heresie in our age is to be attributed to him partly because by his doctrine he abolished that vvhich in this dreadful mysterie is principal that is to say the sacrifice and vvorship due to god performed therein vvhich is euer most necessary in euery religion and by vvanting vvhereof the prophetes Apostles and holy Doctors vse to describe and expresse a godles and irreligious a prophane Atheistical or Antichristian state of people partly because he protested that him self vvas maruelous desirous to haue also denied the real presence thereby the more to spite and greene the Pope if so be he could vvith any probabilitie ether haue framed the vvords of Christ spoken at his last supper to that part also of the Berengarian heresie or haue induced his ovvne conscience to thinke such a symbolical presence and real absence of Christs flesh from the sacrameÌ„t euer to haue bene entended by Christ vvhereof thus him self vvriteth in the 7. Tome of his vvorks as they are set out by Melancâ—hon in an epistle sent to certaine of his scholers Lutherus Ecclesiastes euangelista VVittembergensis Christianis Argentinae c. Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo c. Luther the preacher and Euangelist of VVittemberg to the Christians of Strasou g. Thus much I nether can nor wil denie that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeres ago could haue perswaded me that in the sacrament was nothing els but bread and wine without Christs real presence he truly had bound me vnto him and I wold haue accepted that as a very great benefite For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruelous paynes and streyned euery veyne of body and sowle to haue ridde and dispatched my self thereof because I saw ful wel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my self taken fast that there is no way to escape For the text of the gospel is to cleare forcible which can not easely be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by words gloses deuised by giddy braynes Thus Luther after he had by sundry vvritings and persvvasions vvhere he bare any svvay taken avvay the sacrifice shevving him selfs as forvvard to haue abolished in like maner the sacrament vvhich except it haue the true presence of Christ is no sacrament of his institution consequently no sacrament aâ—al saue that the vvords vvhereby Christ ordeyned the same stoode against him so strong and pregnant that he could deuise no shift to auoyd them VVhich conclusion and confession of Luther albeit to mer of reason conscience it should more haue confirmed established the truth of Christs real presence in the sacrament seing Christs vvords vvere so strong and mightie that they compelled enforced as it vvere against his vvil this mortal enemy of Christs church to graunt that vvhich othervvise he most gladly vvold haue denyed yet in that lose and dissolute time vvhen euerie man by Luthers example tooke libertie to deuise vpon the scripture as Luther had done these very vvords of Luther gaue great occasion to his felovves and compartners to inuent some farther sovvler shiftes to put that in practise vvhich Luther vvold ful fayne but hauing as then some remorse of conscience regard to Christs vvords durst not ¶ For vvhich cause Carolostadius a companion then of Luther Archdeacon of VVittemberg of vvhich citie Luther calleth him self preacher Euangelist folovving Luthers example of framing the sense of scripture after his ovvne priuate spirite and considering better Luthers ground rule of interpretation vvhich vvas so to interprete as he might most endamage the Papacie church Catholike vvent a litle farther and deuised a vvay hovv to defeate those vvords vttered by our Sauiour vvhich so hampered entangled Luther that he could no vvay rid him self from the power manifest clearnes of them His way vvas not to expound them of the sacrament vvhich Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of his visible person sitting at the table as though Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must dye for yow al this my body is it which must suffer on the crosse for your redemption And this iuterpretation Carolostadius instified by diuers reasons which Zuinglius reherseth whereof these be the principal First for that the Prophetes foretolde that Christs body was that which was to be crucified so that looke hovv many testimonies and places may be gathered out of al scripture old and nevv to proue Christs passion so many could Carolostadius heape to approue this his exposition A second vvas that Christ here vsed a sodayne Apostrophe and turning away of the word This from the bread to his body as he did likewise in the words Thou art Peter a rocke vpon this rocke I wild buyld my church VVhere the first rocke after the Protestants iudgement is spoken of Peter the second is sodainly turned avvay from Peter to Christs person His third reason more probable then al the other vvas for that whereas Christ toke bread in to his hands and before had spoken of the bread in the masculin gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sodenly he changeth it in to the neuter gendre hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVhich reason as it somevvhat maketh for Carolostadiê° bad conceyte so it quit ouerthrovveth the common and general exposition of al other Sacramentaries vvho altogether take this for their sure ground that Christ said This bread is my body VVhich as it is most false so Carolostadius their great father and patriarch refelleth it by Christs manifest vvords vvhich possibly can not admit such construction as Carolostadius truly teacheth them vvhereof more shal be spokeÌ„ hereafter For the present it may suffise vs that vve knovv Carolostadius sentence and peruersion of Christs vvords vvhich consisted in this that he chaunged and altered the first syllable hoc This in to Hic here Hoc est corpus meum Here is my body or as Sleidan the Protestant Historiographer reporteth the matter his interpretation vvas Hic sedet corpus meum Here sitteth my body Certain bretherne saith Musculus meaning Carolosiadius vvith his sectaries refer the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This not to the bread but to the very body of Christ as though turning his finger to him self Christ had sayd This body which here yow see before yow shal be geuen for yow Before I proceed farther to shevv hovv this Berengarian infidelitie multiplied I thinke it conuenieÌ„t for that this man is the very roote founder of it in this our age to describe briefly out of autentical and assured vvitnesses such as the Protestants can no vvay refuse vvhat maner of man this Carolostadius vvas that as before I shevved al the patrones of this heresie from Berengarius to haue bene most vvicked men detestable heretiks so vve may note hovv this man perfectly resembleth those
then probable it is that Christ made correspondence therevnto as we find recorded by S. Paule albeit water be not mentioned in the text of the law in that cup of Moyses as nether it is mentioned in the text of the gospel in this cup of our Sauiour Concerning the geving of thankes this did Christ saith Musculus twiâ—e first at the bread then at the cup. VVhich thing albeit he did commonly yet in this present case doutles he did it with singular zeale according as S. Luke witnesseth ca. 22. VVith great desire haue I desired to eate this Pasch with yow before I suffer That which Musculus mentioneth of thankes-geving to god omitteth al other blessing of the bread or vvine vve must a litle supplie out of other men of as good credit and authoritie as Musculus For that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed and sanctified the elements of bread and vvine it is plaine by the storie of the gospel For so signifieth the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by S. Matthevv and the same by the Evangelist S. Luke and S. Paule is determined and referred directly to the bread and vvine VVhich is so cleare and manisâ—â— that Beza expounding that vvord in S. Paule The cup of blessing which we blesse though in other places he avoid such blessing as much as possibly he may yet here he confesseth it Puto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem hic declarare atque in insinitis locis veteris testamenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu consecrare sanctificate I thinke saith Beza that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as doth the like word in innumerable places of the old testiment to sanctifie or to consecrate This S. Paule meaneth by that greeke word VVhich thing besides those innumerable places of the old testament iustifying this interpretation he approveth by many of the nevv namely Matth. ca. 5. 44. ca. 25. 34. Luc. 9. 16. Matth. 26. 