This is very good sound doctrine For in deed such grace vertue haue sacraments of the nevv TestameÌ„t namely and especially these two principal baptisme the Supper vvhich as yet the Protestants accept for sacrameÌ„ts that they are signes exhibiting conserâ—ing and haue conioyned with them the thing vvhich they signifie as is the general doctrine of al Catholike wâ—ters yet so which also M. B. very wisely marketh that we always put a distinctioÌ„ betwene the principal efficient deliuerer which is God and the instrumental efficient which are the sacraments which not of them selues but by God are made p tent instruments to deliuer that same thing which they signifie Al which being true M. B. proceedeth very vvel against such Zuinglians Calvinists as make the sacrameÌ„t only a figure representing or signifying a thing absent For if that were so then any picture or dead image should be a sacrament For there is no picture as the picture of the king but at the sight thereof the king wil come to youre mynd So if the sacrament did no further al pictures should be sacraments But the Lord hath appointed the sacraments as hands to deliver exhibite the thing signified and for this deliverie exhibition chiefly they are called signes This doctrine I much commend in M. B. And would to god he could continue in it especially if as he very directly playnely and Catholikely describeth the nature of these sacramental signes so he can geue vs as true and sincere a description of the things signified vvhich by these signes are delivered And that also he performeth very vvel For against Caluin and some Calvinists that vvil haue the thing signified and received to be a vertue and grace flowing from the flesh of Christ and not Christs true real substance he setteth dovvne in plain and sincere maner that the things signified received by the bread wyne are not the benefits of Christ or the vertue that floweth out of Christ only but the very substance of Christ him self the substance with the vertues giftes graces that flow from the substance whole Christ god man without separation of his natures are the things signified For it is not possible that I be partaker of the iuyce which floweth out of any substance except I be partaker of the substance it self It is not possible that my stomak can be refreshed with that meate the substance whereof commeth not to my mouth So it is impossble that I can get the iuyce vertue that flowes from Christ except I first get the substance that is Christ him self And is it true then that with the sacramental signes is truly ioyned not only in figure vvhole Christ god and man yea his very substance Is this the special reason why the sacrament is called a signe because it exhibites and deliuers the thing that it signifies to the sowle and hart so sâ—ore as the signe is delivered to the mouth To vvhat end should this be and what need is there of such miraculous conâ—unetion vvhereas othervvise if Christs body be as far distaÌ„t from our bodies as is heauen from earth vve seeing the bread broken and vvine povvred out may remember Christs body and blud and so by faith eate him Again to vse Zuinglius common argument vvhich aftervvards M. B. him self vrgeth to the same purpose vvhereas the sovvle is a spirite and Christs flesh and blud things corporal hovv can these corporal things vvorke any benefite to that vvhich is altogether spiritual If they do not vvhy then are they conioyned vvith the signes by vvhich coiunction there cometh no good at al To the first M. B. ansvvereth and yeldeth great reason hereof To the end saith he that this sacrament may nourish thee to life everlasting thou must get in it thy whole Sauiour whole Christ god man with his whole graces and benefites without separation of his substance from his graces or one nature from the other Touching the second obiection though saith he Christs body flesh and blud be in it self true flesh and true substance as it was in the womb of the virgin yet in the supper it is called spiritual a spiritual thing spiritual foode in respect of the spiritual end where vnto it serues to my body and sowle because the flesh and blud of Christ serues to nurish me not to a temporal but to a spiritual and heavenly life and to a heavenly celestial and spiritual end In respect of this end the flesh of Christ and Christ in respect of his flesh is called the spiritual thing in the sacrament and also for that the flesh of Christ which is geven in the sacrament is receâ—â—ed by a spiritual and secrete maner which is not seene to the eies of men ¶ Here I haue to desyre the Christian reader that he marke vvel and carye avvay these good instructions in this place geven him by M. B. First that in the sacrament the signe hath the thing signified truly conioyned vvith it so that the one is not present in Edinburgh the other absent in London much lesse the one present in Edinburgh the other as far absent distant as the highest heauen is from Edinburgh but the thing signified is truly conioyned with the signe The next is that the thing signified is not Christs divinitie not the merits of his death and passion but his very flesh and blud the true natural substance thereof and therefore the true natural substance of Christs body blud being the thing signified is also truly conioyned with the signe and therefore present where the signe is and exhibited and delivered by the signe and vvith the signe vvhich is called a signe especially for this reason because it exhibits delivers the thing which it signifies Thirdly that this coniunction of Christ with the sacrament for our vse is hard to conceiue because it is a high and divine misterie it is a mystical secrete diuine and spiritual coniunction as the coniunction betwixt vs and Christ is ful of mysterie which is not possible to tel and expresse by câ—ular demonstration But who ever would vnderstand that coniunction his mynd must be enlightened with an heavenly eye to see this mystical and secrete coniunction that is betwixt the sonne of God and vs in the sacrament And except ye haue this heavenly illumination ye can never vnderstand nether your owne coniunction with Christ nor yet that coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament Fourthly albeit both the coniunction betwixt the signe and the thing signified in the sacrament be mystical and spiritual as likewise the very body and flesh of Christ vvhich is exhibited and ministred to vs in the sacrament and vvith the sacrament is called spiritual both because of the spiritual life and spiritual end of life everlasting and immortalitie
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
