man much extolled by the aduersaries THE FIRST CHAPITER BEFORE I come to examine the particular points of error false doctrine contayned in these sermons I thinke it convenient first in a chapter or two to declare the true Catholike faith concerning this sacrament as it hath alwaies bene receaued and acknowledged in the church of Christ and withal historically to note when an in what sort the Zuinglian heresie that I 〈…〉 which at this present beaâ—eth greatest sway among the Protestants of England Scotland for the Protestant coÌ„gregations preachers of Germanie from the beginning of this schisme in Martin Luthers time vntil this present day condemne it for heresie no lesse then do the Catholiks at some tymes endeuored to put forth it self but hath evermore bene repressed by the pastors of Christs church vntil this present age wherein faith decayng Christian beleefe being in many men for many points measured by carnal reason vpon such ground ether of prophane infidelitie or great decrease of faith the true beleef of this sacrament hath amongst many other necessarie articles fayled in the harts of a number ¶ Our sauiour Christ therefore when at the tyme of his passion he was to finish consummate the worke for which he was incarnate that is to redeeme mankynd abrogate the old law begin the new into this to transfer the sacrifices and priesthod of that former as the Apostle Paule teacheth vs in his last supper for a perpetual memorie of that high and infinite sacrifice offered on the crosse which was the persite absolute redemptioÌ„ and consummation of al the ful price and raunsom for al sinnes done or to be done from the first creation of the world vntil the last ending of the same to continue I say a perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice to ordeine the true vvorship of god in the nevv lavv or testament which worship in euerie law consisteth principally of sacrifice to leaue his people a peculier meane whereby that infinite vertue grace procured by the sacrifice on the crosse might be in particular diuided applied to them in his last supper instituted this sacrifice sacrament of the altar as comonly among Catholique Christians it is called the sacrifice sacrament of his owne most pretious body blud a sacrifice for that it is offered to the honor of god for the benefite of christian people in coÌ„memoration of Christ his sacrifice once done and now past as al the old sacrifices of the law of nature Moses were offered for the benefite of that people in prefiguration of the same sacrifice of Christ then to come a sacrament for that it was also ordeyned to be receiued of Christians in particular to feed our bodies to resurrection immortalitie to geue grace vertue sanctification to oursewles This to be the true sense meaning of our Sauiour in this institution and that principally especially concerning the sacrifice for the sacrament is more euident confessed by the more learned of our aduersaries it shal be proued plainly hereafter is sufficiently expressed in the wordes of our Sauiour vvhich according to the recital of al the Evangelists S. Paul yeld plainly this sense For when Christ nameth his body broken or geuen for vs which is al one as if he termed it sacrificed for vs his blud of the new testament shed there in the supper mystically for vs for remission of synnes these words as truly import a sacrifice as any words which the holie scripture vseth to expresse the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse especially those words of S. Paul Corpus quod frangitur the body which is broken most properly directly are to be referred to the body of Christ as in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread in which it novv is then was truly brokeÌ„ so it was not on the crosse as S. IhoÌ„ specially recordeth VVhe â—of S. Chrysostom writeth very liuinelâ— expounding this same word Hoc in Eucharistia vi lere liceâ— in cruce autem minime c. This we see done in the sacrament but not on the crosse For there ye shal not breake anâ— bone of him saith the Euangelist Iohn â—â— But that which on the crosse he suffered not that he suffereth in the sacrifice for thy sake o man is content to be broken And so this word being by S. Paâ—le incuitably verified of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t draweth by like necessitie al the rest both touching the body and blud therevnto although al the rest are also most truly spokeÌ„ of the same body of Christ as geuen for vs on the crosse which no ways impayreth but rather much streÌ„gtheneth the veritie real presence of the same body in the sacrament VVhich sense is yet more clearly necessarely confirmed if we coÌ„ferre these words of Christ vsed in delyuering the chalice of the new law with the vvords of Moses vsed in sprinkling the blud of gotes calues which was appointed by gods ordinance to ratifie establish the covenant betwene god and his people the synagoge of the Iewes in the old lavv For as then Moses gathering that blud in to some standing peece or cup sprinkled the people therevvith saying This is the blud of this old testament which god hath made with you euen to our Saâ—iour ordayning this new testament most euidently making relation to those former vvords of Moses and transferring them to his new ordinance vvhen he deliuered the chalice to his Apostles in them to the vniuersal Catholike church said This is the blud of the new testament as that vvas of the old this here conteyned in the chalice is the selfe same which is to be shed for yow as that was sprinkled vpon the Iewes VVhere S. Luke referring these later vvords shed for yow to that vvhich vvas conteyned in the chalice meâ—utably convinceth that vvhich was in the chalice to haue bene the very real blud of Christ as truly as that vvas his real blud which the next day vvas shed on the crosse as truly as that was real blud with vvhich the people vvere sprinkled in the old testameÌ„t in steed of vvhich blud this is succeded the truth in place of the figure as witnesseth S. Leo S. Austin S. Chrysostom other most auncient fathers All vvhich proue not only the real presence of Christs most pretious body blud but also that it is present by way of a sacrifice as in order to be sacrificed ¶ My intent is not to make any long discourses of this matter vvhich hath bene so learnedly treated dy diuers excellent men of our Iland within our memorie that I gladly confesse my selfe vnable to adde any thing to their labours Yet because this point of Christs testament is the ground of al and for denying the real presence of Christs blud in the sacrameÌ„t the Lutheran Protestants theÌ„ selues charge the
Caluinists with quit disanulling making voyd the testament of our Sauiour I thinke it good to make some more stay herein better examine the circumstance of this testament yet as nigh as I can euâ—ing no new questions but resting on such certayn verities as are confessed by the aduersaries them selues cleare by plaine scripture out of vvhich I meane to deduce such reasons as may iustifie our catholike cause disproue the contrary VVolf Musculus in his common places entreating hereof writeth thus S. Luke S. Paule attribute to the cuppe that it is the new testament VVhereby they signifie this to be the sacrament of the new testament in respect of the old the Paschal sacrament which Christ finished in this his last supper in place thereof substituted this new In the same supper being then nigh to his death he made his testament Thus Musculê° In vvhich fevv vvords he noteth tvvo things very important concerning the truth whereof I here entreate both deliuered in the scriptures both vrged by the Catholikes both coÌ„fessed not onely by the Lutherans but also by the SacrameÌ„taries as here we see The first that Christ in his last supper made his new testameÌ„t the second that Christ in the same his last supper ended the sacrameÌ„t of the Paschal lamb ordeyned in place therof the sacrament of his body Concerning the fâ—â—â—t vvhat a Testament is how Christ made his the same vvriter expresseth truly in this sort A testament is the last wil of one that is to dye wherein he bestoweth his goods freely geueth to whom he pleaseth To the making of a testameÌ„t that it be auayleable is required first the free libertie power of the testator that he be as his owne commaundement For a slaue a seruant a sonne vnder the power regiment of an other can not make a testament So Christ when he made his testament was free had power libertie to do it God his father gaue al in to his hands made him heyre of al in heauen earth God his father willed him to make a testament sent him in to the world to that end that by his death he should confirme this new testament which he had promised Next it is required in a testament that the testator bequeath his owne goods not other mens so did Christ 3. A thing can not be geuen in a testameÌ„t which is due of right So that which Christ gaue in his testament was geuen only of grace fauour 4. In a testameÌ„t it is required that certain executors of the testament be assigned Those Christ made his Apostles to whom he coÌ„mitted that office that they by evangelizing should ministerially dispense the grace of this testament 5. Finally to the confirmation ratification of a testament is required the death of the testator So Christ the next day after this testament was made died on the crosse there by his death blud ratified confirmed eternally established it Thus far Musculê° adding withal Christ saith this cup is the new testament in my blud or according to Matthew Marc this is my blud which is of the new testament The old testament consisted in the tropical figuratiue blud of beasts the truth whereof was to be fulfilled in the blud of Christ. The new testament consisted not in the blud of any beast but of Christ the true immaculate lamb For declaration whereof he said This cup is the new testament in my blud or This cup is my blud which is of the new testament Thus much being manifest confessed and graunted it must also be graunted of necessitie that this blud was delyuered in the supper not only shed on the crosse as Musculus the Zuinglians suppose First because our Sauiour Christ according to the report of al the Euangelists in precise termes so avoucheth This in the cup or chalice is my blud of the new testament Secondly because to the making of the new testament fulfilling the figure of the old true real blud of the sacrifice was required as appeareth in the figure which here the aduersaries coÌ„fesse to haue bene fulfilled For in that figure first of al was the sacrifice offered the blud thereof taken in the cuppes then the people sprinkled with the blud of the sacrifice these words vsed This is the blud of the testament c. Nether is it possible that the blud of the sacrifice should be deliuered or taken or any waies imployed by man or to man before the sacrifice were offered to god Therefore whereas Christ assureth this to be the blud of the new testament as that was of the old it is as certain sure that the sacrifice whereof this was the blud was before offered as vve are sure of the same in the old testameÌ„t Briefly vvhereas in that figuratiue sacrifice whereof this is the accomplishmeÌ„t perfect on 3. things are specified by the holy ghost 1. the publication of the law or testament to the people 2. the offering of the sacrifice whereof the blud vvas taken 3. the eating of the sacrifice sprinkling of the people vvith the blud and vsing of those words This is the blud of the testament vvhereas for exact correspondence of the first Christ at his last supper publisheth his lavv and testament A new commaundement geue I to yow that yow loue one an other as I haue loued yow promiseth the holy ghost to remayne vvith them and his church for euer iterateth that commaundement of mutual loue charitie as the summe of his new law perfection thereof which was to be wrought in the hartes of his ChristiaÌ„s by the holy ghost then promised vvho also vvas euer to assist them to teach them to leade them the vvhole Church for euer in to al truth so fuâ—th vvhereas thus in 5. vvhole chapiters having expressed his new wil testament such graces as apperteyne therevnto he in fine for correspondence of the third biddeth the executors of his testament to eate his body and drinke his blud vvith those same so pregnant so vrgent vvords This is my body which is and shal be deliuered for you This is my blud of the new testament which is and shal be shed for yow hovv can it othervvise be chosen but for ansvvering of the second part as that body and blud of beastes there vvas first offered to god in sacrifice so this body and blud here must be offered in like sort to fulfill and accomplish that figure So that it suffiseth not to say the blud of Christ vvas shed on the crosse vvhere he dyed though that also vvere necessarie for the confirmation and ratification of the testament as vve also graunt and common reason teacheth and the Apostle proueth for testamentum in mortuis confirmatur a testament taketh his absolute and ful perfection strength and
ratification by the death of the testator but vve say further that to make and perfite the testament as it vvas at the last supper blud also vvas by gods order requisite that blud to be first offered to god in sacrifice vvithout vvhich oblation first made to god it could not be receiued of men and the conference of Christs actions vvith those of Moses manifestly conuinceth the same as shal better appeare in the next paragraph For the present the only authoritie of Gregorious Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great may serue vvho vvriteth very plainly that our Sauiour after a secret and most diuine maner of sacrifice preuented the iudgement and violence of the Iewes and offered him selfe for vs being at one tyme the priest and the lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world And when was this done then when he gaue his body to be eaten and blud to be drunken of his frends the Apostles For a man could not eate the lamb except the immolation went before Quum igitur discipulis suis dedit corpus ad comedendum aperte demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam esse agni immolationem Christ therefore who gaue to his Disciples his body to be eaten euidently declareth that the oblation or immolation of that lamb was now past and performed Now already therefore by his almightie power was that body inuisibly and in wonderfull maner sacrificed The selfe same but more briefly therefore not so plainly vvriteth Hesichius bishop of Hierusalem Christ preuenting the sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse in violent maner sacrificed him selfe in the supper of his Apostles which thing they know who vnderstand the vertue of these mysteries ¶ To this argument the other mysterie of the paschal lambe which Christ also finished in his last supper substituting or placing this sacrament of his body and blud in steed thereof as Musculus truly auoucheth yeldeth great force For plainer declaration vvhereof vve likevvise wil accept that vvhich our aduersaries enforced by manifest scripture graunt thereof dravv a truer conclusion then they do This figure thus the same author expoundeth Christ saith this bread is my body the body of the true lamb which ere long shal be offered in sacrifice This cuppe or to speake more plainly as Th. Beza also teacheth vs that which is coÌ„teyned in this cuppe is not the old but the new testament in my blud the true lamb whose blud shal be shed for yow Therefore as this figuratiue lamb hath bene hitherto accompted the paschal sacrament of the old testament so this bread and cup shal hence forward be accompted in the new testament for the sacrament of my body sacrificed and my blud shed This I take to be the meaning of Christ in these words that as Moses the mediator of the old testament Exod. 12. toke order about that paschal lamb instituted of it a solemne yerely memorial before it was sacrificed that by the blud thereof â—e might turne away the Angel which killed al the first borne and so he appointed that for a sacrament of the old testament in like maner Christ meaning now to make an end of the old testament and to begin the new ordeyned this sacrament of the new true paschal I meane of his owne body and blud before he was to be offered on the crosse for the redemption of mankynd Againe in the same place Christ in his supper endeth the old testament and sacraments thereof by the succession of the new testament There he saith This is the new testament in my blud and so doth substitute the new testament in place of the old and withall ordeyneth a sacrament consisting of two parts which should correspond to the sacrament of the old Pasch which also consisted of two parts In that figuratiue Pasch was sacramental meate drinke so is it here etc. Briefly for I wil not stand vpon euerie his particular circumstance his conclusion is that the plaine text and order vsed by Christ declareth sufficiently that Christs mystical supper succeded in place of the old pasch which was a sacrament of the old law So here we see accorded that the plaine teâ—t of scripture and Christs owne doing proue the paschal lamb to haue bene a prefiguration of this sacrament instituted by Christ at his last supper vvhich as before is confessed was ordeyned by Christ to succede in place of that paschal lamb And this to be so appeareth by euery circumstance of Christs action compared vvith that auncient ceremonie That lambe vvas by God appointed to be sacrificed precisely the 14. day of the first moneth in the euening Christ in the same day and the same time of the day precisely instituted this sacrament That lamb was offered in memorie of our lords passe-ouer and deliuerie of the Iewes out of their Aegiptiacal bondage The Eucharist is offered in memorie of Christs passe-ouer vvhen by his passion he passed out of this world to his father also in memorie of our deliuerance from the power and bondage of Satan which benefite is procured vs by Christs death That lamb was first offered as a sacrifice then eaten as a sacrament as the viage-prouision for pilgremes and trauailers for which cause they who did eate it were then attired like trauailers with their loynes girded shoes on their feete staues in their hands as men being in their iourney tovvards Iewrie their land of promise So this to omitte the sacrifice first due to god is imparted to Christians as their proper viage prouision their viaticum by which they are strengthened comforted in this vale of miserie and peregrination wherein they trauaile towards heauen their eternal country and promised land That lamb could not be lavvfully eaten but in Hierusalem only the place which god had appointed peculiarly for his name to dwel in nor this but in the Catholike church with out vvhich who so euer eateth it he is prophane he is in the high way of damnation as saith S. Hierom. S. Augustin That was appropriated to those only that were Hebrewes circumcided and cleane so this to only Christians baptised of pure life and conscience for vvhich cause S. Paule willeth euery one to proue and tâ—ie him selfe before he presume to this table Finally as Moses coÌ„maunded the Israelites to keep the memorie thereof for euer so Christ vvilled his Christians to do this in memorie of his passioÌ„ death for euer vntil his second aduent VVhere as this then so exact a prefiguration of the Christian Eucharist and which was ended and fulfilled in our Eucharist before it was eaten was by Gods ordinance commaunded to be offered to him in sacrifice how can it be denyed but that the Eucharist was also sacrificed before it was eaten How was the figure fulfilled if the principal part and ceremonie most touching the honour of God were omitted And how is it credible that
