were true with great and vnaccustomed wonders before all creatures and so giuen them testimony by his owne almightinesse that they speake the truth and that that in truth was his word which they either spake or writ in his name It is otherwise to be thought of Augustine Cyprian Hierome Luther Zwinglius and other the like teachers who rose vp after the times of the Prophets and Apostles They neuer published that euer God reuealed his word vnto them without meanes much lesse did they euer any where ratifie the same by wonderfull tokens but haue alwaies in their Sermons and writings drawne their testimonies out of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles as the vndoubted word of God whilest now they euer appealed to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles and directed vs thither as to the foundation of their faith therefore also neither can nor shall we doe otherwise then search in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles whether their doctrine bee founded thereupon or not In which search when wee finde it euen so in Gods word as they haue alleaged and mentioned vnto vs then receiue we it thankfully and giue praise to God for them But when we finde it otherwise and perceiue it that they stumble at some thing and haue not rightly vnderstood the word of God then let wee their allegations go and keepe only to Gods word Would God that all those that either will or should iudge about the troublous contentions in religion would well consider this difference betwixt the word of God and the writings of men It would stand much better a thing much to bee lamented then it now stands in the Protestant Churches Doctor Luther of happy memory hath with this onely one difference confounded the whole Papacie For as often as they brought against him any of the fathers as Augustine Hierome c. so often answered he Hierome and Augustine as all other fathers were men and could faile and therefore he would not be tied to them Onely Gods word could not erre therefore would not hee bee confuted and shewed by any thing but by Gods word This was Doctor Luthers answere against the Popedome And all Protestant Churches acknowledge that this his answere was right and good If then Doctor Luther did well and right that he would not bind himselfe to any writings of men but onely to the word of God then can no man take it euill at our hands that wee herein follow his example and also bind not our selues to any writings of men be he called Lutherus or Zwinglius or how he will but onely to the word of God And yet doe wee not despise any of them but giue God hearty thankes for them and remember them with befitting commendations and praises for all the great things God hath done by them especially by Doctor Martin Luther of whom Zwinglius himselfe writes Hee was the little Dauid Tom. 2. fol. 377. B. Item fol. 315. B. Item fol. 326. B. who first encountered with the great Goliah of Rome which it may bee none of the rest would haue aduentured vpon And this honor did he not grudge to affoord him Onely he then should not grudge at other men when they helpe to follow the battell against the Philistims when hee had giuen the bold onset and put the enemie to flight Which argument of Zwinglius wee cannot otherwise acknowledge then for Christian And also wee are of the same opinion that Zwinglius was that Doctor Luther was a chosen champion of God by whom hee would bring againe the light of the holy Gospell in these last times out of the darke Papacie Only we say therby that he was also a man who had his infirmities as well as other men And especially must all they acknowledge who wil speak of him impartially that in controuersies he was much too hasty and in anger often thrust out such things which cannot be answered As in a booke where the words stand fast cast hee out amongst others these words Mary the mother of Christ did neither eate Christ bodily nor spiritually Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 363. B. That cannot be answered otherwise then that his anger is to bee borne with For and if Mary had not eaten Christ spiritually then must shee bee damned and perish euerlastingly Or else the words of Christ must be false where he saith Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you Also in the great Confession of the Lords Supper casteth he out these words And it was not true that Christ at the same time was in heauen namely when he spake with Nicodemus vpon the earth Ioh. 3. â—3 Tom. 3. fol. 480. Also euen in the same place saith hee The Angels are at one time in heauen and also on the earth c. And many of the like examples could wee shew out of Doctor Luthers writings which put vs out of all doubt that he was a man and so could faile and erre euen as well as other men Wherefore no man can blame vs that wee also in his writings follow the command of God which saith Proue all and hold that which is good 1. Thes 5.21 CHAP. IIII. That Doctor Luther of happie memory did beleeue and teach no otherwise then we beleeue and teach except that onely one point of the holy Supper And
with one word It betokeneth the new birth or regeneration For regeneration is nothing else but a deading of the old man and quickening of the new Euen so saies Doctor Luther Tom. 1 Jen. fol. 204. 205 26. This is the true signification of the Sacrament Also it is not enough that a man know what the Sacrament is and what it signifieth Also yet was Christs body giuen therefore that the signification of the Sacrament might be taken to heart And therfore also is this rule false and nothing where men say That in the Sacraments of the new Testament there are no significations Therefore cannot the words of Christ haue that construction This is my body as if he had said this signifies my body There are significations in all Sacraments as well in the new as in the old Testament Onely heere is the difference that the Sacraments of the old Testament had relation to the Messias to come but the Sacraments of the new TestameÌ„t haue their relatioÌ„ to Christ already come As Doctor Luther himselfe very notably and well sheweth in the Church Postill in the exposition of the words of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10.3.4 Our fathers haue all eaten one food namely with vs and haue all drunke one spirituall drinke c. where he saith It is euery where one faith and spirit Postill Wittenberg anno 1540 in the winter part fol. 275. though seuerall tokens and words be there The tokens and words are from time to time deliuered otherwise But there remaines yet all one faith in the onely one God who by seuerall tokens and words deliuered at times doe communicate one faith and spirit and worketh in all the Saints of God by the same one manner of pardon of sinnes deliuery from death and purchase of saluation whether it bee in the beginning middle or end of the world That is Pauls meaning here that he fathers haue eaten the same food and drunke the same drinke with vs yet addeth he that word spiritually vnto it For outwardly and bodily had they other tokens and words then we but euen the very same spirit and faith of Christ which we haue But to eate and drinke spiritually is nothing else then to beleeue the word and tokens of God as Christ also saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Also my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed that is hee that beleeueth in me he shall liue Also they drunke of the spirituall rocke which followed which was Christ that is they beleeued in the same Christ in whom wee beleeue although hee was not then come in the flesh but should come afterward And the token of such their faith was the materiall rocke where they drunke of the materiall water euen as wee by the materiall bread and wine vpon the alter eate the true Christ spiritually that is in eating and drinking outwardly doe wee nourish faith inwardly Whilest now these things are thus and whilest in all Sacraments there are significations and signes as also the Apology of the Auspurges Confession saith with the ancient Doctor Augustine of all Sacraments The Sacrament is a visible word for the outward token is a picture whereby the same is signified which is preached by the word c. Seeing therefore say wee that there are significations in all Sacraments therefore it followes that also this manner of speech hath place in all Sacraments where one saith This is this or that when it is meant this betokeneth this or that Neither can any waighty cause be showne wherfore the words of Christ This is my body should not euen so bee vnderstood as if hee had said this betokens my body or which is all one this is a token or remembrance or calling to mind of my body Out of which wee doe further conclude whilest the words of Christ This is my body must not bee so vnderstood as if he had said Therein is my body but may well be vnderstood so as if he would haue said this betokens my body that accordingly Doctor Luthers opinion where hee saith that the body of Christ is in the bread out of Christs words where hee said This is my body hath no necessary conclusion And this is the first cause why wee cannot leane to Doctor Luthers opinion about the reall presence of the body of Christ in the bread namely whilest such a construction hath no ground in the word of God it being so that in neither stands expresly in the words of Christ neither can bee drawne from thence by any necessary consequence The second cause why we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers aboue named opinion is this The second cause why we cannot leane to Doct. Luthers opinion namely whilest it is flat against Gods word for that wee see and are assured in our hearts that such an opinion hath not onely no ground in the word of God but also that it runnes flatly against the same For first of all so witnesseth Gods word cleerely that Christ ascended into heauen fortie daies after his resurrection and at present is no more vpon the earth I am no more in the world saith Christ Ioh. 17.11 And the Apostle to the Hebrewes shewes it very largely that he must by the offering of his body enter into the heauenly Sanctuary And concludes therout that therefore if hee were vpon earth then were hee not Priest in the 8.9 10. Chapters See Reader this is the cleere and infallible word of God that Christ is not any more bodily vpon earth therefore cannot the contrary that hee is now vpon earth bee true Secondly the word of God witnesseth cleerely that Christ hath once himselfe renounced and said that the bodily eating of his body is not profitable to saluation the flesh profiteth not namely to be eaten with the mouth as the Capernaites meant that they must eate his flesh Iohn 6.63 What now Christ hath once cast away as vnprofitable to saluation that is vnpossible that hee should againe haue euer ordained it as profitable to saluation For he recals not his word neither wil he rebuke himselfe of lying as Doctor Luther truly writeth Tom. 3. fol. 530. B. Thirdly the word of God witnesseth plainely That Christ once dying for vs henceforth dieth no more Rom. 6.9.10 Therefore shall not his blood heereafter bee seuered from his body any more really Tom. 3. fol. 529. as Doctor Luthers opinion sheweth For hee saith his body is in the bread without blood and his blood in the wine without the body This is as much as if he said that his body is dead in the Supper For a body without blood is dead Now his body cannot die any more therefore neither can the opinion of Doctor Luther of the reall and separated presence of the body of Christ in the bread and his blood in the wine be right Doctor Luther troubleth himselfe very much C'earanâ—e of the first difference betwixt D Luther and the holy Scripture
