me seemeth if partly to avoid superstitioÌ„ partly to correct their ovvne error principally for truthes sake they vvould from hence forth cal their coÌ„mumons rather breakefasts then Suppers For so should men thinke of them as divinely as they deserve and whereas the Protestants cal it a supper imitating that vvord in the Apostle where certainly he calleth not the sacrament but other feasts by the name of our lords Supper they should amend that oversight and vvithal speake more soundly and according to truth as P. Martyr hath very discreetly noted vvriting vpon that same place of the Apostle For in respect of the time and our emptie stomake it were saith he more reason to cal it a breakfast or dinner then a supper And this is the true right issue of the nevv vvord devised by Iohn Caluin and approved by M. B. of that word which they require to the essence of their sacrament a vvord which maketh al singular their communions and sacraments to be of a cleane different nature from that sacrament vvhich Christ instituted for that their sacrament is framed in an other mould hath though not always an other matter yet ever an other forme which geveth the essence to every thing then that of Christs institution theirs receiving al life sovvle perfection and integritie from the ministers cleere voyce and sermon or the receivers faith whereas Christs sacrament receiued his integritie and perfection other ways not by such meanes Again this word of theirs maketh not only their sacrament no sacrament being compared vvith Christs Institution but maketh it also nothing els but common bread for the most part being examined even by this very word which them selues haue inuented as hath bene now declared and the learned reader shal doubtles find most true if he examine the communions and suppers vsed in England France Geneua Zurick ZuizzerlaÌ„d c. by this vvord here appointed as necessarie to separate their sacramental supper from vulgar prophane And if their supper be no sacrament of Christ according to Christs order nor yet according to their owne rules and Theologie vvhat regard would they haue vs to make of it How shal vve esteeme of it as diuine sacred and celestial vvhen as them selues conclude and proue that it is nothing but a common peece of bread an earthly creature voyd of al grace and spirite a dead element not worth â— straa fitter for Pagans then Christians more meet for dogs then men M. B. contradictions The Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ The Argument M. B. very notably contradicteth him self in this first serâ—â—â—â— touching the lords Supper as is shewed by sundry examples As before cap. 10. it is proved that they haue no sacrament for want of the word which is the formal part of the sacrameÌ„t so here by a brief repetition of sundry things wanting in the material part which things M. B. consesseth to be of the substance of the sacrament it is manifestly concluded that their supper is no sacrament of Christs institution in respect of the matter no lesse then of the forme CHP. 11. And thus much concerning the word the formal part of the sacrament by vvhich as the more principal vve see proved that their Scottish Supper is no sacrament of Christ Novv for a conclusion of this first Sermon I vvil gather proue as much by the other part vvhich is the matter of the supper according to M. B. his ovvne division out of both vvhich the Christian reader shal be able to gather a most strong and sure resolution that it possibly can not be any sacrament vvhich saulteth both in the one part and in the other vvhich nether hath right matter nor right forme Only first of al I vvil in fevv vvords put the reader in remembrance of M. B. notorious contradictions vsed in this short sermon vvhich I vvisn the rather to be marked partly for that they shew this man to be a right scholer of Iohn Caluin whom he so narowly folovveth eveÌ„ in this blind kind of vvriting and preaching partly for that the original cause of this such opposite doctrine in them both is one that is to say an ambitious affectation vvith high ample and maiestical vvords to vvin some good opinion to their single bread and drinke among their simple auditors vvhom by such glorious speach as it vvere by a baite and pleasant allurement they vvould gladly dravv to some honest opinion of their late devised fantasie These contradictions albeit they be scattered thorough out this vvhole treatise yet the 7. chapiter and 8. and 9. yelde better store of them as for example The bread not only signifieth the body of Christ but hath it also truly conioyned with it For if it signified only a picture were as good And yet the bread is so far from having this coniunction that it vvanteth the signification of a picture I say it signifieth not so much as doth the picture vvhich repre'enteth Christ vnto our remembrance of it self and by it self and so doth not the bread and vvine vvithout a sermon yea and then also it representeth him very doubtfully Againe the bread and wine truly and really deliver the substance of Christ vnto vs For except first we receiue the substance we can haue no participation of the fruit and merits And therefore the bread wine are a very hand which delivereth vs that substance and with that hand is Christs fiesh verely conioyned as a medicine in the boâ—e of the Apotecaries shop And yet the bread doth no wayes deliver or exhibite the body of Christ but only signifie the same For it is a sacrament and ye must looke for no other coniunction then sacramental that is for no other coniunction then significatiue and figuratiue For that is al that a sacrament valueth with these men Again that which we receiue in the sacrament is signified by the bread and vvine is not the benefites of Christ or vertue which fleweth from him only but the very substance of Christ him self For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I first get the substance it self And yet the blud of Christ vvhich vve receiue is not the substance of Christ nor any part of his substance For it is no other thing but the quickening vertue and power that fâ—wes from Christ and the merites of his death And we drinke of that blud when we drinke of the lively power vertue that flowes cut of that blud Again there is a wonderful high and mystical yet very true and real coniunction betvvene the bread Christs body yet for al that the bread is no more coÌ„iovned there vvith then Christ is â—oyned with the devil For there is no other coniunction then is betvvene the vvord spoken and the thing vvhich the vvord signifieth and so vvhen Christ commaunded the devils out of
against any sacrament of the church of Christ mentioned in the gospel and practised among Christians but only against the inventions of that pernitious Apostata vvhich hovv soeuer he terme by the honorable name of the church sacraments as likevvise he every other heretike calleth his proper devised heresie by the name of Christs gospel yet I esteeme them no othervvise then the devises of the poorest carter in Scotland then the devises of Robin Hood and litle Iohn auncient rank riders in the borders of Scotland and England yea much vvorse for that their deuises ended only in robbing mens purses and at the farthest in killing temporally their bodies vvhereas these SacrameÌ„tarie devises tende to robbe men of their Christian faith and to kil eternally vvith their bodies their soules also And therefore vvhereas I esteeme them such as such also vvil I speake of them and vvith gods assistance by the gospel of Christ and doctrine of Christs Catholike church refel them And for distinction sake and to separate their toyes from the true sacraments I vvil so far as commodiously I can cal them by the names vvhich M. B. and the Sacramentaries better allovv that is signes and seales not sacraments vvhich is the churches word and not so meete to be applied to the signes and seales of their congregations albeit oftentimes especially in this first Sermon I shal be constreyned to cal them sacraments as they do His definition of sacraments taken from Caluin is this The sacrament is a holy signe and seale that is annexed to the preached word of god to seale and confirme the truth contayned in the same word This definition thus he more at large declareth I cal not only the seale separated from the word a sacrament For as there can not be a seale but that which is the seale of an evidence and if the seale be separated from the evidence it is not a seale but what it is by nature no more so there can not be a sacrameÌ„t except it be hung to the evidence of the word But looke what the sacrament was by nature it is no more VVas it a common peece of bread it remaines a common peece of bread except it be hung to the evidence of the word Therefore the word only caÌ„ not be a sacrameÌ„t nor the elemeÌ„t only can not be a sacrament but the word the element coniunctly That to the making of a sacrament is required the word is out of controversie among al Catholikes But vvhat meane yovv by the word not that vvord of god vvhich the Catholikes do For that is in these mens Theologie magical but they meane by the word the vvord of a minister a sermon preached by him For so it solovveth By the word I meane the word preached For the word preached distinctly and al the parts of it opened vp must go before the hanging to of the sacrament and the sacrament as a seale must folow and be appended there after Then I cal a sacrament the word and seale coniunctly the one hung to the other But here some vvil perhaps obiect vvhat need such hanging of seales to the vvord vvhereas the vvord of god is by it self of sufficient autoritie and needeth no such seales for confirmation thereof To this M. B. answereth with Calvin that the seales be annexed to the word for our cause For there is no necessitie on gods part but the necessitie cometh of vs. There is sicke a great weakenes in vs and inhabilitie to beleeue that to helpe this wonderful weakenes whereby we are ready to mistrust god in every word he hath hung to his sacraments Thus much for the general nature of sacraments as they are vsed in the Scottish congregation vvherein there is scarce any one vvord vvhich carieth not vvith it very sovvle absurditie even against the first principles of Christian faith For to examine a litle the definition vvhereon dependeth al I demaund hovvamong Christians can bread or wine or vvater vvhich be the signes of baptisme and the Supper confirme the faith of the preached vvord Is it in respect of the vvord it self or of Christians to vvhom the vvord is sent Not of the vvord it self For that vvere iniurie to god vvhose vvord it is therefore of sufficient credit vvithout such confirmation as Caluin first next M. B. here graunteth Then it remayneth to be in respect of Christians and here againe I must demaund in respect of vvhat sort of Christians strong or vveake perfit or vnperfit â—â—r so vve find them in scripture and in the church generally divided Truly of nether sort if they be right Christians and setled in their Christian faith For is there any true Christian a Christian I say rightly brought vp in the faith of Christ that beleeveth in one god almighty maker of heauen and earth a god vvhom every peece and parcel of his faith teacheth to be most iust most potent most true yea truth it self vvho possibly can not vtter any salsitie is there any Christian thus beleeving and thus he beleeveth or els he is no Christian for vvhom only the sacraments are appointed vvho beleeveth the vvord of god any thing the more for that he seeth bread and vvine and vvater in the ministers hands The Apostles first disciples Martyrs of the Primitiue church replenished vvith the holy ghost vvho being most assured of every vvord and sillable that Christ had taught them vpon confidence and warrant of such invincible and vnmoveable faith ventered them selues in a thousand dangers and perils of death perils on the land perils on the sea perils among Iewes perils among Gentiles c. vvho 300. yeres space together suffered al kind of prisons of miseries of banishments of torments of rackings of fier of being torne in peeces cast to beasts devoured of Lyons c. of vvhom it is vvritten that some thus vvished and prayed Come fier come gallowes come wild and savage beasts breaking of my bones renting in sunder of my quarters come on me al the torments of the devil so that at length I may enioy Christ they who being condemned to be devoured of beasts vvhen they heard the Lyons and Tigres roring for greedines of their pray exclamed VVe are gods wheate let vs willingly be grinded with the teeth of these beasts that we may be made cleane flower these men vvho as S. Paule speaketh died every day for Christs gospel and the truth thereof vvhen they resorted to the sacrament resorted they for this end that vvhereas othervvise they mistrusted god by receiuing these seales of bread and vvine they might confirme their faith towards him vvhich vvas alredy a thousand tymes better confirmed then it could be by any such vveake seales Doubtles as Calvin saith of them that they are signes memorials to helpe weake memories if a maÌ„ were otherwise myndful inough of Christs death this helpe of the supper