26. vvhere that vvord blessing is vsed in like construction signification importeth as much as sanctifiyng consecrating is referred to the bread vvhich Christ tooke in his haÌ„ds and vvhereof he made the Sacrament And our English Ievvel expounding these vvords of Christ Hoc facite do this saith that their sense and meaning is Take ye bread blesse it and not only thanke God breake it and geue it in my remembrance VVherevnto he addeth This is not a ceremonial accident but the very end purpose and substance of Christs institution VVith Beza and M. Ievvel herein agreeth Iohn Caluin and vvithal refelleth both Erasmus and al other vvho in this place expound blessing by thankes-geving and to blesse make nothing els but to geue thankes VVhich three so singular doctors especially armed with innumerable places of scripture both in the old testament nevv may suffice against Musculus M. B. also Against Musculus for that he finding the vvord to blesse to geue thankes vsed by the Evangelists in some places to one effect thereof concludeth â—ondly and directly against the scripture in other places innumerable that to blesse in this place of consecrating the sacrament is nothing els but to geue thankes to praise and glorifie god that Christ vsed no other blessing then geving thankes and that blessing he referred not to the bread but to his father Against M. B. for that albeit he confesse in word blessing to signifie sanctification and consecration of the elements and not only praysing of god or geving him thankes yet after his maner in the same place contradicting him self he telleth vs that to blesse and geue thankes haue al one signification and in a solemne marginal note adviseth his reader that the word blessing and thankes-geving are vsed indifferently and ech one is expressed by the other VVhich in this case and as he vttereth it is most false and vnpossible to be true For among the places quoted by Beza to note one example as here Christ blessed the bread so in S. Luke he blessed the fisnes aâ—b thereby multiplied and increased them to feed thousands And wil M. B. say that Christ there gaue thankes to the fishes and here to the bread that the words are indifferent and one expresseth the other But much more by argument he laboureth to disproue al blessing of the elements vvhich in vvords he approveth For thus he disputeth substantially from the verie definition of blessing God is said to blesse when he geveth good things to his creatures For gods blessing is ever effectual Man is said to blessâ— when he craues blessing at the hands of god to any man when he blesses in the name and at the commaund of god any person or people In ether of which significations we may not ascribe blessing to the bread or cup. For we vse nether to craue blessing to insensible elements nor vet to blesse them in the name of god and god vseth to geue good things to the sonnes of men and not to insensible creatures Thus he to proue that never god nor man blessed that is wrought any good effect or prayed for any good effect to insensible creatures and therefore nether did Christ By which argument the discret reader may see hovv far the Scottish ministerie is gone from al sense of Christianitie and Christian Theologie For they never vse to craue blessing to vnsensible creatures nor yet to â— lesse them in the name of god But the Apostolike church from the beginning by these examples of Christ ever vsed so to blesse in the name of god as in the Apostle most auncient fathers every where appeareth And God him self from the begining thus blessed insensible creatures and not only the sonnes of men but also the sonnes of beasts if so I may vse the vvord â—ovvles of the ayer fishes of the sea and al other living creatures as vve see in the first chapiter of Genesis which blessing of God brought some good to those creatures And as on the contrarie vvhen God cursed the serpent vvhen he cursed the earth vvhen Christ cursed the fruitles figuee this curse vvas an impayâ—ng of the condition of the setpent of the earth of the figtree so vvhen God by him selâ— or the ministerie of his servants blesseth his creatures this is a bettering of their condition And albeit it end or be referred to the benefite of man yet it is a true blessing and good vvrought also in the creatures And this is principaâ—ly so in theâ—e sacraments of the nevv Testament vvhere both that of baptisme and this of the Eucharist and al other haue special blessing and sanctification bestovved dy Christ to the commoditie and benefite of his church VVhich thing seeing M. B. vpon no other ground then his ovvne simple and sinful conceite and authoritie of the Scottish practise most ignorantly against al scripture denieth
by his father Iohn Calvin or his great grandfather Iohn VViclef For in S. Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian vvhich vvere 200. yeres before S. Ambrose S. Austin and S. Leo vve find in a number of places mentioned no lesse the sacrifice then the sacrament of the Eucharist as properly a sacrifice as a sacrament a sacrifice not metaphorical or general for al Christians to offer in faith and spirite but peculiarly and specially to be offered in the church by a certayne order of priests And vvhere M. B. found the sacrament called a banquet of loue or a publike action if ever he found it he might haue found it a hundred times more commonly called a sacrifice if his eyes or vvil had bene as indifferent to haue seene and marked the one as the other S. Ignatius scholer to the Apostles calleth our Eucharist or Sacrament a true sacrifice even the flesh of our Saviour S. Ireneus the new oblation or sacrifice of the new testament S. Cyprian a true perfite and ful sacrifice which Christ commaunded to be offered Dionysius Areopagita the healthful sacrifice offered by a priest according to Christs ordinance Tertullian the sacrifice which only men offer no wemen as also after Tertulli an Epiphaniê° teacheth more at large S. Hippolitê° martyr who lived in Tertullians time the pretious body blud of Christ which sacrifice bishops purely offered to God vvhich sacrifice should be taken away and suppressed by Antichrist S. Laurence that most glorious martyr the sacrifice which the blessed pope Sixtus was wont to offer S. Laurence serving him as his deacon Finally the most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice the sacrifice host which taketh away the sinnes of the world offered to god by priests who only and not deacons haue power to offer the same Now if from these vvho al lived before S. Ambrose S. Austin vve shold shew the like of the doctors writers of that age it were easie to fil a booke vvith most cleer testimonies proving this vndoubted veritie For euery vvhere in every famous Catholike vvriter this sacrifice is in vvord and deed with such evident pregnant circumstances described as no sophistrie and cavillation of out aduersaries no not of M. Ievv him self the veriest vvrangler of al can serue but they must needs acknovvledge that such vvas the faith of that pure primitiue church The general councel of Ephesus calleth it the holy lyfe-geving and vnbluddy sacrifice The great general councel of Chalcedon of 630. bisshops the vnbluddy host offered in the church the vnbluddy and dreadful sacrifice The first councel of Toledo the daylie sacrifice S. Hierom the daily sacrifice of Christs body which Priests haue power to offer Hieron Tom. 2. lib. 3. contra Pelagia pa. 305. lib. contra Luciferianoâ— pa. 136. Eusebius Caesariensis the ful most holy dreadful sacrifice the pure host sacrificed after a new fashion according to the order of the new testament Euseb lib. 1. demonstratio Evangel ca. 10. S. Chrysostom the cleansing sacrifice the same which Christ our high bisshop first offered Chrysostom ad Hebraeos ca. 10. Homil. 17. Theodoretus the immaculate lamb not such a one as the Iewes offered void of reason but that helthful lamb which taketh away the sinnes of the world Theod. questio 24. in Exod. in psal 97. S. Austin in a number of places The true only singular sacrifice of the new testament lib. 3. de baptismo contra Denatist cap vltimo De spiritu litera ca. 11. Contra Cresconium lib. 1. ca. 25. The sacrifice which Christ ordeyned of his owne body and blud according to the order of Melchisedech Tom. 8. in psal 33. pa. 157. A true sacrifice and cleane offered according to Melchisedechs order from the east to the west psal 39. pa. 238. psal 106. pa. 863. As true and real a sacrifice as any was in the old testameÌ„t Tom. 2. epist 49. quastiâ— 3. and vvhich hath succeded and vvas appointed by Christ in steed of those auncient legal and Iudaical sacrifices De Civitate dei lib. 6. cap. 20. lib. 16. ca. 22. Contra adversar legiâ— prophetarum ca. 20. S. Ambrose VVe priests offer sacrifice for the people VVe offer albeit weake in respect of our private life yet honorable in respect of our sacrifice because our sacrifice is the body of Christ him self Ambros psal 38. pa. 527. Of vvhich sacrifice S. Ambrose had so reverend a regard that he durst not offer it if Theodoâ—ius the Emperour being excommunicate vvere present lib. 5. epist 28. And so forth in every Doctor vvriter of that age VVith more rehearsal of vvhose sentences I vvil not trouble the reader the thing being knowen and manifest and confessed by our more learned and lesse impudent adversaries For thus much Calvin him self graunteth and vnto al these and such like authorities of the most auncient pure and primitiue church he maketh this rude blunt ansvvere VVhereas the Papists obiect that the anncient fathers according to the scriptures professe that in the church there is an vnbluddy sacrifice in the one part they erre in the other they lye For scriptures they haue none As for the authoritie of the fathers it skilleth not nether is it reason that we depart from gods eternal truth for their sake And therefore that vnbluddy sacrifice which men haue devised let them hardly reserue and take to them selues And in his Institutions he confesseth that the very maner of ministring the supper as it vvas vsed by the auncient fathers had nescio quam faciem renovatae immolationis I knowe not what forme and fashion of a sacrifice reiterated And els vvhere he saith he can not excuse the custome of the auncient primitive church for that in their very behaviour and church maner they expressed a certaine forme of sacrifice vsing almost the very same ceremonies which were vsed in the old testament VVherein al be it he go somvvhat to far yet this maketh a plaine demonstration that the auncient fathers never doubted of a true real sacrifice vvhich they vttered in most plaine significant termes vvhen they vvrote or preached and expressed by the very forme rite and maner of sacrificing when in the church they ministred it And thus much being true and for true confessed vve see the vanitie of M. B. his deduction that the sacrament vvas perverted to a sacrifice vvhen it began to be called masse vvhereas it vvas called vsed as a sacrifice both among the Greekes vvho vntil this day never called it masse and also among the Latins so long before the name of Masse came in vse in deed ever since Christ and his Apostles time as hath bene declared And therefore whereas M. B. maketh it idolatrie to vse the sacrameÌ„t as a sacrifice he thereby very heretically condemneth as idolatrous the first the most auncient and Apostolike