to the former saith Hierome Hier ad Pammach And euen in like manner is it with the sealed graue stone though it cannot bee shewed that Christ did arise till such time as the Angell had rolled the same away euen as Matthew expresly writeth that he rolled it away Chap. 28.2 It is beleeued also saith Doct. Luther Tom 3. fol. 460. that Christ was also so borne of his mother Answere It is not euery where beleeued and there is no necessity to beleeue it for it is not written any where in the word of God This is written in the word of God that Christ was conceiued supernaturally without the helpe of man only by the power of the holy Ghost But that hee should bee borne supernaturally and come out of the body of his mother being closed that stands not at all in the word of God but much more the cleare contrary is written therein For the Law is expresly referred to Christ which saith Euery man child that first openeth the wombe shall be called holy to the Lord Luk. 2.23 and what needeth much disputing Christ himselfe cleareth it Luk. 24.39 where hee saith Behold my hands and my feete it is I my selfe handle me and see for a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see mee haue By which words he most clearely sheweth that the second manner of being somewhere namely to bee vnseene and vnpalpable is not common to bodies but belongeth to the spirits Therefore this opinion that the body of Christ should be vnuisible and vnpalpable as the spirits are hath not onely no ground in Gods word but is also flat against the same And admit that it could bee shewed out of the word of God that the body of Christ were at present vnsightly and vnfeeleable yet were not the Contradiction which is betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion where the holy Scripture saith hee is not at present more vpon earth but Doctor Luther saith hee is yet now vpon the earth nothing at all ended thereby For the spirits also or Angels though they bee vnuisible and not to bee handled as they bee yet neuerthelesse are they but in one place at one time Therefore if it bee true as it is that Christ is at present in heauen then can he be no more vpon the earth after the second maner then after the first together at one time And accordingly the bodily presence of Christ together in many thousand places that is in all places where the holy Supper is celebrated by the second manner of being in a place namely as the created spirits are in one place can neuer bee defended and maintained But will a man haue the bodily presence of Christ alike in many thousand places then must hee also of necessity ascribe to the body of Christ the third manner which manner is to be alike wholly and altogether in all places Now Doctor Luther confesseth that this manner is proper to God onely Tem. 3. fol. 457. B. where he saith This manner is onely ascribed to God as hee saith by the Prophet Ieremy Am I a God at hand Ier. 23.23.24 and not far off doe not I fill heauen and earth c. See Reader there Doctor Luther confesseth and proues it by the word of God that the third manner of being namely to be wholly in all places entirely belongeth to God himselfe And yet neuerthelesse where he seeth Marke Reader the fountaine of vbiquitie that the bodily presence of Christ in the bread of the holy Supper cannot otherwise bee maintained by him he lets the heate of contention and desire of the victory so farre beare sway that he addeth against the presently forenamed knowledge and confession of his owne and saith The body of Christ hath also the third manner vpon it of being somewhere Tom. 3. fol. 459. 460. c. And clearer yet The body of Christ is euery where Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 457. And was at that time euery where when hee walked vpon the earth Tom. 3. fol. 354. 493. Also Yea hee is in all places from his mothers wombe Tom. 3. fol 464. Also It is all through and through full Christ euen according to the manhood Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 458. Also Heauen and earth is his sacke as the corne filleth the sacke euen so fils he euery thing Tom. 2. Wit fol. 115. B * In the Sermon against the Swarme spirits Also Hee is ouer all in all creatures so that I can finde him in stone in fier in water or euen in the snare as hee is certainely there Note This Sermon is left out in the Jenish Tomis Tom. 2. Wit fol. 96. B. Yet suffers he not himselfe to be catcht and laid hold on hee can well deliuer himselfe c. Tom. 3 Ien. fol. 355. This is in truth a lamentable example out of which one may see what contention can do when one yeelds too much vnto it It is also a sufficient more then sufficient testimony that the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper cannot be right For what is right that can also bee maintained with vpright grounds as Sirack saith The Law shall be fulfilled without lies and wisedome is sufficient to a faithfull mouth Chap. 34.8 Now can the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper neuer be maintained with found grounds But if a man will maintaine it then must hee take the falsest grounds to helpe him which may bee thought of to maintaine it namely the omnipresence of the body of Christ as the reader seeth therfore it is vnpossible that such a doctrine can be true But some man might say you haue not as yet proued that the Omnipresence of Christ is a false ground Answere What need is thereof much proofe Doctor Luther hath at last himselfe againe acknowledged and confessed Pag. 152. as the Brunswicks Diuines at the conference at Quedelburg openly testified and with sufficient documents explaned and manifested Also most of the Lutheran Diuines doe at present acknowledge it for all that they formerly vnderwrit the Concordien booke which was taken in hand to ratifie this opinion And all Christian men must acknowledge it or must confesse that the whole story of the Gospel is false yea that the whole Christian faith is nothing but a very meere sight in a looking glasse For a body which is euery where can neither be conceiued nor carried in a body nor borne into the world of such a mother who is not euery where Also a body that is euery where can neither bee captiued nor bound nor carried from one place to another nor be scourged nor crucified nor put to death nor bee taken from the Crosse nor bee buried of those who are not euery where c. That must all Christian men confesse And all doe vniformely confesse it also three or foure Cauellers excepted with whom wee hereof dispute in vaine For they know well aforehand that they faile
therein and yet for all that they will not giue the glory to God Yet and if they haue delight in disputing they should giue vs an answere heerein wherfore they cease not so to smooth the matter to their good Lords that either the māhood must be euery where or the two natures in Christ must be separated from each other Whereas they neuerthelesse confesse in open writing In concordium booke fol. 246 B. Also in the Apologie of the Concordium booke in the first Chapter against the Bremers fol. 3. A. fol. 7. B. that Christ when he was in his mothers body also when he hung vpon the Crosse yea for the most time that he walked vpon the earth was not euery where in body actually and yet for all that the two natures that are in him are not separated from each other When they can vntie that knot vnto vs then will we yeeld vnto them But if they cannot then should they yeeld vnto vs Also in the confutation of the printed confession of faith at Herborne page 138. Protocol Maulbrun Act. 5. or the whole world shall take knowledge that they doe not contend for the glory of God but onely for their owne glory and profit And thus much be spoken of the first contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and the holy Scripture Which is that the holy Scripture saith the body of Christ at present is not any more vpon the earth but Doctor Luther saith that hee is now vpon the earth Clearance of the second contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and the holy Scripture The second contrariety is that the holy Scripture saith that the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ is not profitable Ioh. 6. But Doctor Luther saith that it is profitable Tom. 1. Ien. fol. 82. 358. 464. 455. c. This contrariety the better to salue vp saith Doctor Luther Where Christ saies The flesh profiteth not Ioh. 6. That he there spake not of his flesh as if that were not profitable to be eaten with the bodily mouth but he spake of our bad flesh that the same is not profitable Answere The whole disputation with Christ held with the Capernaites Ioh. 6. Chapt. is of his flesh how a man should eate the same and not of our flesh whether it bee bad or good Christ saith one must eate his flesh else could hee not bee saued Whereat the Capernaites were offended and vnderstood the speech of Christ so as if his flesh should be eaten bodily To remoue this stumbling blocke Christ gaue them to vnderstand that it was not his meaning that his flesh should be eaten bodily for he must ascend into heauen Also that the flesh profited not These were the grounds whereby Christ ouerthrew the bodily eating of his flesh How can Doctor Luther then say that Christ did not speake of his flesh He saith his ground for it is this Tom. 3 fol. 364. A. that where the two words flesh and spirit in the Scripture are opposed one to another there cannot flesh bee called the body of Christ but is alwaies called that old flesh which is borne of flesh Iohn 3. Answere This ground is manifestly false For there are many places in the Scripture where flesh and spirit are opposed to the other and yet therein the word flesh is vnderstood of the body of Christ and also cannot bee any otherwise vnderstood As where it is said God is manifest in the flesh iustified in the spirit 1. Tim. 3.16 Also Christ was made of the seed of Dauid according to the flesh and declared mightily to bee the Sonne of God touching the spirit Rom. 1.3.4 Also Christ was put to death concerning the flesh but was quickend in the spirit 1. Pet. 3.18 And also Doct. Luther himselfe neuer otherwise expounded this saying of Christ where he saith The flesh profiteth not then we expound the same when he contends not about the Sacrament namely the eating of the flesh of Christ with the bodily mouth not to bee profitable to saluation as is to bee seene in seuerall writings of his First in the Sermon on Corpus Christi day printed in quarto Anno 1523. 