raise him vp he meaneth Corpus meum quod comedetur my body which shal be eaten in the Sacrament shal raise him Al which sayings of Christ and those blessed Martyrs and byshops the reader must not so interpret as our adversaries cavil most peevishly as though we or they taught that no man could be saved or rise to life everlasting but such as receiued Christ in the sacrament For nether they nor we doubt but the Pa 〈…〉 s and good men in the old testament as like wise children diuers others in the new shal be saved who yet never came to the actual participation of this diuine mysterie But as our Sauiour and al the church maketh marryrdom a soveraine and principal meane to attaine eternal life not excluding for al that other good vertues as preaching praying fasting almes geving c. and on the contrary by like assured ground of Christ and al scripture heresie and infidelitie is the high and brode way to hel albeit vitious life covetousnes vsury rayling and lying and such other qualities let men thither fast inough in like maner this communication of Christs immortal and glorious body in the sacrament is a special grace and singular prerogatiue in the nevv testament whereby our bodies sovvles are set in possession of life eternal although gods infinite goodnes hath provided vs other meanes besides VVhich singular and excellent grace whereas vve see attributed not to the eating of the Paschal lamb nor to Manna not to the Iewes bread not to reading the scripture not to preaching not to beleeving that Christ dyed and rose again for our iustification in al vvhich yet we being faithful men eate the flesh of Christ spiritually and also drinke his blud but only to the eating of this dreadful mysterie hereof it foloweth invincibly that both Christ in thus speaking the church in thus beleeving the auncient fathers martyrs bysshops and Councels in thus expounding vnderstood Christs body to be truly really and in deed receiyed in this Sacrament far othervvise then by only faith by vvhich he vvas eaten in the old figures ceremonies of the lavv as vvel as in the nevv testament or any sacrament hereof according to the ProtestaÌ„ts opinion Of Christs body no vvays ioyned nor deliuered vvith the sacrameÌ„t The Argument M. B. hereticalls in words magnifieth the sacrament whereas in truth he most abaseth it making Christs body to be ioyned therewith as sâ—enderly as with any creature in the world more slenderly then it is ioyned with a word spoken Christ is more â—ighly ioyned to a picture or image then to the 〈◊〉 or Scottish sacrament Two properties appointed by M. B. to their signe the first that it reâ—embleth Christ which it doth no more then any other creature The â—â—â—â—â— that with the bread Christs body is ioyntly offered to the communicants in such sort at the minister offereth bread This is confuted first as wicked and prophane It is further confuted by order of the Scottish Communion bâ—â—ke by the doctrine of the Protestant writers and al â—â—â—â—nists Christ is no otherwise ioyned to the Geneua Supper or eaten therein then in any vulgar meate or in beholding any creature â—â—der heauen By the Caâ—u nists owne doctrine and M. B. also Christ is not as al receiued in their Supper CHAP. 7. THat M. B. were of the self same iudgement with those auncient fathers touching Christs real presence in the sacrameÌ„t I should gather out of these his words novv râ—hâ—arsed and very plainly do they import so much his speaches comparisons and similitudes vvaighed in them selves implie conclude the same nether could a man make any doubt thereof were it not that he being an heretike the nature of heresie maketh vs suspect that he speaketh not plainly roundly sincerely in simple faith as did those old good fathers And our Sauiour teacheth that the maner of heretikes is to cloth them selues with sheepes clothing to preteÌ„d simplicitie to speake Catholikely to couer and colour their impietie with the phrase words speech of the church of Catholikes Catholike pastors whereas inwardly they are rauening wolues they meane daÌ„nably they meane as heretikes Apostataes by such pleasant sweet speeches and benedictions inteÌ„d nothing els but to seduce the harts of innocents and simple plain meaning Christians and as S. Peter teacheth they being lying masters first vvorke their owne destruction after by seyned counterfeit words make marchandize of other men seeking to draw them also to like damnation whereof before I haue shewed very euident example in Caluin a chief father of this heresie and here M. B. ensueth his steppes as like him as one Protestant may be like an other For hauing by thus many arguments persuaded his auditorie that he had a maruelous high reuerend opinion of the Sacrament immediately as being possessed with that spirit of giddines which guideth al men of his stamp he geueth furth as many arguments to the contrary The first which is the around foundation of the rest is this Ye may perceiue 〈◊〉 by your owne eyes that the signe and the thing signified are not locally conioyned that is they are not both in one place Ye may perceiue also by your outward senses that the holy of Christ and the signes are not conioyned corporally Their bodies touch not one the other Ye may perceiue also they are not visibly conioyned Al this hitherto if a Iew or Pagan be present at the supper he seeth as wel as the minister and therefore thus far furth their faith is much alike But this is a negatiue and priuatiue disioyning separation of the signe and thing signified let vs heare of their vnion coniunction VVe can craue no other coniunction then may stand and agree with the nature of a sacrament â— therefore here is no other then a sacramental coniunction I graunt nether doth any Catholike require any other But what meane yow by a sacramental coniunction any thing els besides a tropical figuratiue or significatiue representation speake plainly that the reader may know where to fynd yow what yovv beleeue vvhat yovv vvould haue him to take vnto The coniunction saith he betwixt Christs body the sacrament is a relatiue coÌ„iunction Looke what coÌ„iunction is betwixt the word which ye heare and the thing signified which comes to your mind the like coniunction is bewixt the signe which yow see and the thing signified in the sacrament Ye heare not the word so soone spoken but incontinent the thing signified comes to your mynd Speake I of things past to come or neuer so far absent I can not so soone speake of them in this language but the things signified comes in your mind no doubt because there is a coniunction betwixt the word the thing signified Hauing explicated this at large in fine thus he draweth to his conclusion Alwaies
Caluinists with quit disanulling making voyd the testament of our Sauiour I thinke it good to make some more stay herein better examine the circumstance of this testament yet as nigh as I can euâ—ing no new questions but resting on such certayn verities as are confessed by the aduersaries them selues cleare by plaine scripture out of vvhich I meane to deduce such reasons as may iustifie our catholike cause disproue the contrary VVolf Musculus in his common places entreating hereof writeth thus S. Luke S. Paule attribute to the cuppe that it is the new testament VVhereby they signifie this to be the sacrament of the new testament in respect of the old the Paschal sacrament which Christ finished in this his last supper in place thereof substituted this new In the same supper being then nigh to his death he made his testament Thus Musculê° In vvhich fevv vvords he noteth tvvo things very important concerning the truth whereof I here entreate both deliuered in the scriptures both vrged by the Catholikes both coÌ„fessed not onely by the Lutherans but also by the SacrameÌ„taries as here we see The first that Christ in his last supper made his new testameÌ„t the second that Christ in the same his last supper ended the sacrameÌ„t of the Paschal lamb ordeyned in place therof the sacrament of his body Concerning the fâ—â—â—t vvhat a Testament is how Christ made his the same vvriter expresseth truly in this sort A testament is the last wil of one that is to dye wherein he bestoweth his goods freely geueth to whom he pleaseth To the making of a testameÌ„t that it be auayleable is required first the free libertie power of the testator that he be as his owne commaundement For a slaue a seruant a sonne vnder the power regiment of an other can not make a testament So Christ when he made his testament was free had power libertie to do it God his father gaue al in to his hands made him heyre of al in heauen earth God his father willed him to make a testament sent him in to the world to that end that by his death he should confirme this new testament which he had promised Next it is required in a testament that the testator bequeath his owne goods not other mens so did Christ 3. A thing can not be geuen in a testameÌ„t which is due of right So that which Christ gaue in his testament was geuen only of grace fauour 4. In a testameÌ„t it is required that certain executors of the testament be assigned Those Christ made his Apostles to whom he coÌ„mitted that office that they by evangelizing should ministerially dispense the grace of this testament 5. Finally to the confirmation ratification of a testament is required the death of the testator So Christ the next day after this testament was made died on the crosse there by his death blud ratified confirmed eternally established it Thus far Musculê° adding withal Christ saith this cup is the new testament in my blud or according to Matthew Marc this is my blud which is of the new testament The old testament consisted in the tropical figuratiue blud of beasts the truth whereof was to be fulfilled in the blud of Christ. The new testament consisted not in the blud of any beast but of Christ the true immaculate lamb For declaration whereof he said This cup is the new testament in my blud or This cup is my blud which is of the new testament Thus much being manifest confessed and graunted it must also be graunted of necessitie that this blud was delyuered in the supper not only shed on the crosse as Musculus the Zuinglians suppose First because our Sauiour Christ according to the report of al the Euangelists in precise termes so avoucheth This in the cup or chalice is my blud of the new testament Secondly because to the making of the new testament fulfilling the figure of the old true real blud of the sacrifice was required as appeareth in the figure which here the aduersaries coÌ„fesse to haue bene fulfilled For in that figure first of al was the sacrifice offered the blud thereof taken in the cuppes then the people sprinkled with the blud of the sacrifice these words vsed This is the blud of the testament c. Nether is it possible that the blud of the sacrifice should be deliuered or taken or any waies imployed by man or to man before the sacrifice were offered to god Therefore whereas Christ assureth this to be the blud of the new testament as that was of the old it is as certain sure that the sacrifice whereof this was the blud was before offered as vve are sure of the same in the old testameÌ„t Briefly vvhereas in that figuratiue sacrifice whereof this is the accomplishmeÌ„t perfect on 3. things are specified by the holy ghost 1. the publication of the law or testament to the people 2. the offering of the sacrifice whereof the blud vvas taken 3. the eating of the sacrifice sprinkling of the people vvith the blud and vsing of those words This is the blud of the testament vvhereas for exact correspondence of the first Christ at his last supper publisheth his lavv and testament A new commaundement geue I to yow that yow loue one an other as I haue loued yow promiseth the holy ghost to remayne vvith them and his church for euer iterateth that commaundement of mutual loue charitie as the summe of his new law perfection thereof which was to be wrought in the hartes of his ChristiaÌ„s by the holy ghost then promised vvho also vvas euer to assist them to teach them to leade them the vvhole Church for euer in to al truth so fuâ—th vvhereas thus in 5. vvhole chapiters having expressed his new wil testament such graces as apperteyne therevnto he in fine for correspondence of the third biddeth the executors of his testament to eate his body and drinke his blud vvith those same so pregnant so vrgent vvords This is my body which is and shal be deliuered for you This is my blud of the new testament which is and shal be shed for yow hovv can it othervvise be chosen but for ansvvering of the second part as that body and blud of beastes there vvas first offered to god in sacrifice so this body and blud here must be offered in like sort to fulfill and accomplish that figure So that it suffiseth not to say the blud of Christ vvas shed on the crosse vvhere he dyed though that also vvere necessarie for the confirmation and ratification of the testament as vve also graunt and common reason teacheth and the Apostle proueth for testamentum in mortuis confirmatur a testament taketh his absolute and ful perfection strength and
of his blud the bread there broken is the participation of his body should also be partakers of the table sacrifice of deuils In which argument albeit the Apostle being brief and writing to Christians whom he accounteth skilful wei instructed in this thing by mentioning litle signifieth more setting downe one part willeth them to vnderstand the whole as Calvin also truly noteth and therefore vseth not in everie part of his comparison the terme of altar and sacrifice yet as otherwhere he acknowledgeth the Christians to haue a true altar to sacrifice on and consequently a sacrifice from which the Iewes were debatredâ— so here the very drift of his reason exact correspondence of ech part to other require that as the Iewes had an altar a sacrifice so had the Gentils so had the Christians As the Iewes offered to their god so did the Gentils to their false god so did the Christians As the Iewes by that seruice were partakers of the worship of the true god so were the Gentils by the like seruice concluded conuinced to worship a false god that is the deuil therefore could not haue any part or coÌ„munion in the worship of the true god which was performed by the dreadful sacritice of Christs body blud among Christians VVhich triple sacrifice that of the Gentils to the deuil these two of the Iewes Christians to the true god S. Chrysostom veâ—v we observeth writing vpon the same place His words are In the old testament Pagans idolaters offered the blud of beasts to their idols This blud god tooke to him selfe that so he might turne away his people from committing idolatrie which was a great signe of infinite loue But here in the new testament he provided a sacrifice far more wonderful excellent both in that he changed the sacrifice withal in place of beasts killed in sacrifice he coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offered And this to be the true sense of the place Vib. Regius ioynt-Apostle with M. Luther in preaching this new gospel whom the Protestants of Germanie acknowlege cal a perfite absolute Diuine of infinite learning the Evangelist cheef Superintendent of the churthes of Christ in the Duchie of Luneburge as Luther was in the Duchie of Saxonie plainely graunteth Many there are saith he which thinke a sacrifice to be proued by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the societie of such as sacrifice to idols by arguments taken from the faith of the sacrifice vsed by the Iewes Gentils For he seemeth to compare sacrifice to sacrifice as Chrysostome teacheth his comparison so to stand that by it is gathered Christians in the Lords supper to haue a certaine peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our lord as the idolaters by their abominable sacrifice are made partakers of deuils VVhich if it be so me seemeth it may be answered that in the supper of Christians are the body blud of Christ which are a holy sacrifice but coÌ„memoratiue sacrosanctum sunt sacrificium sed memoriale By which later word albeit he thinketh to haue answered the Catholiks excluded the truth of the sacritice yet is he much deceiued therein For so far are Catholiks from denying the sacrifice to be commemoratiue that of al other sacrifices which euer were or can be imagined we graunt this to be moste coÌ„memoratiue as which most neerely liuely truly expresseth the verie condition efficacie nature of that sacrifice offered on the crosse with which being one in substance it differeth only in maner of offering generalitie of redemption And as Christs transfiguration on the holy mount before his passion vvas the best