not possibly be ioyned any falsitie as is manifest no more then god can be false in his word or promise But that Luther Calvin Beza M. B. and every Protestant is elect hath remission of his sinnes is iustified this is not only false in the iudgement of every Catholike but also of the most learned Protestants Of every Catholike because he knoweth by gods word that out of the Catholike church ministerie of the same is no remission of sinnes as the forme of our Creed teacheth vs Calvin him self graunteth By the very order of the Apostolical Creed we learne faith Calvin that perpetual rentission of sinnes resteth in the Church because in the Creed so soone as the church is named by and by ensueth remissioÌ„ of sinnes And this benefit is so proper to the church that we can not otherwise enjoy it except we remaine in vnitie of the church out of whose lap no man may hope for remission of sinnes or salvation as witnesseth Esai 37. 32. Ioel. 2. 32. Exechâ—el 13. 9. Psalm 106. 4. VVhereas then no kind of Protestaut remaineth in the Catholike Church but is departed thence vnto several particular congregations some after Luther some after Calvin some after Rotman some after other Sect-masters therefore in the iudgement of al Catholikes confirmed also by the testimonie of Calvin and authoritie of scriptures it is very salse and vnpossible that any Protestant remayning in his sect should have remission of his sinnes and be iustified It is false also for a great part in the opinion of M. B. of Calvin and the Calvinists item of Luther and the Lutherans them selves For albeit Luther the first father and inuentor of this faith reckeneth it perhaps as sure as any article of his faith that he and al his scholers the Lutherans have remission of their sinnes yet he beleeveth not so nor can beleeue so of Zuinglius and the Zuinglians nor yet of Calvin and the Calvinists al vvhich heaâ—â—ounteth for deâ—â—stable heretikes as iâ— or vvorse then Turkes For so â—â— is vvel knowen that he evermore â—â—â—l his dying day wrote exclamed against them And the like thought Zuinglius and Calvin vvith their brood of Luther his sectaries as in part hath bene signified before VVherefore this special faith and persuasion being common to every sect of Protestants Trinitarians Arrians Anabaptists Zuinglians especially to the Lutherans who vvere first possessed of it vvhereas yet M. B. if he folow Calvin must needs graunt that these sectaries divided from his CalviniaÌ„ church notwithstaÌ„ding their special faith have not remissioÌ„ of their sinnes are not iustified are not elect hereof he may learne most certainly that this false faith conteyning certain and manifest falsitie is not the faith which S. Paule calleth a substance or substancial ground as which hath in deed no substance or ground or firmenes in it but is a mere fansie a mere toy imagination taken vp by every lightbrayned heretike common to al alike by which al alike have remission of their sinnes in particular one as much as an other that is never a vvhit at al. And therefore if the chief principal eating of Christs flesh drinking his blud stand in this special faith â— he telleth vs then his chief principal eating of Christs flesh is nothing For in thus eating he eateth nothing but lyes and heresies and feedeth on them vvhich is not very good nurriture for his sowle and â—udas vvhen he sold Christ did eate Christs flesh as spiritually as any such beleeving Protestants vvhen they eate Christs flesh by such a false faith ¶ Agreably to this foundation vvhich he layeth thereoÌ„ to build the rest of this sermoÌ„ he proceedeth heaping together a nuÌ„ber of most absurd propositioÌ„s which might rather become a Iew then a ChristiaÌ„ if some Protestants bearing the name of ChristiaÌ„s were not as il as Iewes For he so runneth on in extolling his spiritual dealing with Christ by this wicked presumptuous faith so to cal it that he vvholy overthroweth the mysterie of Christâ— incarnation living and doing here in the world For see how he goeth on The carnal band whether it be the band of blud running thorough a race or the catrnal tuitchinâ— of flesh with flesh that carnal band was never esteemed of Christ in the time be â—â—â— conversant here in earth he made nothing of that band VVhat vvicked speech is this Doth God by the very singer of nature besides his writteâ— vvoâ—d vvherein we are willed to honor our father and mother imprint in the hart of every good child a reverence honor regard and estimation of his parents and had our Sauiour Christ Iesus no reverence of that carnal band vvhich him self specially commended â— VVhat scripture reacheth thus VVhere learneth M. B. this doctrine Doubtles no vvhere For albeit in the gospel wheâ— some malitiously went about to interrupt Christs preaching by mentioning his mother and bretherne he preferred the doing of his office and service of his father and preaching of his vvord and saving of sowles before carnal kinred then importunely and to evil purpose obiected shewing that we should ever preserâ—e gods service before humain respect and divine spiritual and heavenly blessings before vvordly and fleshly curtesie or civilities yet to inferre thereof that Christ esteemed not the carnal band that he reverenced not carnal coniunction that â—â—â— maner â—e denied that band this is a vvicked illation out of Christs vvord and as wel might he have inferred vvith Marcion and Manicheus out of this same place that Christ was not carnally borne of the virgin his mother but phantastically and as the English Protestants of the familie of Love teach that Christ was borne of the virgin Marie no otherwise then he is borne of their flesh and such illatioÌ„ or coÌ„sequence drawen from those words by Marcion Manicheus and these English gospellers is as right as his If M. B. had done as some times the good auncient fathers do that is preferred the spiritual cognation before the carnal because the one is vniversal the other particular the one good and availeable of it self the other not so except it be ioyned vvith the spiritual the one the right vvay to salvation ordeyned by Christ who living and preaching tended to plant in al men such spititual coniunction vvhereas the carnal cognation vvas not ordeyned as a meane to iustifie any though in it and by carnal cognation Christ vvas made man vvhereby iustification redemption salvation is vvrought in al if thus M. B. had compared them and preferred the one his preaching had not bene amisse But simply and rudely to disgrace and disanul the one as though it vvere of no moment or commendation in the scriptures this is vvicked heretical inexcusable Christ as the gospel treacheth lived vvith the virgin his mother Ioseph his supposed father erat subditus
not be in an other vvhich is their only fantastical imagination not S. Peters or any good mans asseâ—tion And vvhat if I deny that S. Peter ever spake these vvords ot S. Luke ever wrote them but that they are vvords spoâ—en and writen by M. B. or some fanâ—â—ical brother of his sect Tâ—uly in our Testament I find them not nether in the English Latin noâ— Greeke In the English Testament autoâ—ized in the English Church vnder king Edwarde S. Peters words are these Iesus Christ which must receive heâ—ven vntil the time that al things be restored In the Testament printed vvith special privilege and appointed to be read in the churches in the beginning of the Queenes M. that now reigneth it is even so Christ Iesus which must receive heaven vntil the tyme that al things be restored If yow reply that Beza translateth it othervvise yow must vnderstand that Beza hath no authoritie to make scripture For this is no translating but a new forging and making And Bezaes rashnes is so much the more reproveable for that Bezaes maister Iohn Calvin distiketh it VVho alâ—eit as favouring your opinion say that the vvord of S. Peter may beare such a sense as yow after Beza geue yet he confesseth the word to be indifferent to the other sense vvhich those English testaments render The maner of speach here vsed saith Calvin is doubtful For we may vnderstand it that Christ is conteyned in heauen or els that he conteyneth and holdeth the heauen VVherefore he vvilleth his scholers not to make stay sorupulously vpon one word which may be taken in a double signification And therefore yow are the more to blame vvho make so great stay and artest vpon it and say that it proves most evidently Christs body to be in a certaine place and that vvith such restraint as being in that one certaine place it can not be in any other For so your self describe define your certaine place And if yow vvil take the paynes to reade the glose of M. Flacius Illyâ—icus vvho for advauncing this new gospel hath vvâ—â—tren as much as lightly any Protestant of this age vpon this place he vvil tel yow that the vvordes and sense vvhich yow and Beza geve are quit opposite and contrarie to S. Peters meaning For vvhereas S. Peters purpose is to preach to the Iewes the glorie and power the maiestie and omnipotencie of Christ thus to fasten him to one place that he may not be in an other is rather to note in him a vveakenes and imbecillitie So writeth â—llyricus To say Christ is conteyned of the heauen in such sort as after Beza M. B. doth is against the sâ—â—pe of the Apostle and should â—et foâ—â—b 〈…〉 the insirmitie then the power and glorie of Christ For so of Angels yea of devils it may be sâ—â—d that they â—â—â— râ—â—eived and conteined in heauen because the word Culum heaven somtime in the scripture signifieth the â—yer So that this place of the Acts being in deed not so much taken oâ—â— of the Acts of the Apostles as out of the acts and coâ—â—â—ptions of Theodore Beza an Apostata or some such loâ—â— companion proveth no vvavâ—s Christs body to be conteyned in one onâ—y place so far of is it from prouing iâ— most evidently as M. B. oueâ—reacheth ¶ The last reason â—aith M. B is this Every humane bâ—ly is visible and palpable Therefore Christs is so This proposition I prove by Christs owne words Luc. 24. 