I vvil take as sure certainâ— vz. that Christ not only gaue thankes to his father but also blessed sanctified and consecrated the bread because vve are taught so to beleeue both by the plain vvords of the Evangelists by S. Paule by consent of al fathers oâ— al auncient I â—â—uâ—gies or soâ—mes of Masse in al churches of Christendome vvhereof some example shal be geuen hereafter also by vâ—â—â—â—t of M. Ievvel Caluin Eâ—â— a vvho so effectually by innumerable places of cripture pâ—oue it and refel Musculus and consequently M. B. in thâ—â— point vvâ—o against al scripture wil haue blessing of these elements to be al one vvith geuing thanks to God VVherefore according to this most sufficient authoritie as Musculus truly telleth vs that Christ at tvvo seueral times first ouer the bread next ouer the cup gaue thanks to God so must vve also assure our selues the scripture these Protestans leading vs therevnto that Christ at tvvo seueral times blessed sanctified and consecrated those 2. seueral elements of bread and vvine vvhich he tooke in his hands Concerning the breaking and deliverie of the bread Musculus vvords are Christ brake it with his owne hands gaue it to his disciples He gaue not the bread whole to them which they afterwards should breake but him self brake it He gaue it not them to distribute but him self did distribute it willed them to take and eate it He deliuered with his owne hands this sacrament of grace signifying withal that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except himself gaue it by the vertue of his spirite Of which point I warne the reader not without cause Thus much saith Musculus concerning the external fact doing of Chrisi so far furth as agreeth to the institutioÌ„ of the mystical Supper After al vvhich finally for declaration that they might vnderstand vvhat he meant by the premisses he addeth This is my body which is geuen and broken for yow Do this in commemoration of me Again This cup is the new Testament in my blud which is shed for yow and for many to remission of sinnes Do this so oft as ye shal drinke it in commemoration of me This is the summe of that which Christ did vvhich he spake about the sacrament vvhich as the same author vvitnesseth Christ first of al did in the eyes of his disciples both that they afterwards should do the same them selues and also deliuer the same order to his church ¶ And this being agreed vpon according to the manifest storie of the Gospel exposition of the purest Protestants that Christ thus did as hath bene novv in particular described and thus spake item that thus he did spake as things apperteyning to the Sacrament and which he would not haue omitted by his Apostles disciples and aftercomeâ—â— to returne to M. B vvho affirmeth al the actionâ— and speeches which Christ did and vttered to be so essential to the Supper that if any one yea any iote be omitted the whole Supper is marred and peruerted let vs conserre these doings of Christ vvith the Scottish Supper ministred after their order vvhich is this Commonly once in a moneth the minister vvhen the supper is to be ministred first of al out of the pulpit reherseth briefly to the people a peece of the 11. chapiter of S. Paule touching the Institution of this sacrament Afterwards he maketh some Sermon against ether the Pope and Catholike religion vvhich is their common argument or in praise of their owne which is more seldom or as seemeth good to the minister The Sermon or exhortation ended the minister cometh downe from the pulpit and sitteth at the table now beginneth the communion euery man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serueth Then he taketh bread and geueth thanks ether in these words folowing or like in effect The thankes-geuing set downe for a paterne for al ministers to folow as in sevv vvords it rendereth thanks to God for his benefites of creation sanctification and redemptioÌ„ by Christ as is ordinarie in many good prayers so it maketh no mention of the Supper or any thing vvhich Christ spake or did therein saue that in one place they mention a table and remembrance of Christs death in these vvords Although we be sinners neuertheles at the commaundemeÌ„t of Iesus Christ our lord we present our selues to this his table which he hath left to be vsed in remembrance of his death vntil his coming again to declare and witnesse before the world that by him alone we haue receiued libertie and life c. and that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom to eate and drinke at his table with whom we haue our conuersation presently in heauen This is al that approcheth any thing nigh to the vvords and Institution of Christ Immediatly after this thankes-geuing the ministâ—r breaketh the bread and deliuereth iâ— to the poeple who distribute and diuide the same amonge them selues according to our Sauiour Christ commaundement Likewise he geueth the â—â—p Here is the entier forme and essence of the Scottish communion For that during the time of eating and drinking some place of the scripture concerning Christs death is read this is a sequele and fashion folowing after and not included in the nature substance of the communion vvhich al goeth before Let vs novv seuerally confer Christs supper vvith this communion and consider how many the same most substantial and essential points after their ovvne graunt vsed there are wanting here Christ first of al tooke bread in to his hands and afterwards gaue thanks and blessed vvhich albeit it may seeme vsual and ordinarie yet saith Musculus it is not so and the very vvords of scripture shevve that it apperteyned to the order and institution of a sacrament Here the minister cleane contrariwise inuerting the order of Christ first geueth at large a thanks after taketh the bread the vvhich vvithout any thanks or any vvord at al he deliuereth to the people Secondarily Christ made a special and seueral thankes-giuing blessing and sanctification or consecration first of the bread and next of the cup and this also he did as a thing perteyning to the verie order and institution of his sacrament Here is no such matter but a confuse thankes-geuing vvithout relation to ether and vvhich conteyneth a blessing sanctification or consecration of nether Christ did not only breake the bread once and afterwards bid them breake and distribute it amonge them selues but him selfe brake and distributed and deliuered it to them ech one with his owne hand signifying thereby that it was not possible for them to haue any participation of grace except he gaue it them by the vertue of his spirite Of vvhich point Musculus geueth the reader a special warning and prouiso Here the minister loth belike to take so much paynes
only such as be of naughtie life but also of evil and heretical faith if they be not plain Apostataes Of the Calvinists special iustifying faith by which last refuge as al Catholikes be excluded from their spiritual communicatioÌ„ of Christ so yet other most detestable heretikes thereby receiue Christ as wel as the Calvinists And their doctrine of special faith the very roote of dissolute life plainely directly concludeth against M. B. that in their supper the worst Calvinists receiue Christ as wel as the best CHAP. 15. THe next matter not handled before is a couple of arguments vvhich M. B. obiecteth as in the behalf of Catholikes for the real presence The first is this The Apostle saith He that eates of this bread vnworthely is guiltie of the body and blud of Christ There iâ— their ground VVhereof they frame this argument No man can be guiltie of that thing which be â—â—â— not received Evil men receiue not the body of Christ Therefore they can not be guiltie of it This is the argument as he maketh it His answere to this as likewise to the next is out of Calvin thus First I say the first proposition is very false For they may be guiltie of that same body and that same blud suppose they never received it But take heed to the text The text saith not that hey eate the body of Christ but that they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely And yet because they eate that bread drinke that wine vnworthely they are counted before God guiltie of the body and blud of Christ not because they received him for Christ can not be received of any man bâ—â— worthely but because they refused him For when they did eate that bread and drinke that wine they might if they â—ad had faith eaten and drunken the flesh and blud of Christ Nâ—â— because thow refusest the body of Christ offered vnto thee thâ—â— contemnes it and so art guiltie of it In this answere whereas M. B. wisheth the reader or hearer to take heede to the text so do I to so shal he find M. B. to be as right a minister that is to say as right a falsifyer of the text as are coÌ„monly his felow ministers For where findeth he in the text except it be a false corrupted text that such men eate that bread and drinke that wine vnvvorthely Certainely not in any text of S. Paule For thus stand the words even as I find them translated by Beza and Calvin Therefore who so ever shal eate of this bread and drinke of this cup vnworthely shal be guiltie of the Lords body and blud But let every one proue him selfe and so eate of that bread and drinke of that cup. For who so eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh damnation to him self for that he discerneth not the Lords body These are the words of the Apostle and thus are they translated by Calvin Beza And novv take as good heed as yow can to the text VVhere find ye that evil men eate bread drinke wine VVhat godles dealing is this to wil your auditour to take heed to the text then your self to abuse the holy scripture to corrupt the text coosen your auditor or reader most vvhen most yow pretend honestie simplicitie vvil him to take heed to the text And let not the reader suppose that the corruption is smale or of no great moment For it is vile grosse and in this place so heretical that he had bene as good to have made a text of his owne as to have made the Apostle thus to speake For the Apostles vvords are divinely exactly set downe and Apostolically expresse the real presence For in naming this bread in vrging and repeating that bread vvhich in greeke is significantly put and declareth a singular bread he meaneth that bread of God which came from heaven that bread which geueth life that body vvhich in the old testament sometimes and in the Gospels oft times in one chapter of S. Iohn a dosoÌ„ times at lest is called bread vvhich bread our saviour him self assureth vs to be his flesh which was to be geven for the life and salvation of the world In naming the cup or that cup vvhich is Christs owne vvord and vvhich vvord being common to any thing conteyned in the cup be it the blud of the new testament which was shed for vs be it wine be it water be it ale or beer or any maner drinke to al vvhich the vvord cup may vvel agree our saviour restreyneth to the blud of the new testament shed for remission of sinnes and so restreyneth that it can not be referred to wine or any other thing S. Paule most assuredly meaneth the same and so in the one and other truly describeth the Catholike faith of the church Against vvhich M. B. telling vs that the Apostle saith such evil men eate that bread and drinke that wine most vvickedly by thrusting in his wine redueeth the vvord bread to a vulgar base signification because talking of bread and wine no man can conceive othervvise vvhereas the vvord bread being in scripture common to al foode vvhereby man liveth and the vvord cuppe being in his kind as large and general doth not signifie nether that our vulgar kind of bread nor this wine more then it signifieth flesh and ale or fish and vvater and being o 〈…〉 self indifferent other places of the scripture necessarily determine it to one certain more high and divine signification as hath bene declared Now vvhereas M. B. maketh a discourse that a man may be guiltie of a thing vvhich he receiveth not which no vvise man doubteth of and so a man may be guilty of Christs body and blud vvhich yet is not eaten oâ— drunken ether corporally or spiritually vvhich is a plaine case for Pagans and persecutors are guilty of Christian blud vvhich vniustly they shed though yeâ— they drinke it not and Pilate Herode Caiphas and the Ievves vvhich crucified Christ vvere guiltie of his death of â—ath body vvhich they eate nether vvay nether as Catholiks nor as Protestants al this is labour spent in vaine and talke to no purpose VVe argue not vpon vvords of condemnation or guiltines in general but vpon the vvords as they are put in the Apostle and ioyned vvith other vvords of his so they clearly prove a real presence and M. B. his interpretation is maledicta glâ—ssa a cursed glose and exposition because it is cleane not besides but against the text For saith M. B. the fault of these men vvhom S. Paule reproveth is because they eate not that divine bread nor drinke that diuine cup S. Paule saith their fault is because they do eate it and drinke it M. B. putteth the indignitie and vnworthines in refusing not receiving it S. Paule in receiving it not refusing For they do receiue eate it but
as these men forsooth haue taken it euen at Christs owne hands and that is that 3. or 4. of the bretherne go together take bread blesse it and geue it one to an other without vsing any farther ceremonie or words of Christ or consecration But here arise 3. or 4. great difficulties One whether there must necessarily be other meate and prouision besides the bread of the Eucharist as was at this supper whence these men take the paterne of their coÌ„munion A second how it wil stand with the sinceritie of their gospel to blesse the bread which blessing they so generally detest the English and Scottish coÌ„munion bookes refuse a late English Doctor in a large treatise hath condemned as superstitious wicked magical which words truly must needs proceede from a very prophane and Paganical hart mouth considering that Christ our Sauiour him self vsed it as here these martyrs tel vs. Thirdly which perhaps is greatest of al how they can frame their coÌ„munion by this paterne where is no mention of drinke And very probable coniecture there is that Christ vsed none for that as here the storie is rehearsed after Christ had deliuered them the bread their eyes were opened Christ forthwith vanished out of their sight And ioyne for a fourth that if the breaking of this bread were but breaking of common bread as our M. Iewel wil haue it an act of hospitalitie then foloweth it that the paterne whereby they frame out their communion teacheth them a coÌ„munion of such common bread as is vsed at euerie hosterie at euerie Inne and ale-house therefore they can not with reason blame Catholikes if they make no more esteeme of it But how soeuer this â—al out M. Fox with his Martyrs proceedeth oh wil needs proue that as Christ in the place before noted so his Apostles had no other communion nor ministred it in any otherwise For it foloweth Here also it seemeth to me the Apostles to folow their maister Christ to take the right vse of the Sacrament also to teach it to those that were converted to Christ as mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles where it is said They continued in the Apostles doctrine felowship in breaking of bread and prayer they did breake bread in euerie howse c. By al which he laboreth to perswade that the Institution of Christ as it is described by the Euangelists Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. should quit be remoued from the administration of the supper and only bread broken by the minister VVhich if he do and withal tel pronounce to the coÌ„municants the Lords death he maketh vnto them a persite and absolute supper according as these men haue receiued it at the Lords owne hands And the verie same ministration of the supper I fynd practised by the Scottish martyrs as writeth their friend and patâ—â—â—â— Bucâ—aâ—an About the yere 1545. one George Seâ—â—â—carde was aâ— S. Andrewes to be burnt VVhen the day of execution came the keeper of the castle and his seruants ready to go to breakfast asked George whether it would please him to take part with them He answered he would with a very good wil. But first quoth he I request yow to sitte downe here at the table with me and geue me leaue to make yow a short collation that I may pray vpon the bread which as brethren in Christ 〈◊〉 to eate so bid yow farewel In the meane season the table was couered bread being set on George began to entreate shortly plainely of Christs supper his paynes and death about halfe an hower Then he exhorted them especially to mutual loue that they wold become perfite members of Christ who continually prayeth to his father for vs that our sacrifice may with him be auayleable to life euerlasting VVhen he had thus spoken and yelded thanks to god he brake a lâ—fe of bread reached to euerie one a peece of it and likewise wine after him self had drunke a litle prayed them al that now with him in this Sacrament they would remember the death of Christ Afterward saying grace he retyred him self in to his chamber By these examples we learne how the communion is rightly ministred namely without al words of Christs Institution only that bread be divided among the bretherne and sisterne they willed to loue one an other and remember the Lords death VVhich seemeth generally to be the forme of the coÌ„munion among the Zuinglians in Suizzerland For as Zuinglius him selfe and Bullinger his successor rehearse the maner of it The people â—it al a long in order vpon formes and geue â—are to one who readeth to them the 13. chapter of S. Iohns gospel In the meane season is bread caried about in baâ—keâ—s or paâ—iaâ—s and wine in glasses One man geueth bread to an other likewise of the wine Thus endeth this coÌ„munion or Sacrament of the supper as Zuinglius termeth it And Musculus earnestly disputing against S. Chrysostom for that he attributed great force to the words of Christ by vvhich there is made in the Sacrament a sanctification alteration far surpassing the power of man as S. Chrysostom thought among other things thus reproueth him It is not needful that Christ should now againe sanctifie by a second repetition that which once for al he hath sanctified by the deed word of his Institution For that Institution once done hath sanctified the Sacramental signes for the churches vse euen to the end of the world And that being once done by him is of force through al churches to the worlds end without any other repetition or iteratâ—on thereof Once for al he said This is my body This cuppe is the new testameÌ„t in my blud Do this in remembrance of me and by these words once for al he instituted sanctified this ceremonie turned the bread from a natural vse to a Sacramental By which words especially conferred vvith those of Bullinger and Zuingliê° before rehearsed the practise of that church a man may perceiue that al these English Scottish Geneuian and Suizzer Protestantes agree in remouing Christs vvords from the supper and accompt the supper very sufficiently gospellike administred if the brethern diuide bread drinke amoÌ„ng them selues in memory of Christ without any nevv mentioning of his institution vvhich being once done by him selfe serueth for al without any more a do or new repetition of the same And this is the very exact forme of the Scottish coÌ„munion or supper now in practise as hereafter shal be declared ¶ Here before I end this chapiter I thinke it good to informe the reader of the resolution of the church of Geneua about the matter of this Sacrament for that of the forme we haue sufficient knowledge by this which hath bene said hitherto Concerning the matter this is the determination of that
here in the end iterateth againe and affirmeth as a most irrefragable and vndoubted veritie In the beginning he told vs that in the sacrament are two sorts of signes signes elemental as bread vvine signes ceremonial He told vs vvithal that there was neuer a ceremonie which Christ instituted but it was as essential as the bread and wine VVhat ever Christ commaunded to be done what ever he spake or did in that whole action it is essential it must be done and no ioâ—e can be omitted but ye pervert the whole institution Here for a conclusioÌ„ he saith VVhen the sacrament is spoyled of the essential forme it is no sacrament There is an essential forme in baptisme and there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the vse of the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is I baptize thee in the name of the father of the sonne of the holy ghost Leave out any of these 3. or do it in the name of any one of the three persons only ye tyne the essential forme of baptisme In the supper if ye leaue â—uâ— the least ceremonye ye tine the essential forme and so it is no sacrament This being true that euery ceremonie that Christ did euery word that Christ spake every action of his vvas so essential that no iote thereof may be omitted but vve destroy the sacrament hereof I conclude that their Scottish sacrament is no sacrament of Christ for that it lacketh many of these so necessarie signes and essential ceremonies First because Christ before the delivering of his sacrament vsed a ceremonie signifying the lovvlines of hart the puritie and cleanes of conscience required in them vvhich come to receiue the sacrament After he gaue them a very diuine instruction and commaunded them in most effectual vvords to do the like vvhich coÌ„maundement according to the tenor and maner of speech carieth vvith it as precise severe an obligatioÌ„ aâ— any vvords of Christs supper to a Protestant it should vveigh as deepely binde as much For that precept Do this in remeÌ„brance of me examined in coÌ„mon iudgement and according to the sound and poise of the vvord bindeth no more nor so much as being vttered vvith lesse circumstance fevver vvords importing a necessarie coÌ„maundement then vvhen Christ saith after that vvasshing I haue geven yow an example that as I haue done to yow so yow do also Amen Amen I say to yow a servant is not greater then his lord nether is an Apostle greater then be that sent him If yow know these things yow shal be blessed if yow also do them Here is one ceremonie which Christ did many wordes which he spake at the InstitutioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t Nether this ceremonie vse the Scottish ministers at their supper nor speake they these vvords ergo they omit somvvhat vvhich Christ did and spake Al vvhose doings and speeches being essential so essential that in omitting any one ye tyne and destroy the sacrament hereof it folovveth that their Scottish Supper is no Sacrament of Christ Next Christ 3. taking the bread in to his hands gaue thankes to his father and vvithal 4. blessed sanctified the bread after he 5. tooke the cuppe in like maner and geving thanks to his father 6. vvithal blessed sanctified the cuppe as both the Evangelists S. Paule Caluin Ievvel and Beza confesse The Scottish supper hath no such blessing no such sanctification of the bread vvine but purposely omitteth it and therefore here are 2. more essential ceremonies tvvise vsed by Christ and yet neuer at any time vsed but neglected and contemned by them in their ministration therefore their supper vvanteth somvvhat perteyning to his essence and so is no sacrament Further more 7. Christ did not once only breake the bread tooke to him self a portioÌ„ willing them to breake the rest and distribute among them but him self did distribute and breake it to them and delivered it with his owne hands signifying by that action that it was not possible for any man to haue participation of his grace except him self gaue it In the Scottish supper the minister breaketh not the bread to everie communicant he delivereth it not with his owne hand as Christ did and so he leaveth out a very important ceremonye and therefore their supper can not be accompted Christs Sacrament After Christ had taken the bread geven thankes blessed broken so forth finally for declaration that they might vnderstaÌ„d where vnto al the premisses tended he spake these words which were most essential and concerned the substance of the sacrament This is my body which is geven and broken for yow This is the new testament in my blud which is shed for yow These vvords of Christ vsed by Christ in the Institution of his sacrament the Scottish ministerie vseth not in the ministration of their supper Ergo their supper is no Sacrament of Christ To M. B. his supposed reply that the vvords of Christ are not omitted for that before the sermon the minister historically out of the pulpit mentioneth Christs institution ansvvere is already made that this nothing helpeth them but much more shevveth their infinite pride and contemptuous breach of Christs order For Christ first of al tooke the bread in to his hands blessed it brake it after pronounced those vvords they cleane contrary first of al reherse those vvords out of the pulpit vvhere there is no bread high them much lesse haue they the bread in their hands as Christ had I ansvvere furthermore that such historical narration being told an hovvre or 2. before the coÌ„munion and the entier Sermon coming betvvene can haue no relation to the blessing or sanctifying of their Supper For as M. B. here telleth vs there is an essential forme in baptisme there is an essential forme in the supper which if they be tane away ye tyne the sacrament The essential forme of baptisme is saith he I baptise thee in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost And according to the order of the communion booke the minister as he speaketh these words taketh water in his hand layeth it vpon the childs forehead VVhereby vve see that the essential forme is to haue the words ioyned with the element if the minister speake the words at one hovvre lay on vvater the next vvithout the vvords he tyneth and destroyeth the essential forme of baptisme and so it is no sacrament Ergo by like reason vvhereas the sacrament of Christs body hath a like essential forme as baptisme hath the Minister making a narration of Christs vvords before the sermon as it vvere at 9. of the clocke and after an hovvre at ten delivering bread and vvine vvithout the vvords of Christ tyneth and destroyeth the sacrament of the supper and so the Scottish supper is no sacrament of