most persite sigure examplar representation of that eternal glorie which the same person of Christ vvas to enioye in heauen after his resurrection ascension in like maner vve are to iudge of this mistical coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice in respect of his sacrifice on the crosse yet not excluding the veritie of Christs presence in one place more then the other Nether is there any reason vvhy Vrbanus Regius a Lutheran should imagine the sacrifice to be disproued for that it is a memorial or done in coÌ„memoration of Christ more then the real presence is disproued reiected because that also in the Lutheran religion must needs be done in coÌ„memoration Christs vvords being most plaine do this in coÌ„memoration of me VVhich vvords doubtles haue no more strength to overthrovv remoue a sacrifice of Christs body as al Catholikes vrge then a true presence of the same body vvhich al LutheraÌ„s graunt So that out of these vvords of the Apostle is confirmed the mistical sacrifice that it vvas vsually frequented in the first Apostolical church vvhich rec aâ—ed directly from Christ and his Apostles the order administration thereof ¶ This sincere sound beleefe concerning both sacrifice sacrament continued in the catholike church for the first thousand yeres almost vvithout contradiction of any man or sect vvorth the naming Only as our Sauiour him self in the veâ—ie beginning vvhen he first promâ—seâ— that the bread which he would geue should be the same flesh which he was to geue for the life of the world signified obscurely that Iudas the traytour certaine other for want of faith vvere scandalized at his vvords repâ—neâ— at them so a fevv veres after it may be gathered that some there vvere of Iudas folovvers vvho likevvise denyed the truth of this heauenly mistery vvhereof S. Ignatius scholer to the postles vvriteth thus as his vvords are recorded by Theodoretus Some sectaries there are who like not nor approue the oblâ—â—ions sacrifiâ—e◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 for that they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Iesu the selfe same flesh that suffred for our sinneâ— which the father of his merciful goodnes raised from death But vvhat these men vvere vvhat svvay they bare vvhat scholers they had appeareth not by any ecclesiastical record therefore belike vvere sone put to silence in that happie time of our primitiue first faith vvhen the Apostles them selues and many by them instructed had the governement of the church VVherefore the beleefe first taught by Christ and his Apostles proceded on from hand to hand from age to age vvithout any notable resistance VVhereof being a thing at large treated proued in sundry bookes both latin and english set forth of late I vvil bring only thre or fovver testimonies but the same most auncient S. Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Fraunce martyr S. Cyprian bishop of Carthage in Africa a martyr likevvise and the first general Councels of Nice Ephesus in Asia S. Ireneus vvriteth thus Christ taking bread gaue thankes said This is my body and that which was in the chalice he confessed to be his blud and
heresie in our age is to be attributed to him partly because by his doctrine he abolished that vvhich in this dreadful mysterie is principal that is to say the sacrifice and vvorship due to god performed therein vvhich is euer most necessary in euery religion and by vvanting vvhereof the prophetes Apostles and holy Doctors vse to describe and expresse a godles and irreligious a prophane Atheistical or Antichristian state of people partly because he protested that him self vvas maruelous desirous to haue also denied the real presence thereby the more to spite and greene the Pope if so be he could vvith any probabilitie ether haue framed the vvords of Christ spoken at his last supper to that part also of the Berengarian heresie or haue induced his ovvne conscience to thinke such a symbolical presence and real absence of Christs flesh from the sacrameÌ„t euer to haue bene entended by Christ vvhereof thus him self vvriteth in the 7. Tome of his vvorks as they are set out by Melancâ—hon in an epistle sent to certaine of his scholers Lutherus Ecclesiastes euangelista VVittembergensis Christianis Argentinae c. Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo c. Luther the preacher and Euangelist of VVittemberg to the Christians of Strasou g. Thus much I nether can nor wil denie that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeres ago could haue perswaded me that in the sacrament was nothing els but bread and wine without Christs real presence he truly had bound me vnto him and I wold haue accepted that as a very great benefite For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruelous paynes and streyned euery veyne of body and sowle to haue ridde and dispatched my self thereof because I saw ful wel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my self taken fast that there is no way to escape For the text of the gospel is to cleare forcible which can not easely be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by words gloses deuised by giddy braynes Thus Luther after he had by sundry vvritings and persvvasions vvhere he bare any svvay taken avvay the sacrifice shevving him selfs as forvvard to haue abolished in like maner the sacrament vvhich except it haue the true presence of Christ is no sacrament of his institution consequently no sacrament aâ—al saue that the vvords vvhereby Christ ordeyned the same stoode against him so strong and pregnant that he could deuise no shift to auoyd them VVhich conclusion and confession of Luther albeit to mer of reason conscience it should more haue confirmed established the truth of Christs real presence in the sacrament seing Christs vvords vvere so strong and mightie that they compelled enforced as it vvere against his vvil this mortal enemy of Christs church to graunt that vvhich othervvise he most gladly vvold haue denyed yet in that lose and dissolute time vvhen euerie man by Luthers example tooke libertie to deuise vpon the scripture as Luther had done these very vvords of Luther gaue great occasion to his felovves and compartners to inuent some farther sovvler shiftes to put that in practise vvhich Luther vvold ful fayne but hauing as then some remorse of conscience regard to Christs vvords durst not ¶ For vvhich cause Carolostadius a companion then of Luther Archdeacon of VVittemberg of vvhich citie Luther calleth him self preacher Euangelist folovving Luthers example of framing the sense of scripture after his ovvne priuate spirite and considering better Luthers ground rule of interpretation vvhich vvas so to interprete as he might most endamage the Papacie church Catholike vvent a litle farther and deuised a vvay hovv to defeate those vvords vttered by our Sauiour vvhich so hampered entangled Luther that he could no vvay rid him self from the power manifest clearnes of them His way vvas not to expound them of the sacrament vvhich Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of his visible person sitting at the table as though Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must dye for yow al this my body is it which must suffer on the crosse for your redemption And this iuterpretation Carolostadius instified by diuers reasons which Zuinglius reherseth whereof these be the principal First for that the Prophetes foretolde that Christs body was that which was to be crucified so that looke hovv many testimonies and places may be gathered out of al scripture old and nevv to proue Christs passion so many could Carolostadius heape to approue this his exposition A second vvas that Christ here vsed a sodayne Apostrophe and turning away of the word This from the bread to his body as he did likewise in the words Thou art Peter a rocke vpon this rocke I wild buyld my church VVhere the first rocke after the Protestants iudgement is spoken of Peter the second is sodainly turned avvay from Peter to Christs person His third reason more probable then al the other vvas for that whereas Christ toke bread in to his hands and before had spoken of the bread in the masculin gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sodenly he changeth it in to the neuter gendre hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVhich reason as it somevvhat maketh for Carolostadiê° bad conceyte so it quit ouerthrovveth the common and general exposition of al other Sacramentaries vvho altogether take this for their sure ground that Christ said This bread is my body VVhich as it is most false so Carolostadius their great father and patriarch refelleth it by Christs manifest vvords vvhich possibly can not admit such construction as Carolostadius truly teacheth them vvhereof more shal be spokeÌ„ hereafter For the present it may suffise vs that vve knovv Carolostadius sentence and peruersion of Christs vvords vvhich consisted in this that he chaunged and altered the first syllable hoc This in to Hic here Hoc est corpus meum Here is my body or as Sleidan the Protestant Historiographer reporteth the matter his interpretation vvas Hic sedet corpus meum Here sitteth my body Certain bretherne saith Musculus meaning Carolosiadius vvith his sectaries refer the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This not to the bread but to the very body of Christ as though turning his finger to him self Christ had sayd This body which here yow see before yow shal be geuen for yow Before I proceed farther to shevv hovv this Berengarian infidelitie multiplied I thinke it conuenieÌ„t for that this man is the very roote founder of it in this our age to describe briefly out of autentical and assured vvitnesses such as the Protestants can no vvay refuse vvhat maner of man this Carolostadius vvas that as before I shevved al the patrones of this heresie from Berengarius to haue bene most vvicked men detestable heretiks so vve may note hovv this man perfectly resembleth those
his forefathers vvas lead by the same spirite by vvhich they vvere Philip Melancthon vvho liued in VVittemberg vvith him in his epistles vvriteth of him thus Carolostadius primum excitauit hunc tumultum c. Carolostadiut first of al in our memory made this sturre about the sacrament a rude sauage man without wit without learning without common sense who for ought we could perceiue neuer so much as vnderstood any office of ciuil humanitie so far of is it that euer any token or signe of the spirite of god appeared in him Thus Melancthon Luthet in the second part of his booke contra caelestes prophetas against the heauenly prophetes Martinus Kemnitius in his booke de caens Domini vvith diuets others testifie of him that he vvas instructed by the deuil and that him self vvas vvont to bost among his frends scholers that there came to him a straunge man vvho taught him hovv to interprete the vvords of the supper This is my body especially that first syllable This. This master Carolostadius supposed to be a prophete sent from heauen but saith Luther it vvas certainly the deuil or the deuils dame VVhich deuil aftervvards fully perfectly as they vvrite possessed Carolostadiê° So that Alberus a great doctor among the Protestants in his booke against the CarolostadiaÌ„s vvriteth expresly that the deuil dwelt in him corporally yea that he vvas possessed with many legions of deuils In like sort Luther verely beleeued that the deuil spake out of him For vvhich cause he calleth him a deuil incarnate diabolum incorporatuÌ„ and vsually vvriting against him so frameth his vvords and vvriting as though he dealt vvith a deuil in the forme of a man That I cal him Deuil saith Luther let no man marueil thereat For I make no rekning of Carolostadius I regard not him but that other deuil of whom he is possessed who also speaketh by him or thorough him To be short three dayes before his death the same deuil came to him in forme of a man cited him to appeare in fine tooke him avvay out of the vvorld as vvitnesseth the sorenamed Lrasmus Alberus and other Protestant vvriters This vvas that Carolostadius vvho among many other singularities vvherevvith he adoâ—ned the Protestant-gospel especially brake the ise before them and vvas then first Apostle and guide in tvvo chief points in incestuous marriage and denying Christs presence in the sacrament For he being a vovved priest first of al euen before Luther ioyned him self in pretended vvedlocke to a sister and vvithal vvith helpe of his familiar deuised that interpretation of Christs vvords vvhich before is noted After vvhom came diuers others vvho though differing from him in particular circumstance and maner of expounding that short text yet al buylt vpon his foundation and thereof raised one the self same conclusion that the sacrament vvas only a signe Christs true body blud remoued as far from it as the highest heaueÌ„ is from the lovvest earth as Beza spake in the assembly of Poissye is commonly found in al the sacramentarie vvriters ¶ The first that folovved Carolostadius vvas Hulderike Zuinglius made from a parish-priest a Minister and an Apostata vvho not condemning the exposition of Carolostadius liked yet better of his ovvne conceite as al heretiks do vvhich vvas to applie Christs words to the sacrament but to expound the second particle Est is by the vvord significat doth signifie so that the meaning of Christs vvords according to him is This is my body that is to say this being mere bread doth signifie my body And this Zuinglius supposed to be the true sense and meaning of the holy ghost vsually arresteth him selfe vpon that significatiue exposition of the second vvord is as Carolostadius preferred the turning avvay of the first vvord This and therefore in diuers vvorks treatises heapeth vp together a number of places vvhere the vvorde est must needs stand for significat and finally this interpretation he accompteth so sure and sound as that he boldly pronounceth it can neuer be refelled by any scripture Hovvbeit these tvvo Commentaries thus made vpon Christs vvords that of Carolostadius and this of Zuinglius Luther vvho wrote many books against them both comparing together If quoth he I should geue sentence in the question betwene Carolostadius and Zuinglius I wold boldly pronounce that Carolostadius exposition were the more probable for their heresie then this other of Zuinglius For in this there is no colour of truth Next folovved Oecolampadius first a frier after an Apostata like those other vvho inuented a third shift vvhich vvas to leaue the first vvord This and the second vvord is in their proper and vsual signification but to alter the vvord body in to a figure and so to yelde the sense as though Christ shold say This is a figure of my body And yet vvhich stil is to be marked thus did OecolaÌ„padius not disprouing that of Carolostadius no more then did Zuinglius but preferring his owne marie with free libertie licence to his gospelling reader to take vvhich he listed because both suffised vtterly to destroy Christs real presence VVhereof thus vvriteth Balthasar PacimoÌ„tanus head of the Anabaptists in his letters to Oecolampadius I am very glad to vnderstand that yow dislike not Carolostadius bookes of the sacrament This your iudgement wold I ful fayne haue wrong out before For I knew right wel or at least I supposed that your opinion and ours disagreed nothing at al. But yow alwaies answered me in obscuritie and surely it was wisdom so to do and the time required it But now the time is to preach on the howse top that which before was whispered in corners So that albeit Zuinglius and Oecolampadius made choise better esteemed as hath bene sayd ech his ovvne imagination yet they approued ful wel that of their first founder Carolostadiê° for that these three opinions vvere in substance al one and al tended to one scope and marke ¶ This licence of turning and tossing the sacred vvords of our Sauiour being once geuen forthvvith by like right taken and practised of euerie sectarie that had any colour of learning and vvit many more ensued about the same time one vpon an other vvho al building vpon the foundation of Carolostadius and tending to one end that is to remoue the presence of Christ from the holy mysterie yet by diuers sundry vvaies vvrought the same eâ—h after his ovvne peculiar fansie perverting vvresting the vvords of the Institution vvhose seueral corruptions manglings Luther in one place reciteth refuteth to the number of six one vvhereof to vse Luthers vvords set as it were on the racke cleane inuerted turned vpside downe the whole text transposing the first word This from his first place to the last thus expounding the sentence Take and eate my body That