39. VVhere to prove the veritie of his body he vseth this argument taken from these two qualities visible and palpable as if he would say If I be visible and palpable ye may be out of doubt that I â—â—â—e a true body For as the Poet saith which Tertullian cites to this purpose Tangere enim tâ—ngi nisi corpus nulla potestres Of this he concludeth that this doctrine of Christs real presence in the sacrament may no wayes stand with the veritie of Christs body This last argument albeit as the rest so this also be made by Calvin yet is it much vâ—eaker then the rest Our sauiours reason to prove the veritie of his body and that he vvas not a spirite is good and forcible For that vvhat soever is visible and palpable is questionles a bodie therefore this vvas a very sufficient probation able to put the Apostles out of doubt that he had a true body and a true bodie it vvas vvhich he shewed them But whereas M. B. argueth not as our sauiour did affiâ—â—â—tively to proue a body but negatively to denie a bodie his argumeÌ„t is vveake and our saviours vvords do no vvayes iustisie it nor yet Tertullian nor any vvise maâ— ether For to exemplifie in the like If I make this argument Such a one A. B. is a Minister and preacheth heresie ergo vvithout al doubt he is an heretike This argument is good taken from 2. qualities of a right heretike to be a Minister and to preach heresie But yet if M. B. vvil turne it to the negative and say such a one is no minister nether preacheth heresie ergo he is no heretike this argument is false and M. B. him self vvil disprove it for that I am sure he vvil confesse many lay men and vvomen are heretikes vvho yet are no Ministers nor have their lawful vocation by the congregation as in the Scottish communion booke to preach heresie ¶ His second mayne principle by vvhich he doth refute Christs presence in the sacrament is for that it repugâ—es directly against the articles of our beleef How so For in our beleef vve professe that Christ ascended out of this earth into heauen where he fits at the right hand of the father whence he shal come in the last day to iudge the world This in deed is our beloef But how repugâ—es this directly to the presence of Christ in the sacrament For that here we see that Christ hath â—â—eeted his dwelling which he had among vs here in the 〈◊〉 He is ascended in to the heavens where he â—â—ts at the right hand of god and shal remayne there according to the testimonie of S. Peter which I cited out of the Acts vnto the last day Let this stand for good as we deny it not that Christ is ascended that he sits in glorie that there he shal remayne and thence he shal come to iudge vvhat is the argument taken from any of these parcels vvhich is able so directly to overthrow an other article of Christian faith the true presence of Christ in the sacrament though not specially expressed in the Creed yet in the new Testament expressed more specially then some principal articles of the Creed The argument is this If he sit at the fathers right hand and be to remayne in heaven til the last day as S. Peter sa is that he is coÌ„teyned in the heavens vnto the last day then is he not corporally in the
iudgement hath at al times among the learned bene much esteemed with whom the Catholike writers D. Allen Cardinal D. Harding D. Sanders D. Stapleton c. vvhom he termeth the yonge Louâ—nian Clergy may not wel compare in the profound knowledge of the Doctors without blushing VVherefore this man so wel esteemed among the learned of so profound knowledge in the Doctors concerning this matter vvriteth thus Protesting his ovvne faith vz that he had rather be drawen in peeces then to become of Berengarius opinion and thinke of the sacrament as the Zuinglians do that he vvold rather susteine al miserie then to defile his conscience vvith so fowle a sinne therein depart out of this life the reasons of this his constant persuasion thus he yeldeth I could neuer be induced to beleeue otherwise then that the true body of Christ was in the sacrament for that the writings of the gospel Apostles expresse so plainly The body which is geuen The blud which is shed for that this thing so wonderful wel agreeth with the infinite loue of God towards mankind that whom he redeemed with the body and blud of his sonne those after an inexplicable maner he should also feed with the body blud of the same his sonne and by this secrete presence of him at is were with a sure pawne or pledge comfort them vntil he shal returne manifest and glorious in the sight of al. Thus for the scriptures the gospels and S. Paule and the cleare euidence of this faith touching the sacrament vttered by them vvhich vvas to him as he vvriteth an vnmoueable foundation to ground vpon Novv for the auncient fathers Councels of the church thus he procedeth Seing then we haue so manifest warrant from Christ and S. Paule whereas besides it is most evidently proued that the auncient writers vnto whom not without cause the church yeldeth so great credit beleeued with one consent that in the Eucharist is the true substance of Christs body blud whereas vnto al this is ioyned the constant authoritie of Councels and so great consent of Christian people let vs also be of the same mynd concerning this heauenly misterie and let vs in a darke sort feed of that bread and cup of our lord vntil we come to eate and drinke it after another sort in the kingdome of God And I wish with al my hart that they who haue folowed Berengarius in his error wold also folow him in his repentance Thus Erasmus a man of profound knowledge in the auncient Doctors vvith vvhom if the yonge Doctors of the Catholike Clergie may not wel compare without blushing much lesse may the yonge scholers preachers of the Scottish and English congregations vvho for sound learning substance of Diuinitie so long as they liue I suppose vvil not be vvorthy to carie the books after those former And therefore being content that on both sides such great peerles authoritie be geuen to Erasmê° as M. Ievvel chalengeth for him thereof I coÌ„clude that the auncient fathers according to the plaine scriptures alvvaies thought and taught that in the holy Eucharist is the substance of Christs body and blud that a Christian man vvere better to suffer any torment and most cruel kind of death then to be of an other opinion And vvith Erasmus I vvish and our Lord of his mercy graunt that those of our poore Iland both English and Scottish who haue folowed Berengarius in his impudent error for so Erasmus termeth it may also foloâ— him in his repentance execration of the same impudent error whereunto Erasmus persuadeth them OF BERENGARIVS HERESIE RENEVVED IN THIS AGE The Argument Luther is to be accompted in some sort the very original ground and cause of the Berengarian heresie renewed in our time But more precisely directly Carolostadius a wicked man and very familiar with the devil and altogether possessed of him To whom succeded Zuinglius and after him Oecolampadi agreing with Carolostadius in substance of denying Christs presence but differing in particular interpretation of Christs words touching the institution of the sacrament Diuers other interpretations of Christs words one against an other al which are iustified by Zuinglius for that they al concurre to remoue from the sacrament the real presence and establish in steed thereof a mere priuatiue absence As the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine in the primitiue church attribute the real presence of Christ in the sacrament to the vertue force of Christs words vsed in the consecration so the Sacramentaries by a contrarie opinioÌ„ account such consecration magical and therefore remoue the words of Christ teaching their Sacrament to be made as wel without them as with them Examples of the sacramentarie Communion practised without the words of Christ by the Protestants of England Scotland Zuizzerland and els where which they both by their practise writing iustifie as a very ful and perfite communion The resolution of the church of Geneua that the supper may be ministred in any kind of meate drinke as wel as in bread and wyne VVhereof is inferred that according to the Protestant doctrine that 2. or 3. Euangelical gossips meeting together to refresh them selues eating such vitails as they bring with them haue as true perfite a Communion as the Sacramentaries haue any both touching matter forme also a lawful Minister which ministerie or priesthod euen to preach minister their sacraments the Protestant-gospel alloweth to wemen no lesse then to men CHAP. 2. HAuing novv declared the truth of the Catholike beleef touching the blessed sacrament hovv the faith thereof vvas continued from the first primitiue church of Christ and his Apostles vvith very smale gainsaying in the first thousand yeres somvvhat more in the next 500 vntil the time of our fathers vvherein Luther certaine other vvith him began that vvhich novv is called the Gospel by the Protestants but an vniuersal gulph of heresie and Apostasie by Catholiks it resteth that I plainly sett forth hovv that heresie of Berengarius novv maynteyned in England Scotland began first vvhen Luther broched this nevv Gospel ¶ The original hereof is to be referred to Luther him self noâ— only in general for that he brake al order discipline of the church refusing the obedience vvhich by Christs ovvne precise ordinance vvas due vnto it the gouernors thereof so gaue free libertie by his ovvne craÌ„ple by vvriting arguing disputing to interpret the scripture as ech man listed vvithout regard to antiquitie vniuersalitie consent of al Christendom besides of al fathers Bishops auncient Councels vvhich example and behauiour vvas in general the cause and founteyne of al heresie Apostasie and Atheisme vvhich from such contempt self liking arrogancie must needs arise as vve see by experience but also in special the first origin and spring of this Berengarian
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