36. leafe where he saith For euen so saith he namely Christ himselfe afterwards the flesh profiteth not And againe my flesh giueth life how shall we separate that the spirit separates it Christ will haue it that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable but to beleeue that the flesh is the Son of God come downe from heauen for my sake and shead his blood for me c. After in the repetition of this Sermon in the Church Postill printed at Wittenberge Anno 1527. in the Summer part fol. 111. B. where he saith But that this is the true vnderstanding of the Gospell namely that it is to be vnderstood of the spirituall eating and drinking the words which the Lord spake at the end of the Chapter doe shew It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speake vnto you are spirit and truth With which words Christ will haue vs know that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable but to beleeue that this flesh is Gods Son come from heauen for my sake and shead his blood for me that is profitable and is life euerlasting Also againe in the Church Postill Anno 1540. printed at Wittenberge in the winter part fol. 275. B. where he saith When the word of God and tokens are not there or are not acknowledged then helpes it not though God were there himselfe Euen as Christ saith of himselfe Ioh. 6. The flesh profiteth not so long as they respect not the words which he speaketh of his flesh which word makes his body to be food where hee saith hee is the liuing bread from heauen c. And therefore also in this point the contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion is without No namely that the holy Scripture saith the flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten is Not profitable Doctor Luther yet saith the flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten is profitable His followers take this refuge to helpe them that in Ioh. 6. Christ spake only against the naturall grosse Capernaitish eating of his flesh that it is not profitable But euen that is also a vaine refuge For first Christ spake generally against all bodily eating of his flesh and opposeth that to his ascension saith What then if ye should see the Son of man ascend vp where he was before vers 62. As if hee would say how will yee then reach my flesh with your mouthes Secondly so is also the difference betwixt the bodily and naturall eating in it selfe false and of no worth For the mouth cannot eate supernaturally but all eating with the mouth is a naturall eating And so the second Contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion for all this without No. The third Contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and betwixt the holy Scripture Clearance of the third contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and
the holy Scripture as wee haue aboue touched is this that the holy Scripture saith Christ once dying for vs can henceforth die no more Which is euen as much as if it said his body can be no more without blood and his blood can be no more really seuered from the body or be shead out of the body But Doctor Luthers opinion brings this with it that now euery day namely as often as the holy Communion is administred that the body of Christ is without blood and that the blood of Christ is really seuered from his body For the bread is indeed seuered from the wine really When now the body is in the bread and not in the wine and contrariwise the blood is in the wine and not in the bread then is it indeed manifest that they must be separated really from each other And Doctor Luther yeelds that that is his meaning where he saith I am to know that I receiue the body of Christ in the Sacrament without blood Tom. 3. fol. 529. Vpon this Contrariety doe wee not finde any thing of respect which Doctor Luther hath answered in his strife writings Neither doe wee see how it is possible to answere any thing groundedly and therefore it remaines as it is And this is now sufficiently spoken of the second cause why wee cannot giue approbation to Doctor Luthers opinion about the bodily presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the holy Supper namely whilest such an opinion hath not onely no ground in Gods word but also is manifoldly against the same 3 The third cause wherefore we yeeld not no Doctor Luthers opinion namely whilest it hath no testimony from the old Apostolicall Churches but was first batchâ—d in the blindest times of Popery The third cause is that such a construction hath no testimony from the Apostolicall Churches but was first founded many hundred yeeres after the birth of Christ in the very darkest daies of Popery as the Reader may easily come to vnderstand out of the following witnesses of the old Doctors of the Church Tertullian who liued about the yeere of Christ 200. saith The Lord tooke bread and diuided it amongst his Disciples and made the same his body in that he said This is my body that is a representatioÌ„ of my body Cyprian who liued about the yeere after Christ Serm. de Chrism 240. saith That the bread and the wine are the body and the blood of Christ as the betokening and the betokened thing vsed to be tearmed with one name Gregory Nazianzen Apologet. who liued about the yeere of Christs birth 360. nameth the bread a signe answerable to the body of Christ Chrysostome who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ 370. saith Psal in 22. Bread and wine are a figure of the body and blood of Christ Also Homil 17. ad Heb. the Supper is a token and signe of remembrance of the death of Christ Augustine who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ 390. saith The Lord hath commanded a representation of his body in the Supper a Psal 3. Also The Lord hath himselfe not spared to say This is my body when he gaue but a token of his body b Contra Adim C. 12. Also The Sacrament is named being one thing with the name of the same thing which it signifieth c Epist 23 ad Bonif. Also The Scripture vseth euen so to speake that it nameth the token as the betokened thing d In Joh. N. 63. Also The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is in his kinde called the body of Christ it being indeed a Sacrament that is a holy token of the body of Christ which was hanged vpon the Crosse visibly palpably and dyingly And the offering of the flesh which is performed by the hands of the Minister is tearmed the suffering and dying of Christ vpon the Crosse not that it is the thing it selfe but that it betokeneth it as a mystery e Sent. Prosp Theodoret Dial. 1. who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ 440. saith Our Sauiour himselfe hath changed the names and hath giuen the name of the tokens to his body and of his body to the tokens c. And in sundry places hee nameth the bread and wine in the Supper a representation and opponent signe of the body and blood of Christ Beda who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ Super Lucam 730. saith Christ hath instituted in stead of the flesh and blood of the Lambe the Sacrament of his flesh and blood in the representation of bread and wine De coeâ—â— Domini ad Carolum Magnum Bertram who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ 800. when some began to beleeue the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper and being demanded thereabouts by Charles the great freely declared That the bread is figuratiuely and not really the body of Christ From the witnesses it is very manifest that the euill custome of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper did not arise before such time as that Popery got the mastery Wherefore cannot wee otherwise estimate such a custome but for a Popish leauen About which no man hath any iust cause to wonder that Doctor Luther who otherwise was a deadly enemy to the Popedome did neuer encounter this abomination of the Popedome Euen Elias the Prophet also did not encounter the calues of Bethel 2. King 25.15 which Ieroboam had set vp but they remained euen vnto the daies of King Iosias and yet neuerthelesse they were Baalitish abominations God hath such a manner that hee accomplisheth not all by one man that so no man might be made an idoll but must ascribe the honour onely to him And also there were outward causes which were a hinderance to Doctor Luther that he could not attaine to the true ground of this matter For first hee was borne and brought vp in the Popedome and hee was a Frier full fifteene yeeres long in which many yeers and from his childhood the euill custome of the bodily presence of Christ in the bread was so strongly rooted in him that he could not easily remoue it out of his heart afterwards Euen as also many other Popish errours as the Purgatory Transubstantiation the Communion vnder one kind and honouring of the Sacrament calling vpon the Saints c. in the beginning of his Reformation for certaine yeeres together cleaue fast vnto him Secondly and whereas Doctor Carlstadt would shew vnto him that hee failed in this point then did not Carlstadt onely bring it in very vnbefittingly in that that he said that Christ with the word this pointed not to bread but to his by-sitting body at table which Doctor Luther could easily confute him in and so thereby he was more and more fortified in
his opinion but hee propounded it also in such a rough manner that it was no maruell that Doct. Luther would not receiue information from him Thirdly and for all that Zwinglius did afterwards propound the matter better and in behoofe fuller manner then Doctor Carlstadt had done vsing such waighty arguments which might very well haue opened the eyes of Doctor Luther yet neuerthelesse hee was so inflamed by the contention with Doctor Carlstadt that for very anger thereof hee could neither see nor heare more thereabouts As all his strife writings testifie wherein hee approueth or denyeth such things as no man can approue or denie who is setled in his minde For example Whereas Zwinglius shewes him that the word Is often in the Scripture betokeneth so much as Calleth as whereas Ioseph saith to Pharaoh Seuen kine are seuen yeeres c. Whereas it cannot be denied yet for all that ere he will yeeld to Zwinglius he denies it and saith The seuen kine did not betoken seuen yeeres Gen. 41. but were really seuen yeeres Tom. 3. fol. 443. Also where Oecolampadius alleaged vnto him that there were figuratiue speeches very vsual in the institution of the Sacraments as in the institution of the Easter Lambe did God say This is the Lords Passeouer c. Where his meaning was this is a token and remembrance of the Passeouer Howsoeuer that also was vncontroleable yet for all that ere he would yeeld himselfe vanquished hee rather denies it and saith It is not a bare figuratiue speech in the institution of tha Easter Lambe and in all other figures of the old Testament Tom. 3. fol. 477. B. Also whereas Oecolampadius alleaged vnto him that this speech when one saith This is this or that is often in effect as if one saith This is a token of this or that and amongst others alleaged the text Genes 17.10.11 where God saith of Circumcision vers 10. This shall bee my Couenant and presently thereafter explaines his speech thus The same shall be a token of the Couenant vers 11. Yet ere hee would approue Oecolampadius therein he denies it that this text was in the Bible For these are his owne words hereof My Genesis saith not saith hee that Circumcision is a couenant and token Tom. 3. fol. 478. B. And whilest he saw that hee could not vanquish Zwinglius with sufficient grounds then tooke hee vpon him to ouerbeare him with heauie imputations and saith he denied the Communicationem idiomatum that is Tom. 3 fol. 250. B. the Communion of the properties of both natures in the one onely and vnseparable person of Christ as did Nestorius and taught that not the Sonne of God Tom 3. fol. 462. B. but onely a meere man died for vs c. Which thing he knew very