bishops in vvhich he againe vvas confuted and yelded so that with his ovvne hands he burnt the bookes vvhich he had made in defence of his heresie But not persisting in his faith and oth geuen after certaine yeres he vvas againe persvvaded to come to Rome there to defend his opinion by such learning as he could in a great synod of bishops gathered for that purpose vvhere being convinced by al maner proofe vvhich he desired by scriptures by fathers by Councels by vniuersal and vncontrolled tradition and vniforme consent of al Christians and christian churches that euer vvere since Christ be being then an old man hauing some more feeling feare of death of hel of his ovvne damnation then before acknovvledged his impietie requested pardon of the supreme Pastor and other bishops there present and as it may be credibly thought vvithout al fiction or hypocrisie abiured his heresie in these vvords Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor c. I Berengarius beleeue in hart confesse with mouth that the bread and wine is conuerted into the true propre and life-geuing flesh and blud of Christ our lord that after consecration there is the true body borne of the virgin which suffred on the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father the true blud which issued out from his side that it is present not only in signe or vertue but also in proprietie of nature and veritie of substance As here in this writing is conteyned as I reade it and as yow vnderstand it so I beleue wil neuer teach contrarie And aftervvards being at the point of death vvhich befel on the day of the Epiphanie vvhich is as much to say as the Apparition of our Sauiour remembring by his hererical preaching what numbers of poore ignorant sovvles he had seduced vvith great sorovv and repentance he vttered these vvords This day which is the day of Christ Iesus his Apparition shal he also appeare vnto me for my glorie as I hope because of my repentance or for my eternal punishment as I feare because of so many as I haue deceaued I verelie beleue that after the consecration those mysteries are the true body and blud of our Sauiour And I am induced so to beleue both by the authoritie of the primitiue church by many miracles shewed of late And â—o vvith great signes of sorovvfulnes and repentance died a true Catholike man as is recorded by good autentical vvriters From Berengarius tyme vntil this present albeit there haue not bene any such great numbers as vvere in Berengarius tyme yet scarce any one age hath missed some notorious heretike vvho among other heynous he resies hath vpholden also the heresie of BereÌ„garius As on the other side there hath not vvanted great Clerks and Saints of excellent holynes learning vvho haue maynteined the Catholike and Apostolike faith deliuered to them from their fathers Such vvere in the age of Berengarius besides those before named Adelmanâ—us bishop of Brixen Hugo bishop of Langres Iuo bishop of Chartres Hildebertus first bishop of Mantes after archbishop of Tours S. Bruno and sundry others After solovved S. Bernard Petrus Clumacensis Petrus Lombardus Hugo Richardus de S. Victore Euthymius S. Thomas S. Bonauenture the general Councel of Laterane vnder Innocentius in vvhich vvere present as vvitnesseth M. Fox 61. Archbishops Primates 400. Bishops 800. other men of great learning an other general Councel holden at Vienna item a third general Councel holden at Florence besides that of Constance vvherein the Greeke church and Latin professed their consent and vniforme faith touching the veritie of this diuine sacrifice and sacrament as likevvise many Greeke Bishops vvrote sundry treatises in iustification thereof Samonas Bishop of Gaza Nicolaus of Methone Marcus of Ephesus Nicolaus Cabasilas Bessaâ—ion the Cardina ' as likevvise of late they haue testified the same in their ansvvere to the ProtestaÌ„ts of Germanie vvho sued to enter in to some communion vvith them against the Romaine church But the Greekes vtterly refused them as condemned heretikes both for other their sundrie heresies namely for this of the sacrament vvhereof I speake vvherein the Greeks very constantly hold the same faith vvhich al Christians heretofore haue and euer ought vvhich is deliuerâ—d in the late general Councel of Tient ¶ Thus much is to be noted in this discourse that from Berengarius vnto Luther no one man hath bene a patrone of this opinion but he hath bene also defiled vvith some very sovvle grosie heresies beside such as the Protestants them selues hold for heresies count the defenders of them heretikes As for example to begin vvith Beregauê° him selfe vvhen he maynteined this sacramentarie heresie he his partakers denyed withal the grace of baptisme denyed that men coÌ„mitting mortal sinne cou'd euer obtayne pardon therefore Besides this he was an enemie to mariage and al stayned from meates which god had created and from fat as things vncleane VVhereby it appeareth that he vvas not only a Sacramentarie but also an Anabaptist a Ievv and vvhich in the Protestant gospel perhaps is greatest of al an enemie to mariage and good fare For vvhich cause Occolampadius though in the matter of the sacrament a right Berengarian yet iudgeth him to be an heretike vvorthely condemned Berengarium a Concilio Romano non iniuste condemnatum arbitror c. I saith he am of opinion that Berengarius was iustly condemned by the Councel holden at Rome For besides the matter of the Eucharist he defended some things against mariage the baptisme of children in the verie matter of the Eucharist he seemeth hoâ—ely to haue set him selfe a worke rather desirous of victorie and vaine glorie theâ— of opening the truth ¶ Next ensued one Petrus Brusius and Henricus author of the sect called Albigenses vvhich so horribly for many yeres tormented Fraunce as novv do the Caluinists and these in many articles agreed iust vvith the Sacramentaries of this tyme. For vvhich reason Ioannes Crispinus him self a sacrameÌ„tarie one that hath gathered together in to a storie the french sacramentarie mar tiâ—â— as M. Fox hath done the English the like vvhereof euerie sect especially the Lutherans and Anabaptists haue done for the Martirs of their peculiar Gospels this Crispinus of Geneua in his Martyrologe acknovvledgeth them for bretherne of his congregation and for martyrs those that dyed in defence of their opinions as also M. Fox in his Acts monuments greately aduaunceth them And vvhat men vvere they In matter of the Sacrament so far forth as now it is ministred in the church for in an other point they differed they vvere of Berengarius faith beleeuing that the body of Christ was present there no otherwise then it was in any other bread VVithal they denyed prayer for the dead and Purgatorie defaced Images brake downe