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
that proposition of them which in al the Euangelists are vttered so that the very construction of them both in greeke latin vtterly refuseth that sense For in this proposition Hiâ— est sanguis meus and Hoc est corpus meum Hic in the first Hoc in the last can no more signifie bread and wine nether in the Greeke text nor the latin then in the sentence Hic est minister this is a minister or hic est haereticus this is an heretike the article hic this must or can signifie the ministers wife For euen so in al the Euangelists the article this is so placed and circumscribed by our sauiour that it can not stand for bread and wine being of plaâ—ne contrarie gender and Christs vvords This is my body plainly and literally vvhich this man vvith counterfeit grauitie seemeth to seeke after can haue no other sense in the Euangelists then if he had said This is my flesh which in effect is al one and these later vvords doth S. Cyprian vse in steed of the other and as the proper vvords of consecration But let this passe for good that Christ said this bread is my body vvhich if it vvere spoken by a Christian man might haue a good meaning although it be not the vvord of Christ that word which originally made the sacrament vvhat interpretation yeldeth this doctor to make good literally this proposition as he geueth it This bread remayning bread stil is my true body deliuered for mankynd Forsooth he keepeth a long disputation to proue that the bread is not the body personally not naturally yea Luther him self that man of blessed memorie denieth it VVel vvhat then Nether can it be really the body I graunt Nor yet can the bread be the body corporally Let that passe to Yet must we needs confesse the bread to be the body of Christ the truth of Christs word enforcing vs thereunt VVherefore some other way is to be found In gods name Others wil haue the bread to be the body spiritually others 〈…〉 which exposition many bretherne gainsay â—â—â— them shamefully figurists which so thinke as though with 〈…〉 denyed the veritie of Christs body Then if nether this vvil serue let vs haue the exposition of other gospellers vvhich come neerer to the point may better satisfie you Some there be who expound the word This is my body by This signifieth my body they wil haue the bread to be the body significatiuely or as in a signe And this is somwhat tolerable and I can not like that this word Signe which some fathers vse is condemned as wicked by some of the bretherne Here is much a do much diligence pretended to find out the true sense of these fevv vvords Let vs at length haue that Thus it is In summe whereas the bread is the body of Christ nether naturally nor personally nor really nor corporally nor yet spiritually nor figuratiuely nor significatiuely restat post baec omnia vt dicamus panem esse corpus domini sacramentaliter it resteth after al these that we say the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally VVhich conclusion he proteth by very graue authoritie For saith he the reformed gospelling churches vse thus to speake and Luther vvho for this heretical exposition perpetually to his dying day abhorred Musculus and his Sectaries as damnable heretikes after he hath rehearsed certeine waâ—es how the body of Christ may be vnited to the bread at length resteth in this appointeth a Sacramental vnion Vpon this vvorshipful ground he repeateth again and again that Christs speeth is a sacramental speech his words of the supper are to be expounded sacramentally and no fitter way can be found then thus sacramentally to interprete those words spoken of the sacrameÌ„t Si enim panis est sacramentum corporis Christi relinquâ—â—ur sacramentalem esse locutionem c. For if the bread be a sacrament of Christs body it remayneth that the speech be sacramental and that the words of Christ be expounded sacramentally and so sacramentally the bread is Christs body By vvhich maner of speech he being a ZuingliaÌ„ can not meane as Luther did and nether can nor doth meane othervvise as al his bookes shevv then did Zuinglius that the bread of their Supper is Christs body signifiâ—â—tiuely or as in a signe because it is the signe thereof VVhich yet to expresse plainely and roundly as this man conceived it and as Zuinglius taught it because it vvas then odious in the cares of most Christians even of many Protestants vvho had some more reuerend opinion of the Sacrament then Zuinglâ—us after his plaine blunt maner vttered therefore somvvhat to cover and hide him self bleare the eyes of the simple he is content to lay holdfast like a man of most vile conscience and ambitiously to inculcate this vvord sacrament and sacramentaâ— and reiect the vvord signe signification albeit him selfe before had approved this later and disproved the former as proper to Christ And the only reason vvhy he thus preseneth and rather liketh to vse sacrament sacramental and sacramentally then signe figure or significatiuely is because the vvord sacrament and sacramental derived thence is ambiguous general and common to Catholike and heretike and so fitter for him to lurke in and deceiue then the other vvhich is proper to his only sect of Sacramentaries and condemned by both Catholikes and Protestants For in speaking or vvriting of this sacrament this vvord is in his true and right sense vsed only by the Catholikes as it vvas of old before any of these seâ—taries vvere hatched After in this confusion of al things it vvas first abused by the Lutherans to expresse their false opinion then vvas it made common anâ— sâ—atched alike by Calvinists Zuinglians Anabaptists and al other Sacramentaries and applied to their conceites and fansies vvhich differ as much from the former saâ—th of Catholikes and opinion of Lutherans as heaven from hel For to the Catholike the vvord Sacrament signifieth so did evermore the true body of â—hrist vvith the external signe To the Lutheran it signifieth the true real body of Christ in the bread or ioyned vvith the bread To the Zuinglian Calvinist or Anabaptist and namely to Musculus â—t signifieth only the external signe of bread separated from the vvord of god and from the body of Christ and from al grace For so him self expressely desineth it And â—et forâ—oâ—th because of the ambiguitie and generalitie of the vvord he thus playeth and dalieth vvith it and tediously repeateth it only to deceive as hath bene said vvhereas othervvise he vtterly dislyketh and condemneth it as also divers other learned Sacramentaries haue resolved it should never be vsed in talking of the Eucharist For so testifieth Clebitius some time cheif minister of the Calvinists in Heidelberge alleaging for him self his maister a publike reader there vvhom he â—â—â—neth a singular oâ—â—aâ—eâ—â— of that
were superfluous so vpon this his reason and ground may vve confideÌ„tly say in this place that howsoever they are helpes for weake Christians vvho mistrust god doubtles to these Apostles and Apostolical men ful of the holy ghost to these Martyrs and Confessors these seales were altogether superfluous and served to no purpose for that othervvise they vvere as strong in faith as they could be by any such poore helpes And yet those most blessed most faithful and constant Saints who by their strong faith were able and did remoue rocks and mountaynes stayed the rage of fluds commaunded the sea frequented this sacrament no men more Ergo there is an other vse and nature of this sacrament then to serue for seales to confirme wavering weake Christians It wil be replied perhaps that the greatest multitude of Christians are not such for them principally serue these signes If so yet then vve see that to the best Christians this sacrament is vnnecessarie And yet the holy scripture calleth the figure of this sacrament principally in respect of this sacrament it self and the perfection thereof panem caeli celestial and heavenly bread and therefore most convenient for divine and heavenly persons such as the best men are It calleth it for like reason bread of Angels or as the Protestants coÌ„monly translate it paneÌ„ fortium or as their translation printed in London anno 1572. with the Q. Priuilege hath panem magnificorum the bread of heroical glorious men strong in faith and radicated therein And without doubt by Christs institution it vvas appointed as wel for the one as for the other But come vve to vveake Christians Hovv doth it confirme and strengthen their feeble faith As for example sake Some vveake brother there is who beleeving al this nevv gospel which consisteth more of infidelitie then faith beleeveth not yet the first article of his Creede that God is omnipotent namely that he is able to make his ovvne body or any body to be at one time in tvvo places And that this supposition be not counted fond or slanderous to omit M. B. who thus preacheth hereafter I produce a man of an indifferent good faith as the Sacramentaries measure faith P. Martyr the lose Monke one of our first Apostles in Oxford who vvriteth in sundry places most expresly Dei potentia fieri non potest vt humanum corpus codem tempore sit in multis locis c. Gods power is not of sufficient abilitie to make that the body of a man be at one time in divers places For this is to take from a body his limites and lineaments nether of which in this mans conceite is god able to do Deus humanum corpus absque suis finibus et terminis facere non potest God saith he is not able to make a mans body to lacke his bounds and limites The like he hath in sundry for their to manifest assistance and support yelded to the Anabaptists in their furious madnes as Zuinglius calleth their gospel VVherevnto he addeth an Appendix vvhich I could vvish M. B. vvel to vveigh and consider of for his ovvne good Quapropter ipse quoque ingenâ—e fatâ—or c. VVherefore I my self also confesse frankly saith he that a few yeres sithence I being deceived with this error thought it better to differ the baptisme of yong children vntil they came to perfite age As much as if he had confessed in plaine termes that him self also as great a clarke as meÌ„ esteemed him so long as he thought the sacrameÌ„ts to be instituted for seales and confirmation of faith so long vvas he in mynd a very Anabaptist so long vvas he an enemy to the baptisme of infants nether had he any other vvay to shake of that Anabaptistical heresie but first of al to leaue and forsake that vvicked opinion vvhich here M. B. so seriously teacheth vvhich so long as he holdeth so long can he not blame men if they suspect him to be an Anabaptist vvhose heresie doth so directly folovv of this his doctrine VVhereas then vve find these seales to confirme the vvord preached or faith of the vvord nether in respect of the vvord it self nor of strong Christians nor of vveake nor of yong infants to vvhom principally these seales of baptisme and the supper apperteyne hovv can they in any sort be applied to confirme the word preached It remayneth only to say that they confirme the vvord to the hearers in respect of the minister that vvhereas othervvise the minister should vvant credit novv forsooth vvhen he exhibiteth these seales of bread vvyne and vvater forthvvith the bretherne may be confirmed in the word preached by the minister and be vvarranted that he hath preached the word rightly and rightly opened al the parts of it But nether can this hold For vvhen vve knovv that the ministers in that they are ministers are by the nature of their ministerie lyers and therefore seldome yea never vvhen they speake out of their chaire that is vvhen they speake as ministers and teach any doctrine of their nevv gospel speake any truth as the holy ghost assureth vs of al heretikes and nevv preachers vvhich lacke lavvful vocation both in the old testament and the nevv we must looke for better seales and they must shevv better and stronger then these before we beleeue the vvord preached by them to the confirmation vvhereof seales of bread and butter are as fit as these their seales of bread vvyne and al the seales of the vvorld can not geue a Christian man sufficient ground and assurance to trust them ¶ And novv finally if vve shal a litle consider these seales in them selues abstracting them from men ether strong in faith or vveake or children or ministers as they are seales to confirme gods promises so as these men describe them we shal yet more perceive the inuention of them to be very fond fantastical and ridiculous and fit for such light ministers for that neuer any Diuine or good Christian of any grauitie conscience would thus talke or dreame not only for that there is no ground in scripture whereon any such doctrine may be framed but also because their writing and speaking in this matter is against al wit reason For seales vvhich are vsed to confirme any thing must by common discourse of reason and light of nature be more euident and manifest then that thing for confirmation vvhereof they are vsed For men confirme not strong things by weake manifest by obscute certain and knovven by vncertaine and doubtful Yet so falleth it out here For the promise vvhich these men vrge He that eateth my flesh shal liue for euer He that beleeueth is baptized shal be saued being taken of Christians for the vvord of god is forthvvith to them sure certaine and manifest vvhereof they neuer doubt But when they see vvater sprinkled on a child oâ—