well that Zwinglius neuer beleeued in all his life but much more that hee had testified and written many times the cleane contrary This Processe now giues sufficient information that Doctor Luther was wholly ouercome with anger in the handling heereof and was not his owne master therein And therefore let no man maruell that hee could neuer come vnto the true vnderstanding of the truth thereof And so much bee also spoken of the third cause wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers opinion about the bodily presence of Christ in the holy Supper namely whilest we see that such an opinion hath no testimony from the ancient Apostolicall Churches but was hatched first of all in the very darkest daies of Popery 4 The fourth cause wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers opinion namely whilest such an opinion is the chiefest ground and foundation of Popery The fourth cause is because wee see that such an opinion also at this present day is the principall pillar and foundation of the Popedome For the whole Popedome together with all his inuentions poyseth it selfe principally vpon the Masse But the Masse consisteth onely and alone vpon the bodily presence of Christ in the bread of the holy Supper For if Christ were not there bodily then acknowledge the Papists themselues that the Sacrament should neither bee bowed vnto neither should or could a man offer vp God for the sins of the liuing and the dead But when he is bodily there say they then cannot a man renounce the honouring without sinning And Doctor Luther himselfe writeth thus Tom. 3. fol. 206. B. where hee saith Whosoeuer beleeueth not that the body and blood of Christ is there he doth right that he neither worshipeth spiritually nor fleshly But who so beleeueth it he cannot possibly deny him his worship without sinne Further and if Christ be there bodily say the Papists wherefore shall not he be offered vp to God the father or testifie and dare to pray that he will be gratious to his folke for his sake This say the Papists And it is vnpossible that any man can answere them with sufficient grounds so long as a man yeelds vnto them that Christ is there bodily Where we now see that the greatest idolatry of al that euer was committed and the whole strength and power of the Popedome dependeth vpon this one euill custome that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament should wee not then necessarily loath such an euill custome The fifth cause 5 The fifth cause wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doct. Luthers opinion namely whilest such an opinion leades men from the right way to saluation to the Opus operatum c. wherefore wee cannot but loath such an euill custome is this for that we se that the same also doth procure no good in the Protestant Churches but it leadeth the people daily more and more from the right way to saluation vnto the opus operatuÌ„ that is vnto these perswasions that they can be saued by the outward worke of the Sacrament though inwardly there be no liuing faith and true conuersion Yea the poore people in the Lutherisch Churches know for the most no more what should be the true conuersion of God the Lord but think that it is sufficieÌ„t if he doth but once in the moneth goe to Confession and receiueth the Sacrament with an indifferent meditation though hee liue afterwards as it pleaseth him If one tell them that they who haue receiued Christ truly Ioh 6.5.7 Ephes 2. â—0 Gal. 2.20 and haue eat and drunke him are wholly changed by him and and made new men and liue now no more but Christ liues in them then tels a man them of meere Bohemian villages For not one of a thousand vnderstands what it is to be a new creature who is created in Christ Iesus To say nothing that they should examine themselues whether they find any such change in themselues or no. Yea those that will bee the wittiest knowe of all others the least thereof Which is hereby manifest that they also mocke vs about and for it when we say vnto them 2. Cor. 5.17 Gal. 5.6 that nothing stands for good with Christ but
amongst others cites Marlorat vpon the 11. Chapter of Iohn where these words stand to be read Wherby it stands vnreuokeable whom God hath chosen out of the world he can neuer vtterly perish Note 〈◊〉 by â—â—ncluded words did Doct. Mylius leaue out of â—t purpose and in the stead the 〈◊〉 he 〈…〉 c. Thes 172. Pag. 117. for no man can take them out of the hand of the shepheard But who so to reprobated by God hee can neuer bee saued though hee had all the good workes of the of the Saints together on an heape So little change is there in the councell of God Ouer these words Doctor Mylius make himselfe exceeding merrie and saith heare O you louing Psaltzgranians you haue your conclusion Now these very words are not the words of a Caluinist but they are the words of Brentius who died an enemy of the Caluinists as his Testament declareth as the desirous Reader may see the truth the words being printed at Hagenaw Anno 1534. in the Exegesi of Bremius in the 260. leafe And Marlorat did not onely write them out of Brentius but he set his euen Brentius his name thereby with an R. as he vsed to doe This could not the strife sicke blind man perceiue but thought that he would then set a blocke in the way of the Caluinists when he himselfe and his factious companion did doe it themselues Is not this a liugâ— example how they â—eale with the Caluinists and how their citationes or testimonies are to bee â—steemed by which they would haue them taken for hereticks The matter in it selfe consisting â—â—maines all one as we haue written in our faithfull Admonition We say indeed that the elect cannot be lost 〈…〉 And why should we not say so Christ saith it himselfe Mat. 24 ch And Doctor Luther saith so also in innumerable many places a Yet the Papist◠〈…〉 lib 2. de 〈◊〉 cap 10. §. 4. 1. Pet. 1.5 Luk. 22.31 Ephes 1 4.5 Rom. 8.30 Ezek 36 27. But that we should say that the elect cannot perish with this addition doe they what they will that will neuer be shewed in our writings But this is our opinion and for that wee say that the elect cannot perish because God keepeth them by his power in saith to saluation and though they sometimes fall yet they lie not therein but he raiseth them againe by repentance For whom God hath elected to euerlasting life those hath hee not otherwise elected then with this condition that hee would giue them faith in Christ and that by his holy spirit hee would make them new cr â—tures and such people as should walke in his Commandements Therefore they are no elect that doe what they will but onely they that haue a hearty purpose and an earnest intent to doe what God will this is our opinion herein Which opinion the aboue written doctrine of the bare councell of God doth not contradict at all For wee name the gratious election not therfore a free bare councell of God that God will make vs saued freely and barely Est absolutum decretum â—à priori noâ— Ã posteriori without faith and repentance without Christ without word and Sacraments as the enemies of peace doe construe it But therefore name wee the gratious election a free bare councell of God whilest God did finde no caus in vs wherefore hee should elect vs before others and dignifie vs with faith in Christ Therefore Doctor Mylius hath no cause to triumph so much and say that wee renounce and cast off our former confession Wee doe not renounce and cast off our former Confession but wee onely guard off those lies which formerly were throwne vpon vs. And we hope that honest vnderstanding God fearing and peace-louing people shall haue no cause of complaint any further against vs for this point CHAP. IX That wee doe not beleeue and teach otherwise of holy Baptisme then as Doctor Luther of happy memory did teach thereof in the Smalkaldes Articles and in the Sermon of the blessed Sacrament the holy Baptisme an 1519 THe fourth and last point of doctrine which after the blessed death of Doctor Luther was brought into controuersie by vnpeaceable people to separate the Protestant Churches daily more and more is of the holy Baptisme Whereof our aduersaries say that the washing away of sinnes which is effected by the blood of Christ is not onely betokened and sealed to the faithfull and their children through the holy Baptisme as wee say but that there is a secret power adioyned or affixed to the water of Baptisme also whereby it washeth away sinnes and regenerateth a man As is to bee seene in the conference at Mompelgart Pag. 430. and 433. Now indeed there are some sayings to be found in the writings of Doctor Luther which beare a shew for such a construction But there withall there is such an exposition added thereunto which is flat opposite to the aboue mentioned idolatrous opinion As in the Smalkaldes Articles in the third part in the 5. article saith he Tom. 6. Ien. fol. 519. lib. conc fol. 149. B. The Baptisme is nothing else then Gods word in the water commanded by his institution Or as Saint Paul saith Lauacrum in verbo As also Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum fit sacramentum Note Originall of the Vbiquitists opinion of Baptisme when the word comes to the element then it becomes a Sacrament and therefore we doe not assent vnto Thomas Aquinus and to the preaching Friers who forget Gods word his institution and God hath founded a spirituall power in the water which washeth away sins by the water Also not to Scotus and the barefoote Monkes who doe teach that the Baptisme washeth away sinnes by the accompanying ef the Diuine will so that this purging is effected onely through the will of God nothing at all through the word or water Behold Reader there is the opinion of the Vbiquitists expresly disclaimed about the secret power which should be hidden in the water of Baptisme and testified that such an opinion was sprung from the Monkes which Doctor Luther will not ratifie What then is the true vnderstanding about Baptisme that declareth Doctor Luther very notably in the Sermon of the blessed Sacrament of holy Baptisme de Anno 1519. Tom. 1. Ien. fol. 183. c. where amongst other words he saith What Baptisme is Baptisme is an outward token or watchword which maketh a separation betwixt vs and all other Heathen men whereby we may be knowne to be people belonging to our captaine Christ vnder which standard that is the holy Crosse we fight resolutely against sinne Three things to be considered in Baptisme 1. The token Therefore we must haue respect vnto three things the token the signification and faith The token consisteth therein that the person bee put into the water in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but hee is not suffered
