Lib. 4. Dut. 11. c. Quidam The age and parentage of Consubstantiation This opinion Lombard relateth and testifieth that it was before his time maintained by some but he calleth it a Paradox a strange or wonderfull opinion Guitmund fathereth it on Berengarius after his recantation and termeth it Impanation Others impute it to one Walrame against whom Anselme hath two books extant Some fasten it on Rupert Abb. Tuit who lived not long after Guitmond about the year of the Lord 1124. Petrus de Alliaco Cardinall of Cambray saith In lib. 4. sentent q. 6. art 2. that he had rather defend Consubstantiation the Transubstantiation unlesse the Church of Rome had defined the contrary He lived about the year of our Lord 1416. Lib. de Ca. Babyl At length Luther approving the judgement of this Cardinal of Cambray as himself witnesseth first thought it no article of faith to beleeve that the substance of bread remaineth or remaineth not but either point might be held without heresie Afterwards it seemed more probable unto him that the bread should remaine and the body of Christ should be under in and with the bread And this is now their opinion who name themselves Lutherans Wherefore they interpret Christs words This is my body thus In this with this under this bread is my body and they glory and boast no lesse then the Papists that they retain the letter without any trope or figure And so have they ranked themselves that if they combate with Papists then the particle This noteth with them bread only and the bread it self is the body of Christ If they bend their forces against us whom they call Sacramentaries then the particle This shall not signifie bread only but bread with the body of Christ lodged invisibly therein and the sense shall be This is my body that is This bread and my body lying hid in this bread is my body They illustrate this their glosse with vulgar similies as they call them that Christ when he gave his invisible body in the bread in like manner said This is my body as the Country-man saith of the graine in his sacke This is corne pointing at the sack or the Merchant of the money in his purse This is money pointing at his purse or the Mother of the Infant in his cradle This is my child shewing the cradle only or the Vintner of his wine This is Rhenish wine when he reacheth out the Goblet These formes of speech are noted and observed out of their books and disputations But good men they have that luck which the Poet alotteth unto fooles Fooles when they seeke to avoid an inconvenience Horat. Serm. lib. 1. sat 3. fall into an evill For in place of that absurd miracle of the subsisting of accidents without any subject they have induced another more absurd of the penetration of two bodies and whether we respect the letter or the sense they have wandred departed farther from Christs words then the Papists For the letter thus lieth This that is This bread is my body The sense standeth thus The visible bread broken and distributed is my true and essentiall body given for you It is my true body not by any change of essence and nature as the Papists would have it for bread was not assumed by the Word for us neither was bread given and crucified for us but it is my true body in a mysticall sense and Sacramentall kind of speech according to the interpretation of the sounder antiquity of Paul yea and of Christ himselfe The Transsubstantials glosse is farte wide of this the letter and meaning of Christs words As then the Papists retaine not the letter when in stead of Christs words This is my body they annex this seraphicall or super-angelicall glosse This thing or substance whatsoever undeterminate contained under these formes is my body so much lesse doe these reserve entire the letter and sense of Christs words when instead of them they place their own saying My body is in with under the bread or The bread and the body lying hid invisibly in the bread is my body For neither is the bread alone nor the bread with the body inclosed therein properly Christs body as an empty or full purse is not properly and without all figure of speech termed money Now the phrases they use are too improper and too much unfitting that they would expresse For as for the instances produced by them we know as soone as the Countrey-man Merchant Mother or Vintner speaketh that graine is in the sacke money in the purse an infant in the cradle and wine in the goblet But when these men tell us This is Christs body we know not forth-with that Christs body is in the bread neither can it be proved because an Article of the Christian faith testfieth that it is in heaven Of the Schisme of the Consubstantials LUthers foundation and maine ground at first was those words onely of Christ This is my body Afterwards in a disputation bad with the adversaries of this opinion pinion the 27. and 28. yeere he retired and fled to the Ubiquity and for that one foundation or ground afore-named he assumed four other 1. The personall union of the natures in Christ The right hand of God which is every where 3. The truth of God which cannot lie 4. The three fold manner of the existence of Christs body in any place But being at length repulsed from these holds he betook himselfe againe to Christs words and desired that all disputation of Ubiquity should quite be revoked Notwithstanding since his time some Lutherans by profession finding no sufficient warrant for their cause in Christs words have set Ubiquity on foot againe and at this day account it the best stake in their hedge Three sorts of Lutherans though others utterly disclaime it Hence arose a faction and division among the Consubstantials some are * 1. Simplices simply Lutherans who by Christs words only defend the being of Christs body in the bread and the eating it with the mouth some are * 2. Multipraesentiarii Omnipotentiarii multipresentiarie and omnipotentiarie Lutherans that is such as think Christs body to be present at once in many hosts by reason of the omnipotency really communicated therewith Lastly some are * 3. Omnipraesentiarii Ubiquitarii omnipresentiarie Lutherans who to assoile the presence of Christs body in the bread lay hold on the shield of Ubiquity and teach that Christs body is every where present by vertue of the union with the Word and therefore is present in the bread both before and after the use thereof in the Supper and that the right of consecration doth effect only that it be eaten in the bread Of this our young Divines for the understanding of this controverfie may not be ignorant For hereby they perceive that at this day there are two maine columnes or pillars erected to under-prop Consubstantiation namely The two principall
whereas the gates might yeeld and open unto him as also that he passed thorow the door or stone of the grave when as it is said that the Angel did open it and lastly when they say that Christs body was once and together in moe places which they seem to have of Austin but Austin said That his body was in the grave his soul in hell and his God-head every where 3. They reason from a circumstance of the time the same night in which hee was betrayed No man which speaketh seriously speaketh figuratively Christ instituting his Supper spake seriously Therefore without any figure Ans I deny the Major because by that position no man that speaketh seriously should speak figuratively which is most false God speaketh in all Sacraments though figuratively yet seriously I have earnestly desired saith Christ to eat this Passeover with you Wherefore I answer that he useth not jesting or obscure figures This figure is perspicuous because it is usuall and his disciples speak so Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou maist eat the Passeover It is usuall also in all Sacraments it is forcible and emphaticall because it expresseth the similitude of the signe and the thing signified and the certainty of the conjunction of both in the right use and administration Again we invert their reason and say Because Christ spake seriously therefore he used a figure which doth well expresse and declare the thing Repl. Christ said This cup is the new testament In wils and testaments men speak properly Christ here instituteth a Sacrament Therefore hee speaketh properly Ans I deny the Major and invert the reason for seeing he would institute a Sacrament therefore he spake figuratively calling the Supper the new testament which is figuratively to be understood for these two reasons 1. Because otherwise there should be two covenants the one proper and the other the Supper 2. Otherwise also they should be shut out from Gods covenant who cannot come to the Supper and all who come to the Supper should be in the covenant Object Christ saith In my bloud Therefore the reall bloud of Christ is in the Supper and is drunk by the mouth Ans We conclude the contrary rather by those words of Christ because the new testament was made by Christs bloud shed on the crosse and applyed unto us by faith not drunk by the mouth for otherwise they should be excluded from the testament and covenant who were not able to come to the Sacrament Rep There is a great force in the word New That which was done in the Old Testament typically is done in the New really Ans If they adde Therefore done by the mouth of the body they bring in more in the conclusion then was in the antecedent for there was no type in the old Testament which did signifie the eating of Christ with the mouth 2. We invert their reason Christs body was no otherwise eaten in the new Testament then in the old But in the old it was eaten spiritually only Coâ— 2.17 Hebr. 9. Therefore in the new also it is so eaten Rep. The new Testament differeth from the old because in that were types in the new is the body it selfe Ans This difference of the old and new Testament is no where set down in holy Scripture that Christ is eaten in the old not really and in the new corporally by the mouth In the places which are alledged out of the Apostle the body signifieâ—h that the shadow was only of the old Testament and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ because there the body is opposed to those shadows And further because he calleth it the body of Christ which kind of speech sheweth that by Christ was wrought accomplishment and fulfilling of the types and shadowes of the old Testament Moreover albeit we have Christ exhibited in the new Testament and he is there born a man yet notwithstanding it doth not therefore follow hereof that his body is in the bread but only that it is in the new Testament 4. They reason from the consent of the Evangelists and S. Paul Matthew as Theophylact calculateth writ his Gospel eight yeeres after Christs ascension Marke ten yeeres Luke fifteene yeeres Paul twenty yeers and all use the same words A speech that is often uttered with the same words is not figurative Such is the speech of the Lords Supper Therefore it is not figurative Ans It is false that a speech often uttered in the same words is not figurative because when a figure is conspicuous known and forcible as this it is retained Again The Evangelists repeat the words of Christ because he spake figuratively Often though it be figurative is this repeated Hee shall baptise you with the holy Ghost Matâ—h 3 1â— John 1.33 and with fire Moreover we deny that this speech of Christs Supper was repeated by all in the same words 1. Because Matthew and Mark say This is my bloud of the new Testament Luke saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud 2. Matthew and Mark say This is my body Luke addeth which is given for you Paul which is broken for you 3. Paul saith That the bread is the communion of the body of Christ And albeit in this place hee speaketh not purposely of the Supper yet he stirreth up and exhorteth unto it Repl. It is the same sense and meaning Answ The question now is not of the sense and meaning of the words but of the identity of the words that is whether they be the same words Repl. Where there is no mention at all of any figure there is no figure Answ This is false For foolish were it and men should seem to make shew and ostentation of their skill and art if they should say that they used a trim figure And the Scripture also often speaketh figuratively and yet doth it not adde withall it speaketh figuratively Furthermore they make mention hereof when they shew that it consisteth of the nature of the subject and the attribute The body was born of the Virgin crucified and so forth The bread is made of meal Secondly Christ willeth this to be done in remembrance of him Therefore the bread is called the body as a memoriall of his body Thirdly Matthew and Mark say This is my bloud of the new Testament Paul and Luke say This is the new Testament in my bloud Now the new Testament is the bloud whereby God hath bound himself to receive the faithfull and repentant into favour and they bind themselves to yeeld faith and obedience unto him Fourthly Paul saith That the bread is the communion of Christs body which is not any corporall eating 1. Because the faithfull are thereby one body in Christ 2. Because he compareth it with the communion of the altar in the old Testament which was not corporall 3. Because it can agree but to the faithfull onely and not to the wicked 4. John sheweth that communion If we walk in
is my body which is broken for you this doe you in remembrance of me Likewise also hee took the cup when he had supped and said This cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of mee For as often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till bee come This promise is repeated by S. Paul when he saith b 1 Cor. 10 16 17. This cup of thanksgiving wherewith wee give thanks is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ For we that are many are one bread and one body because we all are partakers of one bread The Explication THe institution of the Lords Supper doth confirme unto us by evident reasons what is the true and saving communion of Christs body and bloud and therefore the true sense and meaning of the words of the institution is diligently to be considered The holy Evangelists Matthew Marke and Luke do most especially of all others describe the institution of the Lords Supper and besides them the Apostle so declareth it no lesse plainly in his Epistle to the Corinthians The words of them all are these Matthew Chap. 26.26 c. As they did eat Jesus took the bread and when hee had given thanks hee brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body Also hee took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it For this is my bloud of the new Testament that is shed for many for the remission of sins Mark Chap. 14.22 c. As they did eat Jesus took the bread and when hee had given thanks he brake it and gave it to them and said Take eat this is my body Also hee took the cup and when hee had given thanks gave it to them and they all drank of it and hee said unto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Luke Chap. 22.19 c. And hee tooke bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and gave it to them saying This is my body which is given for you doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise after supper hee took the cup saying This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you to wit that the Lord Jesus in the night that he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks hee brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do yee in remembrance of mee After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me For as often as yee shall eat this bread and drink this cup yee shew the Lords death till he come The words of the Apostle wee will briefly expound and then wee will demonstrate our opinion in this point by true and firm arguments in the Question of Catechisme immediatly following The Lord Jesus This is the Authour from whom it is intituled the Lords Supper wee must therefore observe what the Lord did Lib 2. Epist 3. said and prescribed as Cyprian well warneth us If christ alone be to be heard wee must not attend or regard what any man before us hath thought meet to be done but what Christ who is before all first did perform In the night that hee was betrayed This circumstance is specified by the Apostle to give us to understand that Christ would at the last Supper of the Passeover institute this his Supper to shew 1. That now an end was made of all the old sacrifices and hee did substitute a new Sacrament which should succeed and should from henceforth be observed that Paschal Sacrament being finally abolished and which should signifie the same thing difference onely of time excepted For the Paschal lamb signified Christ which should come and should be sacrificed The Supper Christ already sacrificed Object But when the Supper was instituted Christ was yet to be sacrificed Answ But then was at hand the offering up and sacrificing of Christ For a few houres after hee was sacrificed and the Supper was from that time forward to signifie Christ sacrificed 2. That hee might stirre up in his disciples and in us greater attention and marking of the cause for which hee did institute it and that wee might understand how earnestly Christ would have this Supper to be commended unto us seeing hee did nothing before his death but that which was of most weight and moment Therefore did hee in the very point or instant before his death institute it to be as it were the testament and last will of our Testatour Briefly this clause Paul addeth that we may know that Christ instituted this Supper for a memoriall of himself now ready to die He took bread That is unleavened or not leavened bread which then they did eat of at the table in that feast of the passeover which admitted no leavened bread The institution of the Supper and unleavened bread did concurre then together and fall our by an accident and therefore this circumstance properly pertaineth not to the Supper as neither the evening doth at what time it was instituted neither can a necessity of unleavened bread for this use be hence inforced neither would Christ hereon prescribe any certain manner of baking bread for the Lords Supper Yet notwithstanding the bread of the Lords Supper differeth in use from common bread because this is taken for the nourishment of the body but that for the food and nourishment of the soul that is for the confirmation of our faith and union with Christ And here we are to note that hee is said to have taken bread from the table to wit with his hand hee took not his body therefore neither took hee his body in the bread with the bread or under the bread save only sacramentally for his body lay not on the table but sate down thereat Blessing and thanksgiving are all one in the Supper When hee had given thanks Matthew and Mark say of the bread When hee had blessed of the cup When he had given thanks Luke and Paul say of the bread When he had given thanks Wherefore To blesse and to give thanks both signifie one thing neither can the mystery of Popish magicall consecration be cloaked under these termes Christ therefore blessed that is he gave thanks namely to his Father not to be bread for spirituall blessings I meane for the satisfying of soules that his office being now performed and finished on earth his last act yet remaining to be done the time of his dying for the redemption of the elect was at hand that thus it had pleased the Father to redeem mankind or that the typicall Passeover was