of among the Paganes most infamous haue found it vve may assuredly conclude that this inuention came not from the holy ghost vvho according to Christs promise euer assisted his church and lead the pastors thereof into al truth conuenient necessary for the perfit instruction thereof but from the enemy of mankind from SataÌ„ the aduersarie of Christ into vvhom such detestable Apostataes of so sovvle and filthy life serued for fit instrumentes and vvith vvhom the first princes of this nevv gospel vvere most familiar as hath bene noted before of one and of others is commonly knovven by their ovvne testimonie vvritings The Scottish Supper compared vvith Christs institution The Argument M. B. his doctrine of signes elemental and céremonial vsed by Christ and al necessarie to the essence of the Supper Thereof is inferred proued that no Supper ministred after the Scottish order or Caluin institution car be a sacrament of Christ for that it wanteth diuers things done by Christ and therefore necessarie to the essence and nature thereof To make this more plaine and to preuent al cauils is it in particular declared out of the Sacramentaries and according to their doctrine what were those actions ether in word or deed which Christ vsed at his last supper and most apperteyned to the nature essence thereof Of mingling the wine with water and blessing the sacramental bread and cup. The maner of ministring the Scottish Supper or communion It â— is compared particularly with Christs institution and plainly shewed that the Scottish supper lacketh 5. or 6. essential points vsed by Christ whose chalice was mingled with wine water for want whereof especially the words of Christs Institution which are cleane omitted that communion is no more to be accompted Christs supper then any vulgar dinner or breakfast vsed by Christian men Chap. 5. FRom this doctrine of the seales common to both their sacraments M. B. descendeth more particularly to entreat of the sacrament or rather signes of the supper VVhich signes saith he ar double both subiect to the eye the one he calâ—â—th elemental signes as bread and wine the other ceremonial as the breaking distribution and geuing of the same bread and vvine VVhere vnto he addeth lest any man shoud mistake him that he meaneth not these to be ceremonial as though they were vaine For saith he there is neuer a ceremonie which Christ instituted in this supper but it is as essential as the bread and the wine are and ye can not leaâ—â— a iote of them except ye peruert the whole institution In what euer Christ commaunded to be done what euer he spake or did in that whole action it is essential and must be done ye can not leaue a iote thereof but ye peruert the whole institution These vvords might seeme to proceede from M. B. somvvhat vnconsideratly vpon to much zeale vvere it not that afterwards he in precise exact maner repeateth them again again For saith he Christs institution mon be kept looke what he said looke what he did loâ—â—â— what he commaunded to do al that mon be said done obered There is nothing left in the register of the Institution but it is essential Again In the celebration of Christs institution â—â— mon take tent to what so euer he said did or coÌ„maunded to be done Thow mon first say what so euer he said and then do whâ— so euer he did Finally he coÌ„cludeth If we leaue any kind of circumstance or ceremonie of this institution vndone we peruert the whole action ¶ By this so precise and peremptorie asseveration that what so euer Christ spake or did in that whole actioÌ„ is as essential as the bread and wine and can not be omitted but withal ye peruert the whole action we learne many things First the sacrilegious boldnes of the Geneuian ministers that they are peruerters corrupters of Christs vvhole institution For first concerning the bread and wine which rightly he maketh most essential vve haue shevved before that those ministers haue taken to them selues authoritie to dispense there vvith and geue free libertie to minister the Communion not only in bread and vvine but also in ale and rootes or vvater stockfish or any like nutriment vvhen bread and vvine are not easely to be gotten VVhereof it folovveth that most arrogantly they alter the essence so peruert the vvhole ordinance and institution of Christ Next if what euer Christ commaunded to be done and not only that but also what euer he spake or did in that whole action be essential and no iote can be omitted vvith out peruerting the vvhole then also the coÌ„munions of Zurick of Geneua of Svizzerland Scotland are al corruptions depravations of Christs ordinance For Christ in that vvhole action did many things vvhich al these good bretherne omit as that first of al after the eating of the paschal laÌ„b which vvent immediatly before the institution of this holy sacrament Christ rising from that supper and addressing him self to this holy institution laid aside his garments and taking a towel therewith girded himself He put water in to a basen he washed his disciples feete and wiped them with the towel wherewith he was girded That being finished towards al his Apostles vnto this eremonie which serued not only for exaÌ„ple of humilitie charitie as Caluin supposeth but also for mysterie signification of the great puritie vvhich is required in theÌ„ that come to receiue the blessed sacrament as S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Bernard declare our Sauiour ioyned divine learning instruction For hauing taken his garments and being set dovvne at the table with them he said â—â— them know yow what I haue done to yow yow cal me maister and Lord and yow say wel for I am so If then I your lord and maister haue washed your feete yow also ought to wash one an other feete For I haue geuen yow as example that as I haue done to yow so yow do also Amen Amen I say to yow a seruant is not greater then his lord nether is an Apostle greater then he that sent him If yow know these things yow shal be blessed if yow also do them Thus Christ did thus Christ spake this Christ coÌ„maunded to be done If then what so euer Christ commaunded to be done what so euer he spake or did in that whole action be essential and must be done so necessarily that one iote thereof 〈…〉 can not be left but ye peruert the whole action it folovveth that the Scottish ministers vvho of al this vvhich Christ spake and did practise not so much as one iote but leaue out euery iote omit euery part and parcel more and lesse peruert the whole action of Christ deface his institution so haue a communion not of Christs Institution beâ— of their ovvne inuention Nether vvil it serue for their defence to lye with Caluin
eating the bread or seeing the bread broken then by hearing the vvord preached Yow confesse that by the vvord we get possession of the sonne of god yow coÌ„fesse we possesse him by the vvord fully and perfitly This possession is the vvorke of faith and the body of Christ is not othervvise gripped possessed or eaten in the supper but by faith when as we beleeue that Christ died for out redemption and rose again for our iustification VVhich being al your ovvne doctrine hovv can yovv explicate to the intelligence of any man that vve better grip possesse and eate Christ in bread and vvine then in the vvord It a true honest man vvhose vvords I trust before vvitnesses geue me a booke and I take it of him and being possessed of it vse it as myne ovvne neuer a vvhit doubting of my right if the same person after come to me and vvil persvvade me by an external signe and say Sir see here is a peece of bread as truly as I breake and eate this bread I geue yow that booke haue I by this external act any better possession right interest or grip in the booke then I had before certainly not In like sort Christ dwelleth in our harts by faith his vvord assureth vs after these mens doctrine that so often as vve trust to be saued by his passion vve eate his flesh and drinke his blud and that fully truly verily really and substantially VVhereas then vve make no doubt of present possession vvhich we already fully and perfitely enioy hovv can this possession be better any vvaies because vve see bread broken before our eyes Again let him remember the resolution of his principal Doctors vvho haue taught vs the cleane contrarie to that he preacheth here vz that Christ is receiued â— possessed as fully by the vvord as by their sacramental bread Let him remember his ovvne preaching in this same Sermon where he hath so diligently told vs that Christ is delivered and receiued in the bread no othervvise then in the vvord Let him remember that P. Mattyr goeth one step farther assuring vs that Christ is better received and possessed by the word then by their signes oâ— bread and vvine vvhich assertion doth plainly folovv is rightly deduced out of the very principles of their doctrine in this point For vvhereas the possession of Christ vvhich vve have ether by the signe or by the vvord dependeth only of faith so the possessing of Christ more or lesse better or worse in greater degree or smaler is to be measured by our faith only if he vvil say that vve possesse Christ better by their signe of bread then by the word he must consequently say that such bread more then the vvord stirreth vp our faith tovvards Christ by which faith only vve possesse and take hold of him And vvhat man of common reason and vnderstanding vvil not be asnamed to say that he is more moved to beleeue Christs death resurrection by seeing a peece of bread broken vvhich is a dumb and dead ceremonie of it self signifieth nothing but is a like indiffereÌ„t to signifie a number of things as vvel Christs life as his death his ascension as his resurrection his incarnation and circâ—â—neisioÌ„ as wel as any of the former which bread therefore M. B. calleth truly a corruptible earthly dead element voyd of life and sowle what reasonable man I say vvil graunt that by such a dumb ceremonic he is more stirred vp to beleeue Christs passion then vvhen he heareth the same plainly and cleerly preached out of the holy Euangelists out of the vvord of god vvhich as S. Paule calleth it is the power of god working saluation to al that beleeue vvhich vvord is lively and forcible and more persing then a two-edged sword able to diuide euen the sowle and the spirite the ioynts and the marow and to discerne the intrinsecal cogitations and intents of the hart Is that blunt bread able to stirre vp our faith comparably to this tvvo-edged sword that dul earthly dead element more then this diuine creature so lively and forcible and persing as here by S. Paule it is described If to folovv M. B. ovvne reason comparison the bread vvithout the vvord be nothing but a common peece of bread and the word serues as it â—ere a sowle to quicken the whole action without vvhich the bread is nothing els but a dead element hovv can a common peece of bread broken by the minister though neuer so artificially geue vs a better holdfast a better grip a more ample possession of Christ theÌ„ the vvord of Christ vvhich is omnipotent and able to vvorke al and vvhich without diminution of his ovvne life imparteth to the bread al the life vvhich it hath Is bread the dead elemeÌ„t more effectual then the vvord vvhich is the sovvle that putteth life in to that dead element Can the body separated from the sovvle or opposed to the sovvle be said to haue more life and spirite then the sovvle vvhich is the only founteyne of life and spirite to the body and vvithout vvhich the body remayneth as voyd of al life and spirite as doth any stocke or stone Novv surely this is aâ—â—ry dead imagination not to be conceiued of a man that hath life and sense and a litle vvit in him I omit that Caluin P. Martyr and Zuinglius commonly vvrite that never vvas there nor is there any sacrament which exhibited or deliuered to vs Christ but al sacraments serve â—ther to signifie and figure Christ absent as Zuinglius wil haue it or to seale the communication of Christ and his promises receiued before as is the more vsual opinion of Caluin Beza Martir and those that be right Caluinists And therefore vvhat speaketh M. B. of better gripping Christ by the sacrament then by the word of possessing him more fully and largely by the sacrameÌ„ts then by the word vvhereas they teach that by the sacraments vve posseâ—â—â— him not nor grip him at alâ—as out of Calvin Musculus Bullinger Zuinglius hath bene sâ—evved VVherefore M. B. perceiuing belike of him self that tâ—â—â— his riddle or oracle of possessing Christ better by 〈◊〉 signe of bread drinke by vvhich vve possesse him 〈◊〉 thing at alâ—then by the word which vvorketh some possessioÌ„ of Christ vvithin vs could very hardly sinke in â—â— the minds of his auditorie he therefore from this 〈◊〉 â—â—th to the first old auncient grace of his sacramenâ— bread lest it should seeme altogether friuolous and â—â—â— profitable For the sacraments serue also saith he â—◠〈◊〉 vp and confirme the truth that is in the word For â—â—â—â— office of the seale hung to the euidence is not to confirme any other truth but that which is in the euidence suppose ye beleeved the euidence before yet by the seales ye beleeue it the better euen so the sacrament assures me of