in the Churches of God that one should say the other holdes truth to please him though in his heart he thinke the contrary For God hath flatly forbidden and said Esa 5.20 Woe vnto them which put darkenesse for light and light for darkenesse But this is the way to hold peace and vnity in the Churches of God that one beare with the infirmities and errours of another which ouerthrow not the foundation of saluation and condemne them not for them And this haue wee hitherto done to the vttermost and will doe it hereafter it pleasing God the Lord and as well beare with Doctor Luther himselfe as also with his followers and not condemne them being that otherwise they make a good confession of the foundation of faith Onely we desire as requisite that they also may beare with vs where they vnderstand that wee faile and not presently giue vs to the diuell as their custome is It is well knowne ouer Christendome that wee haue nothing from the world but despite and shame crosse and persecution because we agree not with Doctor Luther in all things about the holy Supper And therfore euery vnderstanding man can easily iudge that there is an higher force then any thing in this world that must occasion it For we are not of such a commixture that we should rather desire despite and shame crosse and persecution in this life rather then honour peace and rest amongst men Therefore it is our entreaty that no man will ouershoot himselfe in condemning vs because that we are gone aside from Doctor Luther in some measure in the point of the holy Supper But godly Christians may bee pleased to consider the motiues mouing vs so to doe and in such consideration not be led away in respect of Doctor Luthers credit He was a notable man and highly indued But it is no new thing with God the Lord to reueale something to a simple vnlettered man which hee would neuer make knowne to the greatest Doctors of all And God will so haue it that wee shall acknowledge such his counsels and shall yeeld him obedience therein as it is written Quench not the spirit despise not prophesying 1. Thes 5.19.20 Also If any thing bee reuealed to another that fitteth by let the first hold his peace 1. Cor. 14.30 These are the motiues beloued Reader which moue force and driue vs to depart from Doctor Luthers opinion in this that the body of Christ should be really in the bread of the Supper hidden c. because wee see and wee are perswaded in our consciences that such an opinion hath not onely no ground in Gods word but indeed is cleane against the same and hath no testimony from the old Apostolicall Churches but was first hatched in the blindest times of Popery and serues to no other end then to vnderprop the Popedome and to darken the Gospell of Iesus Christ The aforesaid opinion of Doctor Luther hath no warrant in the word of God The first cause wherefore wee cannot receiue Doctor Luthers opinion whilest plainely to say it hath no warrant in Gods word which is from hence manifest and cleere For whatsoeuer shall haue warrant from thence that must be either expresly written therein or it must be such as can well be drawne from thence by necessary consequence Now stands Doctor Luthers opinion that the body of Christ should be in the bread not expresly written in Gods word For Christ saith not that his body is in the bread but that the bread is his body as plainely appeares by the text And hee tooke the bread and thanked and brake it and said This is my body But not therein is my body And also such a construction followes not out of the word of God Christ indeed shewed forth bread and said This is my body But it followes not of necessity that he meant it so as if he would haue said Therein is my body For this maner of reasoning when one saith This is this or that hath nor alwaies such a meaning as if one said Therein is this or that But this manner of reasoning when one faith This is this or that hath often this meaning as if one would say this betokeneth this or that or which is to one effect as Doctor Luther himselfe confesseth Tom. 3. fol. 343. B. This is a token and signe of this or that For example Gr. 26. where Ioseph saith to Pharaoh Seuen kine are seuen yeeres that can no otherwise be vnderstood then as if he had said Seuen kine betoken seuen yeeres Euen in like manner when Christ said to his Disciples Mat. 13.38 Luk. 8.11 The ground is the world the seede is the word of God c. That can be no otherwise vnderstood then as if he had said The ground betokeneth the world the seed betokeneth the word of God The very like where Paul speaks of the Rocke 1. Cor. 10.1.4 Gal. 4.24 which yeelded forth water for the children of Israel in the wildernesse The Rocke was Christ Also of Hagar and Sarah These are the two Testaments These speeches can no otherwise be vnderstood then as if hee had said The Rocke betokened Christ Also Hagar and Sarah betoken the old and the new Testaments And such examples are not onely found in those places where dreames and parables or visions are spoke of as some are ready to alleage but such examples are also found in the institution of the Sacraments As in the institution of Circumcision God saith This is my couenant Gen. 17.10 where he meant this shall be a token of my couenant as hee presently after cleared vers 11. And as the Apostle Paul saith thereof Rom 4.11 where hee saith that Abraham receiued the signe of Circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith The like saith God in the instituting of the Passeouer Exod. 12.11 It is the Lords Passeouer where he meant It shall be a token and remembrance or a signe of the Lords passing by your houses when he slue the first borne in Egypt as hee himselfe also presently declareth Exod. 12.13.14.27 Exod. 13.9 Whilest now this construction when as one saith This is this or that can also be vnderstood as if one said This betokeneth this or that and such a construction is not against the word of God euen when the Sacraments are spoke of it followes that one cannot so conclude as Doctor Luther concludes Christ spake of the bread This is my body that therefore he meant Therein is my body That followes not as is before said For hee could also haue well spoken That betokeneth my body or which is all one That is a token or signe of my body Yea it is easilier to to be beleeued that he meant This betokeneth my body or this is a signe of my body then Therin is my body For this manner of speaking when one saith This is this or that in stead of therein is this or that is neuer any where vsuall but when vessels
a new creature and they alleage that the Caluinish spirit is a very spirit of sorrow which will not affoord a man any mirth As if that were a Christian mans ioy that he need not feare to sinne O blindnesse aboue al blindnesse And from whence proceedeth such a pernitious blindnesse verily from nothing else then that the poore people thinke that howsoeuer they liue when they can but receiue the Sacrament vpon their death beds then do they therein receiue Christ bodily Out of which they conclude that they receiue also the forgiuenes of sins and euerlasting life therewithall And what other concllusion can they make for the Apostle Paul saith himselfe Seeing he gaue vs his Sonne how should he not with him giue vs all things also Rom. 8.32.33 And so they depart with their pasport * Necessaries for their voyage verily verily like to like and to be feared many of them to that place where they will exclaime and cry against their soules-sorrowers euerlastingly that they haue not better instructed them in the way to euerlasting life Now the God-fearing Reader may consider whether these fiue causes which wee haue hitherto mentioned bee not weighty enough to hold vs from Doctor Luthers opinion The first cause were sufficient For whatsoeuer hath not his foundation in the word of God that shall no man endure to be forced vpon him as an artickle of faith as Doctor Luther right and truly vsed to sing and say And take thou heed of mans deuise Thereby consumes the Pearle of prise This learne I thee for the last Where now this is added to it that the aforenamed opinion is also flat against the word of God should wee then resist the word of God to procure the loue and fauour of men Also whereas wee see that such an opinion did not onely arise in the Popedome but is also at this houre the principal pillar of the Popedome and giues a forcible furtherance thereto the easilier to inthrall the whole Dutch Nation againe euen to day before to morrow with the Masse haue not wee then sufficient cause to loath it Lastly where wee see that in the Protestant Churches also the poore coÌ„mon people are detained by such an opinoÌ„i in as great blindnes and misunderstanding of Christianity as possibly might bee in Popery Should wee not mourne for this and should wee not endeauour our selues to the vttermost to preuent this abomination We trust in God that men of vnderstanding shal acknowledge that in this matter we hold the truth Onely this will yet be a stumbling blocke to many hindring them from entring into Christian brothership with vs for that they are informed that we not only in the point of the Supper but also in many other high and waighth points as namely Of the Person of Christ Also Of the foreknowledge or almighty prouidence of God ouer all creatures and of originall of sinne Also Of the euerlasting Election of God and of holy Baptisme doe beleeue and teach otherwise then Doctor Luther did beleeue and teach Wherefore it is of necessity that wee doe also shew our minds in these points as we will presently doe hereafter But we must prepare the Reader aforehand that he may know how the calumniation arose that it is said that our Religion is from the diuell and that Zwinglius so confessed himselfe that his Religion was reuealed vnto him in a dreame by a spirit of whom he knoweth not whether hee were white or blacke Now then the estate of the businesse was thus When Zwinglius was come so farre by diligent meditation in the holy Scriptures and especially by the 6. Chapter of Iohn as also through daily study in the writings of the ancient fathers that hee now doubted not any more of the true vnderstanding of the holy Supper according to the intent of Christ he declared first of all the fame in writings and Sermons to the Churches of God and after that hee entreated the Counsell of Zurick that hee might publikely vtter the same vnto the two hundred Which being done and audience affoorded him hee propounded that the worshipping of the Sacrament and the Masse ought to bee abolished and in stead thereof the holy Supper should be established and commanded agreeable to the institution of Christ in consideration that now blessed be God therefore it was apparant that the custome of the corporall presence of Christ vpon which the aforenamed abominations were founded was false For it was most cleere in the 6. Chapter of Iohn that Christ had himselfe cast away the carnall eating of his body as vnprofitable to saluation And also the articles of the Christian faith were vndoubtfull which say plainely that Christ is bodily ascended into heauen where hee shall remaine till he returne to iudge the quicke and the dead Wherfore cannot those words This is my body in any manner bee so vnderstood as if Christ would haue said This is really my body or therein is really my body But the words of Christ This is my body must so bee necessarily vnderstood as if he had said This betokeneth my body as it was vsuall in the Scripture to say This is this or that in the stead of this betokeneth this or that For example Luke 8. Christ saith The seed is the word of God Also Mat. 13 he saith The field is the world the weeds are the wicked the sower is the diuell In which sayings it is vncontroleable that this word Is is as much as betâ—keneth And therefore the exposition of the word of Christ that the word Is is as much as betokeneth is not disagreeable to the vse of the holy Scripture This was the drift of the speeches of Zwinglius which speech indeed was well acceped of the greatest number but yet not of them all but part of them gainsaid him But aboue all others there was a Clerke amongst the company Aâ—ter an albus fuerit that is whom hee was Tom. 2. fo 247. will not Zwinglius nominate hee opposed himselfe against him very hotely two daies together And amongst others hee cauelled against those examples which Zwinglius had alleaged to shew that the word Is is often taken in the Scripture for as much as betokeneth saying that those examples agreed not with the cause in controuersie For they spake of parables But in this was it not spoken of parables but of the Sacrament And howsoeuer that Zwinglius gaue him presently such an answere wherewith all men of vnderstanding were well satisfied as namely that these speeches The seed is the word of God the field is the world were not parables but expositions of the before going Parables and if they were indeed Parables yet did they not contradict his purpose For hee would onely thereby make plaine that it was not vnusuall in the Scripture that the word Is was taken for betokeneth But that in like manner also it must bee so that did not hee conclude from this example but from the grounds