whereunto is ioyned the thing signified which is the veritie of the same In which kind of veyne and maner of writing he runneth on so lustely that in his last Admonition to Ioachimus VVestphalus the principal minister preacher of Hamburg he boldly auoucheth his doctrine in this point to agree with the Lutheran ConfessioÌ„ of â—uspurge also with Melanchthon penman thereof In which Confession the SacrameÌ„taries no lesse then Anabaptists aâ—e expressely condemned and the I egates of the 4. Sacramentarie Imperial cities then present were en â—oâ—ced to make and put vp to the Emperour Charles a separate Confession of their â—aith because the LutheraÌ„ then called Protestant-princes and Cities for this special opinion reiected them wold in no wise admit them to â—oyne with them in that Confession of thâ—iâ—s commonly called Confessio Auâ—ust ina As also the next yere after when certaine cities of the Suizzers which were then sacrameÌ„taries sued to the Protestants of Germanie to be receiued in to league with them which for some respect the Germanes much desired yet in â—iâ—e the matter being thoroughly debated the Duke of Saxonie chief of the Confession of Auspurg made them answere that for so much as they folowed an other doctrine concerning the Lords supper it was not lawful to enter any league with them And albeit their societie by reason of their power and forces might stand the Germanes in great steed yet he could not so â—â—ch regard that lest gods heauy hand should fal vpon him â— the scripture witnesseth it hath fallen on others who to forâ—â—â—â—â— them silues haue vsed the ayd and succour of such heretikes as they were So that Caluin in saying he agreeth with the Confession of Augusta consequently must needs say that he condemneth the sacramentarie heresie and acknowlegeth Christ truly and really present in the sacrament in such sort and sense as the Confession of Augusta and Protestant princes of that Confession did ¶ And certainly these words and sentences vsed by Caluin and a number of the like are so euident seeme so opposite to al Zuinglian tropes and figures that no man could otherwise imagine but that Caluin thought rightly inough of the real presence Truly in this veyne of writing his hipocrisie is so singular that Ioachimus VVestphalus seemeth to make some doubt whether Caluâ—n in this point of controuersie thought as a Zuinglian or a Lutheran His words are Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter he leaveth his reader so doubtful vncertaine what to iudge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometime it yeldeth a consession of faith like to our Lutheran churches â—e seemeth to reiect the doctrine of Zuinglius to beleeue that the very body blud of Christ is truly present and geuen in the supper with the bread and wine But yet in fine hauing conferred a number of Caluins words and writings to gether he resolueth the contrarie that he is a â—anke Zuinglian and vseth this crastie â—â—ueyance of darke obscuâ—e speaches only to abuse his readers deceiue them more perniciousty of which speaches hauing recited a nuÌ„ber he thus concludeth of them Hinc â—uilibet fit manifestum saith he Caluinum haerere in eodem caeno c. By vew consideration of â—â—ese places euerie man may see that Caluin sticketh in the same mire in which Zuinglius and other sacramentaries haue walowed and that he is stirred vp with their spirite and that vnder this craftie iugling he singeth the old song of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius iumbleth in his figures and significations taking away the true presence of Christs body blud which as VVestphalus at large very wel proueth by laying downe a number of testimonies out of him so I wil make it manifest by declaring 4. or 5. special meanes degrees besides a sixt which is general vsed by Caluin to that effect The first is by remouing away the true and real flesh of our Sauiour in place thereof allowing vs a true real qualitie and vertue thereof to be sent downe imparted to vs from Christ in heauen by a new kynd of conduit pipe which he hath inuented In desâ—â—â—ption whereof albeit he seeme not wel stayd for in one place of his commentaries vpon S. Iohn when belike he was of that opinion he teacheth that the flesh of Christ is the conduit pipe which traduceth and powreth vpon vs life which is intrinsecally resident in the diuine nature the founteyne of life Ioan. 1. 4. but in his Harmonie as also in his Institutions when belike he thought that opinion somwhat to true and to much sauouring of a real presence for if the flesh of Christ were the conduit pipe and brought to vs the life which is resideÌ„t in the deitie then must the flesh be communicated really vnto vs for otherwise it can no more serue for a conduit-pipe to conuey in to vs such life then a conduit-pipe distant a mile or 2. from a howse serueth to conuey water to the howse vnto which it approcheth nothing nigh he resolueth othervvise that the holy spirite is the conduit-pipe and the flesh of Christ geueth life vnto vs for that the holy spirite causeth to flow downe and to be powred on vs life which is resident in the flesh remayning in heauen yet in fine he seemeth to choose rather this later sense so not novv ioyning the flesh and blud of Christ vvith the signe by the omnipotent power of god but separating the one from the other as far as heauen is from earth of Christs body communicated to vs in the supper thus he vvriteth I conclude graunt that the body of Christ is geuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our sowles I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our sowles are fedde with the substance of Christs body to the entent we may be made one with him or which is al one that a certaine quickening vertue is peured on vs cut of the flesh of Christ by the holy ghost although the flesh be far distaÌ„t froÌ„ vs. Is not here a straunge kind of meaning a straunge declaratioÌ„ so to declare his meaning that his meaning cleane ouerthroweth his words whereof he pretendeth to geue vs the meaning For how match those words immediatly going before with this meaning The body of Christ is geuen vs in the supper really I meane the substance of his body or which is al one a vertue proceeding out of his body Is this al one to say the body and a vertue of the body a substance or which is al one no substance but an accident a qualitie Doth not the scripture most euidently according to coÌ„mon sense and reason distinguish betwene Christ or the body of Christ and vertue proceeding from him which at some