vnworthely S. Paule maketh their sinne to be that they make no differeÌ„ce betwene the body blud of our lord other meates therefore are giltie of that body and blud vvhich they so despâ—se M. B. admitteth not that they proceed so far but coâ—deÌ„nâ—th them before hand before they eate vvhich is â—â—â— against S. Paules coÌ„patison vvhich standeth in this that as those men came to other tables to those ecclesiastical feasts of charitie there did eate drinke vvithout any prâ—câ—dent 〈…〉 al of them selves or examination of their consciences so came they and receiued the body and blud of Christ at this divine table not distinguishing this food from that but vvithout any convenient preparation honor regard or separation of one from the other eating and drinking this divine sacrament as they vvould coÌ„mon meates drinkes VVhich words of necessitie implie an eating drinking on both sides or els there is no comparison and consequently no condemnation of the one side vvhich condemnation remayneth resteth in the vvant of reverence regard and distinction made betwene those vulgar tables and this body and blud of our saviour both vvhich they received but alike and vvith like honor and reverence vvherein they sinned and dishonored Christ whose body they discerned not and therefore received it vnworthely And thus the auncient fathers vnderstood this text and out of it concluded the real presence and real receiving of Christs body though to the condemnation of the receivers So for example S. Austin He that vnworthely receiveth our lords sacrament albeit him self be naught yet that which he receiveth is good Corpus enim domini sanguis domini nihilominus erat illis c. For as to good men so was it the body of our lord and the blud of our lord no lesse vnto them of whom the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthely eateth his owne iudgement The same Doctor intending to shew that the evil vse of good things harmeth greatly what shal I speake saith he of the very body and blud of our lord the only sacrifice of our salvation Of which albeit our lord him self say that it geveth life yet doth not his Apostle teach vs even that to be pernicious to them which vse it noâ— wel when he saith who soever shal eate that bread and drinke that chalice not vvine of our lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud In vvhich place vvhereas â—e nameth it ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini the very body and blud of our Lord and the only sacrifice of our salvation â—e most certainly noteth not bread and vvine but an other thing except bread and vvine be the very body of Christ and the only sacrifice of our redemption So in his epistles he vvriteth that our Lord suffered Iudas that traytour among his innocent disciples to receiue that which thâ— faithful know our raunsom or redemption quod fideles norâ—â—t pretium nostrum In an other place he calleth it sacrificiâ— pretij nostri the sacrifice of our redemption vvhich vvords of sacrifice raunsom price redemption c. quit exclude M. B. his tropical bread and vvine and prove that Iudas vvith the other disciples received the same body which was delivered for vs the same blud which was shed for vs according to the plain text of al the Evangelists This same veritie and exposition of S. Paules vvords is geven by the other auncient and learned fathers Greeke and Latin as namely S. Basil lib. de baptis cap. 3. S. Chrysost in sundry places in 1. Corinth cap. 11. homil 24. hom 27. â—omil â—3 in Matth. hom 45. in Ioan. S. Cyper sermo de coena Hieron in â— cap. Malach. Treophilact S. Ambros and Theodoret. expounding this place of vvhich the later vpon those very words vvhereon M. B. maketh his cavilling he shal be gilty of our lords body and blud vvriteth expressely thus By these words the Apostle signifieth thus much that aâ— the Iewes dishonored Christ shamefully abused him so they also dishonour and shamefully abvse him who receiue his most holy body with their impure handes and take it in to their defiled and vilanous mouth in pollutum incestum â—â— So that M. B. his conclusion or rather straunge paradox that no man can receive Christ vnworthely vvhich out of the sacrament Herodâ— Annas and many other publicanes Iewes Gentiles other did or might have done and in the sacrament many evil Christians continually do is quit opposite to the Apostles scope and discourse in this place vvhich against al drift of the text and sense of the vvords and exposition of auncient fathers he peevishely laboureth to pervert For albeit sometimes some fathers and namely S. Austin in one or two places vvhich Calvin citeth deny to the vvicked rem sacramenti the thing of the sacrament yet thereby he meaneth not Christs true body as S. Austin declareth his owne meaning but the iustifying grace the fruit and commoditie thereof the vertue and sanctification vvhich by Gods ordinaÌ„ce redouÌ„deth thence to al worthy receivers Nether doth it greatly helpe M. B. that he laboureth to approve his saying by the example of wordly princes who wil not suffer their maiestie to be interessed in the smallest thing But if thow disdainfully vse their seale which is but wax and contemne it and stamp it vnder thy secte thow art compted as gilty of his body and blud as if thow put thy hands on him much more if thow so handle the seales of the body and blud of Christ this I say litle helpeth the matter For first the comparison is nothing like For S. Paule speaketh not of stamping vnder feet of such disdainful abuse and contempt but of vnreuerent receiving vvhich differeth much and therefore if M. B. vvould speake to the purpose and applie his talke to the subiect here handled he should take such examples for the one side vvherein is like coniunction of things signified vvith the signe as he â—â—ineth to be in his Geneva signe or supper and for the other side vvhere men shew such vnteverence towards them as is here likewise presupposed Christ saith he and so say the Protestants of his sect is ioyned vvith the bread as as he is vvith a vvorde spoken as he is with a sermon as he is vvith an image as a king is represented in his picture in his seale in a peece of vvax Suppose then that some man stamp not vnder foote the Testament in despite and disdayne of Christ for so S. Paule speaketh not nor meaneth but that he reade some chapter of the Testament not discerning it from a chapter of S. Hierom or S. Austin is he gilty of our lords body If he heare a sermon preached and perhaps sleepe at the sermon time so receive not Christ inteâ—nally as by the vvord he is offered no lesse then in the Supper is he gilty of the body of the
est Christianum hominem non esse qui non eadem fidei certitudine credit Dominum Iesum esse filium Dei se per eum esse percepturum vitam aeternam VVe professe â—aith Bucer Brentius Georgius Maior vvith other Lutheran Divines disputers against the Catholikes in that conference that he is not to be taken for a Christian man who beleeveth not with the same certitude or assurance of faith both that Christ our lord is the sonne of God and that him self in particular by Christ shal possesse life eternal This is that vvhich M. B. meaneth vvhen he saith that the applying of Christ eating of Christ by faith is to beleeue that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes to me VVhich iustification and remission of sinnes being in particular beleeved of the Protestant in such sort as is any article of his â—aith thereby geveth a spiritual manducation to him vvhich the Catholike hath not Thus writeth M. B. afterwardes vvhere he spendeth many pages in magnifying this â—aith This faith â—aith he workes a wonderful assurance and persuasion that God loves me that he wil saue me that meâ—â—â— life saluation at perteynes to me This works the seeling of mercy in our hart a particular application whereby we claime Christ and God as proper to vs as if no man bâ—â— title to him and his promises but we Again This particular application is 〈…〉 difference the chief marke and note whereby our â—â—ith who are iustified in the blud of Christ is discerned 〈…〉 faith of the Papists c. For the Papist 〈…〉 promise of mercy to his ownesowle He countes it preâ—â—â—tion as in truth it is and for presumption counted and coâ—demned by the Apostle Rom. 11. 20. 21. â—â— Corint 9. â—7 Philip. 3. 11. 12. Hebr. 4. 1. 2. c. to say I am an elect I â—â— saueâ— iustified This is the vvonderful faith of the Protestants vvhich to them is al in al. This M. B. calleth their iustifying faith By this thy eate Christ so as no man doth 〈…〉 theâ—â— By this they are sure of heaven in heaueÌ„ to be felowes equal vvith S. Peter S. Paule yea vvith the blessed virgin mother of God For so Luther foundeâ— and first inventor of this faith writeth expressely Quâ—â— hac side renati sumus pares sumus in dignitate honore D. Paulo Petro S. Deiparae virgini ac divis omnibus VVâ—â— now that at last vvâ— know exactly vvhat faith it is vvhich geveth the Protestants so deep holdfast in their spiritual maÌ„â—ucatioÌ„ let vs retouâ—â—â— to our principal purpose And as by this vvhich hath bene said of this special Protestant faith I confesse M. B. hath a sufficient ground to chalenge such kind of eating by this faith I meane to him self and his companions Protestants and to exclude out al Catholikes be they as holy as S. Peâ—er or S. Paule vvho never had such a special faith and therefore could never thus â—aâ—e Christ so yet the blocke lyeth stil in M. B. vvay and the rest of his consâ—aternitie that by this saith evil Protestants receive Christ no lesse then good For among the Protestants the most detestable and most blasphemous heretikes have this assurance of their iustification and remission of sinnes no lesse then M. B. or Iohn Calvin or Luther him self vvho by the helpe of an old man whose name Luther expresseth not saith M. Fox but belike it vvas the same man vvho in an other forme frequeÌ„ted Carolostadâ—ê° instructed him first of al inveÌ„ted this special iustifying faith For as after Luther al Lutherans have it most assuredly and after Zuinglius al Zuinglians and after Calâ—in al Calvinists so the Anabaptists more then any of those former sects and Libertines Familie of love by vvord and deed by life and death most confidently chalenge to them selves this assurance that they in Christ have remission of their sinnes that Christ died for them that he shed his blud for them that they are spiritually vnited to Christ they are inwardly so fed by him and outwardly so clothed vvith him that as it is testified by sundry stories many such Protestants both men vvemen and maydens long sithence in Bohemia and of late in Holland at none dayes in the sight of thousands vvould vvalke naked thorough the streetes preaching the vvord of the Lord and could not be vvithdrawen from that furious vnnatural madnes by the terror of present death continually even to death and in death some crying Praise the Lord others Open your eyes ye blind Papists others Revenge O Lord the blud of thy servants and thus not by vvords as M. B. doth but by deeds and facts by patient suffering of death approved they their confidence and assurance of such special faith as M. B. teacheth and Luther the Calvinists describe If then the Anabaptists to make stay and exeÌ„plifie this matter by them vvhom Calvin condemneth for heretikes and vvhose martyrs though in shew marvelous holy and in number never so many he accounteth and calleth martyres diaboli the devils martyrs by vvhich name likewise the Lutherans cal the martyrs of Calvins sect have this sure faith that Christ dyed for them in special and that Christ shed his blud for them in particular and they in this sort spiritually eate Christ how vvith vvhat prohabilitie can M. B. deny such eating to al Protestants of his owne sect though evil livers vvho much more certainly have this faith and therefore much more spiritually eate Christ If an heretike can have a constant persuasion in the death of Christ and then al goes wel and he therefore truly receives Christ by faith according to M. B. definition how much more may a vvicked Calvinist vvhom M. B. accounteth no heretike reteyne this constant persuasion Hath an Anabaptist a â—â—â—th of the sowle apt for such receiving hath not a Calvinist Is evil life a greater bar to such receiving then naughty faith vvhereas this receiving is vvrought only by faith not by life And vvhat need I to rest exemplifie this by Libertines or Anabaptists vvhereas the best surest ground to refute M. B. in this point is the general doctrine of Calvin and Calvinists and the same preached at large by M. B. him self in these Sermons For as M. B. is sure that he is iustified he is elect he is saved he hath this special faith vvhich applieth Christ to him so properly and peculiarly as though no man had interest in Christ but him self alone so this faith vvhich is the right perfit iustifying faith and proper to the elect being once obteyned is never after lost nor never can possibly depart from them commit thy sinnes never so greavous and horible Thus teacheth Beza in the Confession of his Christian Geneva faith most plainly This Calvin in his Institutions
Caluinisme And here to the vntruths afore told ye adde one other that vve acknowlege not this speach of Christ hoc est corpus meum to be a sacramental speech For so vve acknowlege it now and so did in the church before yow or any of your sectmaisters vvere borne as by vvhich vvords the sacrament vvas first made instituted by which it is at this present made conseciated and there is no Catholike vvriter scholemaÌ„ or other but he coÌ„sesseth these vvords to be properly sacramental as vvhich import the nature of this sacrameÌ„t most essentially If by the vvoid sacramental yow meane tropical figurative significative as appeareth by that vvhich after ensueth then as I vvish the reader stil to remember your double dealing iugling vvho as ashamed of your owne doctrine stil hide and cover your self vvith this ambiguoâ—s phrase vvhich in the beginning and after yow condemne as inuented by the foly of man against the wisdâ—â— of God so vve vtterly deny that these vvords of Christ are to be taken tropically or figuratively require yow once to geve vs a Theological proofe thereof And thâ—â— yow vndertake here and performe it in this sort For they are compelled say yow wil they nil they in otâ—â— speeches of like sort to acknowledge a figure as Genes 17. 10. Circumcision is called the covenant that is a figure of the covenant and Exod. 12. 11. the lamb is called the passeoâ—er and Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called his blud and Luc. 11. 20. the cup is called the new testament and 1. Cor. 10. 4. the rock is called Christ Al these speeches are sacramental that is figurative and tropical receiues a kind of interpretation yet they malitiously deny it in these words Hoc est corpus meaÌ„ which they are compelled to graunt in the rest especially where S. Paule cals Christ the rock This argument is to the purpose For if yow can prove these words of Christ to be taken tropically then yow directly refel that vvhich the Catholikes beleeve both in general touching the sacrament and in special touching these vvords vvhich as we beleeve to be sacramental as hath bene said so vve vtterly deny to be figurative ortropical and affirme them to be taken literally as the vvords signifie and therefore this your argument to the contrarie is to be examined a litle more diligently And first of al I must tel yow that vvhere yow say these speeches vvhich here yow recite are of like sort vvith that of Christ this is one grosse falsitie to begin vvithal Then vvhere yow say we are compelled to acknowledge a figure in them as one vvay it is true so in the sense vvhich yow meane it is false That al these are not of one sort vvith Christs vvordes nor any one of them as yow take them it is euident to the eye For vvhen vve say circumcision is the covenant a lamb is the passeover the cup that is as yow meane it the material câ—p vvhich Christ held in his hand is Christs blud the same cup is the new testameÌ„t the rock that is a hard stone is Christ in al these propositions one divers and cleane different nature is attributed to an other vvhich if vve take literally as the vvordes lye includeth a contradiction and the later distroyeth the former as much as if a man vvould say black is vvhite for in so saying he saith black is not blacke For in like maner the material rocke can not be Christ because a creature can not be the creator the cup of earth â—in silver or gold can not be the blud of God or man for so could it not be a material cup vvhose nature substance essence is so cleane different that vvho so saith this is blud he denieth it to be gold or silver and vvho affirmeth it to be siluer of neceâ—siâ—ie in that affirmation includeth the contrary negation that it is not blud And therefore al such parabolical speaches vvhereof the scripture is ful and M. B. might have found many more as good as these by the very force of the vvords and meaning of the first speaker and consent of al hearers conteyne a figure and require so to be expounded a number vvhereof Zuinglius and Oecolampadius heaped together in the beginning of this heresie to prove that vvhich M. B. entendeth If Christ had said of material bread or vvine This wine is my blud This bread is my body then I confesse the speaches of Christ and those alleged by M. B. had bene of like sort But Christ spake far otherwise as is manifest by that vvhich hath bene declared before And the plaine sense of Christs speech caÌ„ not be better conceiued then if vve confer them to his doing at the mariage-feast in Cana of Galilee if vvhen he had caused the vvater pots to be filled and presented to the steward he had said hâ—c est vinum this is wine VVhich example I alleage the rather for that S. Cyril the auncient bisshop of Ierusalem applieth it to like purpose In Canâ— of Galilee saith he Christ turned water in to wine And haâ— not we thinke him worthy of credite that he â—â—â—uâ—geth wine in to his blud cum ipse tâ—m asseuerâ—â—â—r diuerit when as he so â—râ—cisely and peremptorily hath said that it is his bluâ— As likewise when he hath pronounced of that bread being consecrate This is my body who can ever doubt of it So that these speaches be of like sort This vvateâ— turned and altered is vvine This bread consecrated is my body This vvine consecrated is my blud Or els of the first This is wine of the second This is my body of the third This is my blud vvhich are Christs owne vvords though the sense of that â—iâ—st and this second be al one ¶ Now if from this general vve shal descend to particulars and examine every one of these examples a part vve shal much more discouer the povertie of this minister and note the infinite inequalitie betwene most of these speaches and that of Christs That circumcision was a figure of the couenaÌ„t vve interprete so both for the reason now geuen and also because the scripture expresly so teacheth But the scripture nether â—aith bread or vvine is Christs body and blud nor yet that bread is the signe of the one or vvine a signe of the other That the lamb is called the passeouer is a text of Zuinglius wicked making and M. B. his foolish imitating For in the place quoted there is no such matter vvhereof I shal more conueniently speake by and by Nether find I that in S. Matth. 20. 28. the cup is called Christs blud Al that I find in that place is this He that wil be first among yow shal be your seruant even as the sonne of man is not come to be ministred vnto but to minister and to geve his life a redemption for
many In the same chapiter Christ vttereth his death and suffering by a parabolical phrase of drinking his cup vvhich is the only cup mentioned there but this is nothing to the purpose In S. Matthew cap. 26. v. 2â— vvhich I thinke M. B. meaneth as Beza translateth the text the cup is called Christs blud But that text is a wicked text of Bezaes making and not of S. Matthews putting and Beza as gilty in conscience vvarneth the reader before hand that men vvil cry out vpon his sacrilegious boldnes for so corrupting the text VVhich although he go about to excuse but straungely Protestantlike by heaping one sâ—crilege vpon an other yet to omit that for brevities sake both Beza playeth the part of a horrible corrupter in so translating and M. B. of ether a bold and vvicked heretike or at lest of an ignorant heretike in folowing Beza and in telling vs that S. Matthew calleth the cup Christs blud though in a good sense that is true in Bezaes sense it is starke false but how soever it be it vvas never in one sense or other so vttered by S. Matthew For S. Matthews vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic est sanguis meus This is my blud in the second place can no more import the material cup to be called blud then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est corpus meâ— This is my body in the first place import that Christ called the material table his body That S. Luke calleth the cup the new Testament is a figure I graunt but litle to M. B. his help or iustifying his figure For in vvhat sense can he make the cup to signifie the new testameÌ„t VVhat resemblance or representation is there betwene the one the other Therefore questionles by the cup S. Luke meaneth not the material cup but the thing conteyned in the cup. And herein I graunt is a figure but a figure so vulgar vsual and common to al tongues and nations vulgata trita omnibus linguis consuetudire loquendi as Beza also confesseth that it litle differeth from a very proper and literal speech VVhich thing conteyned in the cup vvhereas S. Luke determineth and restreyneth by vvords most pregnant and effectual and irreâ—utable to Christs owne blud then this is the proposition vvhich M. B. vvil haue to stand for one of his figures This coÌ„teyned in the chalice that is This blud of Christ is the new testament And now vvhat figure findeth he here to serue his turne That the cup is placed for the thing conteyned in the cup This is nothing to his purpose Nether hath it any resemblaÌ„ce vvith the rest of his examples his vvords in this place intend it not That the cup vz Christs blud conteyned in the cup is the new testament is this his figurative and tropical speech VVil he thus expound it that the blud of Christ figureth signifieth or representeth the new testameÌ„t This in deed he must say But in so sayng he speaketh vvickedly heretically and damnably and quit disanulleth maketh voyd and disgraceth the blud of Christ the blud of the new testament And the blud of an ox of a goate of a calf in the old law may serve M. B. for his figurative tropical speech For so that vvas tropically in deed the new testament vvhich it signified and figured But the blud of Christ is more truly and properly after a more divine sort called the new testament ether for that it is the special and principal legacie and gift bestowed on vs by Christ in his new testament or because it is the very founteyne of grace vvhich is likewise geuen properly in the new Testament and vvhereby vve have right to glorie and life eternal which is the consequent of grace and effect thereof in the new testament For this and such like cause is Christs blud as in the chalice called the new testament the confirmatioÌ„ of vvhich testament consisted in the death of Christ effusion of the same blud on the crosse As for figuring and signifying that is no cause of this appellation And therefore to say This is the new testament that is This signifieth or figureth the new testament is to make the blud of Christ no better then the blud of a beast vvhich is a proposition fitter for a beast or a minister vvho in so speaking litle dissereth from a beast then for a ChristiaÌ„ man If against this M. B. vvil stil cavil to find out here a figure let him take this for a final answere that this speech of S. Luke most effectual and significant though not so proper or common is properly expressed by S. Matthew and S. Marke This is my blud of the new testament vvhich is a sufficient commentarie to expound S. Luke and quite excludeth al his tropes and figures except he alleage as plaine sufficient authoritie to make those vvords of Christ This is my body tropical vvherevnto he reserreth al these his examples The last example of S. Paule calling Christ a rocke is a figure like to this former A figure there is one vvay but not as M. B. meaneth That the vvorde rocke is applied to Christ is a metaphore and figure as vvhen he is called a lyon a lamb a doore a vine c. But vvhere he saith that vve are specially compelled here to graunt his sacramental that is his tropical and significative speech more then in the rest surely herein he is very specially deceiued For vvhen S. Paule saith the rock was Christ vve are not compelled to expound him thus the rock signified Christ but the true sense may be the literal that the rock vvas Christ S. Paules vvordes are They drunke of the spiritual rock which folowed them and the rock was Christ That rocke which folowed the Hebrewes in the desert vvhich guided directed and susteined them can not probably be expounded of a material rocke although some of the Hebrew Rabbines have such an imagination but of the spiritual rocke vvhich spiritual rocke did not signifie Christ but vvas Christ And thus S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Theodoretus and others expound it and the rocke in S. Paule referred to the vvord spiritual vvhich goeth next before iustifieth this plaine and literal interpretation And so nether this special place vvhich M. B. maketh such accompt of compelleth vs to his trope and figure And yet I must tel him besides for an overplus that he is to rash so specially and peremptorily to charge vs vvith this place as though the case vvere plain cleere and vve must needs confesse that here the rocke signifieth Christ spiritually vvhereas them selves are not yet agreed vvhat the rock here is literally nor vvhat it meaneth or signifieth historically VVhich literal and historical sense must first be resolved vpon before he can so specially presse and beare vs downe vvith his spiritual sense and figuring The common exposition namely of Zuinglius Oecolampadius