abolished and the signified Pasteover was now exhibited and a memoriall of him was to be signed to the Church or lastly hee gave thanks for the admirable and wonderfull gathering and preserving of the Church Hee brake it That is hee brake the bread which hee took from the table and distributed the same being one among many not any other invisible thing hidden in the bread He brake not his body but the bread as Saint Paul saith The bread which hee brake c. Now he distributed the bread being one among many because wee that are many are one body But the cause for which he brake this bread was to signifie 1. His passion and the separation of his body from his soule Two things signified by the breaking of the bread 1 Cor. 10.16 2. The communion of many with his own body and their bond of union and mutuall love The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christ For wee that are many are one bread and one body Wherefore the breaking of bread is a necessary ceremonie both in respect of the signification Poure causes why this ceremony is to be retained and in respect of the confirmation of our faith and therefore is this ceremony also to be retained 1. Because Christ hath commanded it Doe this 2. Because of the authority and example of the Church planted in the Apostles time which from the rite of breaking termed the whole action Breaking of bread 3. For our own comfort that we may know the body of Christ to have been as certainly crucified for us as we see the bread to be broken unto us 4. That the opinions of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation may be pulled out of mens minds Take eat This commandement belongeth to the disciples and to the whole Church of the new Testament Whence it is cleer and manifest 1. That the Popish Masse wherein the priest giveth nothing to the Church to be taken and eaten is not the Supper of the Lord but a private supper of him that sacrificeth and a meer stage-play 2. That wee must not be idle beholders of the Supper but religious receivers of it 3. That the Lords Supper is not to be celebrated but in an assembly or congregation where there are such as receive and eat 4. That the Supper is a signe of grace in respect of God reaching out unto us his benefits to be apprehended with a strong faith even as we receive the signe with our hand and mouth This is my body This that is this bread Object Then should it have been said * These Greek pronouns cannot be expressed with the like English particles because the words BREAD and BODY being of divers genders in Greek the Greek pronouns also are divers when as in English our particle THIS serveth for words of all genders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as if he had said This thing which I have in my hand now that was bread And that it is so to be understood is proved by these reasons 1. Christ took nothing but bread he brake bread and gave bread to his disciples to eare 2. S. Paul saith expresly The bread which he brake is it not the communion of the body of Christ 3. Of the wine it is said This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Wherefore after the same manner it is said This that is this bread is my body which is broken and delivered unto death for you The literall sense if it be properly taken can be no otherwise understood then thus The substance of this bread is the substance of my body But so to understand it is an undoubted absurdity for bread is a masse without life baked of corn and not united personally to the Word but the body of Christ is a living substance born of the Virgin and united personally to the Word Christ therefore calleth the bread his body meaning Cont. Adim c. 12. the signe of his body by a sacramentall Metonymie attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe because he appointeth this bread to be signe and sacrament of his body as Augustine himself interpreteth The Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gave the signe of his body Wherefore far be it from us that we should say that Christ took bread visibly and his body invisibly in the bread For it is to be observed that he saith not In this is my body Or This bread is my body invisible But This bread is my body true and visible which is given for you Moreover these are the words of the promise added to this sacrament to teach us what the bread is in this use to wit the body of Christ that is what Christ exhibiteth and imparteth to the receivers of this bread and beleevers of this promise even his body or that flesh which in the Gospel hee promised to give for the salvation of the world For this is no diverse promise from that hee delivered in the sixth of John John 6.51 but every way the same concerning his flesh quickning us and the eating thereof profitable to salvation Only here the sacramentall rite is adjoined wherewith the promise is adorned and sealed as if he should say In the Gospel I promised life eternall to all that eat my flesh and drink my bloud now I confirme and ratifie this my promise with an outward ceremony that henceforth they which beleeve this promise and feed on this bread may undoubtedly be perswaded and assured that they verily eat my flesh which was given for the salvation of the world and have life eternall By this promise therefore this bread is made the sacrament and signe of Christs body and Christs body is made the thing signified by this sacrament The union of the signe the thing signified in the Sacrament and these two I mean the signe and the thing signified are united in this sacrament not by any naturall copulation or corporall and locall existence one in the other much lesse by transubstantiation or changing one into the other but by signifying sealing and exhibiting the one by the other that is by a sacramentall union whose bond is the promise added to the bread requiring the faith of the receivers Whence it is cleer that these things in their lawfull use are alwayes jointly exhibited and received but not without faith of the promise viewing and apprehending the thing promised now present in the Sacrament yet not present or included in the signe as in a vessell containing it but present in the promise which is the better part life and soul of the sacrament For they want judgement who affirme that Christs body cannot be present in the sacrament except it be in or under the bread as if forsooth the bread alone without the promise were either a sacrament or the principall part of a sacrament Which for you my disciples that is for
Supper therefore is often to be iterated and celebrated 1. Because of the words of the institution 2. In respect of the end and purpose of the institution because it must be done in remembrance of Christ Shew the Lords death That is beleeve that Christ dyed and that for you and then professe it also publickly before all Till he come Therefore it must be observed unto the worlds end neither is any other externall form to be looked for untill the day of judgement The words of the institution which have been hitherto expounded 1 Cor. 10.16 may be made more plain and cleer by these words of the Apostle The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing That is the cup of thanksgiving which is received namely to this end that we may yeeld thanks to Christ for his death and passion The communion of the body likewise the communion of the bloud is to be made through faith partakers of Christ and all his benefits the same spirit being in us which is in Christ John 15.2 â—phes 5. 1 John 1.6 and working the same in us which he worketh in Christ Or it is a spirituall fellowship of the faithfull with Christ as of members with the head and branches with the vine Bread and wine is the communion that is it is the signe and testimony of our communion with Christ But this our communion as the Apostle briefly declareth consisteth in this that wee who are many are but one body Whence it is most easie to collect That this communion of Christ is not a corporalleating For it is wrought only by faith and the holy Ghost Christ is the head and we the members and all wee who are members have also a communion of all Christs benefits Therefore the head is common the benefits common and so the members also common among themselves wherefore their love and dilection is common and mutuall Quest 78. Are then the bread and wine made the very body and bloud of Christ ON THE 19. SABBATH Ans No verily a Matt. 26.29 Mark 14.24 But as the water of baptism is not turned into the bloud of Christ but is only a signe and pledge of those things that are sealed unto us in baptism b Ephes 5.26 so neither is the bread of the Lords Supper the very body of Christ c 1 Cor. 10.16 11.26 although according to the manner of Sacraments and that forme of speaking of them which is usuall to the holy Ghost d Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.11 13. 13.9 Titus 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 1 Corinth 10.4 the bread is called the body of Christ The Explication THe Papists Transubstantiation under which also Consubstantiation maintained by the Ubiquitaries and others is comprehended is in this Question of the Catechisme consuted and rejected and the sacramentall kind of speech which we use with the true sense of those words of Christ This is my body examined and unfolded We will first intreat of that forme of speech which we use and of the true meaning of Christs words then will wee handle the controversie of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation That therefore which hath been heretofore spoken in generall of sacramentall phrases and termes must be restrained to this Sacrament For thus Austine himself descendeth from the generall rule of sacramentall termes unto a particular instance of eating Christs flesh Eâ—ist 23. ad Bonifâ—â— This saith he is the only way to find whether a phrase be proper or figurative That whatsoever in Gods word cannot properly be referred to some point of morall duty or to the truth of faith you may be assured that it is figuratively spoken And a little after hee produceth this example Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud yee have no life in you Hee seemeth saith Augustine by these words to injoyne us some hainous crime It is therefore a figurative speech instructing us that wee are to partake of Christs passion and joyfully and fruitfully to recall to mind how his flesh was crucified and wounded for us Wherefore as of Baptisme as hath been already declared so of the Lords Supper also the Scripture speaketh sometimes properly and sometimes figuratively The speech is figurative when Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the cup This is my bloud Likewise when Paul saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud For in these the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe Paul also then speaketh figuratively when he saith This is my body which is broken for you because he attributeth the property of the signe which is to be broken to the thing signified Thus Cyprian must be understood When we drink of the cup we cleave to the crosse Serm. de Coena Hom 24. in 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 27. wee suck Christs bloud and lay our tongues in our Redeemers wounds Thus Chrysostome is to be interpreted when he saith Christs bloud is in the chalice Christs body which is in heaven is presented on earth to our view and is not only seen but touched of us nor touched only but eaten also he is held bitten and eaten of us in token of love as sometimes wee bite at him whom we love and touch his flesh with our tongue These sentences are not truly spoken or understood of the body of Christ but by a trope and figure usuall in sacraments Now the speech is proper when Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of me and when the Fathers every where say The breaking of bread is a memoriall a lively shadow of Christs sacrifice The bread signifieth the body of Christ It is a figure a signe a sacrament of the body of Christ Of the controversie concerning the words used in the Supper NOw whereas our adversaries the Papists and others deny that Christs words are sacramentally spoken and say we are to keep the letter wee must here adde something touching the controversie of the letter and meaning of the letter The Papists bear us in hand that by the vertue and force of consecration there is made a transubstantiation or changing of the bread into the body of Christ the accidents only remaining Others tell us of a consubstantiation or co-existence of Christs body in or with the bread The Transubstantiaries The Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries relie not on the simple meaning of Christs words together with the Consubstantiaries doe boast and glory that they understand the words of Christ simply and aright But neither perform that which they brag and boast of for that is the true simplicity and property of the word whereunto for the just understanding and interpretation thereof nothing is to be added neither ought to be taken from it neither any thing altered But as many as hold that the body of Christ
is with in or under the bread they adde unto the words of Christ and depart from true simplicity For if that which Christ said is simply to be retained and that not to be admitted which he said not then may we not say The bread is both bread and the body of Christ but simply this only The bread is the body of Christ For he said not My body is with or in or under the bread or The bread is both bread and my body together neither addeth he as these adde of their own really substantially corporally but he uttereth these bare words of the bread This is my body Neither have the Transubstantiaries their opinion drawn from the words of Christ simply understood namely that of the bread is made the body of Christ or the bread is changed into the body of Christ for this is their own forgery and invention For Christ said not that the bread was now made or was a making or should be made but simply said The bread is my body where no change could come between so that the words of Christ be simply understood Therefore falsly do they perswade the people that they simply rest on the propriety of Gods word when as manifoldly and most farre they swerve and depart from it The true interpretation of Christ words We Protestants retain the words of Christ without adding or altering to wit that the bread is the body of Christ and indeed the true and visible body which was given for us But because these words literally taken would admit a sense repugnant to the truth of Christian faith for if bread were properly Christs body it would follow that bread was crucified for us therefore we affirm that in Christs words a convenient meaning must be inquired after that is Christs words must be understood sacramentally namely that the bread is called Christs body because it is a signe of Christs body the cup or wine in the cup is called Christs bloud because it is a sign of Christs bloud the cup is also called the new Testament because it is a signe of the new Testament even as baptism is termed a washing away of sins and a laver of new birth because it is a signe of both these which are wrought properly by the bloud and spirit of Christ The true sense therefore and naturall interpretation of Christs words is This is my body which is given for you that is This bread broken by me and given to you is a signe of my body delivered to death for you and an authentick seal of your conjunction with me so that he which shall beleeve and eat this bread he truly and really after a sort eateth my body Here therefore to the signe is attributed the name of the thing signified both for the conjunction which the thing signified hath in the right use of the Supper with the signe and also for the proportion which the signe hath with the thing signified In this exposition we are not led and over-ruled by Philosophy and humane reason as our adversaries traduce us and bear the world in hand we are but we observe those rules by which in the joint consent of all sound wise men wee are to censure the interpretation of any Scripture whatsoever namely by the analogie and rule of faith by the nature of the thing or subject by the testimonies of Scripture which teach the same thing Three rules wâ—ereby we may judge of the interpretation of Scripture For by help of these three rules the naturall sense of Scripture is wont to be examined as often as necessity driveth us from the letter to the sense and meaning 1. That no interpretation be received dissonant from the rule of faith or repugnant to any article thereof or any commandement of the Decalogue or any expresse testimony of Scripture for the spirit of truth is not contrary to it self 2. That the sense derived out of words signifying any thing have a congruity with the nature of the thing signified by the words as in this present subject of the Supper whereon wee insist when any question or doubt is moved therein we are to enquire seeing it is a Sacrament how the Scripture else-where speaketh of Sacraments and of the Supper it selfe 3. That other like places be weighed and considered by which it is either manifest and granted or may be demonstrated by some circumstance that they contain the same doctrine concerning the same thing which is contained in the place in controversie For if we be fully resolved of the meaning of any cleerer and uncontroversed place we shall also be resolved of the sense of the place in controversie if the same thing be delivered in both So then it is out of doubt that that meaning of the words of the Supper which is agreeable with these rules is true and those untrue which disagree from them But this our construing and interpretation which indeed is not ours but the doctrine of Christ himself his Apostles and all orthodox or right-beleeving antiquity doth every way sute with these rules wherefore undoubtedly it is most true and best beseeming the truth of the Gospel Now let us come to the arguments by which wee prove our interpretation to be true they are of four sorts 1. Some are taken out of the text it self and circumstances of the institution of the Lords Supper 2. Some are taken from the nature of the thing or subject that is by understanding the speech as the thing it self doth bear and suffer namely according to the nature of all Sacraments 3. Some are drawn from an analogie of the articles of our faith or from a conference of places or parts of Christian doctrine 4. Some are taken from other like places of Scripture where the same thing is delivered in such words as are manifest and whereof there is no controversie 1. The first sort of arguments taken out of the text and circumstances of the institution of the Lords Supper He sate down 1. CHrists humane nature at the first celebrating of the Supper by a corporall kind of placing sate in his proper place at the table and now is in heaven wherefore then it was not neither is it now corporally in the bread or in the place of the bread He took bread 2. Christ at the first Supper took not into his hands nor brake his body but bread wherefore bread is not properly and really the very body of Christ This is my body 3. Christs body was born of a virgin But bread is made of meal therefore it is not really Christs body 4. Christ said of the visible bread being broken This is my body and of the visible cup being distributed unto his disciples This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Therefore the Papists retain not the letter when they say My body is contained under the forms of bread and wine nor the Ubiquitaries when they thus speak My body is in with under this
bread and much lesse when both of them say My invisible body contained under this form or under this bread is my body For both of them do not only manifestly decline from the letter to a glosse of their own but shamefully pervert Christs words in the former glosse as if it were written My body is under this and in the later they father on Christ a childish tautologie or repetition of the same thing as if he had said My body is my body Which was given for you 5. Christs body which we eat in the Supper was delivered to death and crucified for us But bread was not given and crucified for us Therefore bread is not properly and really the body of Christ This cup is the new Testament 6. As the cup is the new Testament so the bread is the body of Christ The cup is the new Testament sacramentally as before hath been shewed and now may be farther proved by this reason The new Testament properly is not drunk with the mouth but beleeved with the heart but the cup is drunk with the mouth therefore the cup cannot properly be the new Testament Therefore the bread is Christs body in the same sense to wit sacramentally 7. If the bread be properly Christs body and the cup his bloud it must needs be that in the first Supper the bloud was separated from Christs body and that now both of them be given us apart as they are signes apart But neither in the first Supper was the bloud then without the body neither is the body now given without bloud for then Christ was not yet dead and now he dieth no more Therefore the bread is the body and the cup the bloud of Christ not properly but sacramentally 8. That which Christ himself did eat and drink was not properly his body and bloud else should hee have eaten and drunken himselfe But hee did eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he saith I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine Mark 14.25 and Chrysostome commenting hereon saith Hee also drank of the cup Hom. 83. in Mark. lest hearing those words they should say What Doe wee then drink bloud and eat flesh and so be troubled For when hee first made mention of this kind of eating and drinking many took offence for the words sake onely Therefore lest this should then also happen hee himselfe first did eat and drinke that so hee might lead them with a quiet reposed mind to the communion of the mysteries The bread therefore and the cup are not properly Christs body and bloud but sacramentally Doe this in remembrance of mee 9. Remembrance is not of things corporally present but of things absent Christ instituted this sacrament to be celebrated in remembrance of him Therefore Christ is not corporally present in the bread or sacrament Doe this 10. Either Christ with his body is not substantially in the bread or forme of bread or the Supper is not to be any more celebrated For the Apostle biddeth us eat of this bread and drink of this cup and shew forth the Lords death till he come But questionlesse the celebration of the Supper is not yet to be intermitted but ought to be continued unto the end of the world Christ therefore is not yet come neither is he corporally in the bread or form of bread 11. As the bread was the body of Christ in the first Supper and the disciples did eat Christs body so and no otherwise the bread is now Christs body and wee eat Christs body for our Supper is no other then the Supper of the disciples was But in the first Supper the bread was not essentially Christs body neither did the disciples eat Christs body with their mouthes in the bread or in the form of bread for Christ corporally and visibly sate at the table with his disciples and suffered no change the whole action throughout Therefore now also the bread is not essentially Christs body neither do we eat Christs body with our mouthes in the bread or in the form of bread 2. The second sort of arguments which are taken from the nature of the Sacraments 1. THe very manner and form of speaking yeeldeth us a firm and strong argument Bread is the body of Christ But bread is not in his own proper substance his body for by reason hereof have they invented Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Therefore it is a figurative speech even such a one as is usuall unto sacraments and is afore declared in the institution of the Supper 2. In all sacraments when the name or properties of the things signified are attributed unto the signes there is not signified the corporall presence of the thing in the signes but first a similitude of the things with their signes and a sealing of them by their signes then a conjunction and union of the things with their signes in the right use But in this Sacrament Christ attributeth the names of the things signified his body and bloud to the signes the bread and wine saying This is my body This is my bloud Therefore there is not thereby signified a corporall presence of his body 3. The nature of all sacraments is that the signs be understood and taken corporally that the things signified must be understood and taken spiritually and that the visible things be not the things signified but only signes and pledges of them 4. Sacramentall phrases and termes are sacramentally to be understood These words of the Supper This is my body This is my bloud are sacramentall phrases for they signifie the Sacrament and attribute the names of the things signified to the signes Therefore they are to be understood sacramentally Object There is no figurative speech expressed in the words of the Supper Therefore wee may not so interpret them Answ The Antecedent is false for Christ himselfe adjoined a sacramentall declaration immediately on them saying Doe this that is eat this bread and drink this cup in remembrance of me that is that therby ye may be certified and assured that my body was given and my bloud was shed for you and given to you to be meat and drink unto life eternall Again This cup is the new Testament in my bloud that is the seale of the new Testament and promise of grace now fulfilled in my bloud 5. Whatsoever is not promised in the Gospel that cannot be sealed unto us by the Supper for sacraments confirm exhibite promise seal no other thing then the word doth whence they are termed visible promises and visible words In the Gospel is promised no corporall eating Joh. 6.62 63. nay it is peremptorily reproved and condemned by Christ in the Gospel by two arguments 1. Because not long after hee would exalt his body into heaven and remove it far from the Jews mouthes 2. Because the corporall eating of his flesh profiteth nothing Neither doth he there distinguish the eating of him into a grosse and a