times wrought so that al men desired to touch him because vertue proceeded from him and healed al that were present desired so to touch him at an other time vvhen his body was in like maner present to al the vertue thereof healed one only persone amongest a number At an other time it wrought the like benefite to persons many miles distant from the place where his body vvas at some other time it did no such benefite to many that vvere not only in one place vvith him but also touched and pressed and throng him vvho vvere neuer a vvhit the better therefore but perhaps the worse And yet forsooth is it al one to say the body of Christ or a vertue issuing from his body Or doth this man that thus speaketh in these most serious and diuine matters care vvhat he speaketh In the same place going about as it were to moderate his former plaine speaâ—â—es he repeateth that we receiue Christ remayning in heauen And this communication of Christ which is offered vs in the supper requireth nether local presence nether that he descend vnto vs nether that his body be infinitely extended nor any such matter but we receiue him though so far distant from vs as heaueÌ„ is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Al vvhich in his Institutions he expresseth more plainly by the similitude of the Sunne a similitude very familiar with Peter Martyr and others that as the Sunne with his beames shining ouer the earth doth after a sort communicate his substance with it to the engendring cherishing refreshing of the fruits thereof so the spirite of Christ by his illumination traduceth vnto vs the communion of Christs flesh and blud albeit the flesh it self enter not into vs no more then the Sunne leaueth his place in the heauen to descend dovvne to the earth In which words and al this maner of discourse there appeareth a very plain and sensible contradiction to his former talke There vve had in the mysteries of bread and vvine Christ truly deliuered I meane quoth Caluin his true body and blud which veritie is truly conioyned with the symbole here vve haue only a quickening vertue flovving thence There Christ bad vs vnder the symboles of bread wine to eate his body drinke his blud I nothing doubt saith Caluin very religiously but he truly reacheth it me I truly receiue it novv he not only doubteth of it but also plainly denieth any such ether deliuery on Christs part or receiuing on ours and in steed thereof placeth an irradiation or illumination as from the sunne by vvhich a certain grace and vertue out of Christs flesh as heate from the sunne is conueyed vnto vs. There Christ descendeth vnto vs the flesh of Christ entreth in to vs and notwithstanding so great distance of place the flesh of Christ penetrateth and cometh downe vnto vs in tanta distantia locorum penetrat ad nos Christi caro here al such â—enetration and application or coÌ„munication is vtterly refused condemned and Christ descendeth no more then doth the sunne out of his sphere no more as he other vvhere vvriteth then vve ascend vp in to heauen to him mary yet we draw life from Christ Christ froÌ„ the substaÌ„ce of his flesh remayning in heauen powreth life in to vs albeit his flesh enter not in to vs quamuâ—s noÌ„ ingrediatur in nos carâ— Christâ— There the matter vvas so incredible so mystical so miraculous far exceding al capacitie of man that Caluin him selfe so sing lar a prophete and instrument of the holy ghost as his scholers terme him could nether comprehend it by his wit nor declare it by his tonge here the matter is made so familiar and vulgar as for the sunne to shine in a sommets day and therefore nothing so profound hard to vnderstad as Caluin vvith his hipocritical retorike vvold make the case seeme For vvhat plain rural Caluinist can not comprehend this But the manifold manifest contradictions of Caluin to him selfe in this article vvil yet appeare more sensibly if vve continue to declare by vvhat other degrees he falleth from his first high and diuine description of Christs real presence in the supper to a plain Zuinglian and Carolostadian absence from the saine Let this stand for the first vvhere in steede of a true and real presence of Christs body and blud deliuered vs vvith the figure or sacrament vve haue not the true body but only a certaine vertue deriued thence in to our sovvles vvhich tvvo are as far different as is heauen and earth as is the body and sovvle of Cicero and his vvit or learning as is Caluins person and his heretical Institutions S. Peters coate and his shadovv a good feast and the smel thereof ¶ The second degree of abasing the supper and contradicting that his first and more true opinion is vvhen as he pulleth from the supper euen this communication of any such particular vertue and force and maketh the vvhole eating to consist in only faith and beleeuing For then al such deriuing of vertue by his conduit-pipe from the flesh of Christ is no othervvise deriued in the supper then in any other good action of praying or preaching vvhen so euer a ChristiaÌ„ man stedfastly beleeueth in Christ So he vvriteth more commonly and that according to the vulgar maner of al sacramentaries as for example VVe confesse that we eate Christ no other way theÌ„ by beleeuing Againe VVe eate truly the flesh drink the blud of Christ in the supper but this eating driÌ„king is only by faith sicut nulla alia fingi potest as no other kind of eating or drinking can be imagined VVhich eating by faith beleeuing vvhat it is vvhat he meaneth thereby he declareth in his Catechisme vvhere he geueth this definition of it In beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemptioÌ„ is risen for our iustificatioÌ„ our sowle eateth the body of Christ spiritually VVhich being so this maner of eating geueth no title of preeminence nor maketh any kind of difference betwene the supper and any other time place or action when so euer we beleeue in like sort Nether if al the eating consist in beleeuing that Christ is dead for our redemption risen for our iustification is there any more vertue force or quickening power as Caluin speaketh deriued to vs from Christs flesh when we eate the Protestant supper then when we eate our owne dinner in case we beleeue Christ to be our redeemer iustifier which is the whole only way to eate Christ and then which there can be no other imagined The Protestant at this supper hath perhaps a draught of wine a bit of bread more then the stander by or then we at our dynner but our faith being as good as his we