contradiction But he real presence of Christs body in the sacrament implies a contradiction making the body of Christ visible and invisible local not local at one tyme. Therefore God may not wil such a thing it is vnpossible to be true Let this then staÌ„d for one part of my example that god can not wil nor make Christs body really present in the sacrameÌ„t it is a flat contradictioÌ„ it is vnpossible to be true and as before he hath told vs God can no more wil this nor do this then he can lye be changed decay and become corruptible Next to come to the other part of my example and contradiction M. B. forgetting him self that he had fathered this false argumeÌ„t on vs before here repeateth it as new in these vvords Last of al they are not yet content but say Christ can make the bread his body and therefore his body is really present VVâ—â— be it graunted that thus vve say now last of al vvhich yow made vs say a good vvhile sithence and so geve a great signe that yow have a very vveake memory vvho much need a better for mendacem oportet esse memoreâ— suppose v. e last of al say thus vvhat is your answere Is it as before vvhen very reverently yow told his maiestie that he could not wil it and could not make it present no more then he could wil and make a lye No but of a cleane contrarie guise in these vvords That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being God can do what so ever he wil. Only let them shew that Christ of bread â—â—â— make his real flesh and then this controversie is brought is an end And is it so Is the controversie brought now to this end Surely then have yow spent much tyme paper and vvynd in vvast For hetherto al your speech and preaching hath bene to proove that God could not vvil nether could he do it And how chauÌ„ceth it that so suddeÌ„ly yow geve over your inuincible argument vvhich eveÌ„ now yovv held so fast so much extolled saing So this second ground holds fast The real presence implies a contradiction and there fore it is vnpossible for God to worke it But to omit this here yow may learne and so may the reader a right contradiction and thereby measure other God can no more make Christs body present in the sacrament then he can lye then he can be chaunged it is vnpossible it implies a contradiction Again for the other side VVe graunt Christ can make of bread his body so he can make his body really present and this is not vnpossible and then assuredly it implies no contradiction Here is a right perfit contradiction For it is yea and nay denying and affirming of one and the self same thing in one and the self same respect vvhich contradiction vvhen he findeth in vs in the Catholike vvriters touching this sacrament then let him hardly cry out that they persist in their opinion of very malice for mere coÌ„tradiction to the end only they may gainstand the truth found out of late by these Apostataes vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other and scarce any one vvith him self But in the meane time it is far more apparant that these vvords touch M. B. and his companions vvho against the faith of al Christendom against the first article of their Creed against al divine humane learning malitiously gainstand the truth deny that to Gods omnipotency being enforced so to do by the very drift of their vvicked spritish and Satanical doctrine vvhich them selves again graunt to Gods omnipotencie being driven so to coÌ„fesse as may be thought by the very instinct vvorke and operation of nature and natural reason vvhich in that it acknowlegeth a God acknowlegeth him to be omnipotent even in that vvhich these mens brutish and sensles Theologie if so I may cal it taketh avvay and vvithdraweth from him As for that he saith the question is not here whether Christ can make his body present but whether he wil if vve can shew that he wil so then this coÌ„troversie is brought to an end for probation hereof I vvil say no more then I have already For if Christs most evident and pregnant vvords set downe in the Euangelists and S. Paule This is my body the same which shal be offered and delivered for yow This is my blud which shal be shed for remission of your sinnes if the sense and meaning of these vvords testified by the practise of al Christian people that ever lived since Christs time in al places of the vvorld in Europe Asie and Africa if the vniforme consent of al Fathers and general Councels from Christs tyme vnto our age if in this miserable haruest of heretical corruption the authoritie of the most learned the most earnest and principal Gospellers vvho vpon the invincible clearnes and force of Christs vvords vvere in a maner against their vvils compelled to mainteyne the real presence of Christ in the sacrament may serue to prove vvhat Christs meaning vvas then have vve shewed and if vve be required vvil more amplie shew that this vvas Christs wil. And if this serve not then I know not vvhat may serve And I vvil not labour to fynd any demonstration more cleare vntil I may learne vvhat clearer demonstration M. B. desireth And yet I thinke more cleare thâ—â— this him self can not devise ¶ And how so ever he promise faire and say that if vve can proove that such vvas Christs wil he then is content to yeld this controversie is at end yet his discourse and preaching here sheweth the cleane contrarie Foâ— again he falleth in to his commoÌ„ place that Christs body must needs be bound to the rules of phisicke and nature A man may iustly suppose that he is scarce vvel aduised he so commonly gainsayeth him self and runneth vp downe backward and forward and forgetteth in one leafe vvhat he vvrote in the next before Two points yet remayne in this Sermon vvhich I vvil shortly dispatch because I have bene somwhat long in the former and these 2. depend altogether or very much of that vvhich hath bene now said VVhen saith M. B. they are dung â—â—â— of this that Christ by his omnipotencie can make his body present from vvhence he hath dunged vs out by graunting and confessing it him self they make their laâ—â— refuge and yet vve vvere at our last refuge before vvhere our last refuge vvas Christs omnipotencie to say that Christs body is exemed from phisical rules His answere to this is much like the former that is yea and nay graunting and denying For first he graunteth that Theologie is not subiect to physicke and yet Christs body the principal part of Theologie is subiect to phisicke For by by hâ— inferreth that if ye exeme Christs body from the law of phisicke which is the
of his blud the bread there broken is the participation of his body should also be partakers of the table sacrifice of deuils In which argument albeit the Apostle being brief and writing to Christians whom he accounteth skilful wei instructed in this thing by mentioning litle signifieth more setting downe one part willeth them to vnderstand the whole as Calvin also truly noteth and therefore vseth not in everie part of his comparison the terme of altar and sacrifice yet as otherwhere he acknowledgeth the Christians to haue a true altar to sacrifice on and consequently a sacrifice from which the Iewes were debatredâ— so here the very drift of his reason exact correspondence of ech part to other require that as the Iewes had an altar a sacrifice so had the Gentils so had the Christians As the Iewes offered to their god so did the Gentils to their false god so did the Christians As the Iewes by that seruice were partakers of the worship of the true god so were the Gentils by the like seruice concluded conuinced to worship a false god that is the deuil therefore could not haue any part or coÌ„munion in the worship of the true god which was performed by the dreadful sacritice of Christs body blud among Christians VVhich triple sacrifice that of the Gentils to the deuil these two of the Iewes Christians to the true god S. Chrysostom veâ—v we observeth writing vpon the same place His words are In the old testament Pagans idolaters offered the blud of beasts to their idols This blud god tooke to him selfe that so he might turne away his people from committing idolatrie which was a great signe of infinite loue But here in the new testament he provided a sacrifice far more wonderful excellent both in that he changed the sacrifice withal in place of beasts killed in sacrifice he coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offered And this to be the true sense of the place Vib. Regius ioynt-Apostle with M. Luther in preaching this new gospel whom the Protestants of Germanie acknowlege cal a perfite absolute Diuine of infinite learning the Evangelist cheef Superintendent of the churthes of Christ in the Duchie of Luneburge as Luther was in the Duchie of Saxonie plainely graunteth Many there are saith he which thinke a sacrifice to be proued by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the societie of such as sacrifice to idols by arguments taken from the faith of the sacrifice vsed by the Iewes Gentils For he seemeth to compare sacrifice to sacrifice as Chrysostome teacheth his comparison so to stand that by it is gathered Christians in the Lords supper to haue a certaine peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our lord as the idolaters by their abominable sacrifice are made partakers of deuils VVhich if it be so me seemeth it may be answered that in the supper of Christians are the body blud of Christ which are a holy sacrifice but coÌ„memoratiue sacrosanctum sunt sacrificium sed memoriale By which later word albeit he thinketh to haue answered the Catholiks excluded the truth of the sacritice yet is he much deceiued therein For so far are Catholiks from denying the sacrifice to be commemoratiue that of al other sacrifices which euer were or can be imagined we graunt this to be moste coÌ„memoratiue as which most neerely liuely truly expresseth the verie condition efficacie nature of that sacrifice offered on the crosse with which being one in substance it differeth only in maner of offering generalitie of redemption And as Christs transfiguration on the holy mount before his passion vvas the best most persite sigure examplar representation of that eternal glorie which the same person of Christ vvas to enioye in heauen after his resurrection ascension in like maner vve are to iudge of this mistical coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice in respect of his sacrifice on the crosse yet not excluding the veritie of Christs presence in one place more then the other Nether is there any reason vvhy Vrbanus Regius a Lutheran should imagine the sacrifice to be disproued for that it is a memorial or done in coÌ„memoration of Christ more then the real presence is disproued reiected because that also in the Lutheran religion must needs be done in coÌ„memoration Christs vvords being most plaine do this in coÌ„memoration of me VVhich vvords doubtles haue no more strength to overthrovv remoue a sacrifice of Christs body as al Catholikes vrge then a true presence of the same body vvhich al LutheraÌ„s graunt So that out of these vvords of the Apostle is confirmed the mistical sacrifice that it vvas vsually frequented in the first Apostolical church vvhich rec aâ—ed directly from Christ and his Apostles the order administration thereof ¶ This sincere sound beleefe concerning both sacrifice sacrament continued in the catholike church for the first thousand yeres almost vvithout contradiction of any man or sect vvorth the naming Only as our Sauiour him self in the veâ—ie beginning vvhen he first promâ—seâ— that the bread which he would geue should be the same flesh which he was to geue for the life of the world signified obscurely that Iudas the traytour certaine other for want of faith vvere scandalized at his vvords repâ—neâ— at them so a fevv veres after it may be gathered that some there vvere of Iudas folovvers vvho likevvise denyed the truth of this heauenly mistery vvhereof S. Ignatius scholer to the postles vvriteth thus as his vvords are recorded by Theodoretus Some sectaries there are who like not nor approue the oblâ—â—ions sacrifiâ—e◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 for that they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Iesu the selfe same flesh that suffred for our sinneâ— which the father of his merciful goodnes raised from death But vvhat these men vvere vvhat svvay they bare vvhat scholers they had appeareth not by any ecclesiastical record therefore belike vvere sone put to silence in that happie time of our primitiue first faith vvhen the Apostles them selues and many by them instructed had the governement of the church VVherefore the beleefe first taught by Christ and his Apostles proceded on from hand to hand from age to age vvithout any notable resistance VVhereof being a thing at large treated proued in sundry bookes both latin and english set forth of late I vvil bring only thre or fovver testimonies but the same most auncient S. Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Fraunce martyr S. Cyprian bishop of Carthage in Africa a martyr likevvise and the first general Councels of Nice Ephesus in Asia S. Ireneus vvriteth thus Christ taking bread gaue thankes said This is my body and that which was in the chalice he confessed to be his blud and
so taught the new sacrifice of the new testament which the church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to god through the whole world Of which sacrifice the prophete Malachie foreprophecied thus I haue no liking in yow saith our lord almightie nether wil I take sacrifice of your hand o ye Iewes because from the rising of the Sunne to the going doune of the same my name is glorified among the Gentils incense is offered to my name in euerie place and a pure sacrifice The same argument and dedustion I haue noted before out of S. Cyprianâ— First that Christ our lord and god him selfe was high priest of god the father and he first of al offered him selfe a sacrifice to his father â—â—â—â—s last supper and commaunded the same to be done in commemoration of him Next that such priests occupie the place of Chist truly who do that which Christ did and then in the church offer they to god the father true ful sacrifice if they so offer as they see Christ him selfe to haue offered About some 100. yeres after S. Cyprian vvas gathered the first general Councel of Nice and about a hundreth yeres after that of Nice vvas the first general Councel of Ephesus in vvhich the bishops there assembled thus vtter their faith that is the faith of the vniuersal catholike church in this matter The vvoids of that most auncient Apostolical Councel of Nice are On the diuine table let vs not basely regard the bread and cup set there but lifting vp our myndeâ— let vs by faith vnderstand that on that holy table is placed the lamb of god which taketh away the sinnes of the world who there is without effusion of blud sacrificed by the priests and that we truly receiue his preticus body and blud beleeuing these to be the pledges of our resurrection The vvords of the other general Councel of Ephesus are to the same effect thus VVe confessing the death of Christ according to his flesh his resurrection and ascension into heauen confesse withal and celebrate in the church the holy liâ—eâ—â—uing and vnbluddy sacrifice beleeuing that which is set before vs not to be the body of a common man like to vs as nether is that pretious blud but rather we receiue that as the proper body blud of the word which geueth life For common flesh can not geue life as him selfe witnesseth saying flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite that geueth life For because it is made the proper flesh of the word for this reason it is lifegeuing according to that our Sauiour him selfe â—aith As my liuing father hath sent me I liue by the father he that eateth me he shal liue by me This faith I say of Sacrament sacrifice in al sinceritie simplicitie thus passed on so vniuersally knovven beleeued that as vvriteth S. Leo in Italie S. Augustin in Africa very children vvere taught to acknovvledge the true flesh and blud of Christ to be offered in the sacrifice of the masse Tovvards 800. yeres after Christ one Bertram a litle before him one Scot â—s vvrote darkly of the truth of this sacrament Of the vvritings of the one of these nothing I thinke remayneth of the other a litle doth but the same vttered so doubtfully that as the Zuinglians vse his authoritie against the Catholikes so the Lutherans vse him to the contrarie yea they in maner reproue him as fauoring to much the faith of the Catholikes For of him Illyricus vvith his bretherne say that he hath in that his litle booke semina transubstantiationis the seedes original ground of transubstantiation But vvhat soeuer his priuate opinion vvere his publike speaches and vvriting â—ounded soâ—il in the eares of the Catholiks of that age that Paschasius an Abbat in France made a verie learned booke in refutation of him And al vvriters vvho about that age vvrote of this mysterie vsed more expresly to denâ—e the sacrament to be a signe trope figure image symbole c. in such sort as vvhereby the veritie of the real presence might be excluded as appeareth in the seuenth general Councel in Alcuinus scholemaister to Charles the great in Rabaâ—â—â— archbishop of Ments lib. de diuinis officijs Theophilact in Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Ioan. 6. Aâ—alarius Arch-bishop of â—reuirs lib. de mysterijs missae cap. 24. 25. Haymo bishop of Halberstat in 1. ad Corinth ca. 10. Remigâ—ê° bishop of Antissiodorum in Canonem missae Fulbertus bisshop of Chartres in epistola ad Adelman episcopum in lib. Paschasij Stephanus bishop in high Buâ—gundie Tom. 4. bibliothâ—cae Sanctorum patrâ—m and briefely al other that vvrote betvvene the time of Bertram Berengarius ¶ For after Bertram the next that appeared in fauour of this heresie vvas Berengarius vvho put forth him self a little after the yere of our lord 1000. vvhen as S. Ihon vvriteth in his Apocalyps the deuil was let lose to trouble the church This man as vvitnesseth our martyr-maker M. Fox like to those first heretiks in the Apostles tymes toke away the veritie of the body blud of Christ from the sacrament For vvhich cause he coÌ„mendeth him as a singular instrument whom the holy ghost raised vp in the church to ouerthrow great errors VVhat instrument he vvas vvhom he serued shal best appeare by his ovvne behauiour confession In the meane season this old heresie he published vvith greater industrie shevv of learning then his predecessors countenanced it with more credit assistance of many vnstable sowles and sinful persons as is noted by the godly and learned writerâ— of that tyme vvhich only kind of men ioyned them selues to him and that because his doctrine seemed to yeld them some quietnes securitie in their sinne from vvhich they vvere much withdravven by a reuerend feare and dread vvhich they had of Christs presence in the sacrament to the receauing vvhereof they vvere by order of the church at certaine times induced But as the heresie of this man spread farther then any of that kind in any age before so the church vsed more diligence in repressing the same by sundry publike disputations had vvith the same Berengarius by a number of most excellent vvriters against him among vvhom Lanfâ—ancus archbishop of Canterbury in England Guitmundus bisshop of Auersa in the kingdom of Naples Algerus a monke in Fraunce in that verie time excelled the supreme pastors of the church assembled sundry great synodes meetings of byshops and other doctors to discusse that opinion instruct those that erred after him first at Tours in Fraunce next at Vercellis in Italie then againe at Tours vvhere Berengariê° him selfe being manifestly conuicted 〈…〉 a solemne oth neuer to maintaine his former heresie VVhich oth vvhen as yet he performed not but returned to his former filth an other Councel vvas gathered in Rome of 113.