zeale of truth and peace set forth their Faithfull Admonition wherein they cleared their doctrineâ— from many slanderous imputations â—â—d ofterâ—d the hand of fellowship and brotherhood to then â—ouersaries notwithstandiag their disagreement in some points and laboured also to winne them to peace by all louing and kind protestations yet diuers of a more turbulent nature amongst them haue not spared to exagitate that booke and accuse the writers thereof of fraudulent dealing both in deliuering some and concealing other of their doctrines and in a word to condemne them more then euer they did before for which cause those godly men of the Prince Electors Church were constrained to write this second booke called A full Declaration of their faith and ceremonies that they might stop the mouthes of their malicious aduersaries and shew to the world that they hold no such damnable errours as they impute vnto them My purpose is not commend this small vollume vnto thee for it will commend it selfe if thou please to peruse it with an indifferent eie my intent is onely to shew thee how vsefull it may be to the Church of God The ends of the first writing of it were these first that the world might know what they hold concerning the matter of religion and how sound their faith is in all fundamentall points thereof Secondly that the mouthes of their aduersaries the rigid Lutherans might be stopped who cease not maliciously to lay vnto their charges strange and blasphemous doctrines which they neuer thought nor taught And thirdly that all men might perceiue how those that falsely call themselues Luthers disciples doe swarue more from Luthers opinion then these doe except in one thing onelie which is the doctrine of the sacrament for albeit Luther spake many things in the beat of contention which might seeme to afford some ground to their opinions yet when that heate was cooled and his speeches proceeded from better aduisement hee is so farre from patronizing such paradoxes that none is more contrary vnto them then himselfe is these were ends of the first writing this booke And as for the translating it wanteth not lawful and commendable vses for first we may here see what cause we haue to blesse God for the religeous care of our dread soueraigne in matching his only daughter a princesse peerelesse with a Prince of that soundnesse in religion as the Prince Elector is thereby discouering his singular loue to the truth and his vpright heart to God when as neither masses of treasure nor height of honour did so much preponder at in his royall heart as did true religion and the aduancement of the Gospel and the glory of God What is to marry in the Lord if this be not and what can be a truer token of a religious heart then this is policie councelleth to strengthen states and kingdomes by conioyning them together by marriages And in this respect not only religion is often not regarded but euen natures law contemned as experience sheweth in many places of Christendome and especially in the house of Austria But our religeous Soueraigne esteeming it no policie but vanitie which is not grounded vpon the feare of God the roote of true wisdome hath preferred true religion aboue all and laboured to strengthen himselfe rather in the Lord then in the world Albeit there be neuer the lesse no disparagement in that happie match either in honour he being descended from Kings and Emperours and the principall Elector Emperiall Or in wealth and power his dominion being both great and large able to answere his stoutest enemie in the face if need should require or in gifts of nature of which this whole land and especially Cambridge graced by his highnesse presence are eye and eare and heart witnesses notwithstanding religion was his Maiesties chiefe motiue and so being it giueth vs all his subiects that feare God cause both to praise God for his Maiesties happy raign ouer vs and to lay downe our liues and goods at his feet to giue him contentment and to pray to God with earnest deuotion for the continuing of his life and raigne As also to hope that as his Maiesty hath begun this first happy mariage of his royall issue in the Lord so hee will not swarue from the said rule in the second of him who is the breath of our nostrels and the only radiant starre of our horrison Secondly this Treatise may serue to aduertise vs that we are not alone in the profession of our faith nor doe separate our selues from other reformed Churches but ioyne the hands of fellowship and friendship with the Churches of Germany yea of France the Low-Countries Denmark and all other reformed Churches of the world which howsoeuer they differ from vs in some ceremonies yet in substance of faith we runne all one way and mind one thing And touching Ceremonies being nothing but externall accidents and ornaments of religion that they are not so obstinately maintained by any of vs as if the life of religion should consist therein or that we are not ready to alter and change the fashion of them if necessitie either in respect of charitie or scandall should so require And as for the difference betwixt the Lutherans and Caluinists that they are not so great nor so many as our aduersaries would make them and as the world take them to bee excepting onely a few strange positions broched defended by some of a more rough and bitter spirit of that sect who as they swarne from the standert of their Captaine Luther so are condemned of their owne pewfellowes to whom God hath vouchsafed a more mild and peaceable heart This is plainely discouered in this booke and not onely this but also with what spirit of meekenesse these good men the Authors of this booke are inspired who being reuiled scorned and contumeliously railed vpon by those rough and rigid false disciples of Luther reuiled not againe but after the example of Christ referre the righting of their wrongs to him that is the rightfull Iudge of heauen and earth and by all gentle and louing perswasions labour to winne them to the truth Lastly it may stand vp as a bulwarke against the malicious slanders of our rancored aduersaries the Iesuites and other of the Romish crew and this as in many pointes so especially in these two that the Protestant Church for want of a vissible Iudge indued with infallibillety of iudgement and impossibilitie of erring is rent and torne in peeces into so many sectes as there are particular Churches and almost persons And that we if not professedly yet by consequents hold this damnable doctrine that God is the author of sinne both which slanders are so clearely dispelled in this tract that none can choose but subscribe to the same who is not either mufled with ignorance or blinded with mallice For touching the first here they may see how though we be disioyned by distance of peace yet we accord together in the vnitie of
Christ in the holy Supper That wee teach that hee that is elected to euerlasting life must be saued be he neuer so wicked and hee that is ordained to euerlasting death he must be damned liue he so holily as he can possibly Such and many more the like blasphemies against God they doe accuse vs of that wee both beleeue and teach But we can auouch it before God that we tremble from our hearts to think vpon the very naming of such blasphemies against God if we were to tax others for them how farre is it then from vs that we our selues should beleeue and teach such Also those our defamers are neuer able to produce any sound proofe against vs that wee did euer beleeue or teach any such things Aâ— they themselues now lay open Doctor Myllius in the brothership of the Lutheran Euangelist Churches Thess 163. and acknowledge in their last writings that wee neuer approued any such detestable opinions And yet cease they not to throw the scandall vpon vs and will excuse the same with this that it is no new thing to lay vpon heretickes the euill consequents which follow their doctrines as their owne errours though they do not allow the same But be it new or old wee giue all honest men leaue to iudge whether it be right or not The Heathen had formerly a â—â—ouerbe Inter bonos bene agier oportet that is honest meâ— should deale honestly with each other Also Quisque debet esse interpres suorum verborum that is euery man should bee the interpreter of his owne words In which manner also saith Syrach Chap. 19.16 17. A man letteth words fall sometimes which bee meaneth not so for who is it that failes not sometimes with his tongue speake to thy neighbour thereof before thou threaten him c. That hath euer been the iudgement of the ancient as well among the Heathens as people of God that wee should catch no man in his words but giue euery man leaue to be his owne expositor how he vnderstands the same What in the end will come heereof when the one shall so deale with the other and deceiueably lay imputations of errour on the other which neuer came in his mind Surely then shall men by such courses not onely make heretickes of Zwinglius Caluin Beza Martyr c. And not onely of Luther Melancton Brentius c. but also of the Prophets and Apostles themselues The Euangelist Marke writeth chapter 6.5 that Christ could doe no great workes in his father-land If a wicked man had to deale with these words might he not seeme to haue shew for this conclusion that the Euangelist Marke had denied Christs omnipotency Moses saith God hardened Pharaohs heart Exod. 11.10 Paul goes yet further 〈…〉 18. and saith Hee hardeneth whom hee will When a wicked man dealeth therewith could not hee with great shew make this conclusion and say Moses and Paul make God the author of sinne And did not Paul complaine thereof many hundred yeeres agoe that men would euen make such conclusions out of his doctrine against it Or do not the defamers know that that wretched fellow Doctor Pistorius now at this present concludes against blessed Doctor Luther Hee writes Doctor Luther was a Tritheit who said there are three Gods Also he was a Sabellian who said there was but one person of the Godhead Also he was an Arian who denied the euerlasting Godhead of Christ Also that he was an Eutichian who mingled the two natures of Christ in one Also a Nestorian who separated the two natures in Christ Also a