grounds of Consubstantiation 1. The Vbiquity 2. The words of Christ. The Ubiquity hath beene at large discoursed of before in expounding the Articles of the personall union of the two natures in Christ of his ascension into heaven and of his sitting at the right hands of God the Father and the difficulties therein discussed fully resolved and Ubiquity it selfe confuted Christs words witnesse the Papists themselves neither intimate Consubstantiation neither can beare that interpretation Which the Ubiquitaries also in their writings dissemble not and have therefore devised and invented the Ubiquity because they saw that the ground and foundation of their opinion if it were laid on Christs words only were too ruinous and like to have a speedy down-fall Christ said This is my body which is given for you which words the Consubstantials retaine not Consubstantiation over browne by Christs very words neither literally nor according to their sense and meaning We need not therefore any argument to refute Consubstantiation but Christs very words whereunto we recall them and thus reason against them Christ said not In this bread is my body but This is my body neither is the sense of both these propositions all one seeing the former declareth what is in the bread and where Christs body is the later what the bread it selfe is in the Eucharist Therefore the Consubstantials who teach that in the bread is Christs body retaine neither the letter nor the meaning of Christs words A refutation of objections framed to confirme Consubstantiation Schmidline his argument in the conference at Mulbr Laâ— Pag. 159. OBject 1. It is an usuall kind of speech when two things are joyntly given the one apparent the other in covert that that onely be named which appeared not as we say of purses fraught with money This is money of a caske of wine This is wine But Christ in his Supper delivering in the same manner two things joyntly at once namely the bread and his body named that onely which appeared not under the bread saying Take this is my body Therefore Christs manner of speech is most usuall and proper neither needeth it any explication at all Answ To the Major we answer that it is a forme of speech most usuall c. but with this limitation when it is certaine that the thing which is named though it be not apparent yet it is contained in that thing which is apparent as it is certaine that money is in the purse and wine in the caske Otherwise it is no usuall plaine or true forme of speech to say of an empty purse This is money But hitherto it is not cleere neither have the Consubstantials as yet proved that Christs body lay hid in the bread when Christ said thereof This is my body as it ought to be evident that money is in the purse and wine in the vessell when it is said This is money This is wine Yea and we avouch the contrary to wit that Christs body in the first Supper lay not hid in the bread but sate at table and now is in heaven untill it thence returne in judgement Therefore this forme of reasoning is a begging of that which is in controversie betwixt us Answ 2. The Minor also is false For Christ delivering unto his Disciples not his body but bread taken from the table and broken said Take cate This that is this bread is my body Which exposition is proved 1. Because it is said of the cup This cup is the New Testament 2. Paul expoundeth the particle This of the bread saying The bread which we break is the communion of Christs body 3. Because the bread and body of Christ both together are neither properly not figuratively Christs very body and hereby a Tautologie or a vaine and childish iteration of the same thing should be fathered on Christ in saying My body is my body 4. We deny also the consequence because their conclusion compriseth more then their premisses in force For they conclude that it is a most usuall and proper speech But these two usuall and proper are not in force and signification alike For the most usuall form of speech may be figurative as those very triviall and yet Synecdochicall speeches urged by them This is money This is wine who is so mad as to think the purse alone or the purse with the mony is properly money So was that Sacramentall speech of the Passeover frequent and well knowne unto the Disciples of Christ Where wilt thou that we provide the Passeover Yet spake they not properly but figuratively attributing to the signe the name of the thing signified by a sacramentall Metonymie or change of names That which followeth therefore out of the premisses is only this That Christs words were triviall plaine and known to the Disciples but not that they were understood properly literally and without all Trope or Figure Object 2. Christ said This is my body But Christ is true Therefore we must beleeve him setting apart all Philosophicall subtilty and sharpnesse and so by consequent bread is not a signe of his body but his body as the words lie which are simply and literally to be understood Ans Here they alledge us that for a cause which is indeed no cause of the matter in hand For Christs truth is a cause onely that his words are true yea most true to which we ought to give credence setting apart all Philosophicall subtilty but it is no cause why his words should be proper and literally taken For he which speaketh figuratively may also speak truly as Christ him selfe was no lesse true yea truth it selfe when he said I am the light of the world the doore of the sheepfold the good Shepheard the true Vine my Father is an Husbandman ye are the branches then when he said This is my body And they deserve to be hissed out of Schooles who presume to terme figurative speeches by the name of lies 2. We retort their Minor thus Christ is true Therefore he said not that his body lay hid in the bread when all his Disciples saw that it sate at Table 3. We retort their conclusion on them thus Christs words must be understood simply Therefore yee may not cloake and colour them with your glosse which perverteth the letter when ye say that In With Vnder the bread is Christs body or that the bread is the closet of Christs body Object 3. Christ is omnipotent Therefore he can effect that his body should be really in the bread Ans The reason is of no force which will conclude a thing to be done because it may be done The question is not What Christ can doe but what he will He no where promised the presence of his body in the bread or in the presence of the bread Therefore we derogate nothing at all from his omnipotency when we beleeve no such presence Repl. Bread is present in place of the Supper Bread is Christs body Therefore Christs body is present in
place of the Supper Ans The Minor of this Syllogisme is figurative by the confession of the adversaries themselves For Jacobus Andreas in a disputation held at Mulbr when he could no wayes else escape expresly confessed that this proposition is figurative Bread is the body of Christ Protoc lat pag. 160. The same Andreas afterwards wrote that this phrase Bread is Christs body is proper Behold the spirit of contradiction and to be understood without any trope or Figure Is not this to blow hote and cold out of the same mouth to say one thing and to unsay it againe Object 4. Christs words are not to be changed Christ used the word IS This IS my body Therefore there may not be put in place thereof the word SIGNIFIETH Ans We grant the whole For we place not the word signifieth instead of the word is neither doe we change Christs words but retaine them as they were pronounced by Christ But we say that this is the true and naturall sense of those words namely that the bread is the body of Christ symbolically that is as a symbole or token of it or that it signifieth Christs body For so Christ himselfe construeth them saying Doe this in remembrance of me So Paul interpreteth them This cup is the New Testament in my bloud Tertublib 4. Cont Marc. And Tertullian saith The bread which he took and distributed among his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Lib. 4. cap. 4 5. de sacr Con. Adim ca. 12. And Austine Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gave a token of his body 2. We retort the argument on our adversaries thus Christs words are not to be changed Therefore the Transubstantials glosse is false averring thus Vnder these forms is or is contained my body and likewise the Corsubtantials glosse in with under this bread is my body invisibly present 3. The words are not to be chaged to wit into another sense then Christ will have but otherwise they are often to be chaged that is interpreted aright as when it is said Pluck out thine eye To him that taketh away thy coate give thy cloake also For words are to be understood according to the nature of things Object 5. The words of Testaments are to be understood properly lest occasion of striving about the will of the Testator fall out the Supper is the New Testament Therefore the words therein are properly to be understood Ans To be Major we make answer that the words of Testaments are properly to be understood if they be properly spoken and figuratively if they be figuratively uttered If they say All words of Testaments are properly to be understood we deny the Major For it is sufficient that the words of Testaments be cleere and plaine though oftentimes they be not proper but figurative For when we are sure of the Testators will what it is in vaine doe we then dispute of the letter So God in the old time spake figuratively of Circumcision of the Paschall Lamb of the Sacrifices And Christ in the New Testament spake by a figure Take drinke This cup is the New Testament in my bloud For here is a double figure 1. A Synecdoche when he biddeth them drink of the cup that is of the wine in the cup. 2. A Metonymie when he calleth the cup the New Testament that is the reconciliation of mankind with God sealed by his bloud Object 6. The eating of bread is done by the mouth but the eating of the body is the eating of bread Therefore the eating of the body is done by the mouth Answ The Minor is either figurative or false It is figurative if you understand it thus The eating of the body is the thing signified and sealed by the eating of bread And so the manner of predication or affirmation being changed nothing is proved If it be properly understood it is false For the eating of the bread is externall corporall and visible but the eating of the body is internall spirituall and invisible Wherefore they are not properly one kind of eating but as the thing signified is distinguished from the signe so the receit of both of them is distinct though both be at once in the lawfull use of the Sacraments Object 7. That which quickneth and nourisheth must needs be received into us The body and bloud of Christ doe quicken us Therefore they must needs be received into us that is be eaten and drunken with the mouth Ans The Major is but meerly particular and therefore false in generall for not whatsoever quickneth and nourisheth us must necessarily be received into us That onely must be received into us necessarily which quickneth and nourisheth naturally that is by a joynt-touching of our body This meate which so nourisheth us after a naturall manner doth not nourish us except thereby the substance of our body be increased But we speak farre otherwise of the nourishing of the soule which is spirituall Christs body doth not at all nourish us naturally for it doth not being received in us quicken us by working in us new corporall qualities like as a medicine doth but the body of Christ nourisheth and quickneth us after a manner diverse from that naturall nourishing and accordingly as this manner of nourishing and quickning us requireth so receive wee Christs body The manner how Christs body and bloud nourish us The manner whereby Christs body and bloud nourish us is 1. The respect of his merit For for us Christs body is given and his bloud shed for us and for the body and bloud of Christ we have eternall life given to us After this manner then the body and bloud of Christ quickneth us as it is a merit deserving for us this blessing 2. His body or bloud quickneth or nourisheth us when we receive that merit of Christs body and bloud that is when we beleeve with a true faith that for it we shall have eternall life This faith resteth and hangeth on Christ hanging on the Crosse not corporally dwelling in us 3. It nourisheth us when the same spirit uniteth us by faith unto Christ and worketh the like in us which he doth in Christ For except we be graffed into Christ we doe not please God For he will on that condition receive us into favour and pardon us our sinnes so that by faith through the working of the holy Ghost we be joyned with Christ and ingraffed into him Seeing then this is the manner whereby the body and bloud of Christ quicken and nourish us there is no need of any descending of the body and bloud of Christ into our bodies to quicken us Repl. Not onely our soules but our bodies also are fed with Christs body and bloud unto eternall life Therefore our bodies must eate as well as our soules But our bodies eate and drinke by the mouth Answ The Major here omitted proceedeth thus Whatsoever
is conveyed by an Angel into heaven lyeth corporally under the formes of bread and wine is really carried up and downe in the hands of the Minister and received by the mouth of the Communicants These forgeries are repugnant to the Articles of Faith the Incarnation the Ascension and Intercession and the returne of Christ unto Judgement and to the nature of Sacraments in which the signes must needs remaine and not lose their nature 3. The Lords Supper teacheth us That Christ is to be worshipped in heaven at the right hand of his Father For it overthroweth not but establisheth and ratifieth the Articles of Faith and doctrine of the whole Gospel which sheweth that Christ is to be sought and worshipped Above Colos 3.2 Seek the things which are above where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God Acts 7.55 And Stephen when he was stoned saw Christ and worshipped him Above standing at the right hand of God The ancient Church also sang in their Liturgy or common Service and Prayer Sursum corda Wee lift up our hearts unto the Lord. On the other side the Masse telleth us That Christ is to be worshipped in the bread which adoration and worship questionlesse is idolatrous For To worship Christ in the bread is to direct our worship in soule minde cogitation and as much as may be in the motion of our bodies to the place in which the bread is and turning hereto to yield reverence unto Christ as if he were present there more than else-where So of old they worshipped God at the Arke turning thereto with their minds and as much as might be with their externall grace and inclination of body That this is idolatry we prove 1. Because no creature hath power to tie the worship of God to any thing or place Exod. 25.22 29.42 1 King 8.33 12.29 10 31. Dan 9.11 2 Kings 12.13 Amos 4.4 wherein God hath not commanded by expresse word himselfe to be worshipped and wherein God hath not promised to heare us And hereby is the cause of that difference plainly seen why the Jews directing their prayer to the Propitiatory or Mercy-seat did notwithstanding withall in spirit worship the true God and were by promise from him assured to be heard but worshipping in Dan and in Bethel and in the high places and in the Temple of Samaria were Idolaters not knowing what they worshipped and the cause of this thing is more at large declared 1 Kings 17.9 2. Because in the New Testament all worship which is tyed to any certain place on earth is utterly taken away and spirituall worship only required stirred and kindled by the holy Ghost and done with a true faith and knowledge of God Joh. 4.21 22 23. So Christ teacheth Yee worship that which yee know not wee worship that which wee know But the houre cometh when ye shall neither in this mountaine nor at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth Whereas Christ saith in spirit not in this mountaine nor at Jerusalem he doth plainly take away worship tied and restrained to any certaine place on earth Wherefore we must also take away and have in detestation this impious invention of Christs corporall presence in the Mass or in the bread and wine which is the foundation of idolatrous adoration or worship For this being put that Christ is in body present in the bread whether it be said to be done by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation the Popish adoration standeth fast For as in ancient times before the Ascension it was not only lawfull but behoovefull also to worship Christ wheresoever he was so now also if he be in the bread he must be worshipped in the bread whether he be there seen or not seen For much more were we to beleeve the voice of God then any sense of ours if it expressed and specified any such matter Likewise of the contrary side the presence of Christs body in the bread is taken away if we take away by Gods commandement this foule and shamefull Popish adoration of Christs body lying covertly by their judgements under the formes of Bread and Wine Here the Ubiquiraries except against us on their behalfe that Christ is present in the bread not to be worshipped but to be eaten and that he commanded not himself to be adored but to be eaten Answ In both these asseraions they conclude no more then that which is in controversie for Christ commanded neither of these If he be in the bread he must there be worshipped because of the generall commandement Let all the holy Angels of God worship him Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God They therefore imagine Christ in the bread and yet say it is not lawfull to worship him which is an open deceit and mockery Wherefore Musculus and others to salve this sore are content to fall downe before the Bread and worship Christ therein But Heshusius replyeth against us thus The Divinity is not adored in all the creatures though it be present in all Therefore neither is it necessary that the humanity should be adored in the bread though it be corporally present therein Ans The examples are not alike The adoration of the Divinity is not tyed to all creatures but it is tyed to the humanity assumed as to a proper peculiar Temple Wheresoever then Christs humanity is there the Divinity will be worshipped in it and with it And indeed by this their own maine argument The Ubiquity of Christs manhood confuted by the Ubiquitaries own argument the Ubiquity of Christs manhood is quite overthrowne For seeing the manhood is not to be worshipped in all creatures and every-where it followeth that it is not present in all peares apples ropes cheeses c. as the Ubiquitaries write thereof These differences did D. Vrsine in the yeare of our Lord 1569. thus inlarge and deliver 1. The Supper testifieth that Christs onely sacrifice justifieth The Masse-Priests say that the Masse justifieth for the very worke done as they use to speake that is through the externall rite and action 2. The Supper teacheth us that Christ redeemed us by offering himselfe for us The Masse-Priests say that we are redeemed by Christ offered by them 3. The Supper telleth us that our salvation is perfected by Christs owne sacrifice The Masse-mongers report that it is perfected by infinite numbers of Masses 4. The Supper instructech us how we are ingraffed into Christ by faith by means of the holy Ghost The Masse falsly feigneth that Christ entreth into us corporally or wee are ingraffed into Christ by his corporall conveyance into us 5. The Supper teacheth us that Christ having ended his sacrifice ascended into heaven Our Massemongers tell us that he in his body is on the Aliar 6. In the Supper bread and wine remaine and change not their substance because Sacraments retaine and change not the substance of the signe The Masse-Priests declare unto us that