the Calvinists definition thereof The Argument The general summe of these Sermons The word sacrament disliked and condemned by M. B. and the sacramentarie doctors which yet because it is doubtful and ambiguous and fit to deceiue simple Christians them selues vse most VVhich thing is exemplified by their wicked corrupt expounding the words of Christ spoken at his last Supper vpon the abuâ—e of that only word Their great falshod and craft in speaking like Catholikes when yet they meane altogether as heretikes Although no sacrament of the new testament be euer called a seale in the scripture yet vpon that word once attributed peculiarly to circumcision in Abraham the Caluinists frame their definition of a sacrameÌ„t that it is a seale to confirme gods promises VVhich definition is improued by manifest demonstration that the sacraments haue no such office to confirme â—r seale gods promise â—ether in respect of the promise it self nor yet of Christianâ— whether they be strong in faith or weake in faith or infants without faith nor yet of the minister that preacheth the promiâ—es This definition and doctrine of the Caluinists tendeth directly to Anabaptisme It is farther declared how vnfitly and fondly the Caluinists cal their sacraments seales to confirme gods promises In which senâ—e they were neuer called seales by any Apostle or auncient father So that the Caluinists haue smale cause to glorie of this their inuention as they do CHAP. 4. HAuing made declaration first what is alwayes hath bone the Catholike vniuersal constant and true beleeâ— concerning the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body next what is the particular variable and vncertaine opinion of the Protestants that kynd of Protestants I meane vvhich for distinction sake from LutheraÌ„ Protestants of Germany the vvorld first termed Carolostadians or Sacramentaries afterwards Zuinglians or Caluinists I come now to examine these Sermons wherein I shal haue occasion to be the shorter for that much they conteyne not whereon a man should make any great stay Many things are in them indifferent with vvhich I wil not medle many things very false and slaunderous which I vvil in a word note and so passe over many heresies there are and the same very sovvle grosse especially in the last 2. Sermons touching iustification faith good works and securitie in sinne which for that they are not incident to this argument I sâ—al shortly dispatch in a fevv lines Most of the stuffe of these SermoÌ„s is dravven out of Caluin vvhom this man chiefly folovveth as lightly doth al the Scottish and for a great part the English ministerie both in forme of doctrine and also in maner of vtterance Here shal the reader find the self â—ame diuersitie incoÌ„stancie and contradiction as hath bene noted in Caluin before Ho sâ—ald fynd the same affectation of much mystical and supercelestial speech when as the meaning conclusion is base earthly contemptible Yet is he not alwaies a folower of Caluin Some points there are wherein this preacher dissenteth both from Caluin also Zuinglius from Geneua Zurick other reformed congregations foloweth a proper peculiar fansie of his ovvne And vvhich the reader is always to note here shal he find euery thing boldly avouched but neuer proued nor any authoritie almost of scripture gospel prophet reason Theological or any sufficient ground brought for confirmation of things most doubtful and resting in coÌ„trouersie but al such things iustified by bare words and proued by his ovvne authoritie saue that more like a Phisicion then a Diuine in some places he much vrgeth physical arguments and rules of Physike And this is the general summe forme of these SermoÌ„s ¶ Now to enter in to particulars such as are most important and concerne the sacrament first of al he findeth fault with the vse of this vvord sacrament because it is ambiguous there are risen many tragedies about the ambiguitie of this word which are not yet ceased nor wil cease while the world lustes where otherwise saith he if men had kept the Apostles words and called them Signes and Seales al this digladiation strife contention apparantly had not fallen out But where men wil be wiser then god and geue names to things beside god vpon the wit of man which is but mere folly al this cummer falleth out This afterwards in his 3. Sermon he repeateth much inueigheth against men who not content to cal it a holy seale which is the Apostles word who cals it so Rom. 4. 11. would needs go about to be wiser then god go beyond god are not 〈◊〉 with the names which god hath geueÌ„ by his Apostle which Christ him selfe hath geuen VVhich if they had done I am sure saith he none of these great stormes tragedies and debates had fallen out Out of al which he draweth a very so ber instruction A lesson by the way saith M. B. Let no flesh presume to be wiser then god but let them stoupe and keep the names which god hath geuen to this sacrament In which vvords discourse to omit some other things very wel worth the noting a lesson the reader may learne much better then that vvhich M. B. geueth him that is our aduersaries great frowardnes and blindnes in their maner of vvriting disputing preaching The which because it is by M. B. made the very ground and foundation of his Sermons and is common to him with the rest of his felovves and comministers both in Scotland and out of ScotlaÌ„d I wil open somwhat more at large The word sacrament saith M. B. is not vsed in the scripture it is inueÌ„ted not by the holy ghost but by the wit of man which is mere folly it hath bene and is the cause of much strife contention and digladiation of great stormes tragedie debates which yet continue The scripture appointeth other names as signes or seales Hereof this Euangelical lesson is to be learned Let no flesh presume to be wiser then god but let them stoupe and keep the names which god hath geuen to this sacrament and yet forsooth both him self in these self same Sermons continually euery where and al other the principal vvriters of his side omitting the names of signes seales geuen by god forgetting their owne lessoÌ„ that al flesh should stoupe and vse such names of signes and seales as god had geven in steed thereof wil needs vse the name of sacrament inueÌ„ted by the wit of man which is mere folly and then they not very vvise that vse it by so doing maynteine this contention and digladiation these great stormes tragedies and debates which is the part of vvicked men and ministers of sedition If god geue yovv varietie choyse of other so apt names so good profitable whereas this is so harmeful and mischevous vvhy refuse yovv god and folovv man VVhy in euery leafe of these your Sermons is there set forth in great capital letters this vvicked
I vvil take as sure certainâ— vz. that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed sanctified and consecrated the bread because vve are taught so to beleeue both by the plain vvords of the Evangelists by S. Paule by consent of al fathers oâ— al auncient I â—â—uâ—gies or soâ—mes of Masse in al churches of Christendome vvhereof some example shal be geuen hereafter also by vâ—â—â—â—t of M. Ievvel Caluin Eâ—â— a vvho so effectually by innumerable places of cripture pâ—oue it and refel Musculus and consequently M. B. in thâ—â— point vvâ—o against al scripture wil haue blessing of these elements to be al one vvith geuing thanks to God VVherefore according to this most sufficient authoritie as Musculus truly telleth vs that Christ at tvvo seueral times first ouer the bread next ouer the cup gaue thanks to God so must vve also assure our selues the scripture these Protestans leading vs therevnto that Christ at tvvo seueral times blessed sanctified and consecrated those 2. seueral elements of bread and vvine vvhich he tooke in his hands Concerning the breaking and deliverie of the bread Musculus vvords are Christ brake it with his owne hands gaue it to his disciples He gaue not the bread whole to them which they afterwards should breake but him self brake it He gaue it not them to distribute but him self did distribute it willed them to take and eate it He deliuered with his owne hands this sacrament of grace signifying withal that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except himself gaue it by the vertue of his spirite Of which point I warne the reader not without cause Thus much saith Musculus concerning the external fact doing of Chrisi so far furth as agreeth to the institutioÌ„ of the mystical Supper After al vvhich finally for declaration that they might vnderstand vvhat he meant by the premisses he addeth This is my body which is geuen and broken for yow Do this in commemoration of me Again This cup is the new Testament in my blud which is shed for yow and for many to remission of sinnes Do this so oft as ye shal drinke it in commemoration of me This is the summe of that which Christ did vvhich he spake about the sacrament vvhich as the same author vvitnesseth Christ first of al did in the eyes of his disciples both that they afterwards should do the same them selues and also deliuer the same order to his church ¶ And this being agreed vpon according to the manifest storie of the Gospel exposition of the purest Protestants that Christ thus did as hath bene novv in particular described and thus spake item that thus he did spake as things apperteyning to the Sacrament and which he would not haue omitted by his Apostles disciples and aftercomeâ—â— to returne to M. B vvho affirmeth al the actionâ— and speeches which Christ did and vttered to be so essential to the Supper that if any one yea any iote be omitted the whole Supper is marred and peruerted let vs conserre these doings of Christ vvith the Scottish Supper ministred after their order vvhich is this Commonly once in a moneth the minister vvhen the supper is to be ministred first of al out of the pulpit reherseth briefly to the people a peece of the 11. chapiter of S. Paule touching the Institution of this sacrament Afterwards he maketh