in shorter time cast a number from of the bridge into the stream then deliuer one only from the perill and danger of drowning In like manner it was a worke of more ease to destroy all mankind then to restore one man out of that generall ruine and destruction That the Devill was able to doe and Adam also was able to doe it this none but Christ could perfourme Wilde beastes and calamities haue power to hurt and murther man but it is in the power of no creature to repaire mans losse of salvation and life eternall but this was reserved to the power of GOD alone creator of all thinges wherefore the death of Christ had beene of greater force then the sinne of Adam yea though it had restored but one only man vnto life And certaine it is and an vndoubted truth that the blessings recovered by Christ so far surpasse those whose losse we sustained by Adam as heavenly things and things eternall excell earthly and corruptible things For Adam as the Apostle witnesseth is of the earth earthlie but Christ is heaveâ—lie Adam is a living soule but Christ is spirituall Adam cast vs out of an earthly paradise but Christ hath pâ—â—ced vs in an heavenly Paradise and hath given vs everlasting happines Thus 〈◊〉 haue thought it meete and convenient to proceede 〈◊〉 setting downe the 〈◊〉 of Christs death and resurrection which all appears came to them all and them alone who sticke fast vnto Christ by faith in making answere to the cavils and slaunders of Heretiques c. A SHORT INTRODVCTION TO the CoÌ„trouersie of the SacrameÌ„t of the Lords Supper vnfolding the substaunce of the cheifest questions coÌ„troversed or not controuersed therin bâ—tweene the professors of the Gospell Compiled and written by D. Dauid Parry Foure generall Premises 1 LEt our yong Diuines carry in memorye that the questions touching the Ceremonies and rites of the Supper are to bee distinguished from the doctrine which is the promise of the Gospell annexed vnto the outward and visible rites 2 Let them also learne to put a difference betweene the questions coÌ„troversed and not controuersed aswel concerning the rites as concerninge the doctrine 3 Let them knowe that the questione controversed about the rites and ceremonies are not so principal nor of such circumstance as the other which concerne the doctrine and that for the most part they may and ought to be decided in equitie according to the circumstances of 〈◊〉 place and person yet with this caueat that all be done for edification 4 Let them know moreover that the maine question touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper not controversed hitherto by any are three and againe on the other side the questions controversed are also three wherunto all the rest may easily be refered Touching both these I will verie briefely instruct the yonger sorte The three questions touching the Lords Supper not called into doubt or controversy are these I. What the Supper of the Lord is All the professors of the Gospell agree in this pointe that the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament of the new Testament instituted and ordeined by Christ wherin together with the taking of bread and wine the true body and bloud of Christ is receiued and the communion or participation of Christ with all his blessinges and benefites is sealed vp in the heartes of the faithfull beleeuers II. What are the endes or vses of the supper instituted by Christ Herein also all the professours of the Gospell agree in one that this receiuing of the Sacrament confirmeth our faith of the promises of grace both because this 〈◊〉 the generall and common vse of all Sacraments whatsoeuer also because Christ himselfe hath said of this Sacrament Doe this is remembraunce of mee And This cuppe is the newe Couenant in my bloud III. What is giuen receiued iâ— the Lords Supper In this also there is a mutuall consent of all that the bread and wine are giuen and receiued visibly corporally by the hand and month of the minister communicants but the body bloud of our Lord with all the benefits of his passion are invisible and spiritually giuen and receiued by them both In all these I say there is a ioynt agreement betweene al diuines which professe the Gospell as for vaine brablers whose brawles and iaries may not be the measure wherby to iudge of the consent or controverses of the churches professing the Gospell they neyther agree in these nor in any other The three questions called into doubt or controuersie are these The first question What is the vnion of the Signe signifying or the Thing signified in the Lordes supper whether it be Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or only a mysticall reference or relation of the one to the other To this question we make an answere consonant to the Catholicke faith in three seuerall propositions the two of which are Negatiue and third Affirmatiue 1 Proposition The Sigâ—es and the Things are not vnited by Transubstantion that is by such a charge as in which the substance of â—he Signe are transformed into the substaÌ„ce of the Thinges the accidents onely remaining The reasons of the first proposition 1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which haue a Sacramentary proportioÌ„ in the Eucharist which the Accidents of bread and wine the substance of the body and bloud of Christ can by no meanes haue 2 The second reason is deduced out of the wordes of Christ who saied This is my body not let this bee or bee made my body 3 The third reason is because the bread is termed bread both before the action of Consecâ—â—tion in the action and after the action 4 The fourth reason is because the sounder Fathers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Supper and when they speake by way of Hypeâ—bâ—le of chaÌ„ging of the bread they will be vnderstood to speake Sacramentally As Theodoreâ— Diolog 