Valentinian who were so madde headed as to say that the humane nature of Christ descended from heauen Also a Marcionite who blasphemed that Christ was not crucified and died in very deed but onely in shew Such and many more the like detestable heresies that wretched fellow Pistorius construeth vpon blessed Doctor Luther And to proue the same against him hee cites his owne words which make a great shew to that end What will our defamers say vnto it they can say no otherwise in truth then that Doctor Luther was not honestly dealt withall to construe his words so and to draw such conclusions from them as neuer came into his minde in all his life Euen the very same answere shall they receiue from vs also who forge such falshoods things else not heard of as are aboue specified and the like things vpon vs. Which yet we repeate not for their sakes for to them is all singing and saying lost But what we say that speake wee for those honest mens sakes who would gladly vnderstand how the estate in religion standeth with vs and whom it also concerneth as much as vs that they be throughly informed therein They may now know and may well and boldly put this trust in vs for wee feare God and desire not to deceiue any man that all the odious and blasphemous things whereof wee are calumniated heere and there by contentious spirits are no other things but euen meere flat lies And they need not bee troubled though they alleage that there stand our owne plaine words Is it not true that our owne plaine words stand there That God is 〈◊〉 mighty that God is the author of sinne c. But there stand onely such words in our writings out of the which these and the like blasphemies may bee wrested if men will deale dishonestly with vs or not respect or take to heart what we say as wee haue often declared In which kind of handling way be drawn euen such and the like odious blasphemies against God with as great shew of reason as is before specified and that out of the word of God it selfe We speake not this to that intent as if wee esteemed our writings equivalent to the word of God We know full well that we are men who can erre and faile But this onely is that we say Can they make an euill construction of Gods word wherein yet there is no fault when they will be wicked and conclude many euill things from thence with great shew of reason how much more may our words be construed euill and with great shew many great and fearefull errours be drawne from thence which are not alwaies voide of failings of themselues Wherfore good people are not to respect such their conclusions Yea also when they shall lay our owne words in our owne bookes before their faces yet are they not presently to construe that this or that is our opinion as the words at first shew seeme to beare but they are to looke both before and behinde what is added and what wee declare either there or in other our writings of the like matter Note Neither side is to blame other for priuate writings Especially good vnderstanding people may haue good respect how wee haue expounded our meanings in our Catechisme and other manifest and open writings of many godly learned men together aduised vpon and put forth vnder the
therefore yeelds the Scripture for such personall vnions sake also to the Deity a Namely in concreto as he presently shewes himselfe all that belongeth to the humanity and contrariwise b Note The fellowship of the propertieâ— p sse to and againe namely as well from the manhood to the Godhead as from the godly to the humane nature but not onely from the godly to the humane nature as at present the Vbiquitists do teach And is in truth so also For this must thou confesse the person meaning Christ suffereth dieth Now the person is true God Therefore it is truly spoken Gods Sonne suffered For although indeed that one part that I may so speake as the Diuine suffereth not yet suffereth the person which is God in the other part as in the Deity Euen as is vsually spoken the Kings Sonne is wounded when onely his leg is wounded Salomon is white when yet his soule onely is white Absolon is faire when yet his body is onely faire Peter is bald when yet his head onely is bald For whilest body and soule is one person so long the whole person is rightly and well applied in all whatsoeuer betideth the body and soule yea the smallest member thereof This is the manner of reasoning in the whole world not in Gods word alone And indeed it is the very truth Heere Doctor Luther vnderstood not Zwinglius right but that concernes vs not at all at this day Note Doctor Luther acknowledgeth that in this speech Christ is dead there is a trope Onely be will not haue it that the same trope shall be called an Alloeosis but it shall be called a Synecdoche which is no thing else then a meere word-strife For in very truth the Sonne of God was crucified for vs that is the person which is God For it it I say to wit the person was crucified according to the manhood So shal we appropriate according to the whole person what betideth to the other part of the person for this cause that both is one person So also doe the old fathers speake and all new Diuines and all languages and the whole Scripture But the cursed Alloeosis turnes this about and changeth and appropriateth to the parts which in the Scripture is applied to the whole person making Tropes of his owne to peruert the Scripture and to separate the person c. And presently after Whilest hee Tropes so gladly why remaines he not by the old Trope which the Scripture and all diuines hitherto haue vsed heerein namely Synecdoche as Christ is dead according to the manhood c. Also they exclaime on vs that wee mixe the two natures in one essence That is not true Wee doe not say that the Godhead is the humanity or the diuine nature is the humane nature which were to mingle the natures into one essence * Note But wee mingle the two differing natures in one onely person and say God is man and man is God But wee exclaime againe on them that they separate the person of Christ as if it were two persons For if the alloeosis shall hold as Zwinglius handles it then must Christ bee two persons one diuine and one humane a That was neuer the opinion of Zwinglius whilest he drawes the speech of the sufferings of Christ onely vpon the humane nature b That did not Zwinglius doe with any other meaning then as a little before Doctor Luther had also done and turneth all things from the Deitie c Not otherwise then as Doctor Luther also in the af regoâ—ng words For if the workes shall be seauered and parted then must also the person bee separated whilest that all workes or sufferings are not appropriated to the natures but to the persons For it is the person that doth all and suffers all one after this nature the other after that nature d That is the opinion of Zwinglius as all the learned vnderstand it well Therefore doe we e We also Tom 7 fol. 84. B. and 85. A. hold our Lord Christ so for God and man in one person non confundendo naturas nec diuidendo personam that wee mingle not the natures nor separate the person The third place where Doctor Luther handled the doctrine de communicatione Idiomatum or of the communion of the properties is in the exposition of the 14 Chap. of Iohn written Anno 1538. where amongst others he saith thus Christ speaketh both the word of God and man out of which is powerfully declared that he is both true man and also true God Also if a man speake of Christ The properties of both natures shall be ascribed to the person of Christ hee must teach significantly that he is one onely person and yet two seuerall natures namely godly and humane Also that the person in Christ must remaine vnseparated so that on both sides the properties of the humane and Diuine nature are to bee ascribed to the whole person and bee said of him the man Christ borne of the Virgin Mary is Almighty and doth all that we entreat of him Christ is Almighty according to the godly and not according to the humane nature but not in respect of the manhood but because of the Diuine nature not for that he was borne of his mother but because hee is the Son of God Euen so also on the contrary Christ Gods Sonne entreates the Father not according to the Diuine nature or essence it so being that he is alike almighty with the Father but therefore for that he is true man and the Sonne of Mary The natures shal be difference made of and yet the person be vnseparated So that the words be so drawne together and made to agree according to the vnion of the person that euermore the natures be made differing and yet the person remaine vnseparated c. Of the person of Christ may be said the properties of both natures Note Yet shall he well seene vnto what is to be vnderstood after the humane or what after the Diuine Whilest then God and man is beleeued to be one person we ought also so to speake of him as both natures require that some sayings concerne the manhood but some the Godhead that it bee marked what hee speaketh after the humane nature and also what according to the Diuine For if it bee not respected and truly made difference of then must needs follow so manie heresies as haue been in former times whereas some did say he was not true God some others he was not true man For they could not so resolue with themselues that they should distinctly separate the twofold speech according to the two natures For oftentimes hee spake in such a manner as the simplest man vpon earth should hardly doe As where hee saith I am come not to be serued but to serue there likeneth he himselfe wholly to a seruant vnder all men for all that hee is true God and
of But that God is borne twice or thrice that will not I teach And this troubleth his mind as the Tripartite story testifieth how that God dying haue no agreement together For he thinkes it a fearefull thing to be heard that God should die Christ according to the Godhead immortall And this was his opinion that Christ was immortall according to the Godhead yet had he not so much vnderstanding to vtter the same It befell so also that the other Bishops were also stout not considering how the wound might be healed but onely how it might be rent larger howbeit to speake effectually out of the opinion of Nestorius it must follow that Christ is a meere man and two persons and yet indeed it was not his meaning For the blockish vnlearned man did not see that hee propounded vnpossible things that he together earnestly held Christ to bee God and man in one person The properties of the natures shall be giuen to the person of Christ and yet would not yeeld the Idiomata of the natures to the same person of Christ. The first will hee hold for the truth but yet it shall not bee true what followes out of the first Whereby he manifesteth that he vnderstands not himselfe what he meant Note For we Christians must appropriate the Idiomata of the two natures in Christ to the persons alike and all As Christ is God and man in one person therefore whatsoeuer is spoke of him as man that must also be spoken of God namely Christ is dead and Christ is God therefore is God dead not the separated God but the God which is vnited to mankinde For of the separated God is both false namely that Christ is God and God is dead both I say is false for then is not God man But Nestorius admires at it that God dieth he should consider that it is as wonderfull that God became man