and memoratiue bread panis commemorialis of like qualitie or proprietie to signifie Christs death as is the ivie bush to signifie the sale of vvine or in some places a vvaze of stravv to signifie vvhere is good ale or as Zuingliê° vsing more Capitaynelyke and honorable comparison to the honour of his mysteries as a noble mans armes or princes scutchion signifieth the noble maÌ„ or prince to vvhoÌ„ it apperteineth For so vvriteth he See and marke wel this is the acramental presence of Christs body in the supper as Charles the Emperour or the king of France is said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or scutchions are there where as in in the meane season one of them remayneth in Spaine the other in France So Christ also is here present in the harts and minds of the faithful As for the bread and wine they are wont to be called Christs body and blud but they are no more so then those banners or scutchions are the kings them selues non magis eadem sunt quam signa sunt ipsissimi reâ—es The selfe same in sundry other places he expresseth by many like similitudes some times calling them tesseras militares soldyars markes at an other tyme comparing them to a white crosse or rod vvhereby the buizzer soldyar and the Burgundian are distinguished vvhich is his more vsual comparison The sacrament saith he is an external marke whereby we shew whose men we are what is our dutie as one that weareth a white crosse thereby declareth him self to be a Suizzer And this is Caluins resolute iudgement of the supper that it serueth for nothing els but for a memorandum to refresh our memorie vvhich I could shevv more at large out of his vvritings vvere not the thing euident inough of it self For although some Lutherans not so conuersant in Caluins hipocritical stile vvhereby he vseth to set a graue solemne countenance on the matter vvhich othervvise is light and apish make so great a difference betvvene the old nevv Sacramentaries as before hath bene touched as though Carolostadius Zuinglius and other of that reuerend antiquitie thought one vvay and Caluin and the later heretikes of this nevv creation vvere of an other beleefe yet in truth if vve desire to heare and haue his plaine and simple explication such as his folovvers must be lead by he then ansvvereth and so Beza in his behalfe protesteth that he esteemeth of the supper no othervvise nor any vvaies more diuinely then those auncient and first sacramentaries did And therefore to such Lutherans and other Adâ—ersaries who obiected that Caluin a late vpstart in this matter varyed from those more auncient Euangelists Beza vvith great stomacke replieth Dâ—co impudentes esse calumniatores qui c. I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagin there was euer any coÌ„trarietie betwene those most excellent men Zuinglius Oecâ—lampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the sacraments So that â—â—yng vvhat is the doctrine of one of these great and excellent men the same is the doctrine of the other vvhere as both by Caluin and also Zuinglius the supper is nothing els but a token and memorial an obscure and slender image of Christs death pasâ—ed vvhich in bread and vvine is but poorely represented it foloweth that not only the true and real presence of Christs body as in the first place nor only a real vertue deriued and flowing from the flesh of Christ as in the second but also al other vertue grace operation is quit excluded remoued from the supper and that left a bare and naked token such as is a lyon rampant set in the beginning of M. B. his booke to represent the king of Scotland or 3. lyons passant to represent the Queene of England ¶ To which purpose also it auayleth much more to consider one other general point of their doctrine concerning the sacraments of the nevv Testament to wit that the Protestants and Caluin especially make them euen leuel vvith the sacraments of Moyses law attributing no more to our Eucharist then to the Iewish calues or sheep or laÌ„b or bread minchah vsually adioyned to al their sacrifices For which of these they wil make most properly answerable and correspondent to ours as they vse the matter I knovv not wel for that plaine bakers bread without sacrifice and real presence is not very aptly figured by the first and this being as graceles and emptie bread as bread may be caÌ„ not be wel foresignified by the last for that things performed in the new TestameÌ„t should be of more honour grace vertue efficacie then vvas the signe prefiguring it in the old But to omit this in that the Sacramentaries namely Caluin make no difference touching vertue and grace betvvene the sacraments of Christs gospel and Moses lavv hereof it is inâ—â—rred yet more certainly assuredly that al his first amplification of the diuine presence of our Sauiours body and blud in the Eucharist is more verbal and fantastical For in the sacraments of the old lavv nether he nor any of his vvil graunt I suppose that ether Christs body blud vvas truly really ioyned vvith the signe or any quickening vertue flowing from Christs â—â—esh was annexed to those sacraments For in al this discourse the reader must euer note carie away the state of the question which is noâ— what those men beleeued then or vvee beleeue novv or vvhether they did eate Christ by faith spiritually as we do or how they vvere sanctified or iustified by him as we are but what then sacraments ours in them selues by them selues considered were vvhat vertue and grace they gaue by then ovvner at â—re in that they vvere and ours are sacraments ordeyned by god seâ—nestred from al forain and external consideration Novv that thâ—s Caluin matcheth the lâ—vviâ—h sacraments of Moyses lavv vvith ours delâ—uered by Christ in the Gospel it is very manifest That â—holistical opinion saith he whereby the Papists put a great difference betwene the sacraments of the old and the new law as though they figured only the grace of god and these gauâ— it presently is altogether to be abandoned For the Apostle Pauâ—e speaketh no more divinely of the one then of the other whereis â—e teacheth that our fathers of the old law dâ—d eate the some spiritual meate that we do 1. Cor. 10. v. 3. c. And to the end no man vnder the gospel should prefer him self as though he had some priuilege the Apostle preuenteth this obiection making them altogether like to vs. And especially he sheweth this equalitie in the sacraments VVherefore al what soeuer we haue now geuen vs in our sacraments the same the Ieweâ— of old receiued in theirs that is Christ with his spiritual riches And the vertue whiâ—h ours haue they also found in theirs to wit that they should be seales of gods