1. witnesseth saying it was the will of Christ that they who vse the Sacraments should not bend and set their mindes on the nature of the thinges which are seene bâ—t should beleeue that which was made through grace by alteratioÌ„ of the names Here in the same diologue he teacheth that we must vnderstand a sacramentall change in these wordes Christ honoured the visible signes with the title and name of his body and bloud NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME but by adding grace to the nature The second proposition II. The Signes and things signified are not vnited by Consubstantiation that is by a reall Existence of two bodies in the same place or by the close conveiance of one within the other such as we see is of the corne in a sacke of 〈◊〉 in a mans purse of an Infant in his cradell or of 〈◊〉 in a roundler For this is a likelihood of things vnited in substance The Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first reason is because the words of Christ This is
my bodie doe signifie vnto vs not vvhere Christs body is neither what it is IN WITH or VNDER the bread but what the bread it selfe is and ought to be vnto the godly in this vse 2 The second Reason is because the body of Christ is a true instrumentall finite visible body after his ascension no longer present on the earth or every where but cōversant and remaining in heaven even vntil his last comming 3 The third Reason is because the sounder Fathers do teach that the body and bloud of Christ is in the bread wine not as in a caue orden but as in a mystery and by a mystery Chrysostome opers imperfecto Math. Homil 11. saith In holied and sanctified vessels is conteined not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of Christs body The third proposition III. The Signes and Things haue their coherence in the Lords Supper by a Sacramental vnion Now this vnion is of like quality with that vnion which is commō to the whole kinde of Sacraments otherwise it should not be a sacramentall vnion but by a title of distinction should be tearmed The vnion in the Lords Supper But in al the other Sacraments their is an vnion of Relation and respect to wit A mysticall signification of the Thinge signed by the Signe a sealing exhibiting receiving thereof after a lawful vse which is not without the faith and repentance of thē which approach vnto it to vse it The reason◠of the third proposition 1 The first is drawne from the nature of the whole kinde in this sort There is such an vnion in all Sacraments Therefore in the Supper also The Antecedent or former proposition of this argumēt is manifest out of the definition principal end of the Sacraments 2 The second is framed on this manner The bread is the body of Christ either in the truth of the thing as Augustine according to Prospers opinion speaketh or in a mysterie signifying it But it is not the body of Christ essentially 〈◊〉 the truth of the thing because there is no Transubstantiation Therefore it is the body of Christ in a mysterie so signifying 3 The third reason is because al the arguments by which the sacramentall speech in the wordes of the Supper is proved are hithervnto belonging For a sacramental vnion requireth sacramentall phrases and termes 4 The fourth is because we haue the testimonies of the Fathers that the bread is a signe figure and sacrament of the body of Christ no longer absent but present and yet present not in the outward and visible elements of bread and wine but in the worde ioyned with them present I say not to the mouth but to the heart not locally and in place but mystically and spiritually The obiection of Papists for their Transubstantiation drawne out of the words of the Supper This which Christ gaue and the Preist consecrateth is the body of Christ Therefore it is not bread The argument holdes from the rule of thinges different as if a man should say This is a man therfore it is not an Oxe Wee deny that this argument is framed as you say from the inducing of one speciall by the remouing of the contrarie of the same kinde because it is rather a faulty processe in argumentation frō the inducing of a sacramētal respect which is but an Accident to the displacing and deniall of the subiect substance such as this is if I should say This man is a Father Therefore he is not a man For so they argue This bread is the body of Christ therefore it is not bread There is therefore in this argument a Fallacie of Accident no lesse absurd the if you should thus conclude This thing is a table therefore it is not wood For although the body of Christ bee not the forme or Accident of bread◠yet the Relation and respect which the bread hath by vertue of the promise vnto the body of Christ is the forme of a Sacrament Whence it is a weake kind of reasoning to say A doue is the holy Ghost therefore it is no longer a doue Circumcision is the couenant of God therfore it is no longer Circumcision The cupp is the New Testament therfore it is no longer a cuppe The answere to all the testimonies of the Fathers which the Papists alleadge for the change of the signes is common that they are all to hee vnderstood of the Sacramentall not of an essentiall and reall mutat on which is apparant out of the consent of foundest Fathers in this point of the sacrament II. The second question Howe both the signes the heauenly things signified are exhibited or receiued in the Lords Supper This question is in controuersie betweene vs both with the Papists the Vbiquitaries because both of them are of opinion that the things being present in their signes or vnder the shewes of the signes are covertly and miraculously caried vp and downe in the hands of the ministers hādled by them and put into the mouthes of the Communicants We contrariwise teach that the thinges with their signes are both togither exhibited and receiued with