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
in an other place In consecrating the Sacrament the priest saith he vseth not his owne words but he vseth the words of Christ Therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament VVhat word Euen the selfe same word by which al things were made Our lord commaunded and the heauen was made He coÌ„maunded the earth was made He commaunded the seas were made Thou seest then how puissant is the word of Christ And in this sort he continueth a verie long pithiâ— disputation grounded vpon manifold scriptures to proue the infinite povver of Christs vvord in consecration of the blessed Sacrament vvhereof this is his conclusion Now therefore to answere thee it was not the body but bread before consecratioÌ„ But after when Christs words are ioyned therevnto then is it the body of Christ Likewise before the chalice had in it wine and water but when Christs words haue wrought thereon there is made present the blud which redeemed the people Thou seest then how many waies the speach of Christ is able to chaunge al things An ignorant puâ—as nobis esse virtuâ—em mysticae benedictionis saith S. Cyâ—illus Archbishop of Alexandria Thinkest thow we know not the vertue or force of the mystical benediction to worke the real presence of Christ with vs VVhere he vseth many of the examples brought by S. Ambrose namely that of Moses rod of the riuers of Aegipt made blud of passing the red sea to proue that we should make no doubt touching the veritie of this misterie nor Iewishly aske how Christ can make his body present in so many places at once To like effect and purpose notable are the words of Eusebius Emissenus or as some suppose of Faustus bishop of Rhegium touching my purpose it is not material whether for that ech of them liued about 1200. yeres since and so are good witnesses of the faith of that auncient church which are these VVhen the creatures bread and wine are set on the holy altars to be blessed before they are consecrated with inuocation of the high god there is the substance of bread and wine but after the words of Christ it is the body and blud of Christ. And what meruaile is it if be that with a word could create can now alter the things which he hath created Nay it seemeth a lesser miracle if that which he is confessed to haue made of nothing the same now being made he chaunge in to a better substance And what may be hard for him to do to whom it was easie by the commaundement of his wil to make al things both visible and invisible These few in steed of a number may serue to declare what saith the auncient church and fathers had of the strength and efficacie of Christs words in the blessed Sacrament Now let vs vew on the other side the opinion of Zuinglius the Sacramentaries This Zuinglius him self maketh to be the very state of the question betwene him Luther Controuersia quâ—e nobis cum Luthero est in hoc versatur c. The controuersie betwene vs Luther resteth in this point that we on our side can neuer graunt that Christs words in the supper should be pronounced to this end as though any thing were wrought by vertue of them And albeit he can be content to permit them to be read as other parts of the scripture historically for knowledge of the stone as perhaps in the old Testament when the Paschal lamb was eaten in the time thereof the Iewes might reade the 12. chapiter of Exodus and yet that also he greatly liketh not and holdeth it not so conuenient but admitteth it no wares necessarie yet hovv so euer that be very couragiously he assureth his reader that Luther can neuer yeld any sound reasoÌ„ or authori tie that commaundeth the words of the institution to be read in ministring the supper The like he vvriteth of the sacrament of baptisme Non damno vsitatam baptizandi formulam in nomine patris c. I condemne not the vsual forme of baptising in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy gost yet in the meane season I nether may nor wil omit to speake the truth which is this that Christ appointed not in these words a forme of baptisme which we should vse at the Diuines hitherto haue falsely taught And the meaning of these words is not as if Christ wold haue said VVhen yow baptise any pronounce these 3 names ouer them but rather he warneth that such as were strangers from god and true religion them should the Apostles bring to the true god dedicating binding them to his seruice by some external signe And Caluin caâ—leth it magical inchauntment to thinke that the words of Christ worke any thing in the sacrament for that sola explication ad populum facit vt mortuum elementuÌ„ incipiat esse sacramentum Only the declaratioÌ„ of the mâ—sterie to the people causeth the dead element to become a sacrament The like vvriteth Bullinger Zuinglius his successor in the chaire of Zurick The Papists superstitiously attribute force of sanctification to the words vttered in administration of the sacrament For not the words but the faith of the baptized causeth that baptisme is of force and vertue And in the gospel when Christ instituted the supper he commaunded nâ—t to rehearse or pronounce any thing by vertue whereof the elements might be chaunged or the things signified broughâ— downe from heauen and ioyned to the symboles And therefore there is no vertue at al in rehearsing the words of the Lord in the supper As the figure or forme of letters is of no valew so there is no force in pronouncing the words or in the sound of them For Plinie saith words as also charmes or inchauntements are of no power or efficacie In vvhich vvords the Christian reader may first of al note vvhat Doctors these men folovv in matters of faith vvhen Plinie an heathen and faithles man is brought in as a great author to determine of the vertue of our Sauiours vvords in the sacrament VVith like grace as Theodore Beza expoundeth the same vvords symbolically by the graue authoritie forsooth of Homer the poete as he is commonly called father of lyes Next it may be obserued vvhether Brentius the Lutheran had not lust occasion to vvrite of Bullinger his companions as by vvitnesse of Bullinger him self he doth to vvit These Zuinglians saith he are wont to measure and limite as they please the omnipotencie of god To which end they vse the verie self same arguments quibus Plinius ille Atheus Epicureus omnipotentiam Dei oppugnauit by which Plinie that godles Epicure fought against the omnipotencie of God Then by conference of the sayings of Zuinglius Caluin and Bullinger vvith those former of Iustinus the martyr S. Ambrose S. Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus as vve may farther perceiue an
infinite difference betvvene that antiquitie this noueltie that faith this infidelitie that sacrifice and sacrament of Christ and this sacrilegious bread and vvyne or perhaps some vvorse matter invented by Carolostadius his Sprite so if vve proceed on a litle farther to the practise and administration of this nevv deuised Communion vve shal yet somvvhat more throughly see in to the essence thereof and haue better helpe to iudge betvvene the one the other For before I come to Caluins opinion vpon vvhich I must lest most of al although in substance it be al one vvith these precedent I thinke it good for the better vnderstanding of the reader to let him see hovv the Protestants vse to administer this their supper vvithout superstition and most nighly to this order prescribed by Carolostadius Zuinglius Bullinger and the Tigurine gospellers after Zuinglius fasshion ¶ A Germane Protestant of this time in his booke vvhich he hath made conteyning 50. reasons vvhy one of his sect a Lutheran may not in any vvise become a Caluinist among other things vvriteth that the Caluinists or sacramentaries do so haâ—e the words of Christs Institution that they can not abide ether to see or to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them Ioachimus VVestphalus obiecteth to Caluin that the Ministers of his sâ—â—te in East Fâ—â—â—â—land minister the Eucharist vvith these only vvords Eate this bread beleeue and remember that the body of Christ offered on the crosse is the true sacrifice for your sinnes VVhich maner of administratio Caluin in his ansvvere iustifieth is as al men may perceiue very conformable to the assertioâ—s of Zuinglius of Bullinger of Oecolampadiê° those other before rehearsed The Anabaptists in this respect are perfite sacramentaries and Caluin in his booke against them vvhere he seuerally reciteth their errors and refuteth them confesseth that in the receiuing and administration of the supper they say nothing which we graunt not vnto them yea which we our selues teach not daily Nihil dicunt saith he quod ipsis non concedamus imo quod non quotidie doceamus So that in seeing the communioÌ„ of the Anabaptists vve see the communion of Caluinists and the forme and fashion of the one is a true and exact paterne of the other Novv that the Anabaptists vsually leaue out the vvords of Christs institution it is no lesse notorious to any man that knovveth their â—aith gospel and Communions whereof their practise in Munster the chief citie of VVestphalia where they began their kingdome the yere 1534 may seâ—â—e for a sufficient proofe One day as Sleidan reheaâ—seth the storie the king coÌ„maunded the brethern to meete in a certen place Being come thither some thousands in number they found their supper prouided beef mutton tost sod with such varietie as the country and time velded This supper being now almost exded the king him self reacheth bread to ech one vsing withal these words Take eate shew forth the death of the Lord. His Quene immediatly folowing deliuereth in like sort the cup saying drinke shew forth the death of the Lord. M. Fox our English Martyr-maker writing the storie of Anne Askew Iohn Lassels others in the end of king Henry the 8. his reigne setteth downe a long epistle writen by the said Lassels in which is conteyned their faith of the sacrament which faith also M. Fox seemeth wel to approue for that he saith This martyr confuteth the error of the Papists which are not contente with the spiritual receiuing also he doth câ—t oâ— tâ—e sinister interpretatioÌ„ which many make vpon the words of the institutioÌ„ Thus are the words of this martyr S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. saith That which I deliuered vnto yow I receaued of the Lord. For the lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread thanked brake it and said take ye eâ—e ye this is my body which is broken for yow Here me seemeth S. Paule durst not take vpon him his Lord masters authoritie he durst not take vpon him to say This is my body It was the Lord IESVS that made the supper which also did finish it and made an end of the only act of our saluation both here in this world also with his father in heaven Now if any man be able to finish the act of our Sauiour in breaking of his body and shedding of his blud here also to finish it with his father in heauen then let him say it But I thinke if men wil looke vpon S. Paules words wel they shal be forced to say as S. Paule saith The Lord IESVS said it once for al which only was the fulfiller of it For these words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM This is my body were spoken of his natural presence which no man is able to deny Thus these martyrs By which discourse it appeareth that they acknowledge first the words of Christs supper to be spoken of Christs natural presence and body which they say is so playne that no man is able to deny it Next that this so apperteyneth to Christ alone that he only and no man euer after him could minister this supper â—or so it foloweth The act was finished on the crosse as the storie doth plainely manifest it to them that haue eyes Now this bluddy sacrifice is made an end of the supper is finished This seemeth to agree in part with Carolostadius in that it denyeth the words spoken by Christ at his last supper to perteyne to our Eucharist But it agreeth much more with the sansie of Petrus de Bruis author of the sect of the Albigenses For he taught directly that only once to wit in the last supper which Christ made with his Apostles was his body truly geuen vnder the forme of bread but afterward neuer as witnesseth Petrus Cluniacensis who then liued and reâ—uted this error of his VVhereas then these gospellers wil haue the words of Christs institution quit remoued from the administration of the supper some perhaps would gladly know in what sort they would haue it ministred Forsooth as before the Caluinsts of Fâ—isâ—laâ—d and Anabaptists in VVestphalia vsed VVhich M. Fox declareth thus Here now foloweth the administration of the supper of the Lord which I wil take at Christs hands after the resurrection although other men wil not be ashamed to bring their wicked Councels or foolish inuentions for them And it came to passe as Christ satte at meate with them he tooke bread blessed it and brake it gaue it vnto them their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight and the Apostles did know him in breaking of bread Here we learne what is the supper not after the wicked Councels foolish inuentions of men for so I thinke it would be although by error the pâ—â—nter set it otherwise but after the Lords owne order
and therefore the Lutheran churches of the Counts of Mansfeld in Germanie in the Confession of their faith put a great difference betwene the old Sacramentaries the new saying that the old Sacramentaries that is the Carolostadians the Zuinglians the Anabaptists and such like alwaies taught the Sacrament of the altar to be nothing else but an external idle signe without the body and blud of Christ that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans whereas the new teach otherwise and Caluin to continue and mainteine such a conceite of al other seemeth to speake of this matter most diuinely and mystically and with straunge affectation of high speach may make vnlearned and vnstable sowles beleeue that he hath a wonderful deepe fetch in this case aboue the rest of common ministers writers whom M. B. in these sermons much foloweth yet who so thoroughly fifteth and examineth Caluin shal find in the end that he hath no other opinion of their supper then hath Carolostadius or Zuinglius or Occolampadius or the Anabaptists or the Scottish and English martyrs or who else so euer thinketh of it most basely and beggerly For let vs by articles consider how he runneth vp and downe praiseth dispraiseth maketh and marieth it at one time mounteth alost flieth in the ayer like a bird straight waies creepeth on the ground like a beast but in â—ine falleth headlong in to the coÌ„mon dongeon with the rest of his bretherne and whether in deed the very course and sway of their whole doctrine carieth them At some times he speaketh and writeth so supernaturally as though he were a very Lutheran defending the real presence as for example I say saith Caluin that in the mysterie of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered vnto vs I meane his body and blud to the end we may grow in to one body with him he thereby refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blud And although it may seeme vncredible that in so great distance of places as is heauen from earth he should passe downe to vs and become our food yet let vs remember how far the power of the holy ghost excedeth our sense and how fond a thing it is for vs to go about to measure his infinite power by our smale capacitie VVherefore that cur mynd or reason can not comprehend let our faith conceiue VVhat Lutheran wold require more then here Caluin coÌ„fesseth Or what more pregnant and effectual words can be desired to declare the veritie of Christs real presence not in figure trope or signification which wit and reason can castly comprehend but truly verely so as Christ I say Christs body and blud notwithstanding so great distance of place as is betwene the highest heauen this low vale is here truly deliuered by the inexplicable force and strength of the holy ghost which only is able to worke such a miraculous coniunction Againe If any man demaund of me how this is done I am not ashamed to confesse the mysterie to be higher then that I can ether comprehend it with my wit or declare it with my tonge to speake the truth I rather find it by experience then vnderstand it Therefore the truth of god wherein I may safely rest here I embrace without scruple He pronounceth his flesh to be the meate of my sowle and his blud the drinke To him I offer my sowle to be nourished with such foode In his holy supper he willeth me vnder the symboles of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and blud I nothing dout but he truly geueth it and I receiue it And that his meaning is Christs true body to be not sigâ—â—atâ—uely or tropically but most really and truly present vvith the bread he expresseth in his litle booke De caena domini by an apt similitude ExempluÌ„ valde propriuÌ„ in re simili habeâ—â—u c. VVe haue a maruelouâ— apt example in a like matter VVhen the Lord wold that the holy ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ â—e represented him vnder the figure of a doue Iâ—â—n Baptist rehearing the storie saith that he saw the holy ghost descending If we consider the matter wel we shal fynd that â—e saw nothing but a douâ— For the essence of the holy ghost iâ— inuisible Yet because he wel knew that vision to be ro emptie figure but a most sure signe of be â—resence of the holy ghost â—e doubteth not to affirme that â—e saw him because he was represented or made present in such sort as he could beare So in the communion of Christs body blud the mysterie is spiritual which nether can be seene with eyes nor comprehended bâ— mans wit Therefore is it shewed by signes figures yet so that the figure is not a simple bare figure but ioyned to his veritie aâ—d â—â—stance Iustly therefore is the bread called the body of Christ because it doth not only figure it but also present or offer it vnto vs. This is a plain declaration that novv Caluin vvil not separate Christs body from the Sacrament as far as heauen is from earth but ioyne it thereto as truly as the holy ghost vvas to that doue vvhere he vvas vvithout doubt present truly really substantially And this being so is it not a great shame vv â— some say to charge Caluin and the Caluinists vvith contempt of the Sacrament and to say that they haue no other opinion of it then Zuinglius Carolostadius and those other forenamed Protestants Doubtles so he complaineth The aduersarie slaunder â—e â— â—aith Caluin that I measure this mysterie with the squire of humaine reason and gods power by the course of nature But who so euer shal tast our doctrine herein shal be rapt into admiration of gods secrete to ver VVe teach that Christ descendeth vnto vs as wel by the external signe as by the spirite that the flesh of christ entreth in to vs to be our foode that Christ truly with the substance of his flesh and blud doth geue life to our sowles In the e few words who so perceiveth not many miracles to be â—onteâ—â—ed is more then a dolt These words and other to the same effect are common with â—aluin as that the symbole doth not only signifie râ— figure but truly also deliuer the thing which it figureth that it bath the veritie which it signifieth conioâ—ned with it vere exhibet quod figuraâ— adiunctam secum habet veritateâ— Vbi signum est ibi res signata vere exbibetur VVhere the signe is there also the thing signified thereby is truly deliuered Nether must we suppose the signe to be destiâ—uâ—e of the truth signified except we wil make god a deâ—eâ—uer â—or true it is and we must needs confesse that the sacrament compriseth the visible signe
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
spiritually and effectually and touching al deriuation of vertue from his flesh as profitably eate Christ if so be at least we beleeue his death resurrection as fully and sufficiently as doth the Protestant which is easie to do VVherefore let this stand for a second degree of retracting his first iudgement that here not only the true and real presence of the body and blud but also al true and real deriuation or participation of any vertue or force to be obteyned in the supper is vtterly remoued for so much as the supper conteyneth nothing singular aboue vsual Christian beleefe and then doubtles no more real vertue is traduced from Christs flesh vnto vs supping then to a child saying his beleefe to a preacher preaching a good sermon or his audience attending him to a rich man geving his almes or a poore man saying his Pater noster or if that phrase be better liked the Lords prayer Al which beleeving Christ to haue dyed for their redemption and risen for their iustification as wel as doth a Caluinist and so beleeue they or else they are no Christians eate Christ as truly effectually really as doth any Caluinist vvhen he communicateth after Caluins guise And this maner of eating is most frequent in the bookes of Caluin and al Caluinists as when Caluin writeth that we haue perpetually a spiritual and ordinarie communication eating of the flesh of Christ out of the supper as wel as in the supper this eating is wrought only by faith Mary in the supper there is a figure adioyned besides As when Beza with a whole troupe of ministers defineth in the synode of Rochel that albeit the upper be particularly appoynted for our mystical piritual communication of Christ â—et Christ is receiued as fully cum omnibus suis donâ—s â—tiam in simplici verbo with al his gifts blessings yea in a simple word or sermon As when our English Iewel a true disciple of Caluin Zuinglius writeth that Christ 6. Ioan. speaketh of the spiritual eating by faith by which his very flesh very blud in deed verily is eaten drunken Notwithstanding we say saith he that Christ afterward in his last supper vnto the same piritual eating added also an outward Sacrament or figure In which senteÌ„ces Iohn Caluin Beza with his Synodical ministers and M. Iewel teach according to the true opinion of al Caluinists and Zuinglians that in the supper Christs flesh or presence is no otherwise then out of the supper at any other time saue that then there is a peece of bread in figure thereof ioyned to the spiritual eating VVhich as Caluin truly accompteth among Christians to be very ordinarie because it is nothing els but to beleeue â—o it is so far from reâ—uiring any miraculous descent of Christ to vs that according to Caluin his folowers vve rather vvorke the miracle in ascending vp in to heauen to Christ For the right way to find Christ receiue him in the supper say they is that our minds stay not in earth but mount ab fâ— in to the celestial glorie where Christ dwelleth there â—â— embrace him For the body of Christ is not infinite but in one certaine place aboue the heauens And so we enioâ— his presence as wel as if he descended vnto vs. And generally albeit Caluin after his maner affecting an obscuritie in vttering his mynd partly for that he vvould seeme to attribute much to the Sacrament because of the great force of Christs vvords and al the auncient church partly for that he coueteth to blind and circumvent his ignorant reader partly also and perhaps principally for that he knevv not vvel vvhat vvas his ovvne opinion or was neuer setled stedfastly in any one and therefore wist nor not verie wel how to expresse the same as him self confesseth may seeme somwhat to differ from other Sacramentaries yet his doctrine in most places agreing with them maketh no difference at al betwene eating of Christs flesh in the supper and out of the supper acknowlegeth no other eating but spiritually by only faith of vvhich spiritual eating the Sacramental bread as he writeth in the supper is a figure a seale confirmation And he is greatly deceiued saith Caluin what so euer magnificence and statelines in words I vse who supposeth that in the Sacrament anything is bestowed on him more then is offered in the word of God in hearing a sermon and he receiveth with true faith So writeth also Peter Martyr a right Caluinist VVe attribute no more to the words of god then to the sacraments nor more to these then to them I adde withal that touching the deliuery obteyning of Christs body blud if ye respect the thing substance it self we haue it no more by the sacraments then by words Nihilo magis habetur ex sacramentis quam verbis VVhich thing also Caluin setteth downe as a sure rule and infallible Fixum maneat non alias esse sacramentorum partes quam verbi Dei c. Let this stand for a sure ground that there is no other office or action of the SacrameÌ„ts baptisme the supper then is of the word of god vz. to offer set before vs Christ in Christ the treasures of grace Againe P. Martyr agreeing iust with Caluin before cited That which Christ promised in the sixt of S. Iohn where according to these meÌ„s coÌ„mentaries he spake only of spiritual eating his flesh by faith that he performed in the last supper but not only there For now also he performeth it when so euer we truly beleeue that he dyed for vs. Mary in the supper be ioyned therevnto bread wine as it were seales of his promise And this he hath in a number of places besides whereof I wil note one more because it may serue for a farther points and fuller declaration of that which I haue in hand and whereof I shal haue cause to entreate more hereafter The body of Christ saith this martyr is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of god as it is in the sacraments But sacraments or symboles are ioyned thereto as it were certaine external seales by which the promises of god are confirmed For the promise and graunt of a prince is first to be obteâ—ned by word before it be confirmed with the seale Let Gardâ—ner striue and writh him self so much as he wil this hath alwayes bene the nature of sacraments ¶ VVhich phrase maner of speaking and discourse of Caluin and Peter Martâ—r iâ— we note exactly we sâ—al perceiue that it conteineth one other degree to remoue yet farther away from the supper al coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christs flesh and blud then hetherto hath bene spoken of to remoue I say from it not only the substance â—or only the real vertue which by the conduit pipe was conâ—eyeâ— to vs in the supper but alâ—o the very spiritual eating For albeit