any food in general vvhereby man liveth as vvel herbes rootes apples yea flesh fish as our kind of bread vvithout vvhich as then doubtles men might live vvel so at this present it is sure and certain that both in Africa and in America there are vvhole nations vvho liue far longer then vve do vvho vntil this time never knevv nor savv ether bread or vvine and now they knovv both yet preferre they their rootes siuit vvhich they of old vsed iâ— steed of bread vvine before ether the one or the other And since the ChristiaÌ„ faith was published in the world hovv many good men of longest life as for example â— Antonie S. Paule the first Eremites of vvhich the one lived 105 the other 113. yere haue perpetually absteyned from vvine yet vvanted not for al that ful perfite nurriture or els they could neuer haue liued so long And the holy scripture vvhen it vvil describe sufficiencie and fulnes requisite for mans sustenance sometimes yea commonly expresseth it not by bread and vvine but otherwise somtimes vseth those 2. but ioyneth other things vnto them VVhen God promised to the Hebrues a land where they should find no vvant but haue plentic of such nurriture as M. B. telleth vs os generally it nameth a land not abounding vvith bread and wine but vvith milke and hony as appeareth in the old testament every vvhere Sometime it mentioneth bread alone sometime vvith bread ioyneth not wine but water that vvas to thovvsands as ful and perfite nurriture as vvine from vvhich among the Ievves many for very religion absteyned yet had their ful and perfite sustenance At other times it rehearseth corne wine and oyle And yet after al these ful and perfite sustenance and nutriment is made by flesh fish and other such commodities no lesse then by the premisses vvhich therefore God in like sort gave to the hand of man saying al birdes of the ayer al fishes of the sea al beasts of the earth shal be to yow for food and nurriture VVherefore if M. B. in saying that bread and vvine is ful and perfit nurriture and therefore may signifie Christ vvhich nourisheth vs persitely speake of bread vvine in such sense as the scripture doth vvhich vnder the name of bread and vvine compriseth al food as I confesse he speaketh truly so in that sense bread by it self or bread and vvater or mylke and hony or flesh or fish is a ful perfite nurriture and may signifie Christ as vvel and so serue as vvel for a sacrament If he speake as he seemeth after the vulgar sense of men namely of our countrymen in Scotland England vvhere bread signifieth one special and particular kind of food and vvine an other then is his vvord false then doth not his sacramental bread and vvine represent Christ as a perfite and ful nurriture of our sovvles for that only bread and vvine are not ful perfite nurriture of our bodies according to our speech fashion and dyet and so is his sacramental signe a false signe and seale vvhich sealeth a false doctrine as not having a perfite representation of ful and perfite nurriture And albeit against the right sacrament of the church vvhere the principal part of the sacrament is an other maner of grace vertue and sanctification vvhereof this significative qualitie dependeth as an accident of the substance as an accessorie of the principal this argument be vveake concludeth nothing yet against them who make not any spiritual effect and operation but such tropical figuring and representation the chief effect and substance of the sacrament the argument standeth strong forcible sufficient to destroy the vvhole entier sacrament because it destroyeth the perfit signification vvherein the sacrament principally chiefly consisteth Furthermore if the chief point and part of this sacrament is to be dravven from that vvhich geveth ful perfite nurriture to our body then that meate vvhich best fullest nourisheth our body is the best sacrament as fittest to signifie our ful nurriture vvhich vve haue in Christ and so if to bread vvine we ioyne a good peece of mutton a fat capon vvhich questionles nourisheth better then bread vvine alone this because it nourisheth the body best shal be fittest to signifie and so to make the Scottish sacrament For this sequele can not be denyed nor avoyded that if vve measure and define the sacrament as he doth by feeding the body and so consequently representing spiritual foode if it be true as vvith M. B. our English Iewel vvriteth that the substance of the sacrament iâ— to shew vs that like as material bread feedeth our body so the body of Christ crucified eaten by faith feedeth the sowle then that vvhich in this kind excelleth the same is most significatiue most sacramental so vve shal be everyday varying our sacraments according as the Phisicians â—nforme vs vvhich meate is most nourishing And thus in fine vve shal proceed to take our sacraments from the kitchin or from Galen and Hippocrates rules of fatting the body not from Christs gospel his Apostles order of feeding the sovvle And breefely hereof it ensueth that every man and vvoman can make as good a sacrament as this For vvhat man or vvoman that hath a litle skil in phisike or cookery can not geue to every dish of meate sod baked rost fried to every banqueting dish every good restoratiue every good vvine beere ale or vvhat so ever is nutritiue this signification and say to her ghests that as this capon this venisoÌ„ nourisheth your body so Christ in heaven or crucified nourisheth your sowle VVhich being so that truly such meate nourisheth the body as vvel as bread wine it consequently may represent the nurriture of the sovvle as vvel as the bread and vvine vvhich is to be as good a sacrament as is their bread vvine If he replie that Christ ordeyned the one not the other and therefore the one is so much to be preferred before the other because it is appointed by Christ to signifie represent so that is holy bread it is holy wine a holy signe seale for that it signifieth by Christs institution I ansvvere first that it is more agreable to the Protestant doctrine that Christ instituted it not but only vsed it being in practise long before among the Ievves And as he first instituted not baptisme but tooke it from S. Iohn so did he not first ordeyne or appoint this but left it as he found it a mere Ievvish ceremonie vvith this only difference which the course of time gaue vnto it that it should thence forvvard signifie a thing past as of old it had signified a thing to come I ansvvere next supposing that Christ did institute it that albeit in deede betvvene Christ man there is infinite difference so yet betvvene this signe of