their signes in the lawful vse of the Supper but in a diuers manner For the signes are handled by the Ministers and takē by the mouth of the Communicants But the things themselues are given by Christ our high Priest received by faith This point may in like sort with the former be expressed in three propositiōs two negatiue and one affirmatiue 1. The first proposition The things signified that is the bodie and bloude of Christ are neither handled nor reached out by the hand of the Ministers to be receaved corporallie in the signes The Reasons of this first proposition 1 The first reason is collected negatiuelie from the whole kinde of Sacraments thus In no Sacrament the Ministers handle or bestowe things spirituallie signified Therefore neither in the Lords Supper doe they handle the thing spiritually signified The Antecedent is proved both by an induction or instance in every Sacrament which is evident by the adversaries owne confession and also the proportion betweene the Sacrament and the worde Marc. 1. I am the voice crying c. Ioh. 1. I baptise with water he which cōmeth after me shall baptise with the holie Ghost and with fire 1. Cor. 3. 7. Neither he that watereth nor hee that planteth is anie thing but God which giveth the encrease Therefore it holdeth alike also in the Sacraments which are the visible word 2 The second reason is this The things signified are not corporally IN WITH or VNDER the signes as hath beene shewed Therefore they are not handled or distributed by the hand of the Minister 3 The third reason proceedeth thus The things signified in the Supper are spirituall which coupled with their signes are offered in the promise of grace But the promise of grace is not handled with hands c. 4 The fourth reason is the testimonies of Fathers as Chrysost
Sermone de Euch. 〈…〉 Thinke not wheÌ„ yee come to these mysteries that yee receiue the Lordes body at the hands of a maÌ„ that is to say the Minister with many other such like places II. The second proposition The things signified I meane the body and bloude of the Lord are not received WITH IN and VNDER the bread and wine by the mouth of the body Reasons of the second proposition 1 The first is because they are not bodily present with in and vnder the signes as hath beene shewed quest â— propos 2. 2 The secoÌ„d iâ— because they passe into the belly which is the receptacle appointed for bodily meates 1. Cor. 6. 13. For all which entereth in at the mouth goeth downe into the belly Mat. 13. 3. The third is because the promise wherin the things are offered is not receiued by the mouth III The third proposition The thinges signified suppose The lordes bodie and bloud are receiued spritually by faith 1 The first reason is deriued from the conditioÌ„ of the whole kinde because in SacrameÌ„ts the things signified are receiued by faith by which alone as we are iustified so we receiue all the benefites of the new Testament 2 The second is because the promise of grace is not apprehended but by faith Nowe the communion of the body and bloud of Christ is the promise of grace See Vrsin Volum 1. Pag. 103. The argument of a certeine famous Disputant framed in defence of the eatinge Christs body with our mouth Ob. To whatsoeuer instrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth to the same the eating of the other ought to appertaine But the eating of one body that is the bread in the Lordes Supper appertaineth to the mouth Therefore the eating of the other which is Christs body appertaineth to the same Ans 1 The Maior is true in such meates as are naturally conioined of containe one the other of the which sort is a a Pye Now the bread and the body of Christ are not so ioined togither In these then it is false The Maior thus he proues Whosoeuer includeth in the same worde of eating both bread and wine the body blood of Christ affirmeth also that they are both receiued vvith the same instrument But Christ includeth both bread wine his body bloud in one the same worde of eating Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the same instrumeÌ„t of eating Ans 1. The proofe of the Maior faileth because an vniuersal affirmatiue should be concluded in Barbara 2 The Maior beggeth that which is in controversie and is denyed The falsenesse thereof appeareth Iohn the third where CHRIST includeth in the same worde of birth the spirit and the flesh and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the same manner or by the same instrument 3 The Minor also is false For this worde of eating is referred to the hollyed breade not to the bodie but by way of consequence For it properly pertaineth vnto that which the Lord tooke in his handes and brake which was bread and not his body This reason is vvorthy the marking for that according to the Papistes and such as simplie mainetaine Consubstantiation the bodie of CHRIST is not there before the wordes of consecration as they call them are pronounced but beginneth to bee there in the very last instante of the pronouncing of these wordes This is my bodie But according to the Vbiquitaries which are as it were chymicall consubstantiators it is there indeede as in any other breade but it is not yet edible vntill after consecration CHRIST then commaunded not to eate that with our mouth in the breade which as yet was not in the breade or as yet was not edible Then againe he proues the Maior of his former syllogisme A word having but one signification is to be taken but in one But eating both of the breade and of the body of Christ hath but one signification viz. with the mouth It is then to bee taken in one signification of both Ans 1. Heere againe faileth the proofe of the Maior being an vniversall affirmatiue which should haue bin concluded in Barbara 2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in coÌ„troversie The third question Vnto whom these things are offered and of whâ—â— they are receiued Heereunto is there made aunswere in tvvo Propositions both being affirmatiue 1. Proposition The things signified are receiued by the faithful aloÌ„e 1 Reason Because only they that beleeue receiue the promises by faith 2 Reason Because they alone that beleeue haue the spirit of Christ from the which his life-giuing fleshe cannot be separated 3 Reason Because in them onely that beleeue Christ remaineth and they in Christ Eph. 3 17. 