some Sermon against ether the Pope and Catholike religion vvhich is their common argument or in praise of their owne which is more seldom or as seemeth good to the minister The Sermon or exhortation ended the minister cometh downe from the pulpit and sitteth at the table now beginneth the communion euery man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serueth Then he taketh bread and geueth thanks ether in these words folowing or like in effect The thankes-geuing set downe for a paterne for al ministers to folow as in sevv vvords it rendereth thanks to God for his benefites of creation sanctification and redemptioÌ„ by Christ as is ordinarie in many good prayers so it maketh no mention of the Supper or any thing vvhich Christ spake or did therein saue that in one place they mention a table and remembrance of Christs death in these vvords Although we be sinners neuertheles at the commaundemeÌ„t of Iesus Christ our lord we present our selues to this his table which he hath left to be vsed in remembrance of his death vntil his coming again to declare and witnesse before the world that by him alone we haue receiued libertie and life c. and that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom to eate and drinke at his table with whom we haue our conuersation presently in heauen This is al that approcheth any thing nigh to the vvords and Institution of Christ Immediatly after this thankes-geuing the ministâ—r breaketh the bread and deliuereth iâ— to the poeple who distribute and diuide the same amonge them selues according to our Sauiour Christ commaundement Likewise he geueth the â—â—p Here is the entier forme and essence of the Scottish communion For that during the time of eating and drinking some place of the scripture concerning Christs death is read this is a sequele and fashion folowing after and not included in the nature substance of the communion vvhich al goeth before Let vs novv seuerally confer Christs supper vvith this communion and consider how many the same most substantial and essential points after their ovvne graunt vsed there are wanting here Christ first of al tooke bread in to his hands and afterwards gaue thanks and blessed vvhich albeit it may seeme vsual and ordinarie yet saith Musculus it is not so and the very vvords of scripture shevve that it apperteyned to the order and institution of a sacrament Here the minister cleane contrariwise inuerting the order of Christ first geueth at large a thanks after taketh the bread the vvhich vvithout any thanks or any vvord at al he deliuereth to the people Secondarily Christ made a special and seueral thankes-giuing blessing and sanctification or consecration first of the bread and next of the cup and this also he did as a thing perteyning to the verie order and institution of his sacrament Here is no such matter but a confuse thankes-geuing vvithout relation to ether and vvhich conteyneth a blessing sanctification or consecration of nether Christ did not only breake the bread once and afterwards bid them breake and distribute it amonge them selues but him selfe brake and distributed and deliuered it to them ech one with his owne hand signifying thereby that it was not possible for them to haue any participation of grace except he gaue it them by the vertue of his spirite Of vvhich point Musculus geueth the reader a special warning and prouiso Here the minister loth belike to take so much paynes
the nevv testament of persecutions of S. Paules vocation his coming to Rome his trauailes there to plant the gospel VVhat if he exhort the people vvhich yet I suppose is a rare argument in the ministerie to chastitie to almes to fasting to praier and such other good vertues vvithout any relation oâ— explication of the Supper of Christ Nether is this the vvord vvhich geueth life to the sacraments For so yovv decide the matter both here and in the beginning that the vvord vvhich yovv meane and is so necessarie is the word preached distinctly and opening al the parts of the element There must be preached and proclaymed and publikely denounced with a cleare voyce what is the ministers part what is the peoples part how he ought to deliuer distribute that bread that wine how they ought to receiue it what is signified by it a number of such matters and al this must be done in a familiar and homely language This vvord must go before the sacrament as a seale folow and be appended thereafter And according to Caluin when we heare meÌ„tion made of the sacrameÌ„tal word which ioyned to the signe maketh it a sacrameÌ„t we must thereby vnderstand the promise which being preached by the minister with a cleare voyce may guide and leade the people thether where the signe tendeth and directeth vs that is as before M. B. hath declared it how able the bread is to nurish the body to life earthly and temporal so able is the flesh of Christ signified by the bread to nurish both body and sowle to life everlasting VVel noâ— vve knovv vvhat kind of vvord it is vvhich thus geueth life and sovvle to their sacrament vve shal be better able to iudge vvhat maner of thing the Scottish Geneva sacrameÌ„t is And first of al it must needs be cleane separateâ— from the sacrament of Christs last supper For it is manâ—est by the gospel that the sacrament of Christ had â—â— such life and sowle For 1. nether did Christ make a Sermâ— 2. nether did he vvith a cleare voyce proclame and denounce vvherevnto the signe did leade direct theâ—â— 3. nether taught he his disciples that as the bread vvâ—â—â— nourished their bodies to life temporal so his flesh 〈◊〉 able to nourish both body and sovvle to life euerlastinâ— 4. nether declared he vvhat vvas the Ministers paâ—◠〈◊〉 dutye 5. nor yet vvhat vvas the peoples 6. he made 〈◊〉 mention hovv the one should deliuer the bread and vvine 7. nor hovv reuerently the other should receiue it and so furth in al the rest we find no peece or parcel of such a word that is of such a life and sovvle in any Euangelist of whom yet doubtles vve learne vvhat Christ did very sufficiently so far as is necessarie to the making of the sacrament VVherefore by these so many essential parts required to their Scottish or Geneua signe and not vsed or practised by Christ in his sacrament vve may assuredly conclude that Christs sacrament and their signe are of cleane different natures Besides al vvhich M. B. him self teacheth vs that in their Scottish Supper there are tâ—a propiners or geuers vvhich deale their sacrament vvhereas in Christs supper there was but one In the Scottish supper the minister exhibiteth only the signe of the bread he deliuereth only an earthly creature not worth a straa vvhereas in Christs supper it vvar far othervvise as M. B. be he never so prophane vvil I suppose graunt But to omit this and returne to the word and stay thereon Although this be most euident and most sufficient especially that of the vvord not preached by Christ and yet required of necessitie by them to make an essential separation betvvene Christs sacrament their signe or sealing bread yet for the better iustification of that vvhich I haue said I vvil produce for me against M. B. the Scottish ministrie the authoritie of my lord Archbisshop of Canterbury and our English Congregations vvho condeÌ„ne this opinion of mere Anabaptisme and that by scripture authoritie of their chief Apostle of our age Hâ—lderike Zuinglius For saith my L. of Canterbury against the Puritanes It is manifest Matth. 3. v. 13. 14. 15. that Iohn did baptize without preaching Nether reade we that Christ preached immediatly before the distribution of the sacrament of his body to his disciples Yet hâ—d it bene so necessarie a matter as yow make it and of the substance of the sacraments the Euangelists would haue expressed it by one meanes or other And vvhereas this notvvithstanding the Puritanes proceed say vvith M. B. that the life of the sacraments depen deth of the preaching of the word this as a fowle error and most vntrue he refuteth somewhat more at large with very good reasons part of which for M. B. better instruction or satisfaction I vvil set downe Thus he disputeth If this doctrine be true then be the sacraments dead sacraments and without effect except the word be preached when they be ministred And so some of your adherents in plain termes affirme saying that they are seales without writing and plain blanks VVhich doctrine savoureth very strongly of Anabaptisme and depriueth those of the effects and fruits of the sacraments which haue bene partakers of them without the word preached when they were ministred so consequently even your self M. B. for it as not very like that there was a sermon at your christening And therefore this doctrine must of necessitie bring in rebaptization condemne the baptisme of infants which is flat Anabaptistical For if that baptisme be without life at which the word of God is not preached then can it not be effectual and regenerate those that were therewith baptized and therefore it must of necessitie be iterated that it may be livelie Here is one reason and the same very strong vvhereby M. B. him self probably is proved no Christian as being not at al baptised â—â—r water without the word is nothing but mere deâ—â— water as likewise the bread is nothing but common bread and such baptisme lacking the life of a sermon is not able to geue life or regeneration to others more then a dead man is able to geue life or generation to any and al baptismes heretofore practised in the catholike church and most Protestant churches are no baptismes and consequently al or most of the Scottish nobilitie people ministerie must be rebaptised if they wil be accounted Christians VVhich is one invincible argument for the Anabaptists concerning al Christians of times past Now let vs heare an other for those that come hereafter If baptisme be dead at which the word is not preached then can it do no good to infants who vnderstand not the word preached For if the preaching of the word be so necessarily adioyned to the administration of the sacraments it is in respect of those that are to receiue the