vvhich they cal sanctifying It is a fowle vntruth to sâ— that without whispering vve account the vvords of Christ to lacke their force And vvhen he calleth consecration incantation that is an vntruth Sâ—â—â—â—ical blasphemous because it reacheth not only to aâ— the auncient primitiâ—e church as hath bene shewed but also to Christ him self For vve vse the vvords of Christ as Christ did and vve vse them no otherwise to no other end vvith no other intention or effect then Christ did and commaunded to be done and the church of Christ first and last old new in the East and VVest in Europa Asia and Africa vsed vniversally vvithout control vntil these vvicked and prophane mockers of Christ and al religion set a vvorke by Satan brake lose in to the vvorld Besides al vvhich falsitie impietie heresie blasphemie and ignorance â— true religion this man seemeth to be ignorant of common learning and philosophie for that he supposeth â—â— magike and incantatioÌ„ to depend of vvhispering vvhere as such inchanters and impostors play their parts no more by whispering then by speaking vvith a cleare voyce as M. B. byndeth his ministers to speake vvhen they eate their supper ¶ The seuenth vntruth vvith vvhich I vvil end â—oâ— if I vvould note al I should be to tedious euery sentence almost conteyning nought els but such grosse and palpable falsities and the same accompanied vvith a number of folowers is vvhere he preacheth thus After the words of consecration are this way whispered they presâ—pâ—â—â—â— such a hid and monstruous vertue to be inclosed in the sillables one blasphemous vntruth that the vertue and power which flowes from the words there is two are able to chase away wholy the substance of bread there is a third and that the power which flowes from these words is able to rug pul downe the flesh and blud of Christ that sits at the right hand of his father there is 4. at lest This ministerlike kind of speech that is to say this vvitles and frantike kind of railing and blaspheming and lying that vve suppoâ—e such hid vertue to be inclosed in the sillables and flow from the words he continueth and thus repeateth to make good his former raylative speech of incantation against vvhich he disputeth very gravelie and the more gravely the more ridiculously because he disputeth against the false conceit of his owne fansie and not against any faith of ours His argument is this VVe deny that any vertue is inclosed in the sillables For if there were such a vertue and power inclosed in the sillables by that reason there should be a vertue in the figure and shape of the letter that makes vp the word Now there is no man wil thinke that there is any vertue in the figure or shape of the letter ergo c. Doubtles a profound argumeÌ„t vvhich if M. B. could have vsed vvel towards Iohn Knox that famous incestuous adulterer and Apostata M. B. his predecessor the chief Scottish Apostle of this age the Scottish ministers vvhich now rule he might perhaps have much refrayned and vvithdrawen both him them from their vsual magicke familiar coniuratioÌ„ of spirites For of Knox it is testified that even in Geneva vvhere he vvas to pretend a litle honestie he vvas much geven to such kind of study and of the Scottish ministers it is publikely witnessed by one vvho speaketh of his certaine knowlege that no other science and so belike not the Iustitutions of Iohn Calvin nor yet the vvord of the Lord is more ordinarle and 〈…〉 liar there or more diligently studied or had in mor◠〈…〉 and esteeme then magicke and witcheraâ—â— As for the 〈…〉 liks any creature that is not bereft of common 〈…〉 may soone perceive that this point of incancatioÌ„ â—posâ— pose any vertue or power to lye inclosed in the sillables no more toucheth them then the man in the moone For they know and professe that vvho soever pronounceth these wordes or sillables be he man vvoman or child be he King or Keisar or of vvhat degree and state soever if he be not lawfully called in the church of Christ to the office of priesthod the words and sillables pronounced by any such haue no more vertue and power then if they vvere pronouÌ„ced by a minister of the Scottish or Geneva creation Againe they know prosesse that if a lawful priest or bisshop pronounce them as many do both in their studies vvhen they reade S. Paules Epistles or the Gospels and in the church vvhen privatly they say their service and among other parts of scripture rehearse these vvords there is no more power or vertue in them then in any other vvords or sillables or sentences of the Gospelâ— and yet if there vvere any power or vertue included in the sillables the sillables being stil one like power and vertue should ensue of theÌ„ And therefore M. B. may soone perceive that vve have no such magical imagination of these or any like vvords Mary vvhen a lawful priest or bisshop pronounceth them as the substitute of Christ to that end and vvith that intention and meaning to do as Christ appointed now in this case that these vvords or any other of like effect substance have power vertue to vvorke that vvhich Christ ordeyned to be wrougâ—â— by them vvhat should I go about to prove vvhereas M. B. him self in the next page immediatly confesseth it For I vvil not trouble the reader vvith any distinctions vsual in Catholike vvriters because the simplicitie of this man is such that him self in this very page yeldeth as much to consute him self as I desire or the reader needeth to require For thus he vvriteth VVe deny there is â—â—y vertue inclosed in the sillables or resident in the word But we say there is a power conioyned with the word and vve say no more but al power is resident in the eternal word whereof tobe 〈◊〉 mention in the first of his Euangel Let that stand for 〈◊〉 that yet yow remeÌ„ber your owne words in your first sermon that as the Euangel is a mighty and pâ—tent instrument to our everlasting saluation so the sacrament is a potent instrument appointed by God to deliver and exhibite to vt the thing signified that is Christ Iesus And therefore vvhereas yow say There is not a drams weight of this vertue power resident in any creature but it is only in Christ Iesus vvhich no vvise man denieth so long as yow speake of this vertue to vvit such and in such sort as it is resident in our Saviour the fonteine origin author of al grace and vertue both in vvord and sacrament so yet if yow consider the vvord and sacrament as mighty and potent instruments ordeyned by Christ instrumentally to deliver vs Christ yow must allow vnto them some drams and some ounces to of vertue and power or