4 Reason Because they alone that beleeue receiue and haue life Ioh 3 6. 2. Proposition The vngodly comming without faith receiue the signes without the things themselues Looke the reasons as they are set downe in the Church pag 58â— Looke the obiections for the eating of the vngodâ—y Ibid. pag. 5â—2 A BRIEFE EXPLICATION OF the whole controversie concerning the Lordes supper betweene the Consubstantials and the true beleevers The chiefe pointes of this explication 1 What errors the Consubstantials impute vnto vs. 2 The arguments of the Consubstantials against our doctrine of the supper 3 The shifts of the Consubstantials including some of our obiections 4 Arguments against the presence and corporall eating of the body of Christ IN WITH and VNDER bread 5 The arguments wherby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refelled and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed The errors which the Consubstantials falsly impute vnto vs with their refutation Ob. IN the doctrine of of the Lordes Supper there are say the Consubstantials two extreams to be avoided for both every vertue every truth standeth betweene two extremes The one is of the Papistes the other of the Sacramentaries and on each side it seemes to be fourfould The errors of the Papistes are 1 Transsubstantiation 2 The worshippe of bread 3. The sacrifice of the masse 4. A maiming of the sacrameÌ„t Ans They set downe indeede the errors of the Papistes but they cannot refute them because their opinion agreeth more with the opinion of the Papists then ours doth For first although they teach not Transubstantiation yet they teach Consubstantiation whereof there is nothing delivered in the word of God 2 Whereas they teach the bodilie presence of Christ it must needs be that they also worship Christ in the bread whom they suppose to bee bodily present in vnder with and to the bread which is a thing no lesse idolatrous then if they worshipped the bread For wheresoever Christ is whether in a visible or invisible manner there he is to be worshipped 3 They establish the sacrifice of the Masse because as it hath bin already said whilest they are bound to worship Christ in the bread they are enforced to aske of
God forgiuenes of their sinnes for that Christs sake whome they beare in their handes which is nought els but the Popish oblation of Christ 4 They of force admit the mangling or abridging one part of the Sacrament For they reteine the foundation on which the Papistes builde this errour For wheras they hold a corporal presence of Christ in with vnder or to the bread they must necessarilie either withholde the cuppe from the Communicantes because in their doctrine and opinion the bloud of CHRIST is in his body or else they must separate CHRISTES bloud from his body then which nothing can be more absurd Wee offend not as they charge vs in the defect but keepe the meane For wee teach the spirituall presence and participation that is to say that all the faithfull which eate and drinke the breade and wine are truelie made partakers of Christ himselfe and al his benefites and so made one with him that they become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones But ther as it hath beene already demonstrated offende as doe the Papists in the excesse Yea but say they these are the errours of the Sacramentaries to say that Obiect 1. The Sacraments are only bare signes and tokens Ans We teach no such doctrine but we teach that the Thinges signified are exhibited and received togither with the Signes although not corporallie yet in such manner as fitteth Sacraments Obiect 2. CHRIST is present onlie according to his working Ans Neyther is this our doctrine but we teach that Christ is present and vnited vnto vs by the holy Ghost howsoever his body be farre remooued and absent from vs in like sorte as he is wholy coÌ„uersant with vs by his ministery although it be otherwise in respect of his other nature Obiect 3. In the Sacrament is only an imaginarie figuratiue and spirituall bodie of CHRIST not an essentiall bodie Aunsw Touching the imaginarie bodie obiected wee neuer made mention thereof but our whole doctrine is concerning the true flesh of CHRIST vvhich is presente vvith vs yea though hee remaine still in heaven Father we say that we receiue the bread and the body but both in their proper manner Ob. 4. The true body of Christ which hung on the crosse and the true bloud which was shed for vs is distributed but spiritually that it is receiued of them only which are worthy CoÌ„municants and the vnworthy receiue nothing but the bare signes to their iudgement and condeÌ„â—ation Ans This obiection is indeed the very doctrine we preach and therfore we grant the whole as being consonant and agreeable with the word of God the nature of the Sacramentes the Analogie of faith and the communion of the faithfull with Christ II. The arguments whereby the Consubstantials labor to 〈◊〉 â—hrow our doctrine touching the Lords Supper togither with their Confutation and Answeres Arg. 1. The words of Christs institution are plaine evident THIS is my bodie THIS is my bloud Auns The words they cite are swords to cut their owne throats For they say that 〈◊〉 vnder or with the bread Christs bodie is reallie receiued whereas Christ saith that the bread it selfe is his bodie Therfore they do the