word SacrameÌ„t inuented by man not rather the vvord Signe or Seale appoynted by god As yovv haue altered the Masse in to the Communion Bisshop in to superintendent priest in to minister church in to congregation c. so why in like maner chaunge yovv not sacraments in to signes and seales and then inscribe these your sermons Sermons not vpon the sacraments but vpon the signes and seales But this fault vvere lesse and more pardonable if these men vpon the self same word vvhich they condemne did not buyld the vvhole frame of their cauilling and sophistical Theologie vvhen they ether vvrite against their aduersaries be they Catholiks or Lutherans or in sermons preach to the people because the word being in deed ambiguous ministreth them more occasion to multiplie words to shuffle from one sense to an other to abuse their simple auditors and to saue them selues from plain and direct expressing of that which in deed they stil entend although at some times they are loth to vtter Ioachimus VVestphalus the Lutheran in his last ansvvere to Caluin vvriteth that Carolostadius the first father of the sacramentaries in our daies in his disputations and bookes of the supper of the lord vtterly reiected the word sacrament as new and not found in scripture But our aduersaries the Caluinists saith he because they find the word apt for them to shift and lurke vnder very greedely embrace it and make it their chief ground and ankerhold So Caluin braggeth that this is to him a wal of brasse that Christs words are to be expounded sacramentally This one word he bosteth is sufficient to ouerthrow al the arguments of the Magdeburgenses Hereon he frameth his rules herevpon he bringeth in his tropes If a man marke him he shal fynd that euer he maketh his retreat to this one word sacrament and as a sure buâ—kler he euer opposeth a sacramental maner of speech when he hath nothing els to say In one place he writeth that al this controuersie might forthwith be ended if we could be content to admit a sacramental speech c. Thus he vvhere vve perceiue that although no man be more fierce and eager then is Caluin against words inuented by man out of the compasse of holy vvrite yet him self is content to make his most aduantage chief buckler thereof And this one vvord he not only vseth and vrgeth continually vvhich in him is a great fault but also maketh it to signifie vvhat him self best pleaseth vvhich is intolerable But VVestphalus ansvvereth him rightly that he his Lutheran bretherne are not so simple nor so careles of their faith and saluation as that they can or wil hazard their cause vpon a word obscure ambiguous c. withal stand to rules deduced thence at the pleasure of the Zuinglians VVolâ— Musculus in his common places vvhere he entreateth of the sacraments because he refuâ—eth that name and calleth them sacramental signes for his defence in so doing that good men be not offended very religiously layeth for his discharge â—â—o principal doctors Luther and Melanethon of vvhich Luther writeth thus If we wil speake as the scripture teacheth vs then haue we but one sacrament Christ and three sacramental signes the supper baptisme and penance Melanothon thus That which the common people calleth a sacrament we wil cal a sacramental signe because Paule calleth Christ him self a sacrament So that their proper name it signes and sacramental vvhich Musculus ioyneth is no more then holy or Christian or appointed by Christ vvhom the scripture acknovvlegeth only for a sacrament and only calleth a sacrament and so these fignes are called sacramental because they vvere ordeyned by him signifie him vvho is the sacrament as also a chapiter of S. Matthevv or S. Paul may be called a sacrameÌ„tal chapiter because it entreateth of Christ the only sacrament in which sense al figutes sacrifices many chapiters of the old testament were likevvise sacramental figures chapiters VVhereas then the scripture calleth not the supper by the name sacrameÌ„t but applieth this word only to Christ is it not straunge that the same maÌ„ almost in the same place debating this very question of Christs presence in the supper betvvene his felovves the Zuinglians the Lutherans the Catholikes vvheÌ„ as he should speake most plainly most distinctly intelligibly vvould yet â—un against his ovvne knovvlege and conscience to cover him self to obscure and confound and trouble both the matter vvhereof he treateth and his auditors or readers by such ambiguous and darke vvords vvhich him self vvith such religioÌ„ disliketh and condemneth as not agreable to the vvord of god Yet this man forsooth vvhen he cometh to expound the words of Christ concerning this sacrament not by the vvay or accidentally but fully and directly and of purpose placeth the entier summe substance of his resolution vpon this terme sacrament sacrameÌ„tal For pretending great reuetence to the vvords of Christ protesting that his desire is most religiously to hold fast the words of Christ not to alter any one iote of them that he may thus do he refelleth a number of his bretherne as he calleth them Carolostadius Occolaâ—â—padius Zuinglius Luther and the Lutherans for their expositions of Christs words This is my body for that they al depart from the precise letter and text of the gospel And I saith he can not say as they do that Christs body is with the bread quia ab ipsis verbis domini discedere neâ—uâ—â— because I may not depart from the very words of Christ and if I should thinke as they do haec cogitatio me ab ipso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abduceret such thinking would withdraw me from folowing the plaine and precise letter After this much more to like effect in fine coming to his ovvne exposition Let is now consider saith this doctor how bread may be the true body of Christ that same which was delivered for vs on the crosse so that nether the bread leefe his owne nature and substance and yet receâ—ue in it the substance of Christs body which also remayneth immutable Nam omnâ—no sunt haec omniuÌ„ verissima For 〈…〉 both these are most true that the bread which our lord geueth is his owne body yet as verely bread as it was before the communion c. VVhere by the vvay the reader may see the vvicked and feared conscience of these prophane heretikes vvhom not vvithout great reason S. Paule teâ—meth damned in their owne iudgement vvho feyning a great regard and religious dread to depart from Christs words in the self same instant pervert his words most malitiously For vvhere sayd Christ euer This bread is my body oâ— This wine is my blud what Apostle doth witnesâ—e it what EuaÌ„gelaâ— recordeth it Certainly Christ neuer sâ—ake 〈…〉 contrativvise by his divine wisedome so tempered his words that it is not possible to frame
diuide it as perhaps yow do at your owne domestical table but for ought els that should separate Christs table from your prophane table Christs spiritual supper from your fleshly and belly supper yow do nothing at al in such order as Christ required and in such order as is requisite to make a sacrament to make Christs table to make a spiritual Supper If the Minister at eight of the clocke say to the child which is to be baptised I baptise thee in the name of the father the sonne and the holy ghost or according to Zuinglius guise I baptise thee in the name of the lord and after hauing told a tale of 2. or 3 howres long at ten of the clocke sprinkle a litle vvater on the child wil any Christian cal this baptisme No it is a mere prophanation of baptisme and contempt of Christ and his ordinance ` The like is to be deemed of this your most arrogant damnable tearing renting in sunder of Christs diuine mysterie or rather cleane remouing and taking quit away of that which Christ appointed for the chief and principal I say cleane remouing away because that forerunning talke out of the pulpit being separated froÌ„ the communion by so long tract of time and interposing of a Sermon can be no more accompted any parcel of the communion then the words of baptisme vttered at eight of the clocke are to be esteemed a part of baptising or sprinkling of the vvater which ensueth 2. howres after VVherefore of this example and maner of communion I wish the godly Christian reader to consider how iust occasion the Caluinists geue to their bretherne the Lutherans to write of them that they hate the â—ords of Christs institution that they can not abide nether â—o set nor to heare them therefore administer their supper vvithout them that not without good reason Luther wrote of them that when they are enforced to talke of this matter and examine the words of Christ they make such a do before they can be brought vnto it they vse such a number of preambles such vaunts and bragger they speake so many things from the matter and so litle to the purpose as is vncredible And vvhen at length they come to the point it self then lo they treade so nicely and gingerly as though they walked vpon eggs and feared they breaking of them and a man can scarce turne his hand but away they flie with such extreme hast as though the deuil were at their heeles and they feared lest they should stumble breake their necke at euery sillable which Christ pronounced A very liuely image and representation of this may a man see in the Scottish communion booke where in the beginning of their Communion in the margent very curiously they note Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. In the end they again daube the margent vvith printing the same quotations of Matthew Marke Luke Paule as they do also a thirdtime in their formal Thankesgeuing But if ye enter in to the text looke for Christs words erlier as they are vttered by S. Matthew or S. Marke or S. Luke or S. Paule ye find no part oâ— peece of them ve finde no body of Christ geuen or broken ye find no blud shed in remission of synnes ye find no blud of the new testament ve find nothing but bread from the bakers shop and wine from the vintners seller For if the missing of any ceremonie any thing or iote that Christ did suffice to take from it al nature of a sacrameÌ„t leaue it common and vulgar bread as M. B. peremptorily affirmeth whereas here are wanting so many matters practised by Christ so many points they ech one essential according to his owne confession yea vvhereas the very principal of Christs ordinance and institution is left out among so many other things vvhich Christ did which Christ spake which Christ required to be spâ—kâ—â— done how can it be denyed but this Scottish communion according to the sentence set downe by M. B. him self and most cleare reason and inevitable sequele drawen thence is a manifest corrupting peruerting of Christs holy Supper is mereprophane wicked Anabaptistical many degrees worse then the Iewish paschal supper or any Christian good mans dinner or breakefast as Luther also truly vvriteth in which bread is taken as wel as in their communion god honored and Christ remembred and thankes geuen to him for his inestimable benefites as wel as in their coÌ„munion Christ beleeued that is to say eaten by faith as wel as in their Communion bread and drinke blessed and sanctified by the word of god prayer and thankes-geuing better then in their communion as much loue and charitie found amongest honest neighbours as is among their communicaÌ„ts and finally what so euer is good and religious in their communion if any such thing be there is found as truly and plentifully in such a dinner as in that their Supper VVhereas their Supper is besides desiled and polluted with schisme and heresier vvith deuelish contempt of Christs church of omitting altering mangling and peruerting Christs owne doing of corrupting his holy sacrament of which prophane and sacrilegious wickednes no peece is found in such a breakfast or dinner Of Christs body truly ioyned and deliuered vvith the Sacrament The Argument M. B. declaration why the sacrament is called asigne vz. for that there is truly ioyned to it it exhibiteth to the faithful communicants the thing signified that is the very substance of Christs body and blud Al which he vttereth so plainly in so significant termes and with such comparisons that he seemeth to be a very Catholike or at lest a Lutheran in that point Especially for that he requireth true and real ioyning of Christs body to ours by the sacrament that so our bodyes may be made partakers of life immortal and resurrection which is the doctrine of the auncient fathers and most strongly confirmeth the real presence CHAP. 6. THat which the Scottish communion booke in the last chapiter by refusing abandoning Christs order consequeÌ„tly bringing their Supper to mere bakers bread aud tauerners wine hath marâ—ed that in this next place M. B. vvith very honorable words goeth about to mend and repaire again For thus he declareth why their bread and vvine are called signes The reason vvhy I cal them signes saith he is this I cal them not signes because they signifie or represent only the body and blud of Christ But I cal them signes because they haue the body and blud of Christ conioyned with them yea truly is the body of Christ conioyned with thâ—â— bread and the blud of Christ conioyned with that wine c. Again In respect of this exhibition chiefly that they are instruments to deliuer and exhibite the thing that they signifie and not in respect only of their representation they are called signes
where vnto it nourisheth our body and sowle as also because it is received by a secret and spiritual maner not apparant to the eye of man yet therefore we must not deny nor doubt but that the true flesh and blud the true substance of Christ god and man is there geven vs in the sacrament Fiftly the reason why it is thus geuen â—s in the sacrament vz. to nourish vs both in sowle body not to a temporal life but to a spiritual and heavenly life to nourish I say body and sowle to a heauenly celestial and spiritual end that is to life eternal to eternal ioy and resurâ—ection as Christ him self declareth this is a wâ—ightie motiue besides al the premisses to establish a true real corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament which also M. B. very wel declareth thus VVhat availes it to see my health in a box standing in the Apothecaries booth what can it work towards me if it be not applied So it is not enough to see Christ in heaven by faith but he must be geven vs oâ— els he can not work health and salvation in vs c. VVhich similitude ioyned to two other going before in this sermon and formally repeated again in the next haue this plaine and direct meaning if vve regard the plain direct vvords and stand to them As it is not possible that my stomake should be refreshed with that meate the substace where of I receiue not into my mouth nether possibly can my drouth be slaked with drinke which never cometh within my body nether can the medicine in the Apothecaries shoppe do me any good or helpe my disease if I regard it only standing in the shoppe and applie it not vnto me in like maner if vve vvil haue benefite by Christs flesh blud if we vvil cure our spiritual diseases purific our sovvle comfort both body and sovvle and make them capable of resurrection and immortal life vve must not thinke it sufficient to regard him by faith in heauen having besides meanes to receiue him really in earth But seing for our good and to vvorke vs such benefites he hath truly conioyned his body vvith the holy sacrament made that a potent instrument to deliuer and exhibite his divine body vnto vs as the Apothecaries box doth deliuer and exhibite vs the composition or medicine vve must truly and really receiue the one as vve do the other if vve looke for helpe to our body and sovvle to come by the one as vve hope to recover helth of body by the other Othervvise looke how vnpossible it is vnto thee to be fed with that fâ—od that neuer comes into thy mouth or to recouer helth of that drâ—ge which was neuer applied nor came never out of the Apothecaries booth it is as vnpossible for thee to get thy helth of the body of Christ except thow first eate his body and drinke his blud Thus M. B. And to this very end purpose did the most auncient fathers applie these and the like similitudes shevving most excellently that as in humanitie many good thing vvere vvrought for the body by the sovvle and many thinges for the sowle by the body so in divinitie many good vertues graces of God proceede from the sowle to the sanctificatioÌ„ and glorification of the body as faith hope charitie patience c. many also as consession of Christs name suffering of afflictions almes geving fasting praying baptisme confirmation c. vvere wrought by the body to the beautifying and more sanctification of the sowle Among vvhich the receiving of Christs diuine body in the sacrament was one vvhereby the body fust and consequently the sowle is indued with grace of resurrection of life eternal So writeth that most auncient martyr S. Ireneus As a grain of corne falling in to the earth and dying ryseth in his tyme by the power and spirit of God so our bodyes nourished by the Eucharist which is the body blud of Christ though they be buried in the earth and resolued into dust yet shal rise in their time the word of god that is Christ geving them resurrection to the glory of god the father Again with what face say the heretikes that our flesh perisheth neuer to rise again quae a corpore et sanguine Domini alitur which is nourished to eternal life by the body blud of Christ VVhich is the argument also of Tertullian in his booke de resurrectione carnis Gregotius Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great disputeth altogether in like soâ—me As a litle leauen saith he maketh the whole masse of dow like to it even so the immortal body of Christ entring into our body altereth chaungeth it And as a poison mingled with that which is wholesom marreth and corrupteth it so the immortal body of Christ maketh that where in to it is received like to an immortal nature And a litle after in the same place The body of Christ is ioyned to the bodies of the faithful to the end that by such a contunction with an immortal body man also maybe made partaker of immortalitie The very like comparison vseth S. Cyril archbisshop of Alexandria Aâ— asparkle of her put in straw or hey seueth al on fier so Christ IESVS the word of God by meanes of the Eucharist ioyned to our corruptible nature causeth it wholy to rise immortal Much to like purpose writeth S. Chrysostom alluding yet rather to M. B. similitude of the Apothecaries shop and receit Let vs al that are sicke saith he go for remedie to Christ with great faith For if they which only touched the hem of his garment were forthwith healed how much more shal we be strengthned if we receiue him wholy in to vs And to be brief nothing is more vsual in the auncient fathers then to argue and proue the resurrection of the body to life eternal by this reason for that we receiue Christs immortal and glorious body in the blessed Sacrament For this cause the auncient and general Councel of Nice calleth the sacrament a pledge or symbole of our resurrection S. Athanasius a defence and preservatiue to the resurrection of eternal life S. Optatus a pledge of eternal life and hope of resurrection The like whereof is found in many other fathers namely S. Hilarius Al vvhich reasons speeches and comparisons are grounded vpon that sentence of our Sauiour He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud hath life eternal and I wil raise him vp in the last day VVhich place the fathers interprete of receiving Christ in the blessed Sacrament Namely to allege one in steed of many S. Cyril writeth that not only our sowles were to be elevated by the holy ghost to life everlasting but also this rude grâ—sse terrestrial body of ours is to be reduced to immortalitie by eating the agreeable food of Christs body And when Christ saith I wil
looke what coniunction is betwixt the simple word and the thing signified by the word that same sort of coniunction is betwixt the sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament For the sacrament is no other thing but a visible word VVhy a visible word Because as the audible word conueyes the signification of a thing spoken by the eare to the mind so the sacrament conveyes the signification by the eye to the mind Here is the right and entier description of al that which he calleth a coniunction which in deed is no coniunction but only a relation and a relation voluntarie depending as al vvords do be they visible or audible vpon the vvil of man who hath authoritie to alter and chaunge them and therefore ioynes things absent no more then the power of man is able to ioyne them which is nothing at al. For let vs a litle better examine and consider these words because in them lieth the pith and substance of these mens nevvly inuented sacramental signe M. B. after againe precisely diligently and at large repeateth them as very important and excellent wel describing the coniunction of Christs body with their signe Euen saith he as when we heare named Paris France Calecut the king north south things past and done in the beginning of the vvorld things to come to be done in the end of the vvorld such vvords cause mē if they marke them wel to conceiue and in mynd to imagine the thing signified which could not be except there were a coniunction betwene the word and the thing signified euen so the bread and vvine cause vs to conceiue and imagine of Christs body and so they are conioyned to Christs body and Christs body to them But by what reason is this called a coniunction A coniunction of things importeth the things first to be next to be ioyned and coupled together But things which were done in the beginning of the vvorld are not things which shal be done in the end of the vvorld are not they haue no essence no being they are nothing and therefore can not be conioyned with any thing And though Paris France Hierusalem Calecut be some things and extant in the world yet vvhen M. B. spake of them in his Sermon they were no more cōioyned with his vvord then those other things past to come which are not because the vvord spoken is stil of one nature and representeth al things signified a like So that in truth this is no coniunction at al. And what can be more absurd then vvhen an angel reproueth the devil or a good man blesseth him self from him vvhen God cursed the serpent vvhen Christ rebuked Satan bad him avoyd to say that angels and the deuil good men and the deuil are conioyned God vvas conioyned vvith the Serpent Christ vvas conioyned vvith Satan vvhen he mentioned him Al which notvvithstāding of M. B. or some froward minister for honour of their Supper vvil needs haue it called a coniunction any Christian man may sensibly tel him that it is the pitifullest coniunction in the vvorld as vvhich allovveth no other coniunction betvvene their signe or supper Christ body then is betvvene Christ Iesu god most glorious and his immortal enemy Satan the great deuil of hel VVhich point I vvish the reader careful of the truth diligently to marke cary in remēbrance vz. that these men fynd no other coniunction betvvene Christ their Signe or Supper then is betvvene things most contrarie and opposite then is betvvene God and the deuil light and darknes heauen and hel Christianitie and Turkerie vvhite and blacke For as vve reade of Iulianus the Apostata that being once among his cōiurers who had raised vp the deuil he suddenly affrighted by the sight remembred god therevpon signed him self vvith the signe of the crosse so very naturally one contrarie induceth the memorie of an other blindnes maketh vs remēber sight sicknes helth ignorance learning light darknes and so furth and consequently according to this mans preaching doctrine doubtles these are conioyned one with an other the deuil is conioyned vvith God hel vvith heauē sicknes vvith helth black is conioyned vvith vvhite Catholike doctrine vvith heresie and vvit vvith folie and euen such is the coniunction of their signe or supper vvith Christs body VVhich hovv vvorthy a coniunction it is and fit for a sacramental signe of Geneua or rather of Gehenna I leaue to the Christian readers iudgement And yet furthermore against this coniunction riseth a harder obiection and vvhich vtterly refelleth euen such coniunctiō I meane so much as is betvvene vvords signifying things signified so much as is betvvene nothing the vvord nothing in deed For albeit M. B. vvil needs haue them like that as by the vvord Paris or king pronounced by by I remember the things signified so as soone as we see thebread in the ministers hand incontinent the body of Christ comes to our mynds yet I can not allovv thus much For as before hath bene said vvords spoken in some certain language as Scottish or English vvhich clause M. B. addeth for good reason signifie one thing by the consent of that nation as M. B. exemplifieth by the name of Paris of a king c. so that so soone as I heare Paris named if I be an English or Scottish man I streightvvay thinke vpon the citie of Paris in France likevvise of a king or Quene But so is it not in your bread of the Supper For that signifieth not any certain thing by consent of any one nation but his signification dependeth of the ministers sermon vvithout vvhich it is nought els but common bread For so M. B. teacheth Ye shal not so soone see the wine but after the preaching and opening vp of he parts of the sacrament the blud of Christ shal come to your mynd And again more plainly The word that is preached whereto the elements are annexed is the thing which quickens the whole action which serues as it were a sowle and geueth life to the whole action So that vvithout the ministers sermon your bread and vvine is without sowle without life like to a dead stocke or carion it is no sacrament and so signifieth nothing Mary after the sermon it putteth yovv in remembrance of Christ and then lo vvhen then minister hath preached and opened al the parts Christ shal come to our mind not by vertue of the bread but by reason of the minister who before hath told vs so much So that if the Minister make his sermon as cōmonly against the Pope Catholikes that they in executing heretikes Anabaptists Zuinglians Trinitarians such other Gospellers haue powred out the blud of the Lords martyrs thē the wine wil as aptly make the Communicants remember such martyrs blud If a Catholike in mynd though schismatike in external behauiour or some Lutheran be