ground and foundation of Christian doctrine and to have a purpose to obey it but those must be repelled who will not desist either from their errours and blasphemies or from manifest sins against their conscience being admonished by the Church and convicted of errour 16. The Pope hath corruptly taken away the breaking of the bread from the rite of the Supper and bereaved the people of the use of the cup. Corruptly also hath he transformed the Supper of the Lord with adding so many ceremonies not delivered by the Apostles into a theatricall or pageant-like Masse that is into a Jewish superstition and stage-like rounds and conveyances But more wicked and idolatrous inventions are these That the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice wherein Christ is offered by the Masse-priests for the quick and the dead and is by the force of consecration substantially present and abideth so long as those forms of bread and wine remain uncorrupted and further doth bestow the grace of God and other benefits upon them for whom he is offered of whom also he is eaten with the mouth of their body yea though they have no good inward motion in them and lastly is being treasured and laid up and carried about under those forms to be worshipped In respect of these foul monsters it is necessary that the Masse be quite and clean abolished out of the Christian Church In summe they are these 1. Transubstantiation 2. Bread-worship 3. Sacrifice 4. Maiming of Christs Supper THE APPENDIX OR ADDITION ADJOYNING unto the former Treatise of the Supper Certain principall arguments of the Consubstantiaries against the sincere doctrine of the Lords Supper and the Sacramentaries as they call them together with a refutation of them 1. THe errours of the Sacramentaries say they are that there are but bare signes and symboles only in the Supper Ans We teach that the things signified are together with the signes in the right use exhibited and communicated albeit not corporally but in such sort as is agreeable unto Sacraments 2. The Sacramentaries say that Christ is present only according to his power and efficacie Ans We teach that he is present and united with us by the holy Ghost albeit his body be far absent from us like as whole Christ also is present with his ministery though diversly according to the one nature 3. The Sacramentaries say they affirm that an imaginary figurative or spirituall body of Christ is present not his essentiall body Ans We never spake of an imaginary body but of the true flesh of Christ which is present with us although it remain in heaven Moreover we say that we receive the bread and body but both after a manner proper to each 4. The Sacramentaries say they affirm that the true body of Christ which hung on the crosse and his very bloud which was shed for us is distributed and is spiritually received of those only who are worthy receivers as for the unworthy they receive nothing besides the bare signes unto their condemnation Ans All this we grant as being agreeing to the word of God the nature of sacraments the analogie of faith and the communion of the faithfull Certaine arguments of the Consubstantiaries whereby they goe about to overthrow our doctrine of the Lords Supper together with the refutation of them 1. THe words of the institution are open and plain This is my body This is my bloud Ans They alledge these words against themselves for they say That the body of Christ is received really in under with the bread when Christ saith that the very bread is the body Wherefore they doe a double injury unto the Church First while they thrust upon the Church their own words for Christs Secondly while they imagine that the Church perceiveth not these speeches to be divers In the bread is my body and The bread is my body They accuse Christ also for a liar for they deny that the bread is his body but that his body is in the bread Let them look therefore unto it how they will answer Christ at the last judgment for this blasphemy and reproach The Papists also do more retain the very words of Christ But these retain not the words but follow the sense and meaning Wee must see therefore which part followeth it Ours shall be proved in the end Repl. Christ addeth an exposition of his mind Which is given for you and Which is shed for you Ans First this is a begging of that which is in question for they take as granted that the bread is properly called the body which yet lieth upon them to prove for it is a sacramentall manner of speaking Secondly we return their own reason upon them by inverting it thus The body of Christ properly so called was given for us But the bread was not given for us Therefore the bread is not the body properly so called Likewise as the bread is the body broken so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body But the breaking of the body is the crucifying thereof Therefore the bread broken is but sacramentally and by representation the body broken 2. They reason from the authour who said it and is true Ans This is also a begging of that which is in question They must prove that Christ said his body was in under with the bread And further a man may speak figuratively and yet speak perspicuously and plainly Repl. He is also omnipotent therefore he is able to be every-where and so in the bread Ans Albeit he were able to bring to passe that two flat repugnant things should be true together yet will hee not do it Again God is not able to work contradictories or things flat repugnant because he is true Now to will those things which are contradictory argueth a lyar Wherefore we deny not the truth and omnipotency of God but these mens lies nay rather we defend Gods truth affirming that God doth that which he spake But they oppugne it making contrary wils to be in God Repl. Christs body hath many prerogatives not agreeable to our bodies as that he was born of a Virgin walked on the sea was at one time and together in the grave in hell and in paradise and passed thorow the gates when they were fast shut Ans These examples are partly not matches and partly false For this may agree unto a creature to walk on the waters as it did to Peter to passe thorow the gates shut as it is agreeable to the nature of a spirit Again these examples are not matches nor of the same quality with that which is in question because these do not imply a contradiction For when he is said to be born of a Virgin he is not said withall not to be born of a Virgin But to be both finite and infinite as they will have Christs body who consubstantiate it with the bread these imply a contradiction Now it is false that they say that he passed thorow the gates shut
hell or in the greatest matter of all others impiously to blaspheme if this be not The second Argument THe blasphemie of Samosatenus Arrius and the late Anti-trinitaries is this That Christ-man is not properly and by nature God but onely by an accidentall participation of Divine properties majesty honour power and vertue The Ubiquitaries also maintaine the same consideration of the God-head of Christ-man while they define the personall union by his communicating alone of properties whereby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent and every where So that now that man is and is called God not that hee is properly and by nature God but because in finite power majesty and glory is given him from God and all the gifts of the holy Ghost are bestowed on him without measure Now this accidentall bestowing of the God head and all the properties doth not make Christ to be properly and by nature God but only by divine grace or God unproperly so called because it is not the very essentiall God-head of the Word but a certain participation thereof in vertue and efficacy And therefore the sounder Fathers objected unto the Arrians that they took away the true and eternall God-head of Christ when they made him a God not by nature but by grace b participation onely of dignity and majesty Therefore seeing the Vbiquitaries also equalling our Immanuel with God by participation of properties onely take away his true and eternall God-head wee doe disclaime and accurse this their doctrine as blasphemous and hereticall And that they doe this their own words and opinions witnesse Brentius in recog p. 20 Anar Thes 10. â—â— p. Tubin Thes 25 26. and Apol. â—agr 29. as Brentius and Jacobus Andraeas and others of them in their writings Whence we conclude that the Ubiquitaries hold the same opinion with the Artians and the Anti-trinitaries of the God-head of Christ-man that is that all esteeme him for God not by nature but onely by grace of participation new temporary created adopted If these things be true Christ shall not be God and man Lib. 1. de Trinita but a divine man such as the Ubiquitaries repute him who as Servetus hold this opinion That God can communicate the fulnesse of his God-head give his divinity majesty power and glory unto man But wee execrate and detest the same blasphemy of both The third Argument NEstorius taught That the union of God the Word with man was wrought by the participation only of equality as touching majesty honour power vertue and operation Neither doth hee make the difference of the dwelling of the Word in mans nature which himselfe tooke and in other Saints to consist in any other thing than in those gifts and graces bestowed by God on man The selfe same also doe the Vbiquitaries teach because they cry that there is no difference between the inhabiting and dwelling of the God head in Peter and in Christ except it be taken from the communication of the gifts or properties of the God-head and they contend that by this meanes this man which was taken by the Word is God because the Word doth nothing without him but all things by him This is nothing else than to make Christ man onely God by an accident Wherefore the doctrine of Vbiquity is altogether the same with Nestorius his heresie Tert. lib. de Trin pag. 6. 10. Tertullian saith If Christ be man onely how then is he present every-where being called upon and invocated seeing this is not the nature of man but of God to be able to be present in all places By this testimony is refuted the Ubiquity of the humane nature in Christ Object But the union of the divine and humane nature in Christ is unseparable Therefore wheresoever the divine nature is there is also the humane nature Ans It is true which is said that the union is unseparable The Word never forsaketh the nature once assumed and taken But the Word is not in the humane nature as the soul is included in my body Wheresoever my body is there must my soule needs be neither is my soule at the same time without my body But the Word is not so in Christ-man But hee is so unseparably and personally in the humane nature as that he is together also without the humane nature in all the parts of the world as he filleth all and in holy men and Angels by his speciall presence The personall union of both natures doth not evert the generall action and working of his presence and majestie neither doth it let or hinder the speciall working of his presence because the Word is effectuall and worketh forcibly in the regenerate The generall points wherein the Churches which professe the Gospel agree or disagree in the controversie concerning the Lords Supper THey agree in these points 1. That as well the Supper of the Lord as Baptisme is a visible pledge and testimony annexed by Christ himselfe to the promise of grace to this end chiefly that our faith in this promise might be confirmed and strengthened 2. That in the true use of the Supper as well as in all other Sacraments two things are given by God unto us and are received of us namely earthly externall and visible signes are bread and wine and besides these also heavenly internall and invisible gifts as are the true body of Jesus Christ together with all his gifts and benefits and heavenly treasures 3. That in the Supper we are made partakers not only of the Spirit of Christ and his satisfaction justice vertue and operation but also of the very substance and essence of his true body and bloud which was given for us to death on the Crosse and which was shed for us and are truly fed with the self same unto eternall life and that this very thing Christ should teach and make known unto us by this visible receiving of this bread and wine in this Supper 4. That the bread and wine are not changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ but remain true and naturall bread and wine that also the body and bloud of Christ are not shut up in the bread and wine and therefore the bread and wine are called the body of Christ his body and bloud in this sense for that his body and bloud are not only signified by these and set before our eies but also because as often as we eat or drink this bread and wine in the true and right use Christ himself giveth us his body and bloud indeed to be the meat and drink of eternall life 5. That without the right use this receiving of bread and wine is no Sacrament neither any thing but an emptie and vaine ceremony and spectacle and such as men abuse to their owne damnation 6. That there is no other true and lawfull use of the Supper besides that which Christ himself hath instituted and commanded to be ketp namely this that this bread and this wine be eaten and drunken
is the other Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ by which he testifieth to us who receive the consecrated bread and wine with a faithfull remembrance of his death that he feeds us with his bodie which was given for us and with his bloud which was powred out for us and that hee quickneth d us that with him and amongst our selves we may grow up into one e bodie and that the covenant begun with God in Baptisme may remaine f ratified to us for ever Testimonies of Scripture a 1 Cor. 10.16 The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ b 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as you shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup you shall declare the Lords death untill he come c Matth. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.17 1 Cor. 11.21 While they were eating he took bread and blessed and brake it then gave it to his disciples and said Take eat this is my body d John 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him up at the last day e John 6.56 Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud he abideth in me and I in him 1 Cor. 10.17 Because there is one bread we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of that one bread 1 Cor. 12.13 We have all drunk into one spirit f 1 Cor. 11.25 This cup is the New Testament in my bloud II. We say also that this Sacrament consisteth of externall signes and of the promises of grace in the word annexed to the a signes and consequently of a twofold food and a twofold eating or taking to wit an externall of bread and wine which is done by the mouth of the bodie out of the hand of the Minister as our sense witnesseth and an internall spirituall of Christs bodie and bloud which is by faith out of the hands of God himselfe and by the externall it is both signified exhibited and sealed in the lawfull use of the Sacrament as the promise annexed to the Symboles b witnesseth Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Apolog. August Confes tit De use Sacram. c. And because in the Sacraments there are two things to wit the signe and the word the word in the New Testament is the promise of grace added to the signe The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the remission of sins as this Text saith This is my body which is given for you This is the cup of the New Testament with my bloud which is shed for many to the remission of sins The word then offers remission of sins and the ceremony is as it were the pledge of the word or feale as Paul calls it shewing the promise b Matth. 26. c. III. For whereas all Sacraments are seales of grace promised in the a Gospel it is not to be doubted but these words of promise in the Supper This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is powred out for you c. are the very same Evangelicall promise in b John The bread which I will give you is my flesh which I will give you for the life of the world for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed being covered with the sacramentall ceremonie and confirmed with a symbolicall eating for the greater safetie or assurance but that it speaketh of the spirituall food of Christs bodie and bloud which is by faith is c manifest Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Rom. 4.11 And he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the justice of faith received in the fore-skin Apolog. August Confes tit De usu Sacram. c. The word in the New Testament is the promise of grace as above b John 6.5 I am that living bread that came downe from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever But the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world c John 6.35 I am that bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that beleeveth in me shall never thirst IV. Christ never promised in the Gospel any orall manducation of his flesh but by expresse arguments rejected a it and therefore never established it by the Sacrament of his Supper And doubtlesse they sin grievously who at this day disturb the Church with their orall manducation which to acknowledge is no waies necessary to salvation to any but rather pernicious to many Testimonies of Scripture a John 6.61 62 63. When Jesus knew in himselfe that his disciples murmured at it he said unto them Doth this offend you What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life V. The particle This as we teach and beleeve doth demonstrate the bread which Christ brake and that it is the true bodie of Christ not by conversion into the bodie nor by any reall co-existence with the bodie but by a sacramentall way because it is the Sacrament of Christs bodie or a sacred signe of it So the Apostle interprets Christs a meaning when he calls the cup The New Testament that is the Sacrament of the New Testament the bread The communion of Christs b body that is the Sacrament of that communion So c Austine The Lord saith he doubted not to say This is my bodie when he gave the signe of his bodie So d Prosper saith The bread is after a manner called the bodie of Christ and the sacramentall action is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in a reall veritie but in a signifying mysterie Testimonies of Scripture and of others a 1 Cor. 11.25 This cup is the New Testament in my bloud b 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break c. c August cont Adimant cap. 12. d Prosper in Decret de Consecrat dist 2. cap. Hoc est VI. And whereas Christs bodie neither in the bread nor under the species of bread but rather in the word of promise is exhibited to us to be eaten by faith the wicked indeed eat the signes to their owne condemnation by abusing of which they sin against Christ himselfe but being destitute of faith they receive not his bodie Of which notwithstanding by the Apostles testimony they are guilty not that they receive it which by their infidelitie they tread upon but because they unworthily eat that bread which is the symbole or a signe of it Testimonies of Scripture a 1 Corinth 11.27 29. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Also Who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe
visible shapes were not the very substance of God is hereby manifest for that the Scripture with great consent reacheth that God is seen of no man neither can be seen and incomprehensible and unchangeable But those visible shapes were not alwayes the same Object 2. To these they add that which is said Gen. 32.30 Exâ—d 33.11 Deut 34.10 Deut 5.24 2. Cot. 13.13 How God is said 〈◊〉 seen face 〈◊〉 â—ace that God was seen of Jacob face to face and of Moses and of all the people and that all of us shall see God face to face in the life to come By which Metaphor or borrowed speech is signified a cleer and conspicuous manifestation and knowledge of God which is perceived not-with the eyes of the body but of the mind either by means as by the word by his works and outward tokens and such as run into the senses whence the minde may gather somewhat of God or without means by inward revelation And albeit in the life to come shall be a farte more bright knowledge of God then now yet to know God most perfectly is proper to God onely as it is said Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God 〈◊〉 c. 46. hee hath seen the Father So far is it that the invisible infinite and everlasting Deity may ever be conceived by bodily eyes whose nature is not to perceive any objects but such as are finite and limited Object 3. They have alledged also those sayings wherein the parts of mans body are attributed to God But these also are not properly Hâ—w the parts of 〈◊〉 â—odvaâ—e attriâ—â—â—ed unto God but by a Metaphor spoken of God whereby is signified to us a power in God working after an incomprehensible manner his works a certain shadow whereof are those actions which men doe by the ministery and help of their bodily parts as the eyes and ears signifie the wisdome of God whereby hee understandeth all things the mouth the publishing of his word the face the declaration tokens and feeling of his divine goodnesse and grace or severity and anger the heart his love the hands and armes his power the feet his presence Object 4. They have affirmed also because man was made according to the image of God that therefore God hath an humane shape The image of God in man doth not argue a bodily shape in God Ephes 4.24 Not marking that the image of God consisteth not in the shape and figure of the body but in the minde and integrity of nature in wisdome righteousnesse and true holinesse As for Tertullian whereas he reasoneth that God is a body that he speaketh improperly therein and abuseth the word body in stead of substance not only Augustine witnesseth in his Epistle to Quod vult Deus but this is also an argument and proof thereof because he termeth also the souls and Angels oftentimes bodies Wherefore let us know that therefore we are taught the nature of God to bee spirituall Why wee must know God to be spirituall that we may not conceive of God any thing which is grosse terrene carnall and unworthy his divine Majesty neither should deem that he can be perceived by our bodily senses or in thought imagined but should consider his nature by his word and works that wee should not dare to represent him by any bodily shape and in a word that wee should remember that he is to be worshipped not with the gestures or other things of the body but with the minde and spirituall motion of the heart Lastly seeing he alone inspireth into us temporall and everlasting life we should acknowledge the gift of both to come from him out of this fountain only we should seek it and endeavour to referre it wholly to his glory Two reasons why God is to be intelligent Intelligent 1. Because he is the cause both of the mind of man and of the notions shining in it and also of that order which is in the nature of things and Common-weals 2. Because all intelligence or understanding of the creature cometh from him both in respect of the faculty as also in respect of the operation For neither can the efficient and preserving cause of intelligent natures and of the understanding it selfe and order in nature be but intelligent and understanding And therefore the holy Scripture also reasoneth on this wise He that planted the ear shall he not hear Psal 94.9 or hee that made the eye shall he not see Now this wee are to hold against those who setting Nature in the place of God imagine the world and the variety and order of things in it to arise from the matter and the inclination thereof to this forme when as notwithstanding these things could not have their being from a cause not intelligent We are to hold it also thereby to acknowledge not only true knowledge it selfe but also all ability of understanding and the sagacity and capability of the senses and minde to perceive to be the gift of God Eternall That is such an eternity which can have neither beginning The eternity of God without beginning or end Psal 30.2 nor any end of being agreeth to God alone both nature sheweth forasmuch as hee is the first cause of all things and of infinite perfection and power and the Scripture also recounteth as Before the mountains were brought forth or ever the earth and the world were made thou art God from everlasting and world without end But we are to observe that not therefore only the eternity of God is so often inculcated in the Scriptures that in regard hereof hee may be discerned from things created but also Because hee will impart eternity unto us that is he hath purposed and promised that he will give us of his eternall goodnesse and providence eternall blessings and will have continuall care of us through all eternity and will have a kingdom in Angels and men whereof shall be no end Therefore we are given to understand God eternall unto us that God is eternall to us That we may oppose the certain hope of eternall blessednesse grounded upon his eternity against the shortnesse of mortall life and against the frailty of mans condition For seeing hee is eternall he can and seeing he promiseth he will for ever preserve us with his protection For this God is our God for ever and ever And Psal 48.11 Psal 111.9 He hath commanded his covenant for ever Wherefore being upheld with this consolation let us neither refuse to suffer the short misery of this life neither preferre the short felicity thereof before eternall blessings and seeing God will be not only bountifull towards the godly but judge also of the ungodly eternally let the cogitation of the eternall wrath of God keep and hold us in the fear of God that we may not desire to buy the fading shew of whatsoever good with eternall misery God other and diverse from all
this righteousnesse so long as wee remaine in this mortall body is imperfect to be acceptable unto God for the righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed unto us Of this our communion with Christ these sayings make mention Wee being many are one body in Christ Rom. 12.5 1 Cor. 6.15 17. Ephes 4.15 Know yee not that your bodies are the members of Christ Hee that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit In all things grow up into him which is the head that is The similitude of man a body to declare our union with Christ Christ Now the similitude of the head and members of the same body is most fit and appliable to declare that most straight and indissoluble conjunction of us with Christ For 1. As all the members of the body are knit to one and the same head and consequently to one another by sinews and fleshly ligaments And as in the head are engendred all vitall spirits who are the next or ready instruments of sense and motion as also all the outward and inward senses are feated in the head and thence onely from them the whole body and each member thereof doth draw life not from one another I say but from the head onely so long as they remain united to their head and among themselves so Christ is that one quickning head from whom his spirit is dispersed into all the members and not from one member into another and by whom all the elect who are the living members of the Church being united by the holy Ghost received through faith are quickned and are knit also among themselves by the meanes of mutuall charity Which charity and dilection must needs be there if we be joyned unto the head For the connexion of the members with the head is the originall and cause of the conjunction of the members among themselves For the quickning spirit of Christ doth not flow out of one member into another but out of one Christ as the head into all the members of the Church I will send unto you from the Father John 15.26 the Comforter the Spirit of truth 2. As in mans body are divers gifts and functions of the members and yet but one life and soule quickning and moving all the members so in the body of the Church are divers gifts and functions and yet but one spirit by the benefit whereof each member may doe his function 3. As the head is placed in the highest place and therefore is of more worthinesse and the founâ—aine of all life So Christ hath the highest room and degree in the Church as in whom the spirit is without measure and of whose fulnesse all receive but in the members that is in Christians are certain measures of gifts which are derived into them from the only head and fountaine Christ Wherefore the Pope of Rome lyeth when he avoucheth himself to be the head of the Church Christ is our Head in three respects Christ is our head in three respects 1. In respect of his perfection because he is both God and man and in gifts as touching his humane nature excelleth all creatures In him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God head bodily c. Hee alone giveth the holy Ghost This is hee who baptizeth with the holy Ghost 2. In dignity or order glory Col. 1.9 10 Mat. 3.11 majesty power authority which in his humane nature glorified hee now openly sheweth forth and declareth For as God created all things by him Heb. 1.2 3.6 so he hath made him heire of all things and the ruler of his house 3. In respect of his office For hee is the redeemer and sanctifier of his Church hee is over every member of the Church he â—â—leth governeth quickneth nourisheth and confirmeth them so as they continue joyned in him with the rest of the members We are also in three respects the members of Christ 1. Because by faith and the holy Ghost wee are joyned unto him We are in three respects Christs members and also are knit together amongst our selves as the members to the head and one with another And this conjunction of the members of this body amongst themselves is no lesse requisite and behoovefull for the safety of the Church than the conjunction of the whole body with Christ the head For if thou separate the arme from the hand thou shalt separate it also from the head and so it shall no more have life Ephes 3.17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith 2. Because we are quickned and guided of him and from him as the fountaine we draw all good things so that except we continue in him wee have not eternall life in us as neither the members sundred from the body retain life any longer If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and withereth John 5.6 3. Because as in mans body are divers faculties and functions of the members so are the gifts and functions divers of the members of Christ in the Church And as all the actions of the parts of the body are imployed and referred to the preservation thereof so all the members of Christ whatsoever they purpose or doe that ought they to imploy and referre to the profit and utility of the Church As we have many members in one body and all members have not one office so we being many are one body in Christ Rom. 11.4 1 Cor. 12.7 The manifestation of the Spirit is given to profit withall Whereas then now we understand what it is to be member of Christ and how we are his members it will the more cleerely appeare What anointing participation of annointing is What it is to be partaker of Christs anointing what it is to be partaker of Christs annointing Annointing signifieth a bestowing of gifts and participation of annointing importeth a communion of Christs gifts and office or annointing is a participation of all Christs benefits and consisteth in the participation of Christs Kingdome Priest-hood and Propheticall office To be partaker then of Christs annointing is 1. to be partaker of the holy Ghost and his gifts For the holy Ghost is not idle in us but worketh the same in us which he doth in Christ albeit Christ alone hath more gifts than wee all and those graces and gifts in Christ are far more excellent in degree 2. That Christ should communicate unto us his Propheticall Priestly and Royall function 2. What is the Propheticall function of Christians that is in what sense they are and are called Prophets CHrist maketh us partakers of his Propheticall honour or office not only in this that himselfe prophecieth unto us Christians are Prophets in knowledge and confession Acts. 2.17 Mat. 10.32 that is effectually instructeth us by his Word and Spirit but also because he willeth and bringeth to passe that we may also prophecie by professing and celebrating God According as it is said I will powre out of
that as touching it we look for Christ to come from heaven whom as touching the Word we beleeve to be in the earth with us Wherefore according to your opinion either the Word is contained in place with the flesh or the flesh is every-where with the Word whereas one nature receiveth not any contrary or divers thing in it selfe and it is a thing diverse and far unlike to be circumscribed in place and to be every-where and seeing the Word is every-where and the flesh is not every-where it is apparent that one and the same Christ is of both natures and is every-where as touching the nature of his God-head but is not every-where as touching the nature of his man-hood is created and hath no beginning is subject to death and cannot die the one he hath by the nature of the Word whereby he is God the other by the nature of his flesh whereby the same God is man Wherefore that one Son of God and the same made the Sonne of man hath a beginning by the nature of flesh and hath no beginning by the nature of his God-head was created by the nature of his flesh and was not created by the nature of his God-head circumscribed in place by the nature of his flesh and not contained in any place by the nature of his God-head is lower also then the Angels by the nature of his flesh and is equall with the Father according to the nature of his God-head died by the nature of his flesh and never died by the nature of his God-head This is the Catholike faith and confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs established and the faithfull hitherto hold and maintaine ON THE 15. SABBATH Quest 37. What beleevest thou when thou saiest He suffered Answ That he all the time of his life which he led in the earth but especially at the end thereof sustained the wrath of God both in body and soule against the sin of all mankind a Esay 53.4 1 Pet. 2.24 3.18 1 Tim. 2.6 that he might by his passion as the only propitiatory sacrifice b Esay 53.10 Ephes 5.2 1 Cor. 5.5 1 John 2.2 Rom. 3.15 Heb. 9.28 10 14. deliver our body and soule from everlasting damnation c Gal. 3.13 Colos 1.13 Heb. 9.12 1 Pet. 1.18 19. and purchase unto us the favour of God righteousnesse and everlasting life d Rom. 3.25 2 Cor. 5.21 John 3.16 9.51 Heb. 9.15 10.19 The Explication NOw have we in few words expounded those Articles of the Apostolike Creed which intreate of the person of Christ and have withall declared in the exposition thereof those things which are necessary for us to know both of the Divinity of Christ and of his humane nature which was taken by the Word of the seed of David united personally with the Word by the vertue of the holy Ghost and begotten in marvellous manner of the Virgins substance The course of order requireth that now consequently we expound and declare those Articles which treat of the office of Christ and first of all of his Humiliation or humbling which is the former part of Christs office whereunto belong these Articles He suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried He descended into hell After we have expounded these we will come unto the rest of the Articles which speak of his Glorification which is the other part of Christs office The Passion of Christ doth follow next his Conception and Nativity Two causes why Christs passion followeth his nativity immediatly in the Creed The fruits to be gathered out of the story of Christs life 1. Because in his Passion and Death consisteth our salvation 2. Because his whole life was a continuall passion suffering and calamity Yet notwithstanding many things may and ought to be profitably observed out of the story of the whole race of his life on earth set downe by the Evangelists For that doth shew 1. This person to be the promised Messias seeing in him concurre and are fulfilled all the prophecies 2. That story is a consideration or meditation of that humility or obedience which he performed unto his Father Hither belong those things which are especially to be considered in Christs Passion 1. The history it selfe of Christs Passion agreeing with Gods sacred Oracles and Prophecies 2. The causes or fruits of Christs Passion 3. His example that we are also to enter into eternall life heavenly glory by suffering death as did Christ But for fuller explication these foure Questions touching Christs Passion are to be considered 1. What is understood by the name of Passion or what Christ suffered 2. Whether he suffered according to both natures 3. What was the impellent cause of Christs Passion 4. What the finall causes or ends and fruits thereof 1. What is meant by the name of Passion or what Christ suffered BY the name of Passion is understood the whole humiliation or the obedience of Christs whole humiliation all the miseries infirmities torments ignominies paines and griefs unto all which Christ for our sakes was subject and obnoxious as well in soule as in body from the point of his nativity untill the houre of his death and resurrection For the chiefe part of his paines and dolours were the torments in his soule wherein he felt the ire and wrath of God against the sin of mankind But principally by the name Passion is signified the last part of his humiliation even the last act of his life Mat. 26.38 27 46. Esay 53.4 6 10. Christs sufferings wherein he suffered extreme torments of soule and body for our finnes My soule is very heavie even unto the death My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Surely he hath carried our sorrowes The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all The Lord would break him and make him subject to infirmities What then did Christ suffer He suffered 1. A privation and want of incomparable happinesse joy and all other heavenly blessings which he should have injoyed 2. All the infirmities of mans nature sinne onely excepted he hungred thirsted Mat. 8.17 John 4.7 19.28 Hebr. 4.15 was weary was stricken with sadnesse and griete c. 3. Extreme need and poverty The sonne of man hath not whereon to lay his head 4. For infinite injuries contumelies slanders layings in wait for him back-bitings reproaches blasphemies annihilating Luke 9 58. Mat. 12.24 and contempt I am a worme and not a man He hath neither forme nor beauty when we shall see him there shall be no forme that we should desire him Psal 22 7. Esay 53.4 5. The temptations of the Devill He was in all things tempted in like sort yet without sinne 6. The death of the body and that reproachfull and contumelious even the death of the Crosse 7. The most grievous torments of soule that is Hebr. 4.15 he found the sense and feeling of the wrath of God against the sins