Church a double wrong One in that they thrust on her their owne words insteed of Christs Another in that they think her so blind that shee caÌ„not see the diversity of these two sayings The bread is in the bodie and The bread is the body Moreover they make Christ a lier For they deny that the bread is his body and say that his body is in the bread Let them looke what answere they wil make vnto Christ in the last day of iudgment concerning this despightfull and reproachfull blasphemy The Papists themselues rather reteine Christs words then our Consubstantials For they teach that the bread is so the body of Christ that for sooth it is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ But these men keepe not the word but follow as they say the sence and meaning Wherefore wee must search diligeÌ„tly whether of vs â—s in the truth Our doctrine shall be proved in the end Repl. In the same place this expositioÌ„ is added which is given for you and which is shed for you Ans 1. Thuâ— to argue is to begge that which is in controversie For they take this as granted that the bread to properly tearmed the body which remaines yet to be proved Ans 2. We answere by retorting the argumeÌ„t thus That which we properlie call the bodie of Christ was given for vs But the bread was not giuen for vs. Ergo c. Auns 3. As the bread is the bodie broken so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body But the breaking of the bread is improperly and mysticallie the breaking of the bodie of Christ For the breaking of the body is the crucifying ther of Thâ—refore the bread brokeÌ„ is in a mystical sence the bodie broken Arg. 2. The second argument is drawne from the author Christ himselfe which is true Ans This argument takes that for a grouÌ„d which is in controuersie for they must proue that Christ said his body was in vnder or with the breade Nay one may speake figuratiuely yet plainely to Replie 1. He is omnipotent Ergo he can be everie where yea even in the bread Ans 1. Though he could make two contradictories at once true yet he will not 2. God cannot do thinges contradictorie because he is truth But to will thinges contradictorie is the part of a lier We do not therfore deny the truth and omnipotencie of God but their lyes nay we defeÌ„d it saying that God doth what he speaketh But they oppugne it by teachinge that in God are contrarie willes Repl. 2. Christes bodie hath manie prerogatiues wherby it differeth froÌ„ our bodies as namely that it was born of a virgin walked on the sea was at one time in the graue in bell and in paradise passed through dores shut Auns These examples are partly improper or vnlike partely false Vnlike 1 Because they may also be incident to treatures as walking on the water to Peter passinge through shut doores to spirites 2. Because they imploy a contradiction for when he is said to bee borne of a virgin he is not at the same time said not to bee borne of a Virgin But at once to be finite and infinite implieth acontradiction False 1 For he passed not through closed doores wheras they might yeeld and giue backe to him 2 For neyther did he passe through the dore of the sepulcher wheras that is said to haue ben opened by the Angell 3 For neyther was Christes body at one and the same instante in manie places which they seeme to haue taken from Augustin But he saide that his body was in the graue his soule in hel his Deity everie where Arg. 2. The third argument is taken from the circumstance of time thus No man Speaking seriously speaketh figuratiuely Christ appointing his
last Supper spake seriously Ergo he speake was figuratiuelie Ans 1. I deny the maior for els it would follow that no man speaking figuratiuely should speake seriously which is most false For God in al the sacraments though he speake figuratiuelie yet he speaketh seriouselie I haue earnestely desired saith Christ to eate this passeover with you I am the vine you are the branches Let this cup passe from me If it be thus in the greene wood what shal become of the 〈◊〉 He alleadged the 22 ps Al this though he speake figuratiuelie yet did he also speake theÌ„ seriously Ans 2. To the maior I answere that no man theÌ„ vseth resting or obscure sigures But this is a plaine figure because coÌ„mon his disciples speake this to him where wilt thou that we make ready the passeover for thee It is vsual in al sacrameÌ„ts It is forcible because it expresseth the likelihood between the signe and the thinge signified with the certainetie of their coniunction in lawfull vse Ans We may thus 〈◊〉 Because Christ spake seriously therefore he vsed a figure liuely expressing the thing Repl. Christ said his cup is the new Testament Now In testaments we vse to speâ—ke properly Christ here ordained a Sacrament Ergo c. Ans I deny the Maior retort it because wheÌ„ he would institute the Sacrament he spake figuratiuely calling his supper a testament which is to be vnderstood figuratiuely 1 Because otherwise there should be two covenants one proper the other the Lords supper 2 Because otherwise all should bee excluded from the covenaÌ„t of God which could not come to the Lords supper and al that received it should be in the covenant 2. Repl. IN MY BLOVD Therfore the reall bloud of Christ is in the supper is druÌ„ke by our mouth Auns We answere by retortioÌ„ because the new TestameÌ„t was made by the bloud of Christ that was shed vpoÌ„ the Crosse which iâ— applied vnto vs by faith not receiued through the mouth For els they should be excluded which cannot come to this Sacrament 3. Repl. There is an Emphasis in this worde Newe That which in the Olde Testament was done figuratiuely is in the Newe done really 1. Auns If they adde Christ body is eaten therfore with the boddy mouth there is more in their conclusion then is conteined in their Proposition because there was no figure in the