no other truth then is coÌ„teined in the word Yet because it is a seale annexed to the word it perswades me better of the same VVhereof having said before sufficieÌ„tly I vvil not stand to repeate or make any nevv discourse here Only thus much wil I vvarne the reader that this nevv found doctrine of seales to confirme gods vvord and promises vvhich these extraordinarie ministers so much inculcate never before heard of in the vvord of god of the old testament or nevv never in the Gospels or Epistles Canonical noâ— yet in general Councels or auncient fathers or practise of Christs Catholike church seemeth to haue had his first original roote from the corrupt maners of these ministers and their scholers VVho continually boasting of their only faith without vvorks and hauing as false a faith as euer had any Carthaginian or Greeke because they coÌ„monly lye dissemble and circumuent and vvhen they looke most simply meane most traiteiously vvhen they counterfeite much grauitie â—obrietie and religion then are ful of craft guilefulnes falsitie as also Caluin truly vvitnesseth of them they finding this in them selues and that they can not trust one an other vpon vvords and promises but must haue seales and obligations besides from their ovvne corrupt behaviour dravv this to the church of Christ and make like reckening of Gods vvord and sacraments as they do of their ovvne vvords vvritings and obligations and as they applie seales and bonds to coÌ„firme their ovvne graunts promises because othervvise no man vvil trust them they induce like opinion vpon God his vvord as though the credit thereof depended in like maner vpon seales and obligations But as at this present there is many a simple people in the vvorld that hath not the vse of seales but trust one an other as vvel vpon their â—â—â—e word or vvriting without farther assurance and many a good plaine and honest man I knovv vpon vvhose vvord a man might veÌ„ture as much as vpon his seale and as truly infallibly vvould he performe it so much more do al true Christians make like accompt of gods word vvhich as it infinitely overpeiseth the vvord of the best man so infinitely is it lesse holpen by these fantastical seales of bread vvine VVhich vvord of God albeit M. B. tel vs that his bretherne beleeue the better by the seales of bread drinke yet shal he be hardly able to persvvade that to any vvise man For first it is a very bad and miserable faith to say no more that fully perfitly absolutely beleeueth not God vpon his only vvord that vvord vvhich he knoweth questionles to be gods and to proceed from him Again it is as vveake miserable a faith to speake plainly litle differing from vvitles foly and infidelitie vvhich casting any doubt of the vvord vvhich he acknovvlegeth to be gods is any vvhit any iote confirmed therein or mooued to beleeue it the more for these sophistical signes and seales as sure certain as vvethercocks for that as they turne here and there north south east and vvest in to euery quarter and corner of the world vvith the turning of euery vvind euen so these seales hauing al their strength grace authoritie from the ministers sermon vvhich geueth life sowle to them may be applied by the minister to signifie that is to seale things as contrary as the east is to the vvest or north to the south as hath bene in part touched before and here cometh somvvhat more to be spoken of in this place Of the VVORD necessarily required to make a sacrament The Argument Of the word which M. B. and the Calvinists require to be ioyned to their bread wine water to make them sacraments By the word they meane a Sermon VVhich opinion is refelled as wicked and vtterly false The nature of this word is farther examined and refelled by the example of Christ and manifest reason drawen thence ioyned with the authoritie of the English congregation which in this part of faith reproveth the Scottish ministerie as plainly Anabaptistical This opinion concludeth most of the communions and baptismes vsed thorough out England and Scotland to be no sacraments as is declared by 4. sensible demonstrations 5 It is the high way to abolish al vse both of Sermons and also of Sacraments CHAP. 10. HAving hetherto spoken of the general consideration of the elements saith M. B. it restes that we say somwhat concerning the word which I cal the other part of the sacrament I vnderstand and take the word for that thing which quickens this whole action which serves as it were a sowle and geveâ— life to the whole action For by the word and the appointement of Christ in the word the minister knowes what is his part the hearer what is his part and every one is prepared the minister how to deliver and the hearer how to receiue Of this vvord vvhich is principally to be attended in the sacrament and vvhich as M. B. truly speaketh if he rightly vnderstood his ovvne vvords applied them as he ought is the life of the sacrament and geveth al force and grace vnto it he afterwards somwhat more at large discouâ—seth â—hus As the Papists we agree that the word man concurre to the nature and constitution of a sacrament so when we come to know what is meant by the word we differ much Let the Papists opinion vvhereof yovv sceme to haue litle skil-as shal appeare hereafter in place conuenient â—est for this present and helpe vs to vnderstand your ovvne opinion concerning this word vvith vvhich yovv are better acquainted By the VVord necessarily required to make this sacrament we meane saith M. B. the whole institution of Christ Iesus what so euer he said what so euer he did or commaunded to be done And this whole institution ought to be intreated after this maner First there ought a lawful pastor who hath his calling from god to intreat it And this lawful pastor ought to intreat it lawfully VVhat is that He ought to preach it to proclame it and publikely with a cleare voyce to denounce it He ought to open vp and declare the â—ail parts of it what is the peoples part and what is his owne part â—ow â—e ought to deliuer and distribute that bread and wine and how the people ought to receiue it and how they ought to receiue the body blud of Christ signified by it This â—e ought to do in a familiar and homely language that the people may vnderstaÌ„d him For except ye heare Christ in such a language ye can â—â—â— vnderstand Except ye vnderstand it is not possible for â—oâ— iâ— beleeue and without beleef there is no application of Christ This is the sâ—mme of M. B. preaching touching this point the effect of al cometh to this that the Sermon of the minister to whom yet he prescribeth somvvhat like a Superintendent
by his father Iohn Calvin or his great grandfather Iohn VViclef For in S. Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian vvhich vvere 200. yeres before S. Ambrose S. Austin and S. Leo vve find in a number of places mentioned no lesse the sacrifice then the sacrament of the Eucharist as properly a sacrifice as a sacrament a sacrifice not metaphorical or general for al Christians to offer in faith and spirite but peculiarly and specially to be offered in the church by a certayne order of priests And vvhere M. B. found the sacrament called a banquet of loue or a publike action if ever he found it he might haue found it a hundred times more commonly called a sacrifice if his eyes or vvil had bene as indifferent to haue seene and marked the one as the other S. Ignatius scholer to the Apostles calleth our Eucharist or Sacrament a true sacrifice even the flesh of our Saviour S. Ireneus the new oblation or sacrifice of the new testament S. Cyprian a true perfite and ful sacrifice which Christ commaunded to be offered Dionysius Areopagita the healthful sacrifice offered by a priest according to Christs ordinance Tertullian the sacrifice which only men offer no wemen as also after Tertulli an Epiphaniê° teacheth more at large S. Hippolitê° martyr who lived in Tertullians time the pretious body blud of Christ which sacrifice bishops purely offered to God vvhich sacrifice should be taken away and suppressed by Antichrist S. Laurence that most glorious martyr the sacrifice which the blessed pope Sixtus was wont to offer S. Laurence serving him as his deacon Finally the most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice the sacrifice host which taketh away the sinnes of the world offered to god by priests who only and not deacons haue power to offer the same Now if from these vvho al lived before S. Ambrose S. Austin vve shold shew the like of the doctors writers of that age it were easie to fil a booke vvith most cleer testimonies proving this vndoubted veritie For euery vvhere in every famous Catholike vvriter this sacrifice is in vvord and deed with such evident pregnant circumstances described as no sophistrie and cavillation of out aduersaries no not of M. Ievv him self the veriest vvrangler of al can serue but they must needs acknovvledge that such vvas the faith of that pure primitiue church The general councel of Ephesus calleth it the holy lyfe-geving and vnbluddy sacrifice The great general councel of Chalcedon of 630. bisshops the vnbluddy host offered in the church the vnbluddy and dreadful sacrifice The first councel of Toledo the daylie sacrifice S. Hierom the daily sacrifice of Christs body which Priests haue power to offer Hieron Tom. 2. lib. 3. contra Pelagia pa. 305. lib. contra Luciferianoâ— pa. 136. Eusebius Caesariensis the ful most holy dreadful sacrifice the pure host sacrificed after a new fashion according to the order of the new testament Euseb lib. 1. demonstratio Evangel ca. 10. S. Chrysostom the cleansing sacrifice the same which Christ our high bisshop first offered Chrysostom ad Hebraeos ca. 10. Homil. 17. Theodoretus the immaculate lamb not such a one as the Iewes offered void of reason but that helthful lamb which taketh away the sinnes of the world Theod. questio 24. in Exod. in psal 97. S. Austin in a number of places The true only singular sacrifice of the new testament lib. 3. de baptismo contra Denatist cap vltimo De spiritu litera ca. 11. Contra Cresconium lib. 1. ca. 25. The sacrifice which Christ ordeyned of his owne body and blud according to the order of Melchisedech Tom. 8. in psal 33. pa. 157. A true sacrifice and cleane offered according to Melchisedechs order from the east to the west psal 39. pa. 238. psal 106. pa. 863. As true and real a sacrifice as any was in the old testameÌ„t Tom. 2. epist 49. quastiâ— 3. and vvhich hath succeded and vvas appointed by Christ in steed of those auncient legal and Iudaical sacrifices De Civitate dei lib. 6. cap. 20. lib. 16. ca. 22. Contra adversar legiâ— prophetarum ca. 20. S. Ambrose VVe priests offer sacrifice for the people VVe offer albeit weake in respect of our private life yet honorable in respect of our sacrifice because our sacrifice is the body of Christ him self Ambros psal 38. pa. 527. Of vvhich sacrifice S. Ambrose had so reverend a regard that he durst not offer it if Theodoâ—ius the Emperour being excommunicate vvere present lib. 5. epist 28. And so forth in every Doctor vvriter of that age VVith more rehearsal of vvhose sentences I vvil not trouble the reader the thing being knowen and manifest and confessed by our more learned and lesse impudent adversaries For thus much Calvin him self graunteth and vnto al these and such like authorities of the most auncient pure and primitiue church he maketh this rude blunt ansvvere VVhereas the Papists obiect that the anncient fathers according to the scriptures professe that in the church there is an vnbluddy sacrifice in the one part they erre in the other they lye For scriptures they haue none As for the authoritie of the fathers it skilleth not nether is it reason that we depart from gods eternal truth for their sake And therefore that vnbluddy sacrifice which men haue devised let them hardly reserue and take to them selues And in his Institutions he confesseth that the very maner of ministring the supper as it vvas vsed by the auncient fathers had nescio quam faciem renovatae immolationis I knowe not what forme and fashion of a sacrifice reiterated And els vvhere he saith he can not excuse the custome of the auncient primitive church for that in their very behaviour and church maner they expressed a certaine forme of sacrifice vsing almost the very same ceremonies which were vsed in the old testament VVherein al be it he go somvvhat to far yet this maketh a plaine demonstration that the auncient fathers never doubted of a true real sacrifice vvhich they vttered in most plaine significant termes vvhen they vvrote or preached and expressed by the very forme rite and maner of sacrificing when in the church they ministred it And thus much being true and for true confessed vve see the vanitie of M. B. his deduction that the sacrament vvas perverted to a sacrifice vvhen it began to be called masse vvhereas it vvas called vsed as a sacrifice both among the Greekes vvho vntil this day never called it masse and also among the Latins so long before the name of Masse came in vse in deed ever since Christ and his Apostles time as hath bene declared And therefore whereas M. B. maketh it idolatrie to vse the sacrameÌ„t as a sacrifice he thereby very heretically condemneth as idolatrous the first the most auncient and Apostolike
and vvithout al apparence of truth there is no sentence or vvord in the vvhole scripture vvhich insinuateth any such matter whereof more shal be said when I come to talke of the first and principal end The Ievves for that they vvere circumcised loved doubtles one an other the better and this vvas some cause of mutual loue yet vvas not this the reason vvhy circumcision vvas ordeyned Like vvise the eating of their paschal lamb together was one good occasioÌ„ to mainteyne love vnitie yet was it no cause or end why that sacrameÌ„t was instituted much lesse vvhy the sacrameÌ„ts of the nevv testameÌ„t were ordeyned which haue more diuine causes of their institution and worke more diuine celestial effects then did those carnal Iewish sacrameÌ„ts The like is to be said of that other part vz This sacrameÌ„t was instituted to the end that to the princes of the world who are enemies of our religioÌ„ we might of enly â—vow testifie our religion For which opinioÌ„ there is never a word or sillable in al the new testameÌ„t it is spokeÌ„ without al learning sense or reasoÌ„ Doubtles in the primitiue church vvhen the Saints martyrs Apostolical men were most abundaÌ„tly endued with gods holy spirit most perfectly knevv the vse of this sacrament if this had bene any end vvhy Christ ordeyned it that by the vse of it they should testifie and openly avow their religion to Christs enemies they would not so diligently haue excluded al Pagans and infidels from the presence of this sacrament as before is noted It should not haue bene so carefully provided against not only Pagans and infidels but euen the very Christians in mind yet vnbaptised that al such should be debarred from seing this sacrament as we find they were by the order of al the auncient Masses or Liturgies amongest which that of S. Iames the most auncient hath this precise rule when after certain general prayers they approched to the celebration of this dreadful mysterie Nullus Catechumenorum c. let none of the learners or novices in Christian faith let none of them which are yet vnbaptized to which number the other Apostles adioyned by witnesse of S. Clement nulluâ— infidelis nullus hareticâ—s let no Pagan or infidel let us heretike let none of them which may not lawfully pray with vs enter in Recognoscite vos invicem haue regard and consider wel one an other The like whereof we find practised 400. yeres after in the masse of S. Chrysost VVhere after the gospel when began that masse which was called missa fidelium the Deacon speake as before in S. Iames masse Quicunque Catechumeni recedite Al yow that be novices or learners in the faith depart Let no novice but only the faithful remayne If this had bene one end why this sacrameÌ„t was instituted what meant the most auncient fathers bishops and doctors both in the first church vvhen al was ful of Pagans enemies of Christ and also many yeres after even in the time of S. Austin when Christians vvere far more multiplied and the governement of the world was in their hands yet so long as Pagans lived among Christians stil to conceale the knowlege of this sacrament from the eye and vnderstanding of the enemies of Christs religion which they did so diligently and so generally that in S. Athanasius it is