sacraments And then must it needs folow that the sacraments may be ministred to those only which are able to heare the word whereby infants are secluded from baptismâ— And in deed this is one of the strongest arguments that the Anabaptists haue This for al Christians to come so that hence forward by M. B. Theologie baptisme must no more be ministred to children or infants but we must expect with the Anabaptists vntil they come to yeres of discretion that then they hearing the minister preach may haue the right sacrament endued with life and sowle and perfite essence which now for want of such preaching is to them mere water without the spirite a dead body without life or sowle and as our Puritanes speake iust according to Caluin M. B. nothing but seales without writing and plain blanks After foloweth an authoritie of Zuinglius to prove his purpose which because it is very long would fil vp a leaf at lest I willingly omit The summe of Zuinglius allegation and my L. application is that the word preached is not the life and perfection of the sacrament but that the sacraments are perfite without it and that M. B. and al other in teaching this doctrine plainly ioyne hands with the Anabaptists Thus my Lord of Canterbury Vnto whose reasons one more I wil adde which M. B. his preaching before and the general doctrine of the sacramentaries yeldeth against this toy or rather madnes It is agreed among them very generally that the baptisme of S. Iohn was the self same that Christ his Apostles after deliuered to the church we now enioy VVhich being so then must it needs folovv that it had the same matter forme the same elemeÌ„t word that ours hath This is evident can not be denyed Let vs then proceed because of the matter element which was water in both there is no controversie let vs consider the forme that is the life and sovvle the word preached without vvhich baptisme is nothing but water as their other signe of the supper conteyneth nothing but coÌ„mon bread VVhen S. Iohn ministred baptisme to Christ did he preach the word as here vve haue it defined did he with a cleere voyce denounce and proclame to Christ al the parts of baptisme Did he tel Christ vvhat was his owne part and dutie as likevvise what was Christs part dutie How Christ ought to come receiue the baptisme and so furth as here vve haue the vvord defined and explicated Let M. B. make choise of vvhich part he vvil and answere yea or no I suppose he shal perceiue his ovvne error and foly and that as in ansvvering truly he must deny al his preaching hetherto about this VVord so if he vvil stand to maynteine his vvord and say that S. Iohn vsed in his sacrament such a word such preaching and opening al parts of the sacrament this affirmation in the iudgement of sober men wil conuince him not so much of folie as furie not of heresie as of phrenesie the particular consideration vvhereof I leaue to him selfe ¶ Novv let vs a vvhile sequester al authoritie both of god and man of scripture and father old or nevv saving M. B. him self and examine this matter by it self according to indifferent trial M. B. his ovvne preaching If vve marke vvel vvhat vvord it is that he requireth to geue life to the sacrament vve shal find it to be such a word as proueth the tenth part of English and Scottish baptismes and communions to be no sacraments at al. For first vvhereas in very many churches of England and I thinke the like of Scotland baptismes and communions are ministred vvithout Sermons in many some poore homilie is read in steed of a Sermon in al these churches the sacraments are dead things the communion bread is nought els but common bread the vvater of baptisme is coÌ„mon prophane vvater nether of these any sacrament And that the reader thinke not my asseveratioÌ„ bold or straunge vvhere I say that in England in many churches are so fevv Sermons let him vnderstand that albeit there be in deed order prescribed that in euery parish church there should be 4. sermoÌ„s in the yere euery quarter one vvhereas in the yere there are baptismes and communions perhaps 2. or 3. hundred yet this is soil obserued that notvvithstanding such order takeÌ„ the CaÌ„bridge doctors them selues testifie that they know parishes not far from Cambridge so principal an Vniuersitie for preachers where one of these sermons was not in 4. yeres together which if it be so so nere to Cambridge say they what is to be thought of other places of the realme And els where the same parties affirme that in most churches of England there is none that ether can or wil preach so that this one clause maketh voyde thousands of baptismes and thousands of Communions in England and Scotland For this must be obserued by the vvay that such reading of Homilies in the church is not according to this definition not these mens opinion preaching of the word with a cleere voyce no more say they then a mens pen or hand is his tongue and voyce vvho furthermore vtterly deny such reading to be comprised in the name of preaching despise it altogether and say that it is as il as playing on a stage and worse to Next to omit Homilies come to sermons whereas this vvord is appointed by Caluin to be preached after one certaine forme vz that the minister preach the promise and leade the people thether where the signe directeth how many thousand ministers faile in preaching this promise who doubtles in al the Gospels where after the Protestant-Theologie mention is made of the sacrament can not possibly find any such promise as Caluin surmiseth for that assuredly there is none such For to tel vs that these vvords This is my body is a promise is as blunt ridiculons a toy as if a man would make the articles of our Creed promises as if some vvise minister would tel vs that these verities Christ was borne of the virgin he suffred death vnder Pilate be rose againe and ascended vvere promises which are of like qualitie with that promise of Iohn Caluin And if in Christs words vvhere he instituteth this sacrameÌ„t there be no promise hovv then shal the minister preach with a lowd cleer voyce vpoÌ„ this promise which is not If to helpe forward the matter we shal take M. B. his expositioÌ„ that the minister must tel the people whereto the signe tendeth and directeth them that is looke how able the bread is to nurish them corporally so able is Christ to nurish them spiritually to eternal life which spiritual nurriture is sealed coÌ„firmed in them by these reuerend sealeâ— of bread vvine first this similitude is taken not from the scripture but from the doctors fâ—thers and therefore a
113. It is in the power of man to make as good a sacrament 270. 271. 272. 273. Actions of Christ in the Institution of the Sacrament pa. 147. 148. 150. 151. 155. He mingled his chalice vvth water 151. 158. 159. He blessed the bread and chalice 152. 153. 154. 155. The Sacrament vvhy called Eucharist pa. 251. 252. Carefully coÌ„ceiled froÌ„ knowlege of Ievves Pagans in the primitiue church 262. 263. 264. No heretike could be present at the administration thereof 254. 262. The Sacrament reserved sent abrode to private men in the primitive church pa. 278. 279. Yet beleeved to sanctifie and confer grace 279. Only heretikes thought contrarie 279. To receiving the Sacrament other preparation required then to receiving the vvord pa. 421. 422. 423. Sacraments of the Law Gospel much differ in conferring grace pa. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 108. The material parts of the Sacrament signifie many things not necessarily present pa. 359. 360. substance of bread not necessarie to it 359. 361. The Sacrament not called Dominica coena the lords supper in scripture pa. 245. VVhat that word meaneth in S. Paul 245. 246. 247. Nether is it called coÌ„munion in al scripture 247. 248. A Sermon not necessarie to the essence of any SacrameÌ„t p. 218. that opinioÌ„ is refuted by the English church 221. It is plainly Anabaptistical 222. 223. It maketh voyd most baptismes in England and Scotland 224. 225. and also coÌ„munions 226. 227. 228. 229. 235. It maketh the vvord or sermoÌ„ it self superfluous of no effect 230. 231. A Sacramental speech pa. 367. Sacramentaries condemned by Erasmus pa. 34. 35. By Luther 325. 354. 438. By Melancthon 348 349. By Pappus 326. VVestphalus 121. 283. 284. 285. Hosiander many other protestaÌ„t Doctors 344. 436. Euery heretike against the Sacrament an heretike for other matters besides as Berengarius pa. 26. 27. Petrus Brusius Henricus and the Albigenses 27. 28. Almaricus 28. VViclef 29. Christ at his last supper instituted a sacrifice pa. 3. proved by vvords of the Institution 4. 16. and conference of them with the vvords of the legal sacrifice of Moyses lavv 4. 5. Christs sacrifice ordeyned in steed of the Paschal sacrifice of the law pa. 9. 10. The exact coÌ„parison of them proveth ours to be a true sacrifice 10. 11. So al the auncient fathers teach pa. 12. 51. 252. 255. 256. 257. 258. 363. It is the same sacrifice which Christ offered 201. A true sacrifice though commemoratiue 19. 20. Sacrifice of Melchisedec a figure of Christs sacrifice pa. 13. 14. 15. 363. Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles pa. 17. Proved by S. Paule 17. 18. 19. Graunted by some chief Protestants 19. Beleeved in the primitiue church 20. 21. 22. 257. 358. Confessed by both churches Greeke and Latin 26. as Calvin graunteth 257. Sacrifice of the church testified by the auncient fathers 201. 249. 251. 252. 255. 256. 257. Seales divine miracles pa. 142. 143. ProtestaÌ„t Sectes of this age to what number they are grovven pa. 445. Sinne separateth man from God pa. 399. Al sinne mortal none venial with the Calvinists pa. 30. 399. Remission of Sinnes See priests The Protestants special faith invented by Luther pa. 301. 302. putteth them in assurance of their election and salvation 303. 304. Cause of infinite pride and presumption 304. 307. 308. 402. Of vile dissolute life 306. 307. CoÌ„mon to al kind of heretikes especially Anabaptists 304. 305. 