old Testament which signified the bodily eating of Christ 2. Auns We answere againe thus by retortion The body of Christ is eaten no otherwise in the new Testament then in the Olde But in the Olde it was eaten only spiritually Therefore it is so eaten also in the Newe Repl. 3. The New testameÌ„t differeth from the Olde because in the Olde there are types and figures but in the Newe the body it selfe Heb. 9. Cor. 2. Ans 1. This difference of the Olde and New Testament That in the Olde Christ is not eaten bodily in the Newe he is no where expressed in the Scripture In these sayings of the Apostle which they cite A body signifieth that the shadowes of the Olde Testament are fulfilled by Christ because A body is there opposed to those shadowes Againe because he calleth it The body of Christ which phrase sheweth that these types are fulfiled by Christ Ans 2. Againe we answere by concession or grauÌ„t of as much as they conclude Although we haue Christ exhibited in the Newe Testament and he be borne man yet hence it therefore followeth not that his body is in the bread but only that it is in the Newe Testament Arg. 4. From the consent of the Evangelists end of Paule Matthew as Theophilact counteth wrote his 〈…〉 the 8. â—are after the ascension Marke in the 10 Luke the 15. Paule the 20. they al vse the san'â— wordes A speech often vttered in the same words is not figuratiue Such an one is that speech of the Lords Supper Therefore it is not figuratiue Ans 1. We deny the Maior because when any figure is cleere manifest Emphatical as this is it is reteined Ans 2. The EvaÌ„gelists do allso repeat the words of Christ which he spake figuratiuely That same though figuratiue is often repeated Thou shalt baptise with the holy Ghost with fire Ioh. 1. Mat. 3. Ans 3. Besides it is a fallacy from mis taking of the Cause because a speech is not therefore repeated because it is figuratiue or proper but that it may be the better rooted in the heartes Ans 4. Againe we deny the Mainor 1. Because Mathewe Marke say This is the bloud of the New Testament Luke saith This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my bloud 2. Mathewe Marke say This is my body Luke Paule adde which is deliuered for you 3. Luke saith which is deliuered for you Paule which is broken for you 4. Paule saith The bread is the communion of the body of Christ For although in this place he treateth not of purpose of the Supper yet he exhorteth thervnto Repl. 1. The meaning notwithstaÌ„ding is one the saÌ„â— Ans Wee seeke not now after the meaningâ— of the wordes but whether the wordes are the very selfe same Repl. 2. Ther is 〈◊〉 meÌ„tion at all made of any figure Where there is no mention made of any figure there is no figure Heere there is no mention made of any figure Therfore here is no figure Ans 1. We deny the Maior because that were fonde and men should seeme to boast of their skill if they should say they had vsed some excellent figure The scripture also speaketh often figuratiuely and yet it addeth not that it spake figuratiuely Auns 2. Wee deny the Maior because they make mention of a figure whilest they expounde it which is manifest by the nature of the Subiect Predicat The bodie was borne of the virgin was crucified c. Breade is made of meale Auns 3. He commaundeth that this should be done in remembrance of him therefore the bread is termed his body as a memoriall Auns 4. Mathewe Marke say This is the bloud of the New Testament Paule and Luke This is the Newe Testament in my bloud Nowe the Newe Testament is an obligation of God for the receiving into favour of such as beleeue and repent of them for the exhibiting of faith and obedience vnto him Auns 5. Paule saith that The bread is the communion of the body of Christ which is no bodily eating 1. The faithful are therby one body in Christ 2. He compares it with the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the altar in the olde TestameÌ„t which was not corporall 3. It can be attributed to the faithfull alone not to the vngodly 4 Iohn expoundeth this communion by remissioÌ„ of sinnes If we walke in the light we haue fellowshipe with him and the bloud of Iesus Christ the sonne of God cleâ—eth us from all sinne Repl. 3. Nay Paule vseth three wordes which are three demonstrations 1. COMMVNION Ans But this
hath not the spirit of Christ is none of his VI. For these causes therfore in the mediator Christ is the divine nature which is the secoÌ„d persoÌ„ of the deity is called the word the onely â—begotteÌ„ soÌ„ne of the eternal father one God with the father the holy Ghost coÌ„substaÌ„tial equal to the father in all things h. h. Ioh. 1. In the beginning was the word the word was with God the word was God Rom. 9. 5. Which is God aboue all to be praised for ever Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God c. Cor. 2. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the Godhead bodilie 1. Tim. 5. 16. God was manifested in the flesh Heb. 1. 8. But vnto the sonne he said thy seat ò God endureth for euer 1. Ioh. 5. 