with lawes but ought to be free Tom. 5. Ien. fol. 15. B. And the Popish Canons confesse themselues that the priuate Confession is not the command of the old or new Testament but is imposed by the Church Dist 5. de poenit The fifth fault they find is 5. The Communion to the sicke for that we carry not the holy Communion to the sicke into their houses But heerein also doe wee nothing against the word of God For the word of God saith the Supper shall be a Communion Also it should bee holden when they come together and one ought to tarrie for another 1. Cor. 11.18.33 And therefore do we thinke that it is not conformable to the word of God when it is administred to one alone And therefore also doe wee admonish our Communicants that they participate in the Supper when they are in health and may receiue it with the publike congregation The which they also do and are very well satisfied with such an order Excepting when at any time one is a bedrid man and hath such an infirmity vpon him which will not suffer him to come to the publike Communion In that case if any man desire that the Supper might bee communicated with him together in the house It is readily accomplished yet with this caution that the sicke person doe neuer communicate alone but that the whole company as a little congregation or house Church doe communicate with him This doe we hold to be agreeable to the order of Christ and yet prescribe we nothing to others therein The sixth fault they finde is 6. Of the Exorcisme for that we doe not vse the Exorcisme that is coniuring of the diuell in Baptisme Which yet concerneth not vs alone but also many other euen of their owne Lutheran Churches who leaue out the Exorcisme in Baptisme euen as well as wee as the orders of their Churches manifest And Doctor Hunnius chiefe Professor of Wittenberge a little before his death did write very large theses de abrogando Exorcismo which were afterwards printed at Erphord and from thence came to our hands wherein he alleageth many causes wherefore the Exorcisme should also be abrogated in the rest of the Lutherian Churches wholly where yet it was in vse As namely and for the first whilest Christ was not the author thereof but it is a very meere inuention of man For the second whilest the words I coniure thee thou vncleane spirit c. let them bee turned and trimmed the best that may bee yet for all that they beare shew of no other construction then as if the children of Christians were bodily possessed of the diuell For the third whilest the gift of dispossession together with other miracles are ceased wee know not now any more of any coniurers of the diuell then of the popish Exorcists and Witches For the fourth whilest not onely the common man but also many learned make it a thing of necessity as if without it Baptisme were not compleat Which is manifest by this for that they striue so vehemently therefore and deale so euilly when the remouall is required For the fifth whilest it is a taking of the name of God in vaine when as it is said I coniure thee thou vncleane spirit in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost c. Whereas there is no vncleane spirit therein and also there is no warrant from God for any such coniuration For the sixth whilest it is a cause of much contention in the Churches of God the peace and quietnesse whereof ought not to be hindred vnnecessarily For the seuenth whilest it were comely to hold in these things also a conformity with the rest of the Protestant Churches Wherin it is alwaies most reasonable for those Churches to yeeld who yet haue the Exorcisme For the other who haue abrogated it cannot with good conscience establish it againe For the eighth for that therby they should come nearer to the integritie of the Apostolicall Churches which they vsed in Baptisme For the ninth for that long since the Protestant Estates in a publike Edict the title whereof is A notable demonstration of the causes wherefore the Princes Electors and Dukes with other States of the Auspurgs Confession could not appeare at the intended Councell of Trent which Pope Pius the fourth had published there to be held c. in the 217. page of the first printing or 204. of the second had declared thus their minds herein and said The holy Scripture witnesseth that Christ hath commanded to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost and hath neither commanded Crisme nor Exorcisme to bee vsed Matth. 28. Whilest then both those things are not the ordinances of Christ but the inuentions of man therefore they lie vnder the saying of Christ In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrines mens precepts Matth. 15. These are neare abouts the causes which Doctor Hunnius alleaged wherefore the Exorcisme ought to be disanulled in all Protestant Churches Which motiues are worthy of deepe consideration And at the very least they do demonstrat thus much That it is not a Caluinish heresie whereas many have abrogated the Exorcisme For thē must the Wirtenbergers the Hessens and the Pfaltzgraue of Newburges Churches be also Caluinish it so being that in the orders of their Churches there is no exorcisme to be found 7. Of womens Baptizing of children or baptizing in need The seuenth fault they finde in our Ceremonies is for that wee doe not approue of Baptising by a woman whereas yet the case of necessity is alleaged against vs. But wee doe not know of any such necessity Mat. 28.19 Ioh. 20.21 c. 1. Cor. 4.1 1. Cor. 14.33 which should enforce vs to