present vvho thinks vvith Luther the Lutherans that al such creatures are martyrs of the Deuil the drinking of the vvine vvil rather put them in mynd of other martyrs blud If a right Zuinglian preach vnto vvhom the Sacrament is nothing els but as a soldiers colours or a seruing mans badge as Zuinglius vsually taught vvrote he after the sermoÌ„ ended vvheÌ„ he seeth bread vvine must needs coÌ„ceiue thereof according as he hath hard the minister preach and open vp the parts thereof and so furth a number of such significations and as proper apt conuenient one as the other must needs rise according to the difference of ministers sermons of mens conceites and fantalies So that betvvene the bread and vvine and Christs body and blud there is no such coniunction as is betvvene vvords signifying the things signifyed for that the vvords in euery seueral nation at lest haue vsually one certaine signification vvhereas the bread vvine hath diuers according to the diuers coÌ„ditions opinions both of ministers of coÌ„municants ¶ And vpon this same ground I farther infer against M. B. that a picture is a better and more diuine sacrament and hath a more neere coniunction vvith Christ then hath the bread and vvine of their supper And this I proue by M. B. his owne words preferre a picture before his bread vvine by the same reason by vvhich he goeth about to proue the contrarie The bread and vvine saith he doth not only represent or signifie a thing absent For so any picture or dead image should be a sacrament for there is no picture as the picture of a king but at the sight of the picture the king wil come in to your mynd Is it true Hath a picture such force and vertue to cavse vs at the sight thereof to remember the thing represented Ergo a picture is a far better sacrament then is your bread and vvine in the supper For a picture let it be for example sake the picture of Christ crucified at the first sight of it bringeth to the memorie of a Christian the death passion of Christ so doth not your bread vvine vvithout farther declaration as your self write In the Supper ye shal not so soone see that bread with your eye ye shal not so soone see that wine but after the preaching and opening vp of the parts of the sacrament the body and blud of Christ shal come in your mynd So then the bread and vvine can not signifie thus much but there is required vvithal a preaching and opening of the parts of the sacrament But a faire and vvel made picture vvithout preaching or so much a do forthvvith at the first sight thereof vvil bring the passion of Christ to my mynd Again vvhat man endued vvith common reason and wit wil not graunt that a picture vvhich signifieth naturally and naturally caâ—ieth by the eye to the memorie one only thing to the signification vvhereof it is determined is more potent and fit and profitable to cause such remembrance then a thing signifying not naturally but by ordinance of man and vvhich of it self is not determined to one kynd of representation as the picture is For bread vvine eaten and drunken by men â—â—â—â—ing together at a table may signifie good cheere may signifie hovv Sodome and Gomorrha perished through abundance and delicate fare may signifie temperate diet hovv many good men haue liued a long â—â—â—e vvith bread drinke without any other kynd of sustenance may signifie that al things are gotten by travail and labour as the bread is gotten out of the earth may signifie a Catholike vnitie of mynd and faith as the bread is made one of many cornes may signifie a Protestant and schismatical diuision of mindes hartes from the vnitie of faith as the bread is broken and diuided Briefly if the bread be faire vvhite it may signifie cleanes and puritie if fovvle and blacke it may signifie filthines and iniquitie being vsed vvith some forme of religion in a temple as among the Caluinists may signifie honour done to Bacchus and Ceres as in time of the old Paganes and so forth a number of like things may the bread signifie as many mo the vvine vvhich the picture of Christ crucified can not Again vvhereas the bread and vvine doth signifie as these men appoint it in special only by reason of the preaching annexed and opening vp the parts of the sacrament seeing this signification and declaration hath bene made fully perfitely and absolutely by the preaching and opening vp the parts of the sacrament vvho can deny but it is mere superstuous to adde the breaking of the bread and drinking of vvine an obscure darke secret figure after a cleere manifest and publike declaration This is in deed vvhen the Sunne shineth to light a candle to dig a vvel by the mayne riuer to cast a quatrine in to Creâ—us treasures This is like as if an orator or preacher hauing made a plaine euident and sensible narration of the Hugonâ—â— tragical histories in France hovv they overthrevv churches monasteries tovvres castels burnt vvhole cities made desolate most faire florishing Prouinces in fine after a long sermoÌ„ or oratioÌ„ to such effect should before his audience pul out of his bosome a sticke or a peece of paper and breake the one or teare the other to signifie those former vvasts and desolations This is to childish and ridiculous and yet this is al the grace of the Scottish and Geneua signe ¶ And vvhereas M. B. to helpe his poore signe imaginarie coniunction of Christs body vvith it addeth tvvo qualities incident thereto the first maketh not but mareth altogether his coniunction the second is a plaine falsitie and cleane against the Protestant doctrine and therefore helpeth it as litle His vvords are This coniunction betwixt the signe or sacrament and thing signified in the sacrament standes chiefly in two points The first part of the coniunction standes in a relation which rises vpon a certain similitude likenes proportion and analogie which is between the one the other VVhich likenes may be easely perceiued For looke how able the bread is to nurish the body to this life earthly and temporal the flesh of Christ signified by the bread is as able to nurish both body and sowle to life euerlasting This is the first vvhich as I say nothing iustifieth but rather quit ouerthrovveth destroyeth his sacramental coniunction For this signification and relation the bread and vvine haue ether by the sermon preached or vvithout the sermon being coÌ„sidered in them selues apart in their owne nature If the first so they no more signifie this then any other thing vvherevnto it shal please the minister to apply his sermon and referre the proportion analogie and similitude of his bread and vvine vvhich may very diuers as hath bene shevved
If the second so is there no more coniunction betvvene Christ and the sacrament then is betvvene Christ every creature â—nder the Sunne For that euery creature natural or artificial much more liuing much more reasonable yet much more spiritual and Angelical in some good sort resembleth and shevveth furth the grace goodnes povver maiesty of God his creator Such coniunction as here is spoken of there is betvvene God or Christ and a cap a govvne or coate a svvord a dish any beast much more my man c. For as a cap keepeth the head from rayne and fovvle vvether so God protecteth his from hel and damnation as a good govvne keepeth the body vvarme and in helth so God preserueth both body and sowle in grace to life euerlasting as by the svvord vve conquere our enemy so by Christ vve vanquish the deuil as the dish bringeth our meate to the table so Christ brought in to the vvorld the true foode and meate of immortalitie Much more such similitudes may be sound in beasts in vvhich as al Diuines coÌ„fesse there is vestigium dei a more lively footestep and marke of God For vvhich cause especially and particularly for that I say they in some special maner represented figured the Messias to come our blessed Sauiour in the sacrifices of the old testament there vvas appointed both of the one sort the other as oxen kine calves goates kids sheepe lambes doves pigeons c. and also bread cakes flovver fruits of the earth vvheate oyle a number of other things burnt rosted sod fried as vve read in Levitieê° Al vvhich vvere not takeÌ„ at randon by chaunce but by great special choise for special signification and relation vvhich in some point they had with the Messias to come the Sauiour of the vvorld I need not to make comparison of man though the vvorst that euer vvas be it Iudas or Caluin or Arrius or Iohn Knox vvho being created to the image and similitude of God haue a thousand times more likenes resemblaÌ„ce proportion and analogie to God and Christ then al the bread and vvine that is eaten and drunken at al the communions in Scotland and England So that this first part of Christs coniunction vvith their signe and Supper bringeth smale credit vnto it and maketh it a very pitiful signe betvvixt vvhich and Christ the coniunction is not only lesse theÌ„ betvvene Christ Arrius â—â— Caluin or Iudas lesse theÌ„ betwene Christ any liuing beast be it dog or cat but also as litle as betvvene Christ a cap or any the least sensses creature of Gods creatioÌ„ ¶ The second part of this coniunction vvere more to the purpose if it vvere true for thus he saith The second point of the coniunction standes in a continual and muâ—â—d coÌ„curring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and the thing signified are offered both together at one time and in one action the one outwardly the other inwardly if so be thow haue faith to receiue it Then the second point of this coniunctioÌ„ standes in a ioynt offering in a ioynt receiuing and this I cal the concurrence The same he aftervvards expresseth again thus If ye be a faithful man Christ is †as bissie in working inwardly in your sowle as the minister outwardly towards your body Looke â—ow †bissie the minister is in breaking that bread in powring out that wine in geuing that bread wine to thee as bissie is Christ in breaking †his owne body to thee in geuing thee the iuyce of his owne body after a spiritual inuisible maner These words may seeme to make some coniunction betvvene the bread in their Supper and Christs body but being truly vvayghed according to these mens doctrine they conteyne nothing but a mockerie and coosinage of the poore people besides much vvickednes prophane conceits manifest contradiction to their ovvne preaching and vvriting For to begin vvith the later what a prophanitie is it and irreligious impietie to flame Christ in heauen by their ministers paltring in earth and to tel the communicants that he doth there in his body as the minister doth here in the bread to inculcate in to their mindes and to wil them especially to consider and thinke when they are aâ— the table in sight of that Action that looke what thow leest the minister doing outwardly what euer it be a large worde Christ is as bissie doing al those things spiritually to thy sowle be is aâ— bissie geuing to thee his owne body as the minister is breaking dealing bread he is as bissie geuing thee his owne blud with the vertue and efficacie of it â— the minister is powring out the wine distributing it VVhy sir As yovv breake your bread in your Supper doth Christ so breake his body in heauen As the minister povvreth out the vvine doth Christ so povvre out and communicate his blud though after an inuisible and spiritual maner yet truly as yovv haue told vs sundry times And doth not Christ communicate his body blud ioyntly vvholy but thus parted and diuided not with facilitie but with labour and bissines for that yovv vvil the people to beleeue and marke and consider that Christ is as bissie which word yow so tediously inculcate in heauen as your minister is in earth VVhat a vile resemblance and comparison is this to make the rude people imagin that Christ is not in heauen glorious immortal impassible but after an earthly maner working labouring toyling bissying him self to ansvvere your Ministers breaking of bread povvring out vvine dealing diuiding it in earth True it is Christ in heauen doth ratifie concurre vvith the doings of his officers and servants in earth vvhether they baptise consume coÌ„secrate bynd or lose or do any thing els which he hath appointed For hovv so euer they instrumentally do their parts Christ is he qui baptizat in spiritu that baptizeth doth al the rest in the holy ghost by authoritie as S. Iohn saith But to speake as this man doth that Christ keepeth such a sâ—â—â—re coyle and is as bissie as the minister and breaketh his body and vvringeth out iuyce to geue to the good bretherne after example of the minister vvhom Christ resembleth and imitateth in euery thing what so euer this is no diuinitie nor yet humanitie but litle differing froÌ„ plain scurrilitie especially to men that know hovv bissilie and troublesomly oft tymes yovv minister your comunions VVhereof Clebitius a prelate of your order brawling with his cominister Heshusius about this ministring geueth vs some tast amongest a number of other faults charging him vvith these Diddest rot their in making ministers allow a publike communioÌ„ of one only person that before the whole congregation Did dest not thow commaund me superstitiously to number the breads of the Eucharist VVhen
receiuest the bread into thy mouth so soone thow receiuest Christs body by faith whereas it is receiued as wel before as wel after and no more nor no sooner vvith that bread then vvithout it ¶ Yovv vvil ansvvere I suppose that vvhat so ever your vvords are yet your meaning is that this coniunction ioynt offering is only sacramental that is after your sense tropical significatiue as in a signe and so the minister deliuereth Christs body and blud and vvith the bread vvine the body and blud is truly conioyned for that as aftervvards yovv say that signe wakeneth al the outward senses and putteth vs in remembrance of Christs body and blud vvhich is the only coniunction that yovv or your maisters can stand to See novv vvherevnto this your great wonderful coniunction as treacherously yow cal it is come to Christ is conioyned vnto it because vvhen vve see bread broken and vvine povvred out this wakeneth our senses causeth vs to remember Christ As much doth bread eaten and vvine povvred out of the flagon in the feast of every good Christian man or if it do not at lest the vvine and bread is as apt to signifie so much at every Christian mans breakefast dinner beâ—uer and supper as in your communion the nature of the bread being al one and Christian men having euer sâ—ue faith as vve must presuppose vvhich is nothing bettered by the breaking of the bread in one place more then in an other As much doth the cutting vp of a capon of a hen eating of a good peece of beef or mutton or vvhat so ever soode besides For any one of these or the like vvakeneth al our outvvard sensés as vvel as your bread and vvine And then supposing this to be eaten of good Christians who as the Apostle teacheth vvhether they eate or drinke or vvoorke or play geue thankes to god for al things in the name of Christ Iesus and so questionles haue a faith by vvhich only and no other vvaies Christ is eaten in the communion as M. B. teacheth and is the vniuersal doctrine of the sacramentaries and Caluinists hereof it folovveth cleerly and plainly that the second part of his coniunction of Christ with the sacramental bread al this ioynt offering ioynt receiving al this concurrence this secret and mystical coniunction for by these many vvords laborious affectatioÌ„ of divers phrases he wovld make his auditory imagine some great matter in their bread vvine is as vvel truly found performed vvheÌ„ ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ together eate any kind of meate or drinke any kind of drinke VVhat need I to stand vpoÌ„ the termes of meate drinke vvhereas Christ is as truly eaten vvithout al meate aud drinke yea better a great deale vvhen vve fast and eate nothing For the eating of Christ by faith vvhich only they acknovvledge and the same no lesse out of the supper then in it is vvhen by any occasion vve thinke on Christ VVhich vve may do far better vvhen vve fast then vvhen vve feast vvhen vve absteyne from breakefast dinner and supper then vvhen vve supper as also by considering any creature of God vve haue cause to thinke of Christ that is thus to eate Christ as vvel as vvhen vve see the bread of their communion broken or the vvine povvred out VVhen vve see the Sunne or Moone shine and thinke that Christ is the light sent in to the vvorld by faith we eate Christ as vvel as in this communion bread VVhen vve looke vpon a riuer or founteyne and thinke that his spirite is the founteyne of living vvater vve truly eate Christ VVhen vve see a lamb a covv a calf or any thing vvhich hath any resemblance of Christ and by it remember Christ vve eate Christ by faith yea vvhen vve see an heretike or thinke on them and blesse our selues desire God to keepe vs from them as S. Iohn did vvhen he savv Cerinthus vve eate Christ and in al these a thousand like yea as hath bene said in al creatures of the vvorld vvhen they occuâ—re to the remembrance of a good Christian and put him in mind of Christ he eateth Christ and Christ is as truly offered to his sovvle and there is the very self same ioynt offering and ioynt-receiuing and concurrence and secret mystical coniunction vvith and in euery sticke stone tree vniuersally euery creature to euery good Christian and faithful man as is vvith their bread in their bread euery one of these creatures as much wakeneth the outward senses vvherein coÌ„sisteth the vertue efficacie of their signe as doth the bread and vvine in their Scottish or Geneuian supper hovv so ever they set a face and floorish on the matter to make it seeme somvvhat els ¶ Nay if M. B. could learne once to speake plainly and properly and agreably to his ovvne doctrine as I feare he vvil neuer he should not attribute to the receiuing of the bread and vvine any communication of Christs flesh and blud at al but only a sealing and ratification of the same flesh and blud afore eaten by faith For as the â—eale of the evidence to vse his ovvne explication sense similitude vvords geueth not the right of any thing but the consent of the parties and bargaine or contract betvvene them made before vvherevnto being drawen in to an autentical forme and instrument the seale is ioyned for confirmation and ratification of such antecedent contract euen so these men in their communion hauing first seene the bread broken whereby their sight informed did conuoy to the mynd the remembrance of Christ vvhich is the eating of his flesh or hauing heard the word preached distinctly and al the parts opened vvhich also is eating of Christ by faith thereafter receiue the sacramental bread and wine as seales appended to that former eating vvhereby they are assured that they haue eaten rightly This is also our English theologie in this case the same most agreable to Iohn Caluin Although saith M. Ievvel vve vse to say that the sacrament ioyneth vs to God God to vs yet in plaine speach it is not the receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t that worketh our ioyning to God consequently by like reason nether the ioyning of god or Christ to vs. For who so euer is not ioyned to god before be receiue the sacraments he eateth and drinketh his â—â—â—â— iudgment The sacraments be seales and witnesses and nâ—â— properly the causes of this coniunction And M. B. him self within a few pages after vtterly destroyeth this ioynteffering of Christs body with the bread and in very precise termes flatly denyeth that which here he affirmeth whereof forth with I shal entreate One thing first of al the reader may note that whereas this man so magnifieth the worke of our renovation from the state of sinne to gods grace and saith that this worke of our new creation
is ten thousand times greater then the worke of our first creation then to worke this our new creation appointeth for a meanes this wonderful coniunction of Christ with the sacramental signe and addeth farther that except he be not only receiued but also both deuoured for so he speaketh and digested he can do vs no good and yet in fine to procure and worke our second creation ten thousand times greater then our first creation assigneth for the meane such a graceles bit of bread ten thousand times yea ten thousand millions of times of lesse force then vvas the vvorker of our first creation to speake the lest a man may iustly deeme of him that he very negligently considereth the greatnes of these creations ether the first or second and that he vttereth these vvords rather like a mery iester or player on a stage then a sober preacher of gods vvord from the pulpit A further declaration of that vvhich vvas handled in the last chapiter The Argument M. B. to the more disgrace and abasing of their supper proposeth certain questions with their answeres which as they are partly true in the Scottish or Geneua supper so are they false in the Sacrament of Christs church The first two are 1. VVhether one man geue the signe the thing signified that is Christs body 2. in one action which he denieth land therein manifestly contradicteth him self because saith he no man hath such power no more then he hath to remit sinnes Against which it is proued that man hath pover to remit sinnes and therefore may haue that other power also VVithal is shewed the great difference betwene Christs baptisme and S. Iohns which M. B. ignorantly wickedly confoundeth M. B. his first question is plainly answered and resolued by S. Chrysostom against him and therein is conteyned an answere to his second question The third assertion that Christs body is not promised nor geueÌ„ to be receiued corporally is likewise refuted by plain scriptures which teach a real and corporal eating and not only by faith Such corporal receiuing of Christ M. B. can not auoyd but by foolish and shameful peruerting of Christs words whereof he geueth in this place a faire example to the manifest abasing of the Scottish Communion CHAP. 8. ANd yet as though hetherto he had not sufficiently against his former words disgraced abased his poore tropical bread he goeth much farther folovving the right principles of his ovvne Theologie vvhere sacraments signifie as vvords do vvhich euery natioÌ„ may alter as they list so he likevvise falleth more and more to chaunge and abase their Communion bread and drinke and in deed vseth it altogether as a signe of their ovvne inuention For vvhich as hetherto he hath alleaged no one text or syllable of scripture to proue I meane the thing in questioÌ„ betvvene him and the Catholiks touching this sacrament for impertinently one or tvvo places he hath quoted otherwise so here he somvvhat more dravveth from it al estimation due to a sacrament of Christ and his church though vvhen he hath left it at the vvorst it is good inough for the ministerie of Iohn Caluin and Iohn Knox and their congregations 4. questions he proposeth ansvvereth the first VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to the communicants by one man or no He ansvvereth No. Next VVhether the signe and thing signified be deliuered to them in one action He answereth No. Thirdly VVhether it be geuen to one instrument The ansvvere is No. Fourthly VVhether the signe and thing signified be offered receiued after one maner The answere likevvise is No. Al thâ—se he vvilleth his auditors to marke diligently then saith he litle difficultie shal â—e find iâ— the sacrament vvhich I confesse For al these negative ansvveres standing for true there is no more difficultie in their sacrament then in any other moâ—sel of bread or meate vvhich vve eate euery day And these ansvveres being restrayned to their Scottish and Geneua signes I admit for good and so let them passe But that the Christian reader be not deceiued and thinke likevvise of the sacraments of Christs church in that respect I wil severally shevv the vanitie and falsitie of them especially the first three and examine his reasons if he bring any to iustifie these negatiue answeres For the first thus he argueth The signe and thing signified are not both geven by one man and this ye see clearly For the bread and wine ye see your self that the ministers offers he geues yow the sacrament As that signe is an earthly and corporal thing so an earthly and corporal man geues it Now the thing signified iâ— spiritual and heavenly incorruptible the geving whereof Christ hath reserved to him self only Therefore there are two geveâ—â— in this sacrament This first reason how strong so ever it seeme in the Caluinian Synagoge touching their signe yet is it but weake anb slender in the catholike church where the veritie of the sacraments is not tried by the clearenes of the eye sight for so sometimes the ministers dog that standeth by him seeth perhaps more in the sacrament then he yong men that haue good eyes more then old whose eye sight is dim therefore need spectacles but by Christs ordinance the cleareâ—es of faith And this being vvith vs more sure and certaine M. B. his Therefore folovveth not very vvel that Therefore there be two gevers of this sacrament To this phisical reason which yet is the very ground of al the rest â—or from phisick and philosophie and sense and their â—iesight proceedeth al their â—aith or rather infidelitie against this diuine mysterie he ioyneth certaine theological as The minister geues the earthly thing Christ keepes the ministerie of the heauenly to him self and he dispenses his owne body and blud to whom and when he pleases For why â—f any man in the world had power to geue Christs body and â—lud no question that man should haue power to clense the hart and conscience for the blud of Christ hath that power with it and consequently should haue power to forgeue sinnes Now it is only God who may forgiue sinnes and therefore it is not possible that the ministerie of the heauenly thing can be in the â—over of any man In these vvords the reader may first â—â—cal to memorie M. B. contradiction to his former â—â—ords vvhere he taught hovv the sacrament signifing and the thing signified that is Christs body were coâ— ioyned For the second part of that coniunction he there made to consist in a continual mâ—â—â—al concurring of the one with the other in such sort that the signe and thing signified were both offred together receiued together at â—â—â— time and in one action c. And immediatly after The second point of this coniunction stands in a ioynt-offering and ioynt-receiuing and this I cal a concurrence Here he