20. And we are in him that is true that is in his soÌ„ne Iesus Christ this same is verie God and eternall life VII There is also in him i an humane nature true whole coÌ„sisting of a soule a body formed by nature of the holy Ghost of the substaÌ„ce of the virgin Mary his mother froÌ„ the very instaÌ„te of coÌ„ceptioÌ„ perfectly saÌ„ctified together with the soule 1. Gen. 3. The seede of the woman Gen. 1â— The seed of Abraham Maâ— 1. the soÌ„ne of Abraham Dauid Rom. 1. Of the seed of David according to the flesh Luc. 1. The fruit of Maries wombe Heb. 2. Partaker of flesh bloud he tooke vnto him the seed of Abraham Mar. 26. My soule is heavie euen to the death VIII But this person of the Deitie alone which is called the word did so asâ—ume vnto it selfe the nature of maÌ„ that both these natures from the time of conception and after do inseparably remaine one person and the masse of the humane nature is carried and supported by the deitie k. k. Ioh. 1. The worde was made flesh Col. 2. In him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the Godhead corporally Heb. 2. He tooke vnto him the seed of AbrahaÌ„ Act. 20. God purchased vnto himselfe the church by his owne bloud IX Neither yet by this vnion is one nature chaÌ„ged into an other but both do still retaine their distinct properties whereby the creating nature is distinguished from the creature l. l. Rom. 1. He was made of the seede of David according to the flesh 1. Pet. 3. Mortified the flesh quickned in the spirit 1. Pet. 4. Hee tooke on him the shape of a slâ—ue X. Hence is it that names signifying the office of Christ are as well truely attributed to both natures severallie as to the whole person but the proprieties agreeing only to one nature cannot be truelie said of the other nature by it selfe but may well be attributed to the whole person by that forme of speech which they cal a communicating of proprieties m. m. Leo ad Flavian cap. 4. See Damasâ—en de fide orthodoxâ— lib. 3. cap. 4. XI Therefore all Christ is everie where although his humane nature since his ascension vntill the daâ—e of the last iudgment be no where but in heaven n. n. Math. 28. 6. He is risen he is not here Mat. 26. 11. Mee yâ—e haue not alwaies with you Ioh. 16. 28. I leaue the world go vnto my father Act. 3. 21. Whom the heavens must containe vntill the time of restoring of all thinges XII And the godlie in what place of heauen of earth so ever they abide are vnited to the humane nature assumed by the son of God as members to their head the same holy spirit dwelling in Christ by vnitie of essence with the word in the godlie by grace o. o. 1. Cor. 12. 13. By one spirit we are all baptised into one body Eph. 4. 4. There is one bodie and one spirit 1. Ioh. 4. 13. By this we know that we abide in him and hee in vs because he hath given vs of his spirit Rom. 8. 11. If the spirit of him who hath raised c dwell in you c. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 19. As of drie meale one lumpe cannot be made nor one bread so neither could we which are many be made one in Christ Iesus without that water which is from heaven A THANKES GIVING AFTER HIS DISPVTATION OVt of question there is no wise man which can chuse but thinke well and honorably of scholastical exercises if he vnderstand the weightie causes for which they are performed namely that the doctrine of God other things whose knowledg the life of man especially needeth may be publiquely taught vnfolded the consent of many good men in the truth may be shewed mainteined true opinioÌ„s may be illustrated confirmed in the minds of learners It is a worthy auncieÌ„t saying recited by Plato Neither gold not diamond so glistereth to the eie as the coÌ„sent betweene good men in opinioÌ„ But much more louely acceptable to the good and vertuous in the quiet conferences of good well meaning men is the vse of that thing wherof this is spoken For therefore doth God preserue schools churches because he would haue the doctrine of himselfe his will to be publiquelie professed And that it is most true that coÌ„ference hath brought forth artes sciences the examples of many men shew who are not destitute of witt but because they haue none to teach them besides themselues they are not only deceaued in many things but also sâ—eldom escape self-pleasing arrogancy other faults which follow neglect of conference For which causes their good intent deserueth coÌ„mendation which endeuour to encourage or grace these meetings with their discourse or presence or paines or authoritie or approbation First therefore wee giue thankes vnto the eternall God our father and his sonne our Lord Iesus Christ for preseruing maintaining schools and other places of entertainement releife and would haue the pure light of the Gospell to shine both in others also in this our societie cherishing and furthering it with the studies of the best arts Also I thanke our Honorable Chancellor other right worshipfull reverend men also the learned maisters and studious young men who haue partely by their advise instructed me partly by their presence graced my exercise declared their good wil towards it I beseech God that he would vouchsafe to encrease and continue vnto all and everie of vs those benefittes which hitherto he hath bestowed on vs to the aduancemeÌ„t of his glorie the saluation of vs and many others besides through IESVS CHRIST our Lord. Amen A THANKS GIVINGE AFTER HIS DEGREE TAKEN THe greatest benefits that God hath bestowed and such as are farre to be prefered before all others of this life are these that he gathereth and reserueth to himselfe an euerlasting Church makinge vs citizens thereof that hee giueth peace to small states vvhich are retiringe and restinge places of the Church that hee hath placed ouer