flie from the institution of Christ who did not giue ouer the commission and charge of the ministery of the word and of administring the holy Sacraments to women but only vnto men as is very well known But it is alleaged that if it so fall out that a Preacher cannot be had so suddenly that then the child is shortened of saluation But where stands that written that the saluation is so knit vnto Baptisme in such a sort that all those that depart vnbaptized must therefore be damned and perish The saying of Christ is alleaged Except that a man bee borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God Ioh. 3.5 But first of all this saying did not speake of the earthly water in Baptisme as if without the same no man could bee regenerated and saued For then the theefe who suffered with Christ on the Crosse must haue also been damned To whom yet Christ said to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise But this sentence speaketh of the heauenly water of the holy Ghost Which water God poureth out vpon vs when wee doe beleeue in Christ As it is written in Ezek. 36. and in
that in the same point also we differ not so much as many people imagine WHich whilest wee doe and seauer as befitteth that which he taught with wel considered counsell from those vnconsiderate speeches which sometimes fell from him in the heate of contention then appeares it plainely that he both beleeued and taught of all and euery necessary point euen as we beleeue and teach that one point of the holy Supper excepted And yet differ we not in the same point so much from each other as many men take it For it so being that in all Sacraments two things are to be considered first the tokens and then the betokened riches whereon out of all doubt more dependeth many thousand times then on the outward tokens then are wee agreeable in all things with Doctor Luther in the betokened treasures of the holy Supper For euen as Doctor Luther taught that the betokened treasures in the holy Supper or the same to which the holy Supper pointeth which maketh a man right and blessed before God is not the bodily but the spirituall eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ a In the Sermon vpon Sacraments â—ay â—rinted in quarto 1523 in the 55.56.57 deafe Alsâ— in the Church Postil prâ— at Strasburg 1529. in the 2. part 102. Also in another Sermon of the Sacrament in the Church Postil pr. at Wittenberge anno 1540. in the first part 129. euen so teach wee also Also euen as Doctor Luther teacheth That the bodily eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ is nothing else then to beleeue that Christ hath giuen his body to death for vs and his blood to bee spilt for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes b In the former places Also in the expounding the Epistle on Septuagessimae Sunday pr. in Wittenberge Post 275. B. Euen so teach we also Also euen as Doctor Luther teacheth That all they who doe eate and and drinke spiritually the naturall body and blood of Christ that is that doe beleeue that Christ gaue himselfe to death for them are by such a faith one bread and one spirituall body with Christ and themselues and therefore they can in Christ lay hold on all things and on the contrary they are again indebted to aduenture all in the behalfe of Christ and his members c Jn the former places also in Tom. 3. Ion. 235.206.207 Euen so teach we also Onely heere lies the difference what the outward tokens bee by which bodily eatings from which the vngodly are not exempted the spirituall feeding vpon the body and blood of Christ which belongeth to the children of God is betokened confirmed and sealed We say the same outward tok ns are bread and wine Doctor Luther vnderstands they are not onely bread and wine but also the body of Christ in bread and the blood of Christ in wine And so the difference betwixt our doctrine in the Supper and Doctor Luther lieth not in the ground of saluation but onely in the tokens which should shew vs to the ground of saluation It may please the reader rightly to consider Doctor Luther contendeth very hoâ—ly for the bodily presence and mouthly feeding vpon the body and blood of Christ in the holy supper But for all that he doth not estimate the sâ—m bodily presence and mouthly feeding for to be the true treasure and kernell of the holy Supper but onely to be the tokens or for a part of the tokens whereby the true treasure and kernell of the holâ— Supper namely the spirituall and alone blisse-making feeding of the body and blood of Christ which only is performed by faith is betokened and sealed vnto vs. As is to bee collected by these his words where he saith Christ hath not instituted the two kinds namely bread and wine barely and nakedly but his true naturall flesh in bread hath he giuen and his true naturall blood in the wine that so he might giue a perfect compleat Sacrament Tom. 1. Ien. 205. Also it is not enough to seed vpon the body and blood of Christ outwardly as it is not enough that a man paint oates before a horse to seede him withall Hee must haue true oates a In the Church Post il de Anno 1529. part 2. fo 102. B. Also the flesh is not profitable The words that I speake are spirit and life saith Christ With which words he will shew that the fleshly eating of the flesh is not pr fitable But to beleeue that Gods Sonne is flesh and came from heauen and shead his blood for mee that that is profit and life Therefore to eate the flesh of the Sonne of God and to drinke his blood is