felt and buried that men might know it to be a dead crops Hither belong some parts of the story penned by the Evangelists as that Christ was pierced with a lance that he was taken down from the Crosse that he was annointed and wrapt in linnen cloathes c. For these are good evidences of the truth of his death We therefore by his buriall are ascertained of his true death and by his death assured of our redemption For our salvation consisteth in his death the testimony whereof is his buriall 2. That the last part of his humiliation whereby hee did debase himselfe for our sakes might be accomplished For buriall was a part of the punishment curse â—â—n 3.19 and ignominy which we had deserved as it is said To dust shalt thou returne A dead body is indeed void of sense and feeling but yet notwithstanding ignominious it was for the body to be committed to the earth as any other dead corps As then Christs resurrection from the dead and death is a part of his glory so his buriall that is the debasing of his body to be in the same state with other dead carkases is a part of that humiliation which he sustained for our sakes 3. Hee would be buried that we might not be affraid of the grave but might know that our head Christ had sanctified our graves by his buriall that now they are no longer graves unto us but chambers of quiet repose untill we be raised againe unto life 4. That it might be apparent or manifest as concerning his resurrection that hee had truely overcome death in his body that by his own power and vigour he had shaken off death from himselfe and that his resurrection was not imaginary but a resurrection of a reviving corps 5. That he might confirme in us an hope of the resurrection to wit that the time shall once come when we after his example shall be buried and by his power shall rise again knowing that Christ our head hath laid open the way unto us by the grave and death to celestiall glory and therefore shall wee be raised out of the grave though we die and give up the Ghost 6. That we being spiritually dead that is to sin might rest from sin We are buried with Christ by baptisme into his death Rom. 6.4 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father so we also should walke in newnesse of life 7. That the truth might be answerable to the type of Jonas and the prophecies might be fulfilled concerning the buriall of the Messias Thou Psal 16.10 Esay 53.9 shalt not leave my soule in hell He made his grave with the wicked Quest 42. But since that Christ died for us why must we also die Answ Our death is not a satisfaction for our sins a Mar. 8.37 but the abolishing of sin and our passage into life everlasting b Phil. 1.32 John 8.24 Rom. 7.14 The Explication HEre is answer made unto that objection If Christ died for us why then die wee too For hee should not die for whom another hath already died otherwise the satisfaction would seem double Answ Hee for whom another died should not die as thereby to satisfie that is so that his death should be any merit or satisfaction but there are other causes why we must die For wee die not to satisfie the justice of God but by death as a meane to receive those gifts which Christ by his death hath merited for us For this our temporall death What our temporall death is is 1. An admonition of the remnants of sin in us 2. An admonition of the greatnesse of sin 3. A purging and cleansing of us For by death are purged out the reliques and remaines of sin in us 4 A translating into eternall life For by corporall death is the passage of the faithfull made into eternall life Repl. If the cause be taken away the effect is taken away but the cause of death in us which is sin is taken away by Christ therefore the effect also which is death it selfe ought to be taken away Ans Where all cause is taken away the effect also is taken away but in us all cause of death is not taken away As concerning the purging out of sin albeit it be taken away as touching the remission of sin Or we may answer unto the Minor proposition that sin is indeed taken away as touching the guilt but it is not taken away as touching the matter of sin which as yet remaineth to be purged by little and little that we might be exercised in prayer and repentance in this life untill in another life we be perfectly discharged from the reliques of sin Quest 43. What other commodities receive we by the sacrifice and death of Christ Answ That by the vertue of his death our old man is crucified slain and buried together with him a Rom. 6.6 that henceforth evill lusts and desires may not reigne in us b Rom. 6.6 12. but we may offer our selves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving c Rom. 12.1 The Explication THis Question concerneth the fruits and commodities of Christs death Here also the end of Christs death and the fruits of the same are all one thing as we have before shewed in his Passion considered with diverse respects For those ends which Christ proposed unto himselfe in dying they become fruits unto us in receiving and apprehending them The fruit therefore and commodity of Christs death is the whole work of our Redemption Justification or remission of sins Justification or remission of sins because the justice of God requireth that God should not punish a sinner twice but he hath punished our sins in Christ Therefore he will not punish again the same in us The bloud of Jesus Christ purgeth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 as well originall as actuall as well of fact or doing what we should not as of omission or not doing what we should So then we are justified that is we are freed from the guilt as well of punishment as of crime by the death of Christ The cause of this effect is the death of Christ The gift of the holy Ghost and regeneration The gift of the holy Ghost and through his working regeneration and a new life because Christ by his death hath not onely obtained for us pardon of our sin and reconciliation with God but also the gift of the holy Ghost that by his working and vertue the old man might be crucified with Christ that is that by the holy Ghost through the efficacy of Christs merit and our engraffing into him our corrupt and as yet not regenerated nature might be abolished in us and that of the contrary righteousnesse might be begun in us the image of God destroyed by the Divell in us might be restored and we by the same spirit moved to shew and yeeld all thankfulnesse for so great
but also our soules Therefore he ought to suffer not only in body but in soule also 2. Christ was to deliver us from the paines and torments of hell Therefore hee of force must suffer them which being so he either suffered them before his death or after death The Papists themselves confesse that hee suffered not after death Therefore it must needs be that he suffered them before death But these paines he suffered not in the body for the sufferings of the body were only externall Therefore he suffered those griefs in his soule 3. It is very convenient that the extremest and most grievous part of Christs Passion which was these dolours of minde should not be passed over without mention in the Creed But if the Article of Descension into hell concerne them not they should be left unmentioned sith that the former Articles treat only of the externall sufferings of the body which Christ suffered without him There is no doubt therefore but that by this Article the ghostly passions or sufferings of his soule are signified This is the true meaning of the Descension into hell and wee are to maintaine and defend against the Papists that which is certain namely that Christ so descended as hath been proved in this discourse Howbeit if any man be able to maintain with sure grounds and proofs that Christ descended in any other sense it is well I cannot Object 1. See D. Tho. Bils Bish of Winchin his Tract touching the redemption of mankind Pag. 154. c. John 19.30 The Articles of faith are to be understood properly and without any trope or figure Answ True except an Article being taken according to the proper signification be disagreeing from other places of Scripture But this Article of Christs descension into hell being taken properly is much repugnant to that saying of Christ It is finished For if Christ fulfilled and finished all the parts of our Redemption on the Crosse there was no cause why he should descend into hell that is into the place of the damned Object 2. The terrours and torments of the soule in Christ went before his buriall But the descension into hell followeth his buriall Therefore the descension into hell concerneth not those torments Ans The Minor of this Syllogisme is faulty in alledging that for a cause which is no cause For in the Creed the descension into hell followeth the buriall not that it was performed after the buriall but because it is an illustration of that which went before touching the Passion Death and Buriall lest any thing should be detracted from them as if it were said He suffered not only in body hee died not onely a bodily death hee was not onely buried but also suffered in soule the extreamest vexations and hellish dolours such as all the reprobate shall suffer for ever The chiefest therefore and weightiest part of Christs passion followeth in good order For the Creed proceedeth from the griefs of the body to the vexation and anguish of the minde and from the visible Passion to the invisible as it were from a lesse to a greater matter and circumstance 2. The fruits and use of Christs descension into hell CHrist descended into hell 1. That we might not descend thither but rather that hee might free us from the eternall paines and torments thereof 2. That he might transport and carry us triumphantly with him into heaven What it is to beleeve in Christ who descended into hell Wherefore to beleeve in Christ which descended into hell is to beleeve that Christ sustained for mee in his soule infernall and hellish paines and torments and that exceeding ignominy which is due unto the wicked in hell that thereby I might not descend into hell and that I might never be forced to suffer them all which otherwise I should suffer in hell eternally but that of the contrary rather I might ascend with Christ into heaven and there injoy with him exceeding happinesse and glory for ever and ever This is the use and profit of this Article of Christs descension into hell ON THE 17. SABBATH Quest 45. What doth the Resurrection of Christ profit us Answ First by his Resurrection he vanquished death that he might make us partakers of that righteousnesse which hee had gotten us by his death a Rom. 4.25 1 Pet. 1.3 1 Cor. 15.16 Again wee are now also stirred up by his power to a new life b Rom. 6.4 Col. 3.1 c. Eph. 1.3 2.5 Lastly the Resurrection of our head Christ is a pledge unto us of our glorious resurrection c 1 Cor. 15.20 21. The Explication THus farre have we continued the Treatise of Christs humiliation It remaineth that wee proceed unto his glorification for which hee rose the third day from the dead For the humiliation of the Mediatour was not to endure for ever but it was enough that he suffered once and died notwithstanding the efficacy and power thereof in preserving and maintaining the blessings issuing and flowing thence with full stream endureth for ever Now in Christs Resurrection two things are especially to be considered the history Two things to be considered in Christs resurrection and the fruit thereof In the history wee are to observe Who rose Who it was that rose from the dead 1. The history and therein to wit Christ both God and man in that body in which he died For this the Word never put off How he rose The manner of his rising which was that he who was verily dead revived from death recalling his soule to his body and gloriously came forth of his Sepulchre on the third day according to the Scriptures and that both by his Fathers and his own force and power I say not the power of his flesh but of his God-head For he was raised of the Father by himself because the Father worketh by the Son The testimonies of his rising The testimonies of his true resurrection Hee shewed himself openly to many women and Disciples the Angels bare witnesse thereunto 4. The fruits of Christs resurrection c. The fruits of Christs resurrection are expressed in these questions following The chief questions of Christs Resurrection are 1. Whether Christ rose againe 2. How he rose 3. For what cause he rose 4. What are the fruits of his resurrection 1. Whether Christ rose again INsidels beleeve that Christ died but beleeve not that he rose from death Neverthelesse that Christ rose again is proved by the restimonies of Angels Women Evangelists Apostles and other Saints who after his resurrection saw him felt him and talked with him And we were to beleeve the Apostles in respect of the authority which they had from heaven although they had not seen him 2. How Christ rose THe maner of Christs Resurrection is declared by these circumstances following 1. Christ did rise truely and indeed so that his soule did truely and indeed returne unto his body from which it was
worketh by his holy Spirit in their hearts a sense and feeling of that pardon whereon they may for ever rest setled and confirmed Therefore the purpose and decree of God of remitting sins is everlasting but the executing and performance thereof is when by faith wee apply remission of sins offered unto us in the Gospel So also God doth alwayes love his elect but that love is not powred out in their hearts before their repentance For they have that certain testimony of conscience by the gift of the holy Ghost that they are loved of God and so have their sins remitted who truly convert and repent ON THE 22. SABBATH Ques 57. What comfort hast thou by the resurrection of the flesh Answ That not only my soule after it shall depart our of my body shall presently be taken up to Christ her head a Luke 6.22 23.43 Phil. 1.21 23. but that this my flesh also being raised up by the power of Christ shall be again united to my soul and shall be made like to the glorious body of Christ b Job 19.25 26. 1 John 3.2 Phil. 3.21 The Explication The chief Questions hereto belonging are 1. Whether the soule be immortall 2. Where it abideth being separated from the body 3 What the Resurrection is and the errours concerning the Resurrection 4. Whence it may appeare that the Resurrection shall certainly be 5. What bodies shall rise 6. How 7. When. 8. By whom and by whose power 9. For what end the Resurrection shall be 1. Whether the soule be immontall BEsides that this Question belongeth to the Article of the resurrection The causes for which this question is to be moved the â—xplication also theâ—eof in it self shall not be altogether unprofitable or fruitleâ—â— For not now onlâ— do they begin to dispute against the immortality of the soul but the Sadduces also denyed it as they likewise that said Matth. 22.23 2 Tim. 2.17 the resurrection was past already unto him that beleeved neither made any other resurrection besides that spirituall resurrection of the regenerate Likewise also some Anabaptists deny the immortality of the soul Moreover Paul the â—hird Pope of Rome when he was breathing out his soule and ready to die said That now at length hee should try and know three things whereof in his whole time hee had much doubted 1. Whether there were a God 2. Whether soules were immortall 3. Whether there were any hell Oftentimes also in the Psalmer and in Solomon we meet with these and such like Aphorismes Eccles 3.19 Psal 115.17 Man dieth like a brute beast The dead shall not praise thee O Lord. Wherefore it ought not to seem strange if this question be moved neither shall it be altogether vain and needlesse both because it serveth for the controuling and refuting especially of Epicures as also because it maketh for the better understanding of some places of holy Scripture But because there have been and even now are who have taught That the soule of man like as of brute beasts is nothing else but life or the vitall power arising of the temperature and perfection of the body and therefore dieth and is extinguished together with the body and as some of them speak who will seem to beleeve the resurrection of the dead doth sleep when the body dieth that is is without motion or sense untill the raising of the body which indeed is nothing else then that the soul is mortall that is a meer quality only in the body and when the body is dissolved becometh nothing because if it were an incorporeall substance it could not be without sense and motion Against these we are to hold the records of Gods word and writ concerning the spirituall and immortall substance of mans soule The soul an incorporeall substance That the soul of man is not onely a form or perfection or temperament or force and power or an agitation arising out of the temperature of the body but a substance incorporeall living understanding dwelling in the body and sustaining and moving it these places following of holy Scripture doe shew Psal 48. His soule shall be blessed in life Heb. 12. God is called the Father of spirits And it is said of the faithfull Heb. 12.9 22. Ye are come to the celestiall Jerusalem and to the company of innumerable Angels and to the spirits of just and perfect men No man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him 1 Cor. 2.11 In these and the like places of Scripture both the soule of a man is called a spirit and the properties of a living and understanding substance are attributed unto it Wherefore to no purpose do the adversaries of this doctrine oppose those places in which the name of the soule is taken for the life and will of man as Mat. 5.25 The soul is more worth then meat I put my soul in my hand For by the fore-alledged places it is manifest Job 13 14. that this is not generall but is used by a figure of speech whereby wee call the effect by the name of his cause Now the immortality of the soule is proved by many places of holy Scripture The soul immortall Luke 23.43 Christ hanging on the crosse said to the thiefe This day shalt thou be with me in paradise But he could not be there in body because that was dead and buried Therefore his soule was gathered with Christs in Paradise and so consequently the soule liveth Phil. 1.23 Paul saith I desire to be loosed and to be with Christ he speaketh of the rest and joy which he should injoy with Christ But they who feele nothing what can their joy or happinesse be Wherefore they also are refuted in this place who say mens soules sleep Wisd 3.1 Mat. 22. â—2 Luke 23.46 1 Cor. 5.8 and so withall deny the immortality of the soule The soules of the just are in the hands of God God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therfore the souls live Into thy hands I commend my spirit When we remove out of the body we go unto the Lord. Wherefore the soules sleep not as some Anabaptists will have them but injoy immortall life and celestiall glory with the Lord. The soules of the godly that were killed Revel 6.10 are said to cry with a loud voice under the Altar saying How long Lord holy and true doest thou not judge and avenge our bloud on them that dwell on the earth Luke 16.21 Wherefore the soules live Lazarus is said to be carried into Abrahams bosome and out of the same place also it is apparent concerning the soules of the wicked For the rich Glutton is also of the contrary said to be carried downe to hell These testimonies therefore of Scripture teach and confirme most evidently that not only in the body before death and after the resurrection of the body but also in the
whole space and time coming between the soules are live feele understand out of the body though the manner of their operations without the body be to us unknown Wherefore also this gift of immortality hath some similitude with God who alone 1 Tim. 6.16 as the onely fountaine and author of life hath immortality Lastly the resurrection of the flesh presupposeth the immortality of the soule so that we beleeve the one with the other For that the same body should rise againe necessary it is that it be quickned with the same substantiall forme it once injoyed which is the soule For not every change of an accidentary forme maketh another individuall but one and the same individuall still remaineth as long as one and the same matter is quickned with the same essentiall forme Now if the soule die and God create another soule and seat it in the body then not the same but a diverse forme quickneth the body and so it shall not be the same Individuall But it shall be the same Individuall as in the fifth of these questions it is proved Therefore it must needs be quickned with the selfe-same soule But furthermore Man should have lived immortally if he had not sinned Rom. 5.12 Rom. 6.23 Gen. 3.24 That man should have led a blessed life immortally and for ever not in soule onely but also in body if he had not purchased death and mortality unto himselfe by sinne is proved 1. Because by sinne death entered into the world as the wages of sinne 2. Because we being freed from sinne by Christ are also freed from death 3. Because God himselfe did withdraw from man being made by sinne subject unto death the signe or sacrament of immortality which was the fruit of the tree of life Wherefore their objections are nought worth who imagine the soule after death to sleep or vanish away Gen. 2.7 1 Cor. 15.45 For Adam is said to have been made a living soule not simply as these will have it like as other living creatures are termed in the same place living soules but as being made to the image and similitude of God which he hath not in common with other creatures Sundry places of Scripture alledged against the immortality of the soule interpreted according to their right sâ—nse and meaning Object 1. God saith In the day that thou eatest of the tree of knowledge of good and evill thou shalt die the death Answ He doth not threaten unto man the destruction or extinguishing of his soule but eternall death that is the horrible feeling and terrours of Gods wrath and judgement and to live forsaken and cast from God subject to all miseries and torments an adjoynt of which death is the separation of the soule and body which at that time through the mercy of God that mankind might be saved was deferred For so was Adam dead while yet he lived in Paradise according to Gods denouncement Genes 2.17 Ephes 2.5 Ephes 5.14 even as soone as he had eaten of the forbidden fruit So in eternall death live all the damned and reprobate Whose fire shall not be put out and their worme not die So they are said to be dead through sinne who live in sinne without repentance And he is willed to rise from the dead who is reclaimed from sin to God Rom. 7.10 11. and S. Paul saith he was dead through the knowledge of his sin and the wrath of God Object 2. The dead are said to sleep Acts 7.60 Ans But this is by a * Synecdoche figure of speech translating that which is proper unto the body to the whole man For that this belongeth to the body which is to be re-called from death to life as it were from sleep to wake again many places declare as Behold now I sleep in the dust For not the soul 1 Cor. 1â— 30 but the body only sleepeth in the dust and grave Object 3. The Preacher saith The condition of the children of men and the condition of beasts are even as one condition unto them Therefore there is no immortality of soule Ans 1. It is a fallacy concluding that which is in some respect so to be simply so Indeed the condition of both man and beast is equall as touching the necessity of dying imposed on both for men as well as beasts must needs once die and depart out of this life because men are not to continue here for ever but it is decreed that all must die and so they have here no setled place But the Preachers meaning is not that the condition of man and beast is all one concerning the event ensuing after death for the soules of beasts are extinguished and vanish away then when their bodies die but the souls of men as hath been proved by the fore-rehearsed testimonies remain alive after the death of their bodies Ans 2. We deny the Antecedent for the Preacher speaketh of mans death not as he himselfe thought of it in his own heart but as it seemeth in the sense and judgement of the wicked and profane vulgar sort of men built and grounded on the outward apparent likelihood of events betiding both the good and evill For to the doctrine of Gods providence and just judgement whereby one day the good shall be crowned with good things and the evill recompenced with evill to this I say he adjoineth by way of objection a lamentable complaint of mans erroneous judgement Object 4. Blessednesse and the kingdome promised to the godly is said then first to fall unto them at the last day Ans These places shew not Mat. 24.25 Mark 13. Dan. 12. that the souls of the godly do not presently when they depart from their bodies enjoy celestiall blessednesse and joy but that at the last day when their bodies are raised again their felicity and glory shall be consummated and made absolute for so we pray Thy kingdome come when yet God now also reigneth in us Object 5. He that is blessed and happy befâ—re the resurrection is not without the resurrection most miserable But wee without the resurrection should be of all men most miserable If in this life only we have hope we are of all men most miserable 1 Cor. 15.9 Therefore we are not before the resurrection blessed and happy Ans to the Major Hee is not miserable without the resurrection who can not only before it but without it also be blessed But we are in such wise blessed before it that notwithstanding without it following and insuing we cannot enjoy that former blessednesse because God hath joyned with so inseparable a knot the beginning and proceeding and finishing or perfection of the elects blessednesse that none can have the beginning who must not come to the end and consummation thereof Wherefore either we must rise again or we must want also that celestiall blessednesse before the resurrection If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you