bee preached even to the vnbeleeuing Christ forbiddeth vs to cast peaâ—les to swine and dogges Therfore the wicked must not be admitted to the hearing of the word preached Ans To the antecedent by dogs and swine are not meant simplie he wicked but such enemies as mecke persecute the doctrine barking and impugning it like dogs and treading it vnder foote like swine Against such this argument were of force XXIV OF BAPTISME 1. Baptisme is a sacrament of the new testameÌ„t whereby Christ witnesseth to the faithfull being baptized with water in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy Ghost that all their sinnes are forgiuen them the holy Ghost giuen vnto them and themselues ingrassed into the church and bodie of Christ and they againe professe that they receaue these benefittes of God therfore euer after will and must liue to him and serue him And this same baptisme was begun by Iohn Baptist and continued by the Apostles this only was the differeÌ„ce that he baptised men into Christ which should suffer and rize againe but these into Christ which had suffered was rizeÌ„ 2. The first end of Gods institutioÌ„ of baptisme is that God herby might signifie witnesse that by the bloud and spirit of Christlâ—â—â— doth clense those that are baptized from their sinnes and engraffeth them into the bodie of Christ and maketh them partakers of all his benefits 3. The second is that baptisme may be a soleÌ„ne receauinge or enroulinge of men into the visible church of Christ and a distinction therof from al other sectes 4. The third that it may be a publique soleÌ„ne profession of our faith in Christ of bindinge our selues to faith in him obedieÌ„ce towards him 5. The fourth that it may be an admonition of our plunging into afflictions and our risinge and deliuerance out of them 6. Baptisme hath by Gods commandement the promise of grace a certaine power to seale and witnes annexed by Christ vnto these rites rightlie vsed For Christ by the hand of his ministers baptâ—zeth vs as by their mouth he speaketh to vs. 7. There is therfore in baptisme a 2 fold water one external visible earthly which is the elemeÌ„tary water the other internal uisible heaueÌ„ly which is the bloud spirit of Christ there is also a twofold washing the on external visible signifying naÌ„ely the sprinckling or powring on of water which is corporal that is receaued by our bodily parts 〈◊〉 the other internal invisible signified namely remissioÌ„ of our sins by Christs bloud shed for vs our regeneration by his spirit our beiâ—◠〈◊〉 grafted into his body which is spirituall that is is received in spirit by faith Lastly there is a two fold minister of baptisme one external of external baptisme which is the minister of the church baptising vs in water with his hand the other internall of internal baptisme which is Christ himself baptising vs with his bloud and spirit 8 Neither is the water turned into the bloud or spirit of Christ neither is the bloud of Christ present in the water or in the same place with the water neither are the bodies of such as are baptized sprinkled invisibly therewithal neither is the holy Ghost in substance or vertue more in this water then elsewhere but in the lawful vse of baptisme he worketh in their heartes which are baptised and spiritually doth wash and sprinkle them with the bloud of Christ and vseth this external signe as an instrumeÌ„t as a visible word promise to vphold stir vp the faith of such as are baptised 9 Therfore when baptisme is said to be the washing of regeneration or to saue vs or to wash away our sins it is meant that externall baptisme is a signe of the internall baptisme that is of regeneration salvation and spirituall washing that this internall washing is ioined with the external whensoever baptisme is lawfully vsed 10 Yet is sinne an baptisme so abolished that we are freed from the guilte of GODS anger and eternall punishment and regeneration is begunne in vs by the holy Ghost the reliques of sin remaine in vs to the end of this life 11 But all and only the renued or the regenerate baptised to those endes for which baptisme was instituted by Christ do lawfully receiue baptisme 12 The church lawfully ministreth baptisme to all and onelie those whom it ought to recken in the number of such as be renued and members of Christ 13 Whereas also infants of Christians are of the church whereinto Christ would haue al that pertaine to him bee receiued and registred by baptisme and therefore baptisme is now in steede of circumcision whereby iustification and regeneration and receiving into the church were sealed by for Christ as yet to come as in baptisme by and for the same Christ already come as well to infantes as to those of riper yeares pertaining to the seed of Abraham and whereas no man can forbidde water that they should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost clensing purifying their heartes truely those infantes must needs bee baptised which either are borne in the church or together with their parents come over to the church 14 As the promise of the gospell so baptisme also receiued vnworthily that is before conversion is firme and procureth salvation to such as repent and the vse thereof before vnlawful is now made vnto them lawfull 15 Neither doth the wickednes of the Minister make the baptisme vaine of no force if it bee done into the faith and promise of Christ therfore the church ought not to rebaptise eveÌ„ those that haue bin baptised by heretiks but to informe them in the true doctrine of Christ and baptisme 16 And as the covenant once begun with God remaineth perpetually stedfast to such as repent even after their sinnes from that time committed so also baptisme once receaved confirmeth those that repent in remission of sinnes for all their life and therefore ought neither to be â—terated nor deferred to the end of life as if on that condition onlie it did clense vs from our sinnes if we coÌ„mitted no more after we were once baptized 17 But all that are baptised with water vvhether infantes or aged are not made partakers of the grace of Christ For Gods eternal election and calling to the kingdome of Christ is free 18 Neither are all excluded from the grace of Christ which are not baptised vvith water For not the want but conteÌ„pt of baptisme excludeth from the convenant made by God with the faithful and their children 19 And whereas the administration of Sacraments is a part of the ecclesiastical ministery they which are not called thervnto and especially women must not presume to take vnto themselues authoritie of baptising OF THE LORDS SVPPER Disputed in the Coll. of Wisdome the 2. of May Ann. 1575. 1 ONe of the Sacramentes of the new testameÌ„t