nothing else then that I doe beleeue that his flesh is giuen for mee and his blood is spilâ— for me and that hee hath ouercome for mee death diuell hell and all mishaps Out of which faith floweth a powerfull confidence in him and a stout and bold spirit against all mischance so that hereafter I haue no cause to feare whether it bee â—inne death diuell or Hell whilest I am assured that my Lord hath cast them vnder my feet and ouercome them for me That is caused by the spirituall eating and not by the bodily The spirituall and inward eating in the heart doth it not the outward which is effected in the Sacrament b Euen in the same place Behold Reader those our Doctor Luthers owne very words whereby hee manifestly teacheth and witnesseth that the bodily eating and drinking of the body of Christ which he vnderstands to bee acted in the holy Supper not to bee the right blisse-making eating drinking of the children of God but onely that it is a token which the wicked can as well receiue as the godly as he saith in other places Iudas receiues it euen as well as Peter Therefore the difference betwixt vs and Doctor Luther consists not in the foundation of saluation in cause of the holy Sacrament for whether Iudas receiued it as well as Peter that cannot be the foundation of saluation Else were our foundation very barely grounded But the difference consists onely in the tokens which shew vs onely to the foundation of saluation and shall giue vs assurance in our hearts Whilest we now agree in the true ground of saluation that is that the spirituall and alone blisse-making eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ which is acted by faith as we God bee thanked therein agree in all things together is it not then most lamentable that wee should separate our selues so shamefully one from another about the tokens which the wicked can receiue as well as the godly CHAP. V. Wherefore we cannot agree in all things with Doctor Luther in the point of the holy Supper YEa wherefore doe you it then might some man say Wherefore doe you not giue Doctor Luther and his followers right and so were the contention ceased Answere That is not the way to exclude discord
with one word It betokeneth the new birth or regeneration For regeneration is nothing else but a deading of the old man and quickening of the new Euen so saies Doctor Luther Tom. 1 Jen. fol. 204. 205 26. This is the true signification of the Sacrament Also it is not enough that a man know what the Sacrament is and what it signifieth Also yet was Christs body giuen therefore that the signification of the Sacrament might be taken to heart And therfore also is this rule false and nothing where men say That in the Sacraments of the new Testament there are no significations Therefore cannot the words of Christ haue that construction This is my body as if he had said this signifies my body There are significations in all Sacraments as well in the new as in the old Testament Onely heere is the difference that the Sacraments of the old Testament had relation to the Messias to come but the Sacraments of the new TestameÌ„t haue their relatioÌ„ to Christ already come As Doctor Luther himselfe very notably and well sheweth in the Church Postill in the exposition of the words of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10.3.4 Our fathers haue all eaten one food namely with vs and haue all drunke one spirituall drinke c. where he saith It is euery where one faith and spirit Postill Wittenberg anno 1540 in the winter part fol. 275. though seuerall tokens and words be there The tokens and words are from time to time deliuered otherwise But there remaines yet all one faith in the onely one God who by seuerall tokens and words deliuered at times doe communicate one faith and spirit and worketh in all the Saints of God by the same one manner of pardon of sinnes deliuery from death and purchase of saluation whether it bee in the beginning middle or end of the world That is Pauls meaning here that he fathers haue eaten the same food and drunke the same drinke with vs yet addeth he that word spiritually vnto it For outwardly and bodily had they other tokens and words then we but euen the very same spirit and faith of Christ which we haue But to eate and drinke spiritually is nothing else then to beleeue the word and tokens of God as Christ also saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Also my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed that is hee that beleeueth in me he shall liue Also they drunke of the spirituall rocke which followed which was Christ that is they beleeued in the same Christ in whom wee beleeue although hee was not then come in the flesh but should come afterward And the token of such their faith was the materiall rocke where they drunke of the materiall water euen as wee by the materiall bread and wine vpon the alter eate the true Christ spiritually that is in eating and drinking outwardly doe wee nourish faith inwardly Whilest now these things are thus and whilest in all Sacraments there are significations and signes as also the Apology of the Auspurges Confession saith with the ancient Doctor Augustine of all Sacraments The Sacrament is a visible word for the outward token is a picture whereby the same is signified which is preached by the word c. Seeing therefore say wee that there are significations in all Sacraments therefore it followes that also this manner of speech hath place in all Sacraments where one saith