Rom. 8.11 hee that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies Object 6. These all through faith are dead and received not the promise Heb. 11.39 Therefore they received not their Countrey Answ 1. Although they dying had not found their countrey yet would it not follow of these words that they are not at all or have no sense after death for he that is not or hath no sense seeketh not his countrey 2. The author of that Epistle doth not speak of the life after death which is led in the celestiall countrey 2 Cor. 5. but of this life in which the faithfull walking their pilgrimage sought for the celestiall countrey not finding their countrey on earth Object 7. They are flesh a wind that passeth away and cometh not again Answ By these and the like speeches the brevity of mans life and the frailty and perishing of all humane affaires without God is described and bewailed For as here they are compared to a wind eft-soons vanishing away so Psal 103. they are compared to dust grasse and flowers of the field Likewise Hee shooteth forth as a flower Job 14.2 and is cut downe and vanisheth as a shadow All flesh is grasse Isa 40.6 But if they urge the very word in these speeches it will follow that not only after death there is nothing remaining but that there is not any resurrection when hee saith a wind that passeth and cometh not again as flowers and shadowes whereunto man is compared doe so perish that they are not recovered Object 8. I am counted as the slain lying in the grave whom thou remembrest no more Ans In these words the Prophet doth not signifie either himselfe Psal 88.5 or the dead to be exempted from Gods providence but he complaineth that hee is forsaken of God even as the dead seem to men not to be cared for of him and therefore he speaketh not according to the sense of faith but of his own opinion and weaknesse and misery who judgeth those to be forsaken and neglected of God whose delivery for a while he doth deferre But what faith in the mean season suggesteth and telleth the godly even when they wrestle with temptation he sheweth when he saith The just shall be in everlasting memory Object 9. His spirit departeth Psal 112.6 and hee returneth to the earth then his thoughts perish Ans Here hee saith not Psal 146.4 the spirit or soul of man perisheth or vanisheth or dieth or it is bereaved of sense but that it departeth to wit from the body wherein it dwelleth and that not the spirit but the man returneth to his earth that is as concerning his body which was made of earth as it is written Genes 3. and Eccl. 12. And lastly hee saith that his thoughts perish which is not that the soul is after this life bereaved of reason judgement and sense of the mercy or wrath of God but that his purposes and counsels are made frustrate which man in this life had setled with himselfe to bring to passe Psal 112.10 in which sense it is said The desire of the wicked shall perish Object 10. They gather also other sayings which take away all praising and worshipping of God from the dead As Wilt thou shew a miracle unto the dead Or shall the dead rise and praise thee Psal 88.10 But in such speeches death and hell or the grave have two significations They who are spiritually dead whether afore or after the death of the body that is they who are deprived of Gods grace and forsaken and rejected of God and are in hell that is in the place and torments of the damned or else in this life despairing and destitute of comfort shall not praise God at all neither in this life nor in the life to come But they who are dead not spiritually but corporally only albeit they shall not praise God in this life while their bodies are in hell that is in the grave yet in the soul they shall not cease to acknowledge and praise God in the other life untill when receiving their bodies again they shall magnifie him in both in the celestiall eternity But in the mean season because God will also be agnised and magnified of men in this life therefore both the whole Church and every one of the faithfull not only pray that they may not fall into that forsaking and into that sense of Gods wrath wherewith the wicked are oppressed but also desire that they may be in this mortall life preserved and defended untill the end thereof by God appointed be expired For the Saints doe not simply stand in fear of the bodily death and grave but that they may not be forsaken of God neither fall into desperation and destruction or their enemies insult against God when they are overthrown this with daily and ardent prayers and petitions they beg and crave continually Now that which the adversaries adde further Psal 146.2 I will praise the Lord during my life as long as I have any being I will sing unto my God Answ This maketh nothing with them for hee restraineth not the praising of God to the time of his mortall life but only he saith that he will spend all that time in Gods praises which notwithstanding in many other places he extendeth to continue through all eternity as Psal 34. I will praise the Lord continually But oftentimes this particle untill or as long as signifieth a continuance of the time going before some event without any excluding of the time following as Hee must raign untill hee put all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor. 15.25 Object 11. Let him cease and leave off from mee that I may take a little comfort before I goe Job 10.20 and shall not return Answ Hee denyeth in these words that hee shall return into this mortall life and to converse among men in this world but he denyeth not that he in the mean season hath his being and doth live untill again hee see God in his flesh Chap. 17.26 even the same Job who then was afflicted Object Why dyed I not when I came out of the womb So should I have slept then and beene at rest Job 3.11 13. c. Answ Here also Job doth not deny the soules after death to be live feele and understand but onely he saith the miseries of this present life are not felt If they urge that neither the evils of the life to come are felt because then Job should wish for a bad change we answer that Job wisheth not for the death of the wicked but of the godly But if they adde further That Job doth make Kings and Princes also which gather gold unto them small and great that is all men good and bad partakers of this rest our answer is out of the processe and course of his whole speech that Job doth not teach here what is the state of men
after this life but onely desireth to be rid of his present misery and therefore through humane infirmity and impatiencie doth compare the sense and feeling of his present miseries with the death and state of the dead whatsoever it be as they who are grievously tormented with present distresses and calamities preferre any thing whatsoever before that which they suffer So also Chap. 7. he speaketh as one despairing of delivery in this life Chap. 7 7.10 Remember that my life is but a wind and that my eye shall not returne to see pleasure For so he expoundeth himselfe when he addeth He shall returne no more to his house neither shall his place know him any more So likewise Chap. 17. My breath is corrupt Verse 1. and the grave is ready for me They are words of one despairing of life and salvation God being wroth and angry But when it is said If he set his heart upon man and gather unto himselfe his spirit and his breath All flesh shall perish together Chap. 34.14 15. it is not said that the soule doth sleep or perish but that by the departure thereof the body dieth and is dissolved Further they adde If presently after death the godly were blessed then injury was done unto them who were called againe into this mortall life But to this we answer That neither God can be injurious to any man whereas he is in no mans debt neither can any thing happen better or more acceptable unto the godly then to serve for the manifesting of Gods glory either by life or by death as it is said As alwayes Phil. 1.20 so now Christ shall be magnified in my body whether it be by life or by death c. Last of all if they say That the soule hath neither sense nor action but by bodily instruments and therefore being naked and destitute of these is destitute also of sense motion and operation To grant unto them this Antecedent of the soule being in the body yet notwithstanding of the soule freed from the body both learned Philosophers confesse the contrary and the Word of God testifieth the contrary as We know in part 1 Cor. 13.9 and we prophecie in part but when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be abolished 2. Where and in what estate it abideth being separate from the body THe Papists dreame that the soules of men passe out of their bodies into the fire of Purgatory there to be purged from their sinnes some sooner some later Not in Purgatory as the Papists teach Li. 4. di 21. cap. â— according as they in their life time more or lesse loved the transitory pelfe of this world as Lombard speaketh Contrariwise the Scripture teacheth us that not any fire after death but onely the bloud of Christ in this life cleanseth our soules from all sinne It farther instructeth us how that the soules of the faithfull deceased are not plunged into the place of torment there to be refined from the drosse of their sins but are gathered unto Christ and into Abrahams bosome and on the other side that the soules of the wicked are forth-with cast into hell whence there is no retire and are now tormented with infernall flames but yet reserved to more grievous tortures of that everlasting fire which at the time of Christs coming to judgement The estate of the soules of the godly Luke 23.46 Acts 7.59 Luke 16.22 Phil. 1.3 2 Cor. 5.8 The estate of the soules of the wicked Mat. 10.28 the wrath of Jehovah shall kindle Of the estate of the soules of the godly these places yeeld testimony Into thy hands I commend my spirit Lord Jesus receive my soule And so it was that the beggar died and was carried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome Therefore he feared not Purgatory The faithfull covet to remove out of the body and to dwell with the Lord therefore they passe not through Purgatory first before they approach unto the sight of the Lord. Of the state of the soules of the ungodly these places make sufficient evidence Feare him who is able to cast both body and soule into hell fire The glutton straight after his buriall was in hell torments and cried I am tormented in this flame Luke 16.23 whence he shall never escape Wherefore the soules of the wicked leaving their bodies are not forth-with transported into Purgatory whence there may be a gappe or way to escape but are violently thrust down into the unspeakable fire of hell 3. What the Resurrection is and the errours concerning it THe word Resurrection signifieth sometimes mans spirituall conversion unto God The signification of the word Rev. 20.5 As This is the first Resurrection But in this Article the resurrection of the flesh is A restoring of the substance of our bodies after death even of the same matter whereof they now consist and a reviving and quickning of the same bodies with life immortall and incorruptible by the same immortall soul whereby they now live which God will work by Christ in the end of the world by his divine vertue and power which restoring also shall be of the Elect unto eternall glory The parts of it but of the reprobate unto eternall paines That is there shall be 1. A restoring of the same body which is a re-collecting and gathering together of the same matter whereof our body was first composed and which after our death was scattered and severed into all the elements 2. An uniting of it with the same soule and a reviving of it by the same soule which it had before with a putting off of all infirmities and a putting on of immortality 3. A glorifying of the Elect and an eternall rejection of the Reprobare Three errours concerning the Resurrection The errours held of the Resurrection are of three sorts 1. Some have utterly denied it and have avouched the soules to die together with the bodies as the Sadducees of whom mention is made in the Acts The Sadducees say that there is no Resurrection Acts 23.8 neither Angel nor Spirit 2. Some have granted the immortality of the soule but have construed the resurrection to be a resurrection in this life meaning by this resurrection nothing else but regeneration but the bodies they denied to rise at all although the soules of the godly have fruition after death of everlasting happines Hymeneus and Philetus seeme to have been authors of this heresie of whom the Apostle saith 2 Tim. 2.18 Which as concerning the truth have erred saying that the resurrection is past already and doe destroy the faith of some 3. Some as Anabaptists deny that the very selfe-same bodies which we now have shall rise againe but they say that God at Christs second coming will make new bodies Against all these errours we are to beleeve the Scripture affirming that the dead shall certainly rise againe 4. Whence it may appeare that the Resurrection shall
shall be covered with this my skin And the Apostle saith Every man shall receive in his body according to that he hath done This mortality must put on immortality If then the bodies which have finned shall receive accordingly not other bodies but the same shall rise Therefore in the African Churches it was said I beleeve the resurrection of this flesh Cyprian in expos Symb. And the very word it selfe of rising enforceth as much for nothing can rise but that which is fallen This is the resurrection saith Ambrose as is intimated by the sounding of the very word that that which fell may rise that which was dead may revive Wherefore seeing our bodies shall rise no other bodies shall rise or be quickned then those which have fallen and are dead or no other then those which doe fall and die The justice also of God enforceth as much De side resurrect cap. 19. For this saith Ambrose is the order and course of justice that because the actions of the body and soule are common to both the body executing that which the soule decreed both of them should likewise come unto judgement both of them be either delivered up to perpetuall punishment 2. Thes 1.6 Cyprian in expos Symb. or reserved to eternall glory For the justice of God requireth that the flesh of the Saints which have fought in the field should also be crowned and the flesh of the wicked which have blasphemed against God should be tormented Wherefore to every soule shall be rendered not any other body what soever but the body wherewith it was once knit and coupled that forth-with the flesh with her owne soule may according to the actions of this present life either be gloriously crowned as chaste or as unchaste be extreamly afflicted Lastly as Christ rose againe in the same flesh wherein he died so shall we rise with that very flesh we now are clothed withall 1 Cor. 15.50 Object Flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdome of God These our bodies are flesh and bloud Therefore they cannot possesse the kingdome of God and by consequent not these but other bodies shall rise in the last day Answ 1. Flesh and bloud in this saying of the Apostle which maketh the Major proposition signifie some evill adherent quality of the substance or the substance in respect of that quality But in the Minor they signifie the very substance of our bodies How flesh and bloud 〈◊〉 denied the heavenly inheritance whereof the Anabaptists falsely understand their conclusion 2. Here is a fallacy of Accident For the reason proceedeth from corrupted substance to meere substance thus Flesh and bloud being mortall and corruptible as now it is shall not possesse the kingdome of God they fore simply no flesh or bloud shall enjoy the kingdome of God Which kind of reasoning is altogether inconsequent So then flesh that is sinfull and corruptible shall not possesse the kingdome of God but our flesh shall enter in being glorious and immortall and being then no more able to sinne neither shall it be corruptible The Apostle of purpose layeth this downe in the same chapter It is sowed a naturall body and is raised a spirituall body Repl. 1 Cor. 15.44 Our bodies shall rise spirituall bodies Therefore then our bodies shall not have the properties of our flesh Answ The Apostle calleth that a spirituall body not which is changed into a spirit in all properties In what sense our boâ—â—es shall be spirituall but which is guided by the spirit of God which is immortall and free from all miseries adorned with heavenly lightnesse glory might and holinesse As likewise on the other side he termeth that a naturall body not which is turned into the soule or is like unto the soule in all properties but which in this mortality is swayed quickned and governed by the soule That this is the meaning of the Apostles words is apparent by these reasons Verse 53. 1. Because he saith It shall rise a spirituall body but a spirit is no body 2. Himself addeth This corruptible body must put on incorruption 3. If any body after the resurrection should be so spiritual as not retaining at all any bodily properties then surely Christs body should have been so but now he saith to the Apostles Handle me and see Luke 24.39 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see me have Therefore much more shall our spirituall bodies have flesh and bones Thus Augustine interpreteth Apostles meaning Cons. Adimanw cap. 12. Whereas the Apostle saith that in the resurrection the body shall be spirituall we may not therefore thinke that it shall be a spirit and no body but he calleth that a spirituall body which without any corruption or death is altogether subject to the spirit For when he calleth the body which we now have a naturall body we may not imagine hereon that it is a soule and no body Therefore as the body is now called naturall because it is subject to the soule and cannot be called spirituall because it is not yet fully subject to the soule as long as it may be corrupted so then it shall be called spirituall when by no corruption it can resist the spirit and eternity 6. How the Resurrection shall be The dead shall be raised THe dead shall be raised with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel At the resurrection and with the trumpet of God and shall be presented before the high and most just Judge Jesus Christ The resurrection shall be in glorious manner and openly not fearfully not in secret and shall be far other then that which was wrought in some men at the resurrection of Christ For it shall be done all Angels men and divels beholding it yea with the exceeding joy of all the godly and with the exceeding feare and trembling of the wicked The living shall be changed They who then shall remaine alive shall be in a moment of time changed and be made of mortall immortall Read cap. 15. of the former to the Corinthians and cap. 4. of the former to the Thessalonians 7. When the Resurrection shall be THe resurrection shall be in the end of the world in the last day John 6.40 John 11.24 Mat. 24.35 I will raise him up at the last day This Martha confessed I know that Lazarus my brother shall rise againe in the resurrection of the last day But of that day knoweth no man no not the Angels of heaven but God only This question is to be held and proposed of us that our faith be not troubled while we are forced to expect and tarry or that we may not imagine to our selves any certain time when we think those things will happen and so begin to doubt and think our selves to be deluded when those things fall not so out nor come to passe at the time appointed by us This question maketh for the increase of hope