vvhich not Iohn Caluin but Christ ordeyned vve must answere cleane coÌ„trarie that there is but one propiner one person that offereth the sacraments and he exhibiteth not only the earthly matter but also the heauenly not only the signe but also the thing signified euen Christs owne body The difference betwene M. B. and me his ansvvere to the question and myne being so contrarie â—iseth of this that M. B. taketh his sacrament or rather signe I meane his tropical bread vvine from the ministerie institution of Iohn Calvin vvhom he must of necessitie separate and disioyne from Christ the ministerie of the one from the ministerie of the other so must needs haue tvvo different diuided propiners at lest The church taking her sacrament directly simply from Christ can make no difference betwene this ministerie that of Christs this offering and that betvvene this sacrament and that this body and that because as there it was done personally by Christ so novv it is by the order appointment and in the person of Christ And therefore although their eye sight tel them cleerly that then minister geues them nothing but bread and drinke the earthly signe not worth a straa a signe bare and barren without the thing signified yet faith telleth vs that the minister of the church geueth to the Catholike coÌ„municant altogether as much as Christ gaue to his Apostles that was beside the signe the thing signified his diuine and most pretious body vvhich there in a sacrament and after in sight of Iewes and Gentils was offered to God for vs. And thus S. Chrysostom many hundred yeres since taught vs to answere M. B. his question The holy sacrifice saith he whether it be offered by Peter or Paule or any other simple priest of what so euer merit he be it is the self same which Christ gaue to his Apostles Nihil habet ista quam illa minus This hath nothing lesse then that How so Because it is not man that sanctifieth this but Christ who sanctified that For as the words which priests now pronounce are the same which Christ vttered so the sacrifice is al one And so it is likewise in baptisme And after somvvhat more spoken to this effect he concludeth Qui autem hoc illo minus aliquid habere putat ignorat Christum esse qui nunc etiam adest operatur If any man suppose that this our sacrament sacrifice hath lesse then that as M. B. doth making so much difference betwene them almost as is betwene heauen hel â—he is ignorant and knoweth not that it is Christ who now also is present and worketh the consecration and sanctification of sacraments no lesse then he did then And so this first error being thus disproued the second vvhich dependeth theron is by the same reason corrected For as it is one propiner so that vvhich is geuen is geuen in one action vvhich albeit M. B. stay not on but vvith a simple negatiue passeth avvay yet for the readers better information I must tel him somwhat more at large that the signe and the thing signified is by the same Minister of the church at one and in the same action moment exhibited and offered The reason is for that albeit Christ in heauen and the Ecclesiastical minister in earth do differ yet vvhen he in earth forgeueth sinne baptizeth or consecrateth the sacrament he doth it not as of him self but as by povver and vertue and authoritie coÌ„mitted to him from Christ also as hath bene said he doth it in the person of Christ and so the action of Christ and his officer the priest is the self same in number and no way to be accompted tvvo ecclesiastical or rather sacramental actions hovv soeuer morally or physically the actions are distinguished As in like maner vvhen the king sendeth a noble man or iudge with his coÌ„mission into some part of his realme in matters of lavv or othervvise to take order for quiet gouernement of his realme that vvhich the king doth by such a iudge and deputie or this noble man or iudge doth by the kings warrant and authoritie is not in ciuil vvisedome and truth to be accompted tvvo several actions but one and much-more is that other of Christ and the priest one the self same in Theologie ¶ As for the third resolution vvhere it is avouched by him that the thing signified is neuer offered to the mouth of the body the blud of Christ the flesh of Christ whole Christ is not offered nor in the word nor in the sacrament to the mouth of my body to vvhich negatiue he addeth very confidently get me that in any part of the bible that there is any other maner of receiuing of Christ but by faith take it to them I aske him only this question vvhether S. Matth. Gosp â— Marks Gospel S. Luke S. Iohns Gospel vvith S. Paules epistles be any part of his bible If they be then let him ansvvere him selfe vvhether Christ when in his last supper he said to his Apostles Take eate this is my body according to S. Matthevv and S. Marke this is my body which is geuen and broken for yow according to S. Luke S. Paule vvhen thus he performed that vvhich he promised in the sixt of S. Iohn The bread which I wil geue to eate is my flesh the same flesh which I wil geue that is vvhich I vvil offer in sacrifice for the life and salvation of the world vvhen after this promise this performance thus mentioned by al the Euangelists the Christians vvere taught to beleeue as a thing most plaine cleere that in the dreadful sacrifice the bread which vvas there broken vvas the communication of Christs body according to Christs ovvne expresse vvord let him self I say ansvvere him self vvhether in these so manifest and euident speeches the body and flesh of Christ be not offered to the mouth of Christian men For the other part vvhich M. B mentioneth the blud of Christ when of that Christ reaching the chalice to his Apostles said to them drinke ye al of this for this is my blud of the new testament which is shed for many to remission of sinnes according to the same Euangelists and S. Paule when the first Christians were likevvise instructed in particular of this to beleeue vvithout al question of casting doubt that the cup or chalice of benediction which by the priests ministerie was blessed in the church was the communication of Christs blud vvhen vpon this most assured evident and infallible warrant the fathers of the primitiue church vvith one voyce and consent taught that self same blud of Christ to be as truly in the chalice as it truly gusâ—hed out from Christs side vvhen he hung on the crosse the same body and sacrifice to be receiued from the altar in the church vvhich was offered on the altar
of the crosse and blotted out the offences of the world finally the same thing to be receiued outwardly with our mouth which inwardly we beleeue in hart id ore sumitur quod â—ide creditur do not these speeches declare that the body and blud of Christ is offered to the mouth of Christians Or when Christ bad his disciples to take and eate that body in the chalice to drinke that blud of the new testament meant he that they should eate and drinke only by faith Do his words import not that they should eate with their mouth but only vvith their eyes and eares which only two instruments M. B. allovveth for eating Christs body by faith the eare serving for conueyance of the audible word preached to our sovvle the eye for conveyance of the visible word that is the bread vvhen it is broken in their Communion by vvhich tvvo meanes only we eate Christ spiritually by faith as he teacheth vs If he thus say yet S. Marke wil somwhat gainsay him and if he haue any conscience make him gainsay him self reuoke his saying For that as Christ deliuered thâ—m his chalice and bad them drinke it so S. Marke testifieth that they al dranke of it vvhich drinking could no more be done vvithout their mouth vvith their only eyes and â—ares then with their heeles And therefore in the bible vve find that Christs blud both in the word in the sacrament is offered to the mouth of Christians And therefore to ioyne â—un on vvith M. B. a litle vvhereas he denieth that there is in the Bible any receiuing of Christ but by faith vvhereas he biddes vs find that in any part of the bible he is then content to turne Christ ouer to vs vve accept his offer And if he can so interprete these places of the Euangelists vvhose vvritings are part of the Bible that lie dravv them al â—o a mere spiritual eating by only faith vvithout corporal and real communion as the church teacheth I vvil confesse he hath as good a grace in interpreting scripture as euer had Carolostadi the first sounâ—â—yne of this sacramentarie heresie yea or the heauenly prophete vvhether it vvere the deuil or the deuils dame â—s Luther saith that instructed him ¶ And yet that I make not my self to sure of my vvinâ—ing before hand I must needs acknovvlege that M. B. already geueth a sâ—â—ewd presumptioÌ„ that he vvil vvring Christs words after a very straunge fashion before he yield so much as any reasonable man pressed with these â—ords must graunt necessarilie and perforce For besides that he is of one spirite vvith them that haue already geven vs vvonderful constructions of these fevv vvords This is my body vvhich body Christ vvilled his disciples to receiue and eaâ—e as that by it according to 〈◊〉 Christ meant his passion and death or els he meant faith or his deitie or a memorie or at lest a thankes geuing or lâ—st of al the churchâ— or if al this serue not he meant thereby an action as Ioannes a Lasco rather thinâ—â—eth and then the sense must needs be spiritual for â—â—oubtles vve can not take and eate nether Christs passion and dâ—â—â—h nor faith nor yet his deitie nor a memorie noâ— a thankesgeuing nor the church vvhether Zuingli meane 〈◊〉 vvals and stones of the church or the people noâ— aâ— action but after a mere spiritual or rather spiritish maâ—â—â— besides thâ—â—e I say of al vvhich he may choose any one vvhich he pleaseth with as good â—ight as they did he geueth an other of him self as vvonderful as any of al these For saith he we find in Christs institution a promise and a commaund The commaund is this Take eate which obligeth vs to obey craues obedience The promise is conteyned in these words This is my body The promise craues faith and beleefe as the commaund craues obedience VVhich exposition seemeth to me as straunge as any of the precedent as straunge it is to cal these vvords of Christ a promise as to cal it a promise if one say to a poore man Take receiue here is a pennâ— or a peece of bread if this be a promise I vvonder hovv we shal define the performance But let it stand for good for these men haue power to make al things sound as they list especially in church matters articles of â—aith with which the Eldership or as the phrase is in the Scottish coÌ„munion booke the Assembly of the ministers Elders and deacons may dispense varie and alter at their good pleasure But what shal become now of these words what sense shal vve geue them forsooth this Take eate a promise or take eate here is a promise which is delivered for yow And if he thus meane then in deed he is far from any corporal eating And if he meane otherwise as Caluin doth vvhom perhaps he foloweth for he vttering no more theÌ„ I haue set dovvne leaueth me in doubt I can but gheasse his true meaning that the vvords of Christ are a promise annexed to a condition and so not fulfilled except the condition be accomplished vvhich goeth before as Caluin teacheth even so his meaning is as straunge wil dravv after it as straunge and vvonderful a communion For saith Caluin these words Take eate is a coÌ„maundement This is my body is a promise like as the lord commaunded Cal on me and immediatly adioyneth the promise I wil heare thee If now any man would bost of this promise That God vvil heare him and not performe the commaundement annexed To cal vpon god might be not be counted a mad soole Euen so here this promise This is my body is made and geuen to them who obserue that which Christ commaunded Out of which this we may and must directly gather that if This is my body be a promise depending of that condition and commaunde Take eate which goeth before then when soeuer man on his part fulfilleth the condition commaunde God on the other side questionles performeth that he hath promised And it were blasphemous impietie to thinke or say otherwise that men doing as God appointed God faileth in performing that vvhich he promised This therefore being a most sure vnremoveable ground if these vvords This is my body be a promise depending vpon that commaund Take eate then by like assured consequence and conclusion when so euer Christian men take and eate especially if they doe it in remembrance of Christ vvhich albeit it be not in the commaund Caluin requireth it not yet I am content to adde it for more suertie then such bread to such eaters is the body of Christ and so vvhen soeuer Christian men vvith such remembrance eate they eate Christs body vvhen soeuer they drinke they drinke his blud For like as he is a mad foole in Caluins iudgement vvho thinketh he can enioye the promise of Christs body except he
his impenitence he debarre him self or commit some fault which deserveth excommunication And vvhereas Calvin as also many Calvinists much presse the vvord Communion as though it required a number present in one place one at an others elbow to receiue together he ansvvereth this erroneous conceit very vvel that albeit one man at home receiue the sacrament privately yet he communicateth with many in that holy supper from whom he is separated in place not in faith not in right and fruition of that common good He is by infirmitie by necessitie of busines or other occasion severed after a sort externally from the publike congregation whereas yet be remaineth a member of the church and by one faith and spirite he is in the congregation and communion of saints VVhich is as much to say as that such a man better observeth that vvhich in this communion is principal vvho communicating vvith other Christians in faith in spirite in charitie and ecclesiastical coniunction for some iust occasion receiveth yet this sacrament of vnitie alone then the Calvinists vvho being divided and distracted both among them selues from other Christians touthing al spiritual communion or communication yet forsooth care their signes and seales in great companies An other argument he taketh from Calvin him self vvhich is of like force against M. B. because he vseth the selfe same M. B. after Iohn Calvin saith the sacrament is nothing els but a visible word as the sermoÌ„ preached is an audible word Hereof VVestphalus stameth this argument If yow allow to private men the audible word why should yow deny them the visible word Yow count it lawful with the word of god privately to comfort the stike to strengthen their minds with promises of grace of remission of sinne and salvation purchased by Christ Christ comforted the man sicke of the palsie lying in his bed with most sweete consolation he absolved him from his sinnes he preached privately to Nicodemus to the woman of Samaria at Iacobs wel to the theeâ— on the crosse VVhy then may we not comfort the weake though several and alone by geving to them the sacrament of Christs body and blud This is of it self a most sufficient and firme demonstration against M. B. And his vvhole doctrine and preaching so many times repeated that the sacrament is a seale hunge to the evidence of Gods word c. proveth invincibly if there be any coherence in these mens doctrine that vvhere the word that is the euidence goeth before there the seale may folovv after vvhere the minister may preach the covenant of mercy and grace there this signe confirming and ratifying such covenant may be annexed and appeÌ„ded as M. B. speaketh Finally this to be lawful VVestphalus proveth by practise of the primitive church thus S. Cyprian counted them lawfully baptised who for cause of necessitie or infirmitie were baptised in their bed VVhy then should we be so preposterous and cruel as to deny in like case the most effectual medicine of Christs body and blud S. Austin was of an other iudgement lib. 2. de visitatio infirmoruÌ„ who wisheth and counselleth the sicke most carefully to receive that lifegeving sacrament for that it is a most wholesom vyage provision VVhereby appeareth that the auncient bishops condemned not priâ—ate communions The like witnesseth Euseb histor Eccles lib. 6. cap. 34. where Dionysius bisshop of Alexandria sendeth the sacrament to Serapion being alone and sicke in his bed VVhich storie after he hath rehearsed at large he inferreth Audis Calvine Dionysium iam olim sic iudicasse c. Hearest thow frind Calvin that Dionysius of old iudged that the sicke were defrauded of a great benefite by those who denyed them the communion of the Eucharist And thereof he concludeth that it is not the â—il of God as Calvin and M. B. say but a policie of the devil to deny the communion privâ—tly which is ordeyned by Christ to strengthen the faith of every privat man for every privat man to applie to him self the benefit of Christ and coÌ„fort him self with remission of his sinnes Thus then by this Protestants doctrine confirmed by so many textes of scripture so many good reasons vvith approbatioÌ„ of the primitive church one man alone may as vvel receive the sacrament as he alone may be preached vnto as hâ— alone may be comforted or looke to have remission of his sinnes by the death of Christ So that for these two points the first that holines and sanctification remaineth in the sacrament longer then the action or table service endureth the second that the same sacrameÌ„t may be communicated to one man alone M. B. is controlled by manifest reason by plaine and manifold scripture by the auncient fathers and primitive Catholike church and also by the late fathers of the primitive Protestant church And doubtles M. B. Caluins opinion is herein most blunt vvicked and voyd of al vvit or Christian sense Only in excuse of them it may be answered that those auncient fathers S. Dionysius S. Austin S. Cyprian Tertullian c. speake of sacrament vvhich according to Christs vvord hath in it Christs body vvhereas M. B. and Calvin speake of a Scottish Geneva seale of a late invention to vvhich Christs body is no more ioyned then the Sphere of Saturne is ioyned to the earth no othervvise then the body of Christ is ioyned to any other vulgar bread or meate signe or seale And therefore the fathers speach that the sacrament continueth vvith his grace sanctification after the communion or sacrifice and may be ministred to any Christian privatly is true as the fathers meant of the Christian sacrament and M. B. speaking of his Geneva â—oy vvhich hath only for some time a poore signification vvith it but never for any time any grace or power of sanctification in it is likewise true vz that after the table service is ended there continueth no holines in that vvherof it had in deed no dramme or iote before and therefore being ministred to one alone absent can do no good vvhich doth rather harme then good to the societie and congregation present That evil men receiue Christs body The Argument An argument which M. B. maketh for the catholike opinion out of S. Paule His answere thereto is fond and directly against the text of S. Paule which withal he fowly corrupteth The auncient fathers out of that place of S. Paule proue that evil men receiue Christs body in the sacrament so much is implied in the very forme of S. Paules speech being with indifferencie examined Another slender argumeÌ„t touching the receiving of evil men made by M. B. which yet he can not answere Against M. B. and the Calvinists denying that evil men receiue Christ in the Supper it is proved that according to the Protestants doctrine and M. B. his preaching Christ is there received of al sorts of men indifferently not
blud of the death of Christ If he looke vpon a picture of Christ not reverently vvhich as hath bene proved offereth Christ spiritually to the sowle better then any bread and vvine ministred at the best communion vvhere soever they breake theyr bread most bissilie if vvith the external sight of the picture he internally receive not Christ is he giltie of so great sacrilege as these vvords import â— doubtles not For so should vve multiplie sinnes and make men to commit sacrileges almost in every thing they do for that every creature as hath bene shewed is as nighly ioyned to Christs body as is their signes and seales of bread and vvine and represent Christ as perfitly and offer him to the faith mind and remembrance of every Christian as presently And albeit oftentymes Christian mâ—n in deed offend in not taking and vsing such occasions to remember Christ and so by faith to eate Christ as God offereth them yet such omission negligence is not to be condemned as sacrilege against Christs body and blud vvhich here is spoken of The self same may be conceived of a number of like examples If the minister ready to baptize a child and perceiving his hands sowle take a handful of vvater out of the font and first vvash his hands albeit he playeth a sluttish part and offendeth yet no vvise man vvil say he is gilty of Christs body and blud no more then he is gilty of the kings body and blud vvho to vse M. B. his example having the kings image and seale in wax by him and vvanting vvax to scale his owne letter breaketh the kings seale and applieth it to his owne vse These similitudes are of like condition qualitie therefore whereas for not discerning the body and blud of Christ in the sacrament a man is condemned as gilty of Christs body and he is not so in any of these matters hereof it is plainly inferred that Christs body is otherwise in the sacrament vvhereof S. Paule speaketh then in any of the rest ¶ The other argument vvhich M. B. alloweth to the Catholike is this The bread which the wicked eate is not naked bread bâ—â— the sacrament The sacrament hath ever coinoyned with it the thing signified Therefore the thing signified is geuen to al. To this argument M. B. pretendeth a double answere but geveth a single and the sâ—me very single and simple â—â— deed VVhat saith he if I graunt them al this argument there should no inconvenience folow For the thing signified â—ay be geven to al that is offered to al and yet not received of al. A man vvould thinke that when he thus beginneth vvith what if this vvere but a florish before hand being in deed al his answere vz that the wicked get the body and blud of Christ offered to them conioyntly with the word and sacraments but wanting faith they receive the bread but not the body This is the argument and this is his answere And although the argument be not very strong yet by the vveaknes of his answere it is much bettered For if the entier sacrament consist of not bread alone but bread vvith the body that is the thing signified how can it be truly said that the vvicked receive the vvhole entier sacrament vvho receive the one only more base and corruptible part For vvhereas M. B. maketh his foolish and childish evasion in saying To the vvicked is geuen that is to say is offered this is to play the boy in matters most grave and serious The sacrament is geven and received not offered only The sacrament consisteth of two parts bread the thing signified The bread alone is not the sacrament no more then a body alone is a man vvalles alone are a howse paper is a booke cloth is a gowne or vvheat is a loaf of bread VVherefore vvho so receiveth bread alone receiveth the sacrament no more then he hath a howse vvho hath the only vvalles vvithout ether foundatioÌ„ or roose then he hath a gowne vvho hath only a peece of cloth as it came from the draper vvithout stitch or cut So that the argument as M. B. maketh it standeth stil in force notwithstanding that childish sophistrie yea notvvithstanding ought that he can say against it by the rules of his Theologie And thus much Pet. Martyr frankly graunteth VVhereas saith he there are two parts of the sacrament the signe and the thing signified if a men wil speake of these matters exactly he must say that the wicked receive not the whole sacrameÌ„t but one only part that is the bread And a litle after The wicked in the holy supper receive nothing els but bread wine and consequently they receive not the sacrament nor any sacrament at al. ¶ VVhich albeit it be the general doctrine of the Calvinists for the Lutherans are contrary to them in this no lesse then are the Catholiks yet somwhat other to helpe this poore beggerly bread of theirs or to shew the vanitie and inconstancie of their doctrine I vvel briefly by their owne Theologie prove that