This is this or that when it is meant this betokeneth this or that Neither can any waighty cause be showne wherfore the words of Christ This is my body should not euen so bee vnderstood as if hee had said this betokens my body or which is all one this is a token or remembrance or calling to mind of my body Out of which wee doe further conclude whilest the words of Christ This is my body must not bee so vnderstood as if he had said Therein is my body but may well be vnderstood so as if he would haue said this betokens my body that accordingly Doctor Luthers opinion where hee saith that the body of Christ is in the bread out of Christs words where hee said This is my body hath no necessary conclusion And this is the first cause why wee cannot leane to Doctor Luthers opinion about the reall presence of the body of Christ in the bread namely whilest such a construction hath no ground in the word of God it being so that in neither stands expresly in the words of Christ neither can bee drawne from thence by any necessary consequence The second cause why we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers aboue named opinion is this The second cause why we cannot leane to Doct. Luthers opinion namely whilest it is flat against Gods word for that wee see and are assured in our hearts that such an opinion hath not onely no ground in the word of God but also that it runnes flatly against the same For first of all so witnesseth Gods word cleerely that Christ ascended into heauen fortie daies after his resurrection and at present is no more vpon the earth I am no more in the world saith Christ Ioh. 17.11 And the Apostle to the Hebrewes shewes it very largely that he must by the offering of his body enter into the heauenly Sanctuary And concludes therout that therefore if hee were vpon earth then were hee not Priest in the 8.9 10. Chapters See Reader this is the cleere and infallible word of God that Christ is not any more bodily vpon earth therefore cannot the contrary that hee is now vpon earth bee true Secondly the word of God witnesseth cleerely that Christ hath once himselfe renounced and said that the bodily eating of his body is not profitable to saluation the flesh profiteth not namely to be eaten with the mouth as the Capernaites meant that they must eate his flesh Iohn 6.63 What now Christ hath once cast away as vnprofitable to saluation that is vnpossible that hee should againe haue euer ordained it as profitable to saluation For he recals not his word neither wil he rebuke himselfe of lying as Doctor Luther truly writeth Tom. 3. fol. 530. B. Thirdly the word of God witnesseth plainely That Christ once dying for vs henceforth dieth no more Rom. 6.9.10 Therefore shall not his blood heereafter bee seuered from his body any more really Tom. 3. fol. 529. as Doctor Luthers opinion sheweth For hee saith his body is in the bread without blood and his blood in the wine without the body This is as much as if he said that his body is dead in the Supper For a body without blood is dead Now his body cannot die any more therefore neither can the opinion of Doctor Luther of the reall and separated presence of the body of Christ in the bread and his blood in the wine be right Doctor Luther troubleth himselfe very much C'earanâ—e of the first difference betwixt
therein and yet for all that they will not giue the glory to God Yet and if they haue delight in disputing they should giue vs an answere heerein wherfore they cease not so to smooth the matter to their good Lords that either the māhood must be euery where or the two natures in Christ must be separated from each other Whereas they neuerthelesse confesse in open writing In concordium booke fol. 246 B. Also in the Apologie of the Concordium booke in the first Chapter against the Bremers fol. 3. A. fol. 7. B. that Christ when he was in his mothers body also when he hung vpon the Crosse yea for the most time that he walked vpon the earth was not euery where in body actually and yet for all that the two natures that are in him are not separated from each other When they can vntie that knot vnto vs then will we yeeld vnto them But if they cannot then should they yeeld vnto vs Also in the confutation of the printed confession of faith at Herborne page 138. Protocol Maulbrun Act. 5. or the whole world shall take knowledge that they doe not contend for the glory of God but onely for their owne glory and profit And thus much be spoken of the first contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and the holy Scripture Which is that the holy Scripture saith the body of Christ at present is not any more vpon the earth but Doctor Luther saith that hee is now vpon the earth Clearance of the second contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and the holy Scripture The second contrariety is that the holy Scripture saith that the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ is not profitable Ioh. 6. But Doctor Luther saith that it is profitable Tom. 1. Ien. fol. 82. 358. 464. 