for therewith was the vndying God the same who must die suffer As God was man euen so died he also If Christ had not true humane Idiomata then were hee an illusion and haue all humane Idiomata Else what were the same man with whom God vnited himselfe personally if he should not haue humane Idiomata It must be an illusion as the Manichies had afore taught Againe what is spoken of God must also bee ascribed to the manhood namely God created the world and is almighty the man Christ is God Therefore hath the man Christ created the world and is almighty the cause is for God and man make one person therfore the person beareth the Idiomata of both natures Oh Lord God about such a comfortabl article About the person of Christ ought not to be contended ought we alwaies to reioyce and not contend vndoubted in the true faith and sing praise and thanke God the father for such vnspeakeable mercy that he hath suffered his beloued Sonne to be man and brother with vs alike Subtill Satan stirs vp discomforts by stout ambitious misdoubting people that this louely and happy comfort might be hindred from vs and spoiled in vs. This is to be lamented of before the Lord. For wee Christians must be assured hereof that if God be not also in the scale Wherefore it must be said God is dead for vs. and make the waight then sinke we to the earth with our dish This vnderstand I thus if it shall not be said God is dead for vs but onely a man then are we vtterly lost But when the death of God and God died lieth in the scale then sinkes he downe and we mount vp How it is to be vnderstood that God did die as a light empty dish But he can well mount aloft also or spring out of his scale nay he could not sit in the scale except he were a man like vnto vs that it might be said God died Gods wounds Gods blood Gods death for God in his nature cannot die But now that God and man is vnited into one person it is truly said Gods death when that man dieth who is one thing or one person with God Also this Councell condemned much too little about Nestorius For it handled onely that only Idioma that God was borne of Mary From whence the histories mention that in this Councell was decreed against Nestorius Mary should be called Theotocos that is the mother of God whereas Nestorius denieth all Idiomata of the humane nature of God in Christ as dying Crosse suffering and all whatsoeuer agreeth not with the Godhead Therefore they should not onely haue decreed that Mary was Theotocos but also that Pilate and the Iewes were the crucifiers and murtherers of God and the like But whereas they condemned him afterwards through all the Idiomata with these words Nestorius denies that Christ is God and one person is indeed in â—ffectu or by consequence true but too roughly and too strangely spoken whilest Nestorius could not otherwise thinke hereof that there was manifest wrong and violence done vnto him For hee neuer taught such words but alwaies spake against it that Christ was true God and not two persons vpon which he dâ—â—uâ— the Arians very much For such bloâ—kish â—olke caâ—â—â— syllogiâ—e or make consequents namely that that sh ll be sâ—id to denie the substance or nature which denies the Idiomata or properties of the nature Note He that denies the properties he denies the natures but so should the iudgement goeâ— howbeit Nestorius confesseth that Christ true God and man is one person but wâ—â—lest he giues not the Idiomata of the humane nature to the sâ—me â—â—dly person of Christ it is false and is much as â—f he did deny the nature it selfe And they should not onely haue determined vpon that one Idioma of the mother Mary Whereby the things handled in this Councell might better haue been explained Which as I esteeme very few haue hitherto well vnderstood Out of Platina Note Doct. Luther accuse h Zwinglius for a Nestorian not therefore that hee should haue denied the sâ—eciall Communion of the properties which passe onely from the Deity vpon the humanity but thâ—refore because he denied the aboue wâ—â—tten common fellowshiâ— of the properties wh ch passe as wâ—ll from thâ— humane nature vpon the Diuine as from the Diuine vpon the humane nature In which in truth he do h Zwinglius wâ—ong But it concerneth not vs in this place For we seeke nothing else as present but onely to lay open Doctor 〈◊〉 opinion truly of the Communion of the properties and the like to him it is vnpossible to be vnderstood For I haue had also Nestorians before me who haue contended very stifly that the Godhead of Christ could not suffer and for testimony also Zwinglius writ against mee ouer these words Verbum caro factum est and would not allow barely that verbum should bee called factum but would haue it Verbum caro facta est For cause God could not be made But
will of Gods Maiesty shall not be enquired into but onely shunne selfe-conceited reason which alwaies forsaketh Christ faith loue and the Crosse and wil mount aboue the clouds before her feathers be growne We are not here to be troubled in searching into the high great secrets of Gods Maiesty which dwelleth in right that none can attaine vnto as Paul saith 1. Tim. 6. We must keepe our selues close to God wherein he accepteth of vs who became man euen in Iesus Christ the crucified as Paul saith in whom is hidden the fulnesse of the wisedome of God For in him haue we richly both what is knowne vnto vs and that which wee ought not to know fol 510. A Also But reason will heere say euen like the custome of the mockers being both nose wise and selfe minded Yea indeed this is a fine found thing that when as you are forced with strong grounds and arguments that then you flie to the will of Gods Maiesty there must the counterpartie hold his peace euen as the Astrologie with their Epicyclis turne all questions from the course of the heauens To which this my answere It is not a thing found by mee whereas I say the will of God is not to bee searched into but it is founded in the word of God and there commanded For so saith Paul to the Romans chap. 9. Thou wilt say then vnto me why doth he yet complain for who hath resisted his will But O man who art thou which pleadest against God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus hath not the potter power of the clay to make of the same lumpe c. And Esay spake thereof before Paul in his 58. Chapter They seeke me daily and will know my waies euen as a nation that did righteously and had not forsaken the statutes of their God they aske of me the ordinances of iustice and will draw neare vnto God As I take it these words giue sufficient testimony that man shall not search into the will of the Maiesty And it so being that this case of freewill and euerlasting Predestination is of such speciall consequence where the corrupt reason and fleshly man are accustomed to search after the will of the Maiesty it is therefore of speciall necessity that wee say vnto them that they herein keepe silence and yeeld the honour that belongeth to the Diuine will and Maiesty In other matters which are handled wherein cause may be giuen and cause must be taken vpon command therein are not men so diligent in searching But and if yet there bee some who will be searching after the will and will not giue regard to our admonition those doe we let passe euermore to hold combate with God as the giants doe and they shall see the profit or praise they shall purchase by it fol. 510. B. The Reader may may finde many more testimonies of Doctor Mart. Luther in the booke which is intituled Constant doctrine of D. Mart. Luther of the first mouing causes of faith printed at Amberg Anno 1598. in 410. Behold Reader this is the doctrine of Doctor Luther of the cause of our election to euerlasting life Whether now we or Doctor Muller and Doct. Hunnius are the better Lutherans in this point wee yeeld to the censure of all honest Lutherans It is true indeed that there be some who let not to blase that Doctor Luther did at last renounce and alter the aforesaid doctrine But the Concordien booke saith no thereunto and saith Vpon this we will set downe one saying where Doctor Luther pronounceth afterwards with a Protestation to remaine by the same euen to the day of his death expressing his mind in the great confession of the holy Supper where he saith thus Herewithall doe I renounce and condemne all foule errours and doctrines which aduance the free will of man as being a meere opposite to the helpe and grace of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. For whilest that without Christ death and sinne is our Lord and the diuell our God and Prince there can bee no power nor strength no wit nor vnderstanding whereby wee can frame or further our selues to righteousnesse and life but we must remaine blind and fettered slaues of sinne and Satan doing and intending whatsoeuer shall be pleasing to him and so shall be contrary to God and his Commandements In these words saith the Concordien booke Doctor Luther of happie and blessed memory yeelds our free will no power at all whereby to further it selfe vnto righteousnesse or to striue towards the same but saith that mākind is blinded and captiued to doe onely what shall bee the will of the diuell and shall be contrary vnto God Therefore here is no partaking in workes by our wils in the conuersion of mankind And a man must be drawne and borne againe of God else is there not a thought in our hearts which is able to moue it selfe towards the Gospell whereby to imbrace it of it owne accord As also Doct. Note Doctor Luthers booke de seruo arbitrio is cannonised in the Concordium booke Luther writ of this matter against Erasmus in the booke de seruo arbitrio that is of the captiued will of man and maintained the same throughly and afterwards repeated and expounded it in the notable exposition of the first booke of Moses vpon the 26. Chapter Note He did not retract it but repeated and expounded it as in like manner in the same place also where other by-matters are disputed of by Erasmus as de absoluta necessitate c. Hee sheweth how he would haue the same taken and vnderstood against all misconstructions and peruertings a As we vse also to doe To which we also now refer our selues b We also and also direct others thereunto Therefore it is false doctrine when it is propounded that the vnregenerate man hath yet so much power that he desires to entertaine the Gospell to comfort himselfe therewithall and that so the naturall mans will partaketh something in the conuersion for such an erronious opinion is flat against the Diuine Scriptures the Christian Auspurges Confession the Apologie of the Same the Smalkaldes articles the great and small Catechisme of Luther and other of that notable highly enlightened Diuines writings Thus farre the Concordien booke fol. 271. B. and 272. B. Some man might say then is the Concordien booke Caluinish also Answere Wee cannot find it any otherwise in this matter For euen as we say that God found no cause in vs wherefore he should chuse vs before others to euerlasting life euen so saith the Concordien booke also and saith the contrary doctrine is a terrible and blasphemous heresie fol. 251. B. And it notifieth also the right ground wherefore God saw and found no cause in vs why he should elect vs namely therefore Because saith it before such time as a man is enlightened changed new borne renewed and drawne by the holy Ghost hee