4â—4 By this faith the vvorst Protestants eate Christ spiritually in their supper as vvel as the best 304. 307. 308. It leadeth to hel 308. 309. Seâ— Protestants Special faith destroyeth al Christian faith 433. Remission of sinnes in the church Keyes of the church Sacraments of the church pa. 433. prayer to God feare of God 433. 434. This special faith refuted by S. Paule pa. 316. By Caluinists theâ—â— selves 316. 317. By Melancthon 434. 435. This special faith once had can never be lost pa. 306. VVhat is necessarie essential to the Scoâ—tish or Geneva Supper pa. 146. 239. How it is ministred 156. It is nothing like to Christs sacrament for a number of defects 157. 158. 159. 160. 162. 200. 201. 239. 240. 241. 242. and superfluities 220. 223. 224. Any vulgar dinner or repast as good as that Supper 65. 163. It is ministred as wel by wemen and boyes â—â— by their Ministers 65. How Christs body is ioyned to the Geneua or Scottish Supper pa. 174. 175. 274. As to a word spoken 176. 177. 27â— Lesse then to a picture 178. No more then God is ioyned to the devil 175. 176. Nothing at al. 175. 176. It is altogether superfluous ridiculous 179. 180. VVickedly by M. B. preferred before gods vvord 210. 211. 212. The Supper described by M. B. pa. 182. prophanely 182. 183. 184. Striving for the coÌ„munion drinke 184. It is not vvorth a straa 193. 200. 229. rather to be called a breakfast then a supper 332. It is wicked and sacrilegious 242. 243. No sacrament of Christ 229. 233. Christ no othervvise received in the Scottish supper then in any common dinner pa. 187. 206. 275. 276. Then in seeing any creature 189. Christ received no vvayes in their Supper 189. 190. The flesh of priests Catholikes more eaten in the Geneva suppers then the flesh of Christ pa. 229. 230. Divers vncertain significations of the Geneua supper pa. 177. 178. 179. Many things signifie Christ as wel as that 180. 181. 182. How long it remayneth holy 276. 277. T Table See Altar Christs Testament made at his last Supper 6 8. VVhat was required to the making thereof 6. 7. 8. The real presence and sacrifice is thereof inferred 7. 8. 9. How his blud in the chalice is called the new testameÌ„t 371. 372. Difference of the old TestameÌ„t new pa. 98. 99. V No lawful VocatioÌ„ of preachers in Scotland or England pa. 407. VV VVemen may preach and minister the Protestants communion pa. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. VVemen have in them al power ecclesiastical 64. VViclef an heretike and a parasite pa. 29. 30. An heretike to the Calvinists 30. His often Recantation 30. 31. He is condemned by the Protestants 31. 32. The VVord required to make the Calvinists sacrament is a sermon pa. 134. 216. 220. 228. The Ministers preferre their owne words before Christs 216. 217. 218. The right word wanteth in most Scottish sacraments pa. 226. 227. 228. No such word found in scripture as they require 225. Christ vsed no such word pa. 220. 221. 233. See more in Sermon Z Zuinglius an Anabaptist pa. 140. His interpretation of Christs words more fond then that of Carolostadius 43. He learned it of a sprite in the night 376. 378. FINIS A TABLE OF PLACES OF SCRIPTVRE EXPLICATED IN THIS TREATISE ESPECIALLY SVCH AS APPERTEINING TO THE SACRAMENT ARE CORRVPTELY expounded and perverted by the Sacramentaries Genes 3. 15. In the sweate of thy face thow shalt eate thy bread pa. 267. Exod. 12. 6. The children of Israel shal offer
1. Cor. ca. 11. v. 24. Christs body geuen as in Sacrifies Sacrifice vsed by the Apostles Act. â—3 2 Erasmus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in curâ— loâ—um 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masse Lut. 1. v. 2â— hebra ca. â— 2. 6. 1. Covinth 10 14. S. Paul proveth the sacuses Ibi. v. 18. v. 20. v. 16. v. 21. v. 15. Caluin in 1. Cor. a. â—0 v. 17. Hebra 13. 1 Sacrifice vsed among the first Christians Chrysost in 1 Coâ— â— 10. Homil. â—4 Seipsum offâ—rendum prâ—cepit Prasatie operu Vib. Râ—gâ—â— de preplutijâ— viâ—â—u TestameÌ„tâ— so 164 operum parte 3. s 7â— Vrban Regiâ—â— 1. parte opâ—rum de missâ— negotio â— sol 6â— The masse â— true sourifice yet commeâ—â—ratius Mat. 16. â—â— Mâ—t. 17. â— â— Pet. 1. â—â— â—â— 22. 19. Ioan. 6. 51. Ibi v. 64. Real presence Tâ—â—od 〈…〉 3. â—◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 â—â—◠〈…〉 â—◠〈…〉 câ—rnâ—m saluâ— toris nostrâ— quae pro peccâ—tâ— nostris passa est â—t c. Ireneus lib. â—â— ca. 32. True sacrifice of the nevv testament Malach. 10 Before pa. 14 Cypria lib. 2. â—pâ—stola 3. Coâ—cil Nicâ— 1. Real presence real sacrifice Concil Ephâ—s declaratio Anathem 11. pâ— 667. â—n epist Conc. pa. 605. quod proponâ—nitur Ioan. 6. Ibi. v. â—7 Leo epist 23 ad â—lâ—rum popuâ—uÌ„ Constantinop August lib. 3. de ciuitat â—d 10. Centur. â— ca. 4. col 312. Paschas lib. de â—â—rpore sanguine Domini in Eucharistia Concil Nicâ—n 2. Actio 6. â—om 3. Alâ—uinus Rabanus Theophilact c. Apoc. 20. â— Fox Act. monuments anno 1â—7â— pa. 55. 〈…〉 an aâ—câ— hâ—â—â—tike against the sacrament Guâ—tmuÌ„d lib. 1. dâ— sâ—â—rameÌ„to in 〈…〉 VVriters Councels against Beren garius â— Petr. 2. â—â— Berengarius 〈◊〉 Theueâ—â—â—â—â— dâ—â—â—â—m illustres lib. 3. sol 1 2 â— iâ— vita Bereng Guilâ—â—â— Malmeâ—â— lib. 3. â—â—gestis Anglerum Berengarius repentance Vide â—apâ—â—â—um Mâ—ssonâ— in Annalib Fracorum lib. 3. in Philip. râ—gâ—â— Gerson contra Ro ment â—ox Act. â—â—â— Annâ—â—â— 15. pâ— 70 Consent of the Greek latin church touching the sacrofice Concil Florentiâ— Censurâ— Orientalis Ecclesia art 10. ConciliuÌ„ Tâ—ident â—â—â—â— â—â— cap. 1. Berengar con 〈◊〉 the protestants Top Masster in Annâ— lib. Francâ—â—â—â—â— 3. in â—ugâ—ns Rolerâ—â— Occolamp â—â— lib. 3. epistol Zuingliâ—â—â— Occolampad folâ—â—â—â— Papir Massâ— Anâ—â—l Francoâ— lib. 3. in Philip. Aug. Ser S. â—ernard epistol 14â— Crispi in â—â—â—â— mart fol. 9. Fox Acts monuments fol. 71. Albigenses heretiks Antonin 3. parte specuâ—s â—â—stor tit 19. ca. 1. Vincentius lib. 30. Elâ—ncâ—â— Aphabet hâ—â—eâ—uÌ„ lib. 1. cap. 23. Bâ—lsorest in Annalib lib. 3. ca. 80. Fox Acts monuments pa. 70. 〈◊〉 hâ—râ—tâ—â—e Bernard 〈…〉 6. 1. 〈◊〉 lib. â— ca. 29. Extrâ— dâ— sumâ—â— Tâ—nit câ— Finâ—lâ— Nâ—n tam haeretiâ—â— quam 〈◊〉 Ievv defen â— of the Apologie part 1. câ— 7. diuis 3. Ievv ibid. Fox Acts monuments pa. 85. UUicles â— heretike a parasite Fox vbi supra fol. 90. UUicless articles pa. 97. VVicles an 〈◊〉 in the Caluinistâ— Beza annot â—â— 1. Ioan. ca. â— v. 16. VVicless oâ—ten 〈◊〉 Fox Act. monumeÌ„t pa. 91. pa. 9â— Ibid. Henrie 5. â—â— 2. cap. 7. â— â—olâ—â—â— Virgâ—nstor lib. 2â— Fox vbi supra pa. 173. 〈◊〉 â— VViclef an heretike to the Caâ—â—â—nistes Vadianus dâ— Eu 〈◊〉 lib. 5. pag. 162. Pantaleon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pa. 110. Maij 2. Iuly 8. A sure rule to discerne an 〈…〉 Maior The visible Church eternal Psal 11. 9. cap. 2. 3. cap. 54. 13 cap. 39. 21. Esa cap. 60. 18. cap. 62. 6. Matth. 2â— â—â— Ioan. 14. 17 Cap. 16 13. Act. 2. Ephes 4. 1â— Act. 20. 28. Minor Papir Massâ—n vbi supra in Henricâ— rege Conclusion Calu. Instructio contra Libertinâ—s ca. 1â— Ievv defense of the Apologie part 2. cap. 16. diuisio 2. Erasmus faith of the sacrament Membraâ—im discerpi The grounds of Erasmus faith Erasmus lâ—â— 19. epist ad Conrad Pâ—llâ—câ—num pag. 676. Plaine scriptures Idem lib. 2◠〈…〉 pag. â—17â— Immobile â—â—â— damentum Consent of auncient fathers 1. Cor. 13. 1â— Matth. 26. 29. Ubi supra pâ— 1178. Matth. 18. Luther author of the sacrameÌ„tarte heresie Genes 4. 3. 4. Gen. 1. 20 3 Reg. 19. 14 â— Paralip 15. 3. Daniel 3. 38. Dan. 12. 11. Malach. 1. 11 Heb. 7. 11. 12 Cyprian de ca â—a Domini See after chap. â—2 num 2. 4 5. Luther Tom. â— VVittemberg sol 502. The ProtestaÌ„ts rule to interprete scripture Probe perspiâ—uâ—am hae re Papatui cum primis me val de incommodare poss Textus Euangelij nimium apertus est potens Carclostad father of the Caluinists Carolostad interpretation of Christs vvords Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling de ca â—a fol. 155. Ibid. in responsione ad Billicanum et Regium so 261 One lye built vpon an other The rock in both places hath one relation to Peter Hoc this in Christs vvords hath not relation to the bread Cap. 4. num â— THIS HERE Sleidan CommeÌ„t lib. 5. sol 7â— Musâ—ul in locis communib cap. de cana Domini pag. â—â—4 A description of Carolostad Cap. 1. num 8. 9. 10. Melancthon in epistol ad Freder Micâ—niam Luther Tom. 3. Ienens sol 65. Kemnit de cana Domin pa. 214. Vel diabolus fuit vel diaboli mater Alber. contra Carolostadianoâ— Z. 4. pa. 1. Y. 2. pa. 1. Luther in colloq mâ—nsalib so 367. 373 Ego ad illum non respicio sed ad cum a quo obseus est qui per ipsum etiam loquitur Alber. vbi supra s 1. pa. 1. Ioan Soul lib. 50. causatum cap. 50. Zuinglius exgesition of Christs vvords Zuingl Tom. 2. commeÌ„t de vera falâ—a religione cap. de Eucharistia fol. 209. 210 Zuingl Tom. 2. in epist ad Matth. Rutling fol. 158. See after cap. 20. num 1. 4. Luther Tom. 7. defensio verborum caenae c. fol. 386. Hoc enim nihil prorsus simile veri habet Oecolampad exposition of Christs vvords Zuingl Oecolampad epistol lib. 2. fol 64. Other sacramentarie expositions of Christs vvords Luth. Tom. 7 VVittem defensie v. bâ—â—uÌ„â—â—nâ— c. â—ol 387. Muscul in locu communiâ— cap. de â—aâ—a Domâ—â— num 2. pa. 324. Luther vbi supra Simlerus in â—ita ` Bullingers fol. 18. Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling de cana sol 155 Ibid. in râ—sponsio ad Bill â—â— Regium â—â—l 261. VVho is a right Zâ—inglian or Sacramentarie Name of zuinglians or Calvinists Muscul in loâ—â— commun cap. de can◠〈◊〉 pag. 322. Si errarunt errarunt in litera non in spiritu Responsio ad Biâ—ic Regium vbi sup Zuingl Tom. 2. in Exeâ—â—si ad â—uthâ—rum fol. 362. VVestphal Apologia confessio de cana domini pa. 62. 63. 64. 1 Ioan. 6. Straunge expositions of the vvord body 2 3 4 5 Non est alâ—â—â— quam diuine quâ—dam vâ—râ— mâ—dest a panegiris 6 Zuingl Tom. 2. ad Matth. Rutling fol. 157. Ibid 7 VVestphalus vâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 35. 36. Caeleste â—raculâ—m