455. c. This contrariety the better to salue vp saith Doctor Luther Where Christ saies The flesh profiteth not Ioh. 6. That he there spake not of his flesh as if that were not profitable to be eaten with the bodily mouth but he spake of our bad flesh that the same is not profitable Answere The whole disputation with Christ held with the Capernaites Ioh. 6. Chapt. is of his flesh how a man should eate the same and not of our flesh whether it bee bad or good Christ saith one must eate his flesh else could hee not bee saued Whereat the Capernaites were offended and vnderstood the speech of Christ so as if his flesh should be eaten bodily To remoue this stumbling blocke Christ gaue them to vnderstand that it was not his meaning that his flesh should be eaten bodily for he must ascend into heauen Also that the flesh profited not These were the grounds whereby Christ ouerthrew the bodily eating of his flesh How can Doctor Luther then say that Christ did not speake of his flesh He saith his ground for it is this Tom. 3 fol. 364. A. that where the two words flesh and spirit in the Scripture are opposed one to another there cannot flesh bee called the body of Christ but is alwaies called that old flesh which is borne of flesh Iohn 3. Answere This ground is manifestly false For there are many places in the Scripture where flesh and spirit are opposed to the other and yet therein the word flesh is vnderstood of the body of Christ and also cannot bee any otherwise vnderstood As where it is said God is manifest in the flesh iustified in the spirit 1. Tim. 3.16 Also Christ was made of the seed of Dauid according to the flesh and declared mightily to bee the Sonne of God touching the spirit Rom. 1.3.4 Also Christ was put to death concerning the flesh but was quickend in the spirit 1. Pet. 3.18 And also Doct. Luther himselfe neuer otherwise expounded this saying of Christ where he saith The flesh profiteth not then we expound the same when he contends not about the Sacrament namely the eating of the flesh of Christ with the bodily mouth not to bee profitable to saluation as is to bee seene in seuerall writings of his First in the Sermon on Corpus Christi day printed in quarto Anno 1523. 36. leafe where he saith For euen so saith he namely Christ himselfe afterwards the flesh profiteth not And againe my flesh giueth life how shall we separate that the spirit separates it Christ will haue it that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable but to beleeue that the flesh is the Son of God come downe from heauen for my sake and shead his blood for me c. After in the repetition of this Sermon in the Church Postill printed at Wittenberge Anno 1527. in the Summer part fol. 111. B. where he saith But that this is the true vnderstanding of the Gospell namely that it is to be vnderstood of the spirituall eating and drinking the words which the Lord spake at the end of the Chapter doe shew It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speake vnto you are spirit and truth With which words Christ will haue vs know that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable but to beleeue that this flesh is Gods Son come from heauen for my sake and shead his blood for me that is profitable and is life euerlasting Also againe in the Church Postill Anno 1540. printed at Wittenberge in the winter part fol. 275. B. where he saith When the word of God and tokens are not there or are not acknowledged then helpes it not though God were there himselfe Euen as Christ saith of himselfe Ioh. 6. The flesh profiteth not so long as they respect not the words which he speaketh of his flesh which word makes his body to be food where hee saith hee is the liuing bread from heauen c. And therefore also in this point the contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion is without No namely that the holy Scripture saith the flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten is Not profitable Doctor Luther yet saith the flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten is profitable His followers take this refuge to helpe them that in Ioh. 6. Christ spake only against the naturall grosse Capernaitish eating of his flesh that it is not profitable But euen that is also a vaine refuge For first Christ spake generally against all bodily eating of his flesh and opposeth that to his ascension saith What then if ye should see the Son of man ascend vp where he was before vers 62. As if hee would say how will yee then reach my flesh with your mouthes Secondly so is also the difference betwixt the bodily and naturall eating in it selfe false and of no worth For the mouth cannot eate supernaturally but all eating with the mouth is a naturall eating And so the second Contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion for all this without No. The third Contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and betwixt the holy
I at the same time did not my selfe know that such an opinion of Nestorius was darke because I vnderstood not this Councell also but knew it to be erroneous out of the holy Scriptures Augustine and the Master of Sentences And who knoweth how many Nestorians there are in the Papacie which yet highly praise this Councell For reason will heere be very acute and will not heare that God should die or haue one essence according to humanity though they hitherto accustomably doe beleeue that Christ is God as Nestorius did The fifth place where Doctor Luther handles the doctrine of the Communion of the properties is Tom. 8. Ien. fol. 165. in the booke of the last words of Dauid written Anno 15â—3 Where hee first of all giues the title of both the natures in Christ and speaketh thereof further thus * Tom 1 fol. 165 When now thou beleeuest and vnderstandest that Christ is true God and is the Scripture teacheth vs then tooke to it afterwards and learne to bee further assured that thou separatest not the person no theâ— minglest in one essence the two