by the Passeover and other Sacrifices as also by the Sabbath which all were commanded by God that the godly might celebrate and worship God and shew themselves gratefull unto him and might withall take the signes and tokens of those benefits of God which they received by the Messias So Baptisme is a confession of Christianity and a sign whereby Christ testifieth that we are washed by his bloud The Supper of the Lord is a thanksgiving for the death of Christ and an advertisement that we are quickned and revived by his death and are made his members and shall remain and continue with him for ever OF BAPTISME ON THE 26. SABBATH Quest 69. How art thou admonished and assured in Baptisme that thou art partaker of the onely sacrifice of Christ Ans Because Christ commanded the outward washing of water a Mat. 21.19 adjoyning this promise thereunto b Ibid. Mar. 16.16 Acts 2 38. John 1.33 Mat. 3.11 Rom. 6.3 4. that I am no lesse assuredly washed by his bloud and spirit from the uncleannesse of my soule that is from all my sins that I am washed outwardly with water c 1 Pe 3.21 Mar 1.4 Luke 3.3 whereby all the filthinesse of the body useth to be purged The Explication The principall Questions touching Baptisme are 1. What Baptisme is 2. What are the ends of Baptisme or for what it was instituted 3. What is the sense and meaning of the words of the institution thereof 4. The lawfull and right use of Baptisme 5. What are the formes and kinds of speaking of Baptisme 6. Who are to be baptized 7. In place whereof Baptisme succeeded 8. How Baptisme agreeth with Circumcision THe two former of these questions touching Baptisme are handled under the 69. and 70. questions of the Catechisme the third and fourth under the 71. the fifth under the 72. the sixth under the 73. the seventh and eighth under the Common place of Circumcision which followeth immediatly after those questions of Catechisme aforenamed 1. What Baptisme is THe word Baptisme signfieth a dipping in water or sprinkling with water Those of the East Church were dipped their whole body in the water Those of the North in coâ—der countries are only sprinkled with water This circumstance is of no moment or weight For washing may be either by dipping or sprinkling and Baptisme is a washing The Catechisme definition is Baptisme is an outward washing with water commanded by Christ adjoyning this promise thereunto that we being baptized are no lesse assuredly washed by his bloud and spirit from the uncleannesse of our soules that is from all our sinnes then we are washed outwardly with water It may be also fitly defined on this wise Baptisme is a ceremony instituted by Christ in the New Testament whereby we are washed with water in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost to signifie that we are received into favour for the bloud of Christ shed for us and are regenerated by his spirit and also to bind us that hereafter we endeavour in our actions and death truly to testifie newnesse of life Or It is a Sacrament of the New testament ordained and authorised by Christ whereby is sealed unto the faithfull being baptized with water in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost remission of all their sinnes the gift of the holy Ghost and a planting of them into Christs body which is his Church whereby they also professe that they receive these blessings from God and will ever hereafter live unto him Or yet more briefly Baptisme is an externall washing instituted by the Son of God with the pronouncing of these words I baptize thee in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be a testimony that he who is so washed or dipped is reconciled through Christ by faith and is sanctified by the spirit unto eternall life We are said to be received into favour for the bloud of Christ shed for us to wit on the Crosse that is for Christs whole humiliation applied unto us by faith The Scriptures confirme this definition Mat. 28.19 Go and teach all Nations baptising them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost that is testifying by the signe of Baptisme that they are received into favour of God the Father through the Son and are sanctified by his Spirit Marke 1.4 Marke 16.16 John did baptize in the wildernesse and preach the baptisme of amendment of life for remission of sins He which beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Wherefore Baptisme comprehendeth Three things comprehended in baptisme 1. The signe which is water and the whole ceremony as the sprinkling of water or the dipping into and againe returning out of the water 2. The things themselves signified by the ceremonies which are the sprinkling of the bloud of Christ the mortification of the old man the quickning of the new man into a certaine hope of the resurrection to come by Christ 3. The commandement and promise of Christ whence the signe hath authority and power of confirming Baptisme not a bare signe only Object 1. Baptisme is said to be an externall washing of water Therefore Baptisme is a bare signe onely Ans 1. This is a fallacy of division dividing things which are to be joyned because when we say that Baptisme is an externall signe we joyn with the signe the thing that is signified Ans 2. There is no particle added in our definition which excludeth the thing And Baptisme is in its owne nature without the promise adjoyned a bare signe and to the unbeleeving who receive not the promise by faith it is indeed an externall washing only with water but the promise cometh thereto The differences betweene Baptisme and the washings of the Old Testament and is joyned with this signe when it is used aright Object 2. There were washings also in the Old Testament Baptisme therefore is no Sacrament proper to the New Testament Ans There is a great dissimilitude and difference between the washings under the Law and our Baptisme 1. The washings in the old Testament were not a signe of the entrance and receiving into the Church as our Baptisme is 2. They were instituted to wash away a ceremoniall uncleannesse as when a man had defiled himselfe by touching a dead carkasse or any such uncleane thing his ceremoniall uncleannesse was to be purged with a ceremoniall washing our Baptisme is ordained to wash away a morall uncleannesse that is sinne And hence it is that Baptisme is called in Scripture alaver or washing to wit in respect of that washing of the morall uncleannesse that is in respect of that inward or spirituall washing whereby we are washed or cleansed from our sins 3. They signifie a washing by Christ which was to come our Baptisme sealeth that washing which is by Christ already exhibited in the flesh 4. They did bind the Jewes only Baptisme extendeth and belongeth to
have not sorrowed signifieth ye have not been earnest in taking away that scandall which should be removed from you from you I say because in the end Paul saith Put away from your selves that wicked man Therefore these words That he might be put from among you signifie that he was to be cut off not by Sathan but by the Church Repl. Paul useth the same word of himselfe 2 Cor. 12.21 I shall * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bewaile many of them which have sinned already and have not repented c. Here to bewaile signifieth not to be carefull of removing a scandall from the Church Therefore neither in the former place Answ We answer out of the text In that place he saith If I come againe I will not spare 2 Cor. 13.1 Where he noteth the cause of this his griefe in that he is constrained to punish severely the obstinate that is in the end to excommunicate them out of the Church Object 4. The Apostle expoundeth himselfe that he did not enjoyne the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous person when he saith 2 Cor. 2.6 It is sufficient unto the same man that he was rebuked of many Therefore those words Account him for a Heathen and a Publican and Put him away from among you signifie onely a rebuking Answ This reason deceiveth by a fallacy of consequent because a generall rule is not builded upon an example For because here was need of rebuking only seeing the party repented it doth not therefore follow that alwaies the same only is required Repl. What they did that Paul commanded But they did only reprehend and rebuke Therefore Paul commanded them onely to reprehend him when he commanded them to put him away from among them and to deliver him up to Sathan Ans Paul commanded that they should reprehend him but not that only because he commanded also that they should reject him if he repented not But if he repented it should be sufficient to reprehend and rebuke him Wherefore it doth not follow They only reprehended him Therefore Paul commanded them only to reprehend him This is a true answer unto the former reply but there is another also cleere and manifest For the Greek word which the Apostle here useth signifieth not only reprehension and rebuking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also that excommunication which is by words only And in this sense not onely it may but also must be taken because he saith So that now contrariwise yee ought rather to forgive him Therefore he was now excommunicated and not as yet received but to be received Neither was he only reprehended and rebuked but also cast out and rejected Matth. 18. And when also he saith Of many hereby is confirmed that by the name of the Church whereof Christ speaketh is not understood the common multitude but the chiefe Governours of the Church Againe For this cause did I write saith the Apostle that I might know the proofe of you whether you would be obedient in all things He praiseth them therefore because they obeyed Wherefore before repentance he forbiddeth That they company not together with the excommunicated person And further he also saith I pray you that you would confirme your love towards him The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we interpret to confirme signifieth by publike sentence to speake a thing So it is taken Galat. 5.15 A mans covenant when it is confirmed that is ratified by publike authority The Apostles meaning therefore here is that they should declare their love towards that man by publike testimony Therefore to forgive is to receive the excommunicated person into favour and that doth he often repeat Now there was also some space betweene the writing of the former and the later Epistle to the Corinthians Therefore he stood in the meane time excommunicated In the former Epistle Paul saith That he heareth that some wicked persons were among the flocke Them he willeth to be excommunicated And it is likely that the Corinthians obeyed this his commandment in excommunicating them and so wrote to Paul that they had obeyed him therein because in his second Epistle Chap. 2. he commendeth them and willeth them to receive againe the incestuous person upon repentance Object 5. Excommunication needeth no excuse but Paul excuseth himselfe for that he had commanded him to be delivered up to Sathan Therefore he commanded not that he should be excommunicated but enjoyned some more grievous penance Answ The Major is false because excommunication from the Church and Kingdome of Christ whereas it is a most grievous punishment it requireth a farre greater excuse than any bodily punishment Object 6. The Ministers cannot shut men out of the Kingdome of God Therefore Paul commandeth them no such matter Ans To the Antecedent we answer that they indeed cannot by their owne authority but they can in Christs name according to the Apostles direction When ye are gathered together and my spirit in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ Againe they cannot cast men out of Gods Kingdome but they both can and ought to denounce rejection unto such as God professeth in his word that he doth reject For to excommunicate is nothing else but by denouncing to obstinate offenders their rejection from God to subscribe unto Gods divine censure Now this the Church not onely can but ought also to doe Therefore Paul reprehended the Corinthians because they excommunicated not the incestuous adulterer but expected untill they were admonished hereof Therefore he reprehendeth them because they had swerved from the common rule that is performed not the known and ordinary office of the Church that according to the commandement they should account of him as of an heathen or publican Obj. 7. Paul commandeth that he should be delivered to Sathan for the destruction of the flesh But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing destruction signifieth every-where in Scripture violent death Therefore here in this place also is insinuated a miraculous slaying of the body by Sathan that the soule might be saved Ans It appeareth out of the circumstances that destruction here signifieth the mortifying of the old man for the opposition of the flesh and the spirit and the very phrase is most usuall with Paul in this sense The whole scope also of the matter ratifieth the same for he will that he should be delivered unto Sathan that the flesh may be mortified and the spirit saved that is that he may be converted in this life and saved in the life to come Therefore his meaning is not that he should be miraculously destroyed and deprived of life Rep. But no man can be delivered unto Sathan for his conversion or the mortification of the old man in him Ans It is true that this delivery and giving over to Sathan of it selfe worketh no such effect but by accident that is it is of Gods mercy that the elect are reformed by chastisements And in the same sense wherewith
as the proper and onely begotten son of man is man which the Scripture in innumerable places confirmeth 10. Of the substance of his Father This also the Scripture confirmeth as often as it witnesseth the Son of God to be begotten and the onely begotten of the Father For when an intelligent nature is said to beget it is properly to bring forth an issue out of its owne substance that is the begetter to that which is begot the father to the son communicates his owne substance 11. Begotten before the world Wisdome which is the Son of God Prov. 8.22 23 25 30. three or foure times plainly restifieth that she was begot before time and before the world was made And this among sensible or rationall men not to speak of godly men ought not to be doubted For how could God be a Father before the world if he begot not his Son before the world The Church confesseth that the manner of this generation is ineffable Rufinus in his Exposition of the Creed which is commonly attributed to Cyprian saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not have thee discusse how God the Father begot his Son neither search too curiously into the depth of this mysterie lest perhaps whilst thou art making too strict a scrutiny to find out the splendor of this inaccessible light thou forfeit that small and weak sight which by divine bounty is bestowed upon men Know that the mysterie of this divine generation is as far different and eminent above all things that are in us as the Creatour is more potent then the creature and the Artificer more excellent then his worke c. When thou hearest of this Son I would not have thee think of a carnall nativity but remember that these things are spoken of the simple nature of an incorporeall substance For if in that word which the heart or in that meaning which the mind or in that brightnesses which the light begets of it selfe if I say there is no weaknesse in that generation how much purer must our thoughts be of him who is the Creatour of all these By this manner then of subsisting proper to himselfe is the Son of God distinguished in the holy Trinitie from the Father and holy Ghost because he alone is begotten of the Father before the world and therefore hee onely assumed mans flesh and was borne of the Virgin in time 12. Of the substance of his mother As the Angel said to the Virgin Mary Luke 1.35 That holy thing which shall be borne of thee that is of thy substance and wombe shall be called the Son of God For the Son of God should have been the son of David according to the promise 1 Chron. 22.10 Hebr. 1.5 Math. 1.1 Of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1.3 Hence hee is called the fruit of Maries womb Luke 1.42 But the fruit is begot of the substance of the tree which is flat against the madnesse of Valentinus affirming that Christ was sent by the Father and brought with him an heavenly bodie and that he assumed nothing of the Virgin Mary but that hee past through her as through a channell or pipe without taking any flesh of her August de haeres 10. 13. In the world That is in time or in the fulnesse of time to wit prefixed by God Gala◠4.4 which was in the 42. yeare of Augustus his reigne and in the year of the world 3928. according to Beroaldus his best account 14. Perfect God In Greek perfect God is the same that 1 John 5.20 the true God for there is but that one and eternall God by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who calls himselfe Gen. 17.1 the God of sufficiency or perfection He is not then God equivocally in respect of the excellencie of his gifts and office as Angels Psal 97.7 Or as Princes Psal 82.6 as Samosatenus and Photinus of old blasphemed and of late the Servetians and Socinians affirming Christ to have taken his beginning from Mary and not to have had any being before her Neither a factitious or created God before all things of non-entities as Arius madly said For no creature can attaine to the perfection of the Creatour whereas every creature proceeds from non-entitie to entitie but not to be is absolutely repugnant to God and to his perfection 15. Perfect man A true and entire man consisting of a reasonable soule and a humane body which is contrary to the heresie of Marcion and Manichoeus affirming that Christ came in the later times to deliver soules not bodies and that he was not truly in the flesh but onely to delude humane senses hee made shew of humane flesh This is also against the errour of Apollinaris the Syrian affirming the Son of God to have assumed the flesh without the soule and that the Word was in stead of the soule in him August de haeres 46.55 Christ himselfe did pithily refute both these the former when rising from the dead he shewed himselfe to his disciples who being affrighted with his sight supposed they had seen a spirit to whom Christ faith Why are you troubled See my hands and feet for I am the same Touch me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see mee have Luke 24.39 But the later he refells when in the garden in his feare and agonie he cried out My soule is heavie unto death Matth. 26.38 Now the Word could not either be troubled with passions of the mind or with the feare of death because the nature of man being assumed into the hypostasis doth not subsist by it selfe but in the person of the Word which is so far from diminishing mans perfection that it rather perfects it As for mans person to be or to subsist it is the perfection of a meere man which indeed should make Christ to be meerly man But to subsist in the person of the Word of God is the perfection of him that is both God and man or of man assumed into the Godhead as Athanasius speakes in the following Article 16. Equall to the Father That Christ was the Son of God and God the forenamed Hereticks of old did not and the moderne doe not deny but they did as they doe at this day trifle with an equivocation affirming a factitious god in respect of gifts and divine operations or a God created before all things but lesser and inferiour to the Father which is directly against the assertors of the Christian faith amongst whom Athanasius was not the meanest who by evident testimonies out of Scripture and arguments did demonstrate that the Son of God was God equall and consubstantiall with the Father Here let a few serve We are inaugurated by baptism equally in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost as in the name of one true God The Jewes themselves did acknowledge Christ when he said John 5.17 My Father worketh hitherto and I worke that he called God his owne Father and