obiected as a great impietie and straunge act to his adversaries the Arrians that they talked of such matters in the audience of infidels For thus he chargeth them Thorough the iniquitie of these Arrians inquirie and examination was made of church matters of the chalice and table of our lord in the presence of the civil governour and his troupe of soldiars in the audience of Iewes aâ—d Pagans quod nobis incredibile atque admirable visum est which to vt seemed a straunge case and very vncredible For what man wil not count it detestable before a foreyne iudge in the presence of novices and greene Christians and that worse is of Pagans and Iewes to make disputes of the body and blud of Christ Did these blessed saints thinke one end of this sacrament to be that they might openly testifie their religion and maner of worshipping to the Infidels enemies of Christ vvho would not speake of their maner of worshipping of this sacrament of the chalice of the altar in the hearing of infidels and enemies of Christ And this same closenes we find coÌ„tinually in the fathers writings in such sort that coÌ„monly when they wrote preached they vsed secret speaches as it were watch words to signifie their meaning to the end they might conceale this sacrament from Pagans infidels make the knowlege of it proper and peculiar to Christians whereof to omit the more auncient writers whose vvritings every where shew fâ—ith such their vvarines and circumspection even in S. Austin vve find that the same secret maner of speaking and preaching vvas yet continued As for example to note a fevv places out of one of his bookes Then saith he that sacrifice of Christes body and blud was not quod norâ—â—â— fideles which the faithful know wel inough VVhich sacrifice is now in practise thorough the whole world Again Christ â—coke in to his haÌ„ds quod fideles norunt that which the faithful know Again It is a true sacrifice quod fideles norunt as the faithful know Again VVhat is that which in the church is secret and not publike The sacrament of baptisme and the sacrament of the Eucharist Opera nostra bona vident Pagani sacraments vero illis occultantur The Pagans them selues see our good workes but as for our sacrameÌ„ts they are â—id froÌ„ them Again Thow art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec fideli bus loquor I speake to the faithful If the no vices Catâ—chumeni vnderstand me not let them shake of their slouth let theÌ„ make hast to knowlege It is not convenient to vtter our mysteries to them And so â—â—â—th in a number of like places VVhereby we see the old Christians did not account this to be one end why this sacrameÌ„t was ordeined For doubtles if they had the first primitiue Christians most constant mattyrs in the citie of Rome vvould never have sought out those crypâ—a those hid secret gâ—ottes vaultes vnder the earth those desert solitarie places they vvould never so studiously have mett in the nights in out-corners far of from the sight concourse presence of the Pagans notwithstanding never so many proclamations made by the persecuting Emperours If Christs ordinance had bene to the coÌ„trarie the Apostles vvould not haue ministred the sacrament in private hovvses but in the open streetes And as in the temple of Salomon and places of most resort in synagoges and publike consistories they preached Christ in the face of Christs enemies and enemies of Christian profession so there
these places and M. B. his dealing in them is very corrupt and heretical and the sacramentaries vvho vsually care not for a thousand Austins nor a thousand Cyprians vvhen they make against them here make much of one Austin vvhen he seemeth to speake for them especially for that these places are in a maner the only vvhich these men have as very important are obiected by P. Martyr by Bullinger by Beza by Iohn Calvin I vvil briefly set downe in particular vvhat answere Calvins adversarie the Lutherâ—â— Protestant maketh to them Thus vvâ—iteth he The place of S. Austin to Dardanus I expound by very many plaine places of S. Austin wherein he declareth that the body and blud of Christ are geven and received in the sacrameÌ„t And both those many places of S. Austin and this one to Dardaâ—â— I examine and trye by the rule and touchestone of Christs word therefore I hope the indifferent reader wil iudge that I expound S. Austin a right Next he answereth that S. Austin in that epistle to Dardanus as likewise in his third ad Volusâ— axum in his 30 treatise vpon S. Iohn talketh not nor entreateth of the sacrament therefore his words are perversely applied against the real presence therein Against vvhich answere because Calvin stormed as Ioachimus writeth rayled most barbarously he iustifieth it by the authoritie of Philip Melanchton Calvins special frind and a frind of the sacramentaries and so a close favourer at lest no great enemy of M. B. his opinion and vvhom therefore Peter Martyr calleth a fingular incomparable man adorned with al kind of learning vertue VVestphalus words are these Before me even thus wrote that most famous maâ— Philip Melancthon in one litle booke geving thrise warning to the reader that Austin in that 30. treatise vpon S. Ithe where he saith the body of our Lord may be in one place corpus Domini in vno loco esse potest maketh no mention of the Lordes Supper It is a great matter and importeth much to marke in what place vpon what occasion a thing is spoken For we speake otherwise wheÌ„ we talke of any thing by chanâ—e by the way accidentally then when we entreate of it directly and of purpose and our words cary with them one sense in the one place which they do not in the other VVhere by the way let the reader note the intolerable coâ—â—uptioÌ„ of S. Austins words made by M. B. the Calvinists For where S. Austin saith Christs body may wel be in one place M. B. maketh him to say the body of Christ must of necessitie be in out place VVhich differ as much as these two propositions M. B. an heretike a corrupter and falsifâ—er of the fathers and scriptures to as shal appeare may become a Catholikâ—â— and M. B. such an heretike c. must of necessitie be a Catholike Again VVhere S. Austin to Dardanus vvriteth that Christ as man is in heaven and not every vvhere as he is according to his deitie M. B. for his better aduauntage maketh S. Austin to say that Christ it only in heaven and that according to the nature of a true body as though otherwise it vvere no true body vvhich is far from S. Austins vvords and being referred to the sacrament much farther from his meaning And now to retourne to Melanchton he saith further that he can never be persutded that Austin in that place here cited meant so to tye Christ to one place that he could not be in another especially for that the scripture never so teacheth and nothing can be brought to bind Christ to one place besides the iudgement of humane reason In an other place he affirmeth that he had rather suffer present death then say with the Zuinglians that Christs body can be but in one place And the self same is the effect of my answere to the place of Dardanus For Calvin or M. B. sindeth not in al that Epistle or any place of S. Austin that the truth of Christs body or nature is denyed if the veritie of Christs words be credited and his body beleeved to be received in the sacrament S. Austin never saith as Calvin doth that Christs body is only in heaven and not in the sacrament He never denieth the presence of Christs body there Let Calvin or M. B. bring furthâ— so much as one place where S. Austin affirmeth Christs body to be absent from the sacrament whereas we shew many in which S. Austin clearly teacheth and assureth vs that the body and blud of Christ is present is giuen and received there Concerning the last place taken out of S. Austin Epistola 146 that Christ is in heaven as he was in earth as he ascended vvhereof Calvin concludeth as doth M. B. But in eâ—rth and when he ascended he was circumscribed Ergo he iâ— likewise in heauen albeit the right answere be short plaine that these words must needs be vnderstood in respect of the substance only not of other properties and qualities for here he did â—aâ—e drinke sleepe as in heauen he doth not yet VVestphalus enlargeth it som what and iustifieth it by the vvords of S. Austin in the same place and sentence next eusuing and therefore telleth Calvin as I do M. B. that these words are nothing against vs. For we teach not that Christ is in the Eucharist visibly and localy of which forme S. Austin speaketh as appeareth by thâ—â— be citeth the words of the Angel As yow have seene him go in is heaven so shâ—l he come And S. Austin him self interpreteth that particle of similitude sie so of the substance and forme of Christ affirming that the same Christ which then ascended iâ— to heauen shal in the end of the world come to iudge in visible forme And this is a true plaine very sufficient answere to these places of S. Austin and S. Austin never speaketh otherwise if we take his sentence according to the general tenor forme of his writings agreably also to Christs owne words as this Protestant truly testifieth and not by peeces and quillets and snatches as do the sacrameutaries therein so filthely and shamefully as Luther writeth mâ—â—gle him for defense of their venemous heresie as nothing câ—â— be more tam foede contumeliose deformant vâ—â—ihil supra ¶ The text of the Acts yet resteth which as he telleth vs proveth most evidently that Christs body can be but in one place And vvhat are those vvords vvhich prove this so euidently These of S. Peter that heaven must conteyne Christ vntil al things be restored This perhaps proves that Christ must be in heaveÌ„ vntil that tyme but that he can be no vvhere els how is this proued by these words save only in the blind and reprobate sense of a sacramentarie who evermore stumbleth vpon this condusion that vvhen Christ is said to be in oue place he can
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
Peter Martyr c. is that the word rocke here signifieth the material stony rocke and so Calvin in his Institutions and Commentarie of this place affirmeth Howbeit in the same place vvithin ten lines after considering better the Apostles vvorde that this rocke fâ—lowed them thorough the desert vvhich can not be expounded of a material stone he goeth an other vvay to vvorke and so doth Beza after him and tâ—keth it for a thing euident and notorious that by the vvord roâ—ke is vnderstood the course of the water which never forsooke that people so long as they vvere in the vvilderneâ— vvhich is a notorius lye and refuted by the storie in the chapter immediatly folowing For there again the people vvant vvater and for supplie thereof haue by Gods ordinance not a rocke but a wel provided for them And therefore VVestphalus iustly nameth Calvin a most vain pratler for that in his last booke against him he vseth this so false an exposition vvhich also P. Martyr though a Caluinist and a great frind of Calvin disproueth and condemneth Insulsissimus blatero saith VVestphalus blaterat Paulum vocare petram non duriciem saxi sed profluentem inde potum VVhereof so much the more appeareth the vanitie of M. B. vvho so specially and hastely requireth vs to yeld to his spiritual tropical sense when his masters as yet can not agree vpon the ground and foundation vvhich must be first layd before they can frame any necessary argument thence to compel or move others ¶ Now for a litle more manifestation of the truth to discover the vveakenes of this maÌ„ let vs resolve backvvards and vndoe al this and graunt as much as M. B. requireth that in these 5. examples there is a figurative speech and that the verb est is must be expounded tropically for significat doth signifie Circumcision signifieth the old testament or is a figure of the old testament the rocke is a figure of Christ the cup is a figure of the new testament and so in the rest VVhat vvil M. B. conclude hereof Ergo in Christs vvords vve must vse like figurative and tropical exposition and they do malitiously vvho deny it Is this his argument Hath he thus learned to assault his aduersaries Then let him geve vs leave to make the like argument thus The name of ministers in the scripture signifieth ministers of the deuil or such ministers as put their helping hand to the crucifying of Christ For so the vvord minister signifieth in S. Paule 2. Corinth 11. 15. in S. Iohn ca. 18. v. 12. 18. 22. ca. 19. 6. in S. Mark 14. 54. 65. and S. Matth. 26. 58. Ergo vvhen M. B. speaketh of the minister vvho breaking bread and dividing vvine in the Scottish congregation the vvord minister must be taken for a minister of the devil one vvho ioyneth vvith Pilate Caiphas and the adversaries of Christ to crucifie him it is of verie malice for mere contradictioÌ„ to the end only that they may gainstand the truth if M. B. his felow-ministers deny this consequent especially vvhereas they are compelled to grauÌ„t this to be the significatioÌ„ of the vvord minister not in one only place of S. Paule 2. Cor. 11. vvhereas vvith one only place of his 5. M. B. can necessarily by his owne iudgement charge vs but in every one of 5. places more to quoted here For nether he nor his are able to deny but the terme minister hath this only precise signification in every one of these places By this argument vvhich is of the same mould and forme vvith his and much better for the matter because he can take exceptioÌ„ against no one of my examples as I haue against most of his let him ghesse vvhat pith is in his owne argument For albeit I make no doubt but that he and his felow ministers are in deed the very ministers of Satan and professed enemies of Christ for their only schisme to omit their sundry detestable heresies as S. Austin in vvhole chapters treatises sheweth yet vpon this argument so to coÌ„clude vvere foolish ridiculous because an other by the like argument might conclude them to be honest men for that in divers other places the terme minister though never in such sense as the vvord is vsed in the Scottish and English coÌ„gregations that is for an Ecclesiastical office and degree above a Deacon signifieth an honest ministerie both in the men and in the office ¶ One place of his that the lamb is called the passeouer Exod. 12. 11. I haue hetherto differred because the lieth much in it and it deserveth both special examination special remembrance and the ground of that obiection cometh not from M. B but from a more profound doctor and therefore I vvil also borow my answere from a doctor his equal Zuinglius vvriteth of him self that vvhen he laboured to plant his Zuinglian heresie that vvhich M. B. defendeth in Zurich and to that end disputed as M. B. doth that est is in Christs vvords This is my body must needs staÌ„d for significat doth signifie vvhich he vvent about to prove by M. B. his argument for that in sundry places of scripture as The sild is the world Matth. ij The seed is the word of God Tie envious man is the devil c. the verbe est is must thus be expounded and reply vvas made by the common â—otarie for the disputation vvas in the Senate â—â—wse that the case vvas nothing like for that in parables vvordes are not taken properly but it is otherwise in sacrements this answere to â—â—â—bled Zuinglius that as he vvriteth of him self tâ—â—â—â—h â—e much beat his brayne herevpon yet he knew â—oâ—â—â—â— to lose this I not Multum capi voluere cogitare riâ—â—l simile poteram reperiâ—e saith he Being thus vexed and peâ—plexed â—e vvent to bed At midnight as he vvas last a sleep there came to him a helper a pionâ—pter vvhether he vvere a Saint or a devil black or white vvhen he wrote the storie he remembred not vvho thus spake to him quin ignâ—ue resâ—ondes qued est Exod. 12. 11. est enim phâ—se id est transitus deâ—iâ—s VVhy thow lazie lorrel answerâ—st â—how not by this text of M. B. the lamb is the passeâ—â—er Exod. 12. 11. It foloweth in Zuinglius Protinus â—â—pergeâ—â—â— â— lecto exiliâ— loâ—â—m circunâ—sticio c. Forthwith I aâ—â—â—â—d â—â—â— of my sleep I leapt out of my bed I looked out the place I â—isputed thereof according to my abilitie before al the multitude and that satiâ—fied them al. Albeit the vaniâ—ie of Zuinglius argumâ—t suggested by this sprite of darknes drawe â—â—â—m this one place may easely appeare by that vvhich hath bene said for if siem the sense of a vvord so vsed in â— or 6. places vve can not necessarily conclude the like sense in a seuenth place much lesse can