els they can not prove instruments mighty and potent to deliver vs so great a matter as Christ comes vnto And so yow do in your conclusion of this point vvherein I vvil rest as likewise wil any Catholike who never wil demaund more then yow liberally yeld Therefore say yow there flowes no vertue from the sillables nor from the wordes that are spoken but from Christ and his spirite who geues the vertue to the wordes Again in the same page VVe say there is no vertue resident in the syllables but we say that the vertue is resident in the person of the sonne of God and he workes by his owne word vttered by a lawful priest as in the Catholike church not by the sermon of a seditious minister vvhose sermon can not be called the owne word of Christ And thus much for that The other vntruths of chasing away the bread pulling downe Christs flesh from heaven I pretermit because if he thus speake in scorne and derision I vvil not lose time nor spend words so vainely as to talke of them If he vtter them in sadnes they are to grosse and sensible falsities and cary their refutation vvith them as proceding from shameful intolerable ignoraÌ„ce of the Catholike faith vvhich he goeth about to refute If by such odious slaunderous maner of speech he meane to disgrace the Catholike beleef inough hath bene said in defence thereof already so as I need not to make any farther discourse Only against this light scurtile ethnical kind of talking vvhich in deed vvere fitter for a Pagâ—â— then a Christian as Luther also affirmeth of such vvritings preachings and â—aylings of the Zuinglians I vvil oppose the grave and reverend authoritie of S. Chrysostom vvho preached to the old Christians of Constantinople touching Christs real presence at one and the same time in the sacrament in heauen at the right hand of his father after an other maner of sort and gravitie then doth M. B to his new formed Christians and Gospellers of Edinburgh O miracle saith S. Chrysostom O the great goodnes of God! Christ who sitteth above with his father at the same moment of tyme is in the sacrament handled with the hands of al geveth him self to those that wil receive imbrace him To like effect are S. Basils vvords in his Liturgie vvhere thus he praieth Looke downe vpon vs O lord Christ Iesu our God from thy holy tabernacle and from the throne of thy glorious kingdome Come to sanctifie vs which sittest above with thy father and art conuersant here in visibly vouchsafe to impart vnto vs thy vndefiled body and pretious blud and by vs to al thy people Much to like purpose might he alleaged out of S. Ambrose S. Austin many other both Greeke and Latin But against M. B. his vvords and nothing but bare light prophane and minister like vvords these two may suffise Arguments against the real presence ansvvered The Argument Phisical arguments taken from the proprieties of an humainâ— body wherein M. B. committeth many faults and commeÌ„ded with certain places of S. Austin are refelled with answeres out of the Protestants to those places of S. Austin S. Peters words in the Acts corruptely cited to bynd Christ tâ— a certain place are answered and the Protestants corruptiâ—g of that place plainly manifested Christs words Luke 24. 39. where to his disciples he proveth the truth of his body by seeing and feeling make nothing against his presence in the sacrament The article of Christs Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God being rightly vnderstood impayreth not but more establisheth the real presence Caluins exposition thereof refelleth M. B. his argument taken thence as also his former obiection taken from S. Peters words Other sacramentarie arguments more probable taken from Christs leaving the world and departing hence answered CHAP. 18. ARguments against the veritie of Christs presence in the sacrament M. B. maketh in tale very many but for any weight few inough Al of them that are of any substance a great number more are found particularly vrged in one chapter of Calvins Institutions in his 2. short libels against Ioachimus VVestphalus in divers others therefore have bene so many times answered not only by Catholikes but also by Protestants namely by Luther him self against Zuingliê° that they can not now cary any weight in the iudgement of a meane Christian albeit in the beginning vvhen Zuinglius and Carolosladius with their familiaâ—s inuented them to simple vvauering people they might perhaps seeme somwhat Since vvhich time they have bene much more tossed to and fro especially by Martyr and Bullinger against Brentius by Beza in his dialoges against Heshusius but most of al by Calvin in the places before noted vvhere they are every one that is ought vvorth from vvhence M. B. seemeth to have taken them and therefore from the adversarie part that is VVestphalê° vvil I also take my answere as heretofore if the arguments of them selves do not as often they do answere them selues sufficienly For a meane Christian that is a litle grounded in his Catechismo Creed may casilie see that very weake they are in Theologie though some strength they have in philosophie And albeit these later sacramentaries Beza Calvin Bullinger Martyr have set some new florish and varnish on them vvhereby they seeme more gay and flesh in the eye yet the substance of them is al one and remayneth stil as rotten britle as vvhen they vvere first by Carolostadius and Zuinglius obiected against Luther as the replies of the adversatie Protestants Brentius Heshusius Illyricus and VVestphalus have made manifest Three general heaâ—â— he makes of his arguments by which he vvil disprove Christs true presence in the sacrament First by the veritie of the flesh of Christ 2. By the articles of our beleef 3. By the true end of the institution of the sacrament The first two albeit he commend and beautifie vvith the name of S. Austin and a text or two of scripture yet the whole vveight resteth vpon a text of Aristotle and natural reason For thus he disputeth The first principle that I lay is this Christ had a true humaine body So of necessitie it must folow that the definition of a true body and the inseparable properties thereof be competent to him But the inseparable properties of a true body are to be in a certain place to be finite circumscribed visible palpable For al these agree quarto needs as the Logicians say to a body so that they can not be separâ—t from the subiect without the destruction thereof Then I reason in this maner Every true humane body is in a certain place Therefore Christs body is in a certain place I meane so that where ever the body be it is limitate within that place while it is there it can not be els where
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.