â—â—tures or the Diuine and humane essence but that thou makest difference of the natures 〈◊〉 and keepest the person one alone For many fine wits haue stumbled at this that they either would haue made the Godhead and manhood one nature or else two persons as Nestorius and Eutiches with others like vnto them The Turkes and Iewes esteeme themselues high and loftie spirits in this matter and vs Christians for meere idiots If hee bee God say they how can he die as a man for God is immortall If he be man how can he be Gods Son for God hath no wife c. Well let these miserable dolts passe surfeted with their owne follie But stick thou fast in the Christian faith which teacheth vs in the Scriptures that Iesus Christ is true God and Gods Sonne therewith also true man Dauid and Maries Son yet not two sons two men or two persons but one only Son one onely person in two differing natures the Deity and humanity For euen as in the aboue named article of the Deity thou must beware that thou minglest not three persons in one person neither distinguishest the essence or nature into three Gods but holdest three seuerall persons in one godly essence euen so thou must againe beware that thou partest or separatest not the alone person into two persons Vnio facit nomina communia that is euen as the two natures accord in one person so doe the names also accord in one person or minglest the two natures in one person but must maintaine two seuerall natures in one alone person And euen as the two natures accord in one person so accord also the names of both natures in the names of the alone person which in Latine is called communicatio idiomatum vel proprietatum as the man is called is borne of the Virgin Mary and crucified of the Iewes The same names shall also bee giuen to the Sonne of God and be said God is borne of Mary and crucified of the Iewes For God and man is one person and not two Sonnes one Gods the other Maries but is one onely Sonne of God and of Mary When thou now wouldest say as Nestorius God or Iesus Gods Sonne was not borne of Mary nor crucified of the Iewes but onely the man Maries Sonne then there thou makest two persons and separatest the onely person that it is one person which was borne and crucified and is one other person that was neither borne nor crucified and so either nature to bee for himselfe a seuerall person and two seuerall Sonnes which is euen as much as if God were not become man but that God remained by himselfe a separated person from the man and that the man remained a separated person by himselfe from God that is starke naught that will not the Scripture beare which saith Iohn 1. The word became flesh Luke 1. That shall bee borne of thee shall bee called the Sonne of God And he childrens faith saith I beleeue in Iesus Christ the Son of God conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the Virgin Mary c. say not that Gods Sonne is another but the same who was borne of Mary and was her Sonne Againe when thou wouldest say as Eutyches that the man Iesus the Sonne of Mary is not Creator of heauen and earth or is not Gods Sonne who ought to bee worshipped As of late also a mad spirit gaue out an harsh sentence Worship how dangerously we Christians taught that we worshipped a creature in stead of God The vnexpert idiot readeth neither Scripture nor bookes but dreames of such high mysteries out of his owne mad pate and so is a self-growne Doctor Behold heere is the person againe separated and two persons made of one Nestorius diuides the person thus that hee rendeth the manhood from the Deity and maketh of either nature a seuerall person that onely the man is crucified Eutyches againe he rendeth the Deity from the manhood so that he maketh of either nature a seuerall person also that God shall bee worshipped as being distinguished from the manhood how Christ shall be inuocated But the Scripture and the beleefe say thus When we inuocate the man borne of Mary then doe wee not inuocate a seuered man who for himselfe besides God without God is a seuerall owne person but we inuocate one onely true God who with the father and the holy Ghost is one onely God and with the humanity one only person Whosoeuer now hath not such vnderstanding hee must needs erre in the Scriptures and cannot possibly frame himselfe to them For in the Scriptures Messias is called Gods seruant Esa 42. Behold my seruant in whom I am well pleased And in the 53. Behold my seruant will doe wisely Yea hee is called a worme and not a man Psal 22. I said Lord bee mercifull vnto mee heale my soule for I haue sinned against thee Psal 69. O God thou knowest my foolishnesse and my sinnes are not hid from thee Also the reproches of them that reproched thee are fallen vpon me Innumerable euils haue compassed me about mine iniquities haue taken hold vpon mee so that I am not abâ—e to looke vp they are moe then the haires of mine head therefore my heart faileth me Psal 40. Heere exclaimes reason Iew and Mahomet against vs Christians how can this bee vnderstood of God how can God be a seruant how can he be a miserable sinner God be mercifull to vs what vnreasonable mad barbarous people are we Christians in respect of such high wise holy men who worship no creature but onely the one onely God What is this reason doth not finde such in their Bible that is in the chimney corner or in lubber-land and the Iewes find it not also in their bible that is in the Talmude c. We Christians do know blessed and praised be God for euer that the