contradiction But he real presence of Christs body in the sacrament implies a contradiction making the body of Christ visible and invisible local not local at one tyme. Therefore God may not wil such a thing it is vnpossible to be true Let this then staÌ„d for one part of my example that god can not wil nor make Christs body really present in the sacrameÌ„t it is a flat contradictioÌ„ it is vnpossible to be true and as before he hath told vs God can no more wil this nor do this then he can lye be changed decay and become corruptible Next to come to the other part of my example and contradiction M. B. forgetting him self that he had fathered this false argumeÌ„t on vs before here repeateth it as new in these vvords Last of al they are not yet content but say Christ can make the bread his body and therefore his body is really present VVâ—â— be it graunted that thus vve say now last of al vvhich yow made vs say a good vvhile sithence and so geve a great signe that yow have a very vveake memory vvho much need a better for mendacem oportet esse memoreâ— suppose v. e last of al say thus vvhat is your answere Is it as before vvhen very reverently yow told his maiestie that he could not wil it and could not make it present no more then he could wil and make a lye No but of a cleane contrarie guise in these vvords That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being God can do what so ever he wil. Only let them shew that Christ of bread â—â—â— make his real flesh and then this controversie is brought is an end And is it so Is the controversie brought now to this end Surely then have yow spent much tyme paper and vvynd in vvast For hetherto al your speech and preaching hath bene to proove that God could not vvil nether could he do it And how chauÌ„ceth it that so suddeÌ„ly yow geve over your inuincible argument vvhich eveÌ„ now yovv held so fast so much extolled saing So this second ground holds fast The real presence implies a contradiction and there fore it is vnpossible for God to worke it But to omit this here yow may learne and so may the reader a right contradiction and thereby measure other God can no more make Christs body present in the sacrament then he can lye then he can be chaunged it is vnpossible it implies a contradiction Again for the other side VVe graunt Christ can make of bread his body so he can make his body really present and this is not vnpossible and then assuredly it implies no contradiction Here is a right perfit contradiction For it is yea and nay denying and affirming of one and the self same thing in one and the self same respect vvhich contradiction vvhen he findeth in vs in the Catholike vvriters touching this sacrament then let him hardly cry out that they persist in their opinion of very malice for mere coÌ„tradiction to the end only they may gainstand the truth found out of late by these Apostataes vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other and scarce any one vvith him self But in the meane time it is far more apparant that these vvords touch M. B. and his companions vvho against the faith of al Christendom against the first article of their Creed against al divine humane learning malitiously gainstand the truth deny that to Gods omnipotency being enforced so to do by the very drift of their vvicked spritish and Satanical doctrine vvhich them selves again graunt to Gods omnipotencie being driven so to coÌ„fesse as may be thought by the very instinct vvorke and operation of nature and natural reason vvhich in that it acknowlegeth a God acknowlegeth him to be omnipotent even in that vvhich these mens brutish and sensles Theologie if so I may cal it taketh avvay and vvithdraweth from him As for that he saith the question is not here whether Christ can make his body present but whether he wil if vve can shew that he wil so then this coÌ„troversie is brought to an end for probation hereof I vvil say no more then I have already For if Christs most evident and pregnant vvords set downe in the Euangelists and S. Paule This is my body the same which shal be offered and delivered for yow This is my blud which shal be shed for remission of your sinnes if the sense and meaning of these vvords testified by the practise of al Christian people that ever lived since Christs time in al places of the vvorld in Europe Asie and Africa if the vniforme consent of al Fathers and general Councels from Christs tyme vnto our age if in this miserable haruest of heretical corruption the authoritie of the most learned the most earnest and principal Gospellers vvho vpon the invincible clearnes and force of Christs vvords vvere in a maner against their vvils compelled to mainteyne the real presence of Christ in the sacrament may serue to prove vvhat Christs meaning vvas then have vve shewed and if vve be required vvil more amplie shew that this vvas Christs wil. And if this serve not then I know not vvhat may serve And I vvil not labour to fynd any demonstration more cleare vntil I may learne vvhat clearer demonstration M. B. desireth And yet I thinke more cleare thâ—â— this him self can not devise ¶ And how so ever he promise faire and say that if vve can proove that such vvas Christs wil he then is content to yeld this controversie is at end yet his discourse and preaching here sheweth the cleane contrarie Foâ— again he falleth in to his commoÌ„ place that Christs body must needs be bound to the rules of phisicke and nature A man may iustly suppose that he is scarce vvel aduised he so commonly gainsayeth him self and runneth vp downe backward and forward and forgetteth in one leafe vvhat he vvrote in the next before Two points yet remayne in this Sermon vvhich I vvil shortly dispatch because I have bene somwhat long in the former and these 2. depend altogether or very much of that vvhich hath bene now said VVhen saith M. B. they are dung â—â—â— of this that Christ by his omnipotencie can make his body present from vvhence he hath dunged vs out by graunting and confessing it him self they make their laâ—â— refuge and yet vve vvere at our last refuge before vvhere our last refuge vvas Christs omnipotencie to say that Christs body is exemed from phisical rules His answere to this is much like the former that is yea and nay graunting and denying For first he graunteth that Theologie is not subiect to physicke and yet Christs body the principal part of Theologie is subiect to phisicke For by by hâ— inferreth that if ye exeme Christs body from the law of phisicke which is the
hindereth it 354. 355. Christ is absent from the world not from his church 356. 357. Christ concurreth with his Ministers in conferring grace by his sacraments pa. 183. 201. 202. Christs body glorified hath preemineÌ„ce aboue al others pa. 397. Circumcision a seale of iustice to Abraham peculiarly pa. 131. 132. The Iewes Communion pa. 100. 101. 102. Compared with Calvins 102. 103. They are after the Calvinists doctrine al one 103. 104. 105. In truth the Iewish much better proved at large pa. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 115. 116. The Calvinian Communion no sacrament of Christs gospel pa. 104. 115. The definition thereof 104. 109. Priuate Communions improved by the Calvinists pa. 277. 278. 280. Approved by al the primitiue church pag. 278. 279. 285. Item approved by the Lutheran ProtestaÌ„ts 283. 284. 285. M. B. reasons to the contrarie 280. Answered 281. by them 283. A policie of the Devil to deny priuate communions 285. 286. Confidâ—ce engendred by Catholike faith pa. 312. Presumption by the protestant faith 303. 304. Feare as necessarie to be taught as confidence 402. Sacrament of Confirmation pa. 143. 144. VVords of Consecration religiously obserued in the church 334. They are pronounced in the East church alowd 337. And of old in the VVest 336. It vvas is an evident testification of the real presence 336. 337. 338. VVhat power or vertue is in the words 339. 340. 341. Christs words of consecration beleeved to be of great force in the primitiue church pa. 49. 50. 51. To be of no force in the Protestant church 51. 52. 53. 217. 218. See VVorde VVhat is a Contradiction pa. 388. 389. D Dominica coena our lords supper pa. 245. See Sacrament E English clergy against the Scottish touching the necessitie of preaching to make sacraments pag. 221. 222. 223. S. Paules Epistle to the Hebrewes denyed by the Calvinists pa. 313. Erasmus faith touching the real presence pa. 34. His grounds reasons thereof 34. 35. F VVhat faith Christ required in them whom he healed pag. 328. Faith defined by S. Paule pa. 314. 315. No similitude betwene S. Paules faith and the Caluinists 315. 316. Their faith is no faith 308. But arrogant presumption 303. 304. 409. 410. Faith not the only iewel of the sowle pa. 312. How it worketh confidence in the hart 312. 313. Once had it may be lost 408. 409 Faith to be vrged before reason in matters of Diuinitie 391. Only faith iustifieth not pa. 401 Fathers of the primitiue church condemned by the Calvinists for their beleef of the church sacrifice 15. 257. For preferring the sacrameÌ„ts of Christs Gospel before those of Moyses law 93. For preferring Christs baptisme before S. Ihon Baptists 199. G Geneua consistorie dispenseth against Christ pa. 59. 60. 147. 361. Gospel See Protestant S Gregories coÌ„passion of the English pag. 442. Gyges ring 346. H Heretical craft to disproue one truth by coÌ„mending an other pa. 311. Heretikes deceiue by faire speeches 17â— I Iewel a eaviller vpon words pa. 15. 16. A notorious lyer corrupter of fathers 389. A shufler together of sentences out of the fathers to no end 149 150. L Liturgia with the Greekes the same that Masse in the Latin church pa. 17. 250. 251. Luther author in general of the sacramentarie heresie pa. 37. 38. His rule to interprete scriptures by â—â— M Manna and his properties pag. 111. 112. 113. Martyrs of the primitiue church most zealous pa. 136. The vvord Masse vsed in the primitiue church pa. 253. 254. But sacrifice much more 254. 255. Of priuate Masse See priuate communion Scottish Ministers much geven to sorcerie witchcraft pa. 3â—â— They condemne them selues for heretikes 196. Verie inconstant in their preaching 440. 441. Ministers in their sermoÌ„s what they handle most 219. The name Ministers 374. 375. Never found in scripture in the Calvinists sense 375. N Nabugodonosors fiery fornace hote and cold at one instant 387. 388. O Gods omnipotency denyed by M. B. and the Calvinists pa. 137. 381. And withal the vvhole bodie of scripture 381. 382. principles of Christianitie 383. P Phisical qualities necessarie to humaine bodies bind not the body of Christ 344. 345. 346. 383. 384. Priests remit sinnes in the church pa. 194. 195. 196. 197. God is honored thereby 197. They communicate Christs body to the faithful 201. 202. Protestant Gospel suggested by the devil to Carolostadius pa. 41. 42. To Luther 304. To Zuingliê° 376. 378. It overthrovveth al Christianitie 388. Protestants once indued vvith their special faith can never after leese it pa. 306. Nor yet the holy ghost howsoever they live Ibidem As sure of their electioÌ„ and saluation as of any article of their faith 303. 307. 308. 413. 414 See special faith The Protestants rule vvhereby they interprete scripture pa. 38. 39 R Real presence of Christ in the sacrament pa. 20. 21. 22. 49. 50. 51 Acknovvleged by the old fathers for a cause of our resurrection 169. 170. 171. 325. Real presence proved by scripture 202. 371. by fathers 203 204 291. 292. 364. 365. 366. 369. 391. 392. By protestant Doctors 349 354. It standeth vvel vvith the memorie of Christs death 363. Al religion grounded on two pillers pa. 430. Resurrection of our bodies denyed by the Calviâ—ists pa. 323. 324. 325. 326. 383. Rock what it signifieth in S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. 4. eagerly debated betvvene the protestant Doctors pa. 373. 374. Romain church for 500. or 600. yeres after Christ pure in faith by graunt of many Protestant Doctors 252. 253. S The word Sacrament most auncient pa. 132. Much disliked and condemned by M. B. and other Calvinists pa. 119. 1â—2 127. Yet most vsed by him and them 120. 121. 125. Their wicked sophistrie in abusing that vvord 125. Exemplified by their expounding of Christs vvords touching the Sacrament pa. 122. 123. 124. 125. 174 Divers significatioÌ„ of the word Sacrament 126. Sacraments of the new Testament never called selves in the scripture pa. 130. 132. In the Calvinists sense they are lying seales â—6 They are fondly and falsly so called 141. 142. 144. Definition of the Geneua or Scottish sacrament that it is a seale of the word preached pa. 134. Refuted 135. 136. 137. 138. 140. 214. It is plainly Anabaptistical 138. 139. 140. The word is rather a seale to the sacrameÌ„t then contrariwise 141. 142. VVhence probably this doctrine of seales proceded 213. 214. Sacraments in what sense called seales by the auncient fathers 143. 144. The SacrameÌ„t to the Calviniste nothing but a seale 〈…〉 84. 85. A lying seale 86. A signe without al grace or vertue 87. 105. A bare signe 70. 88. 89. 90. 106. No better then a Iewish ceremonie 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 104. 106. 107. See Supper and Communion The principal end substaÌ„ce of the Geneua sacrament is to signifie pa. 265. 266. It signifieth vnperfitly 267. Many other things signifie as wel or better therefore are as good sacrameÌ„ts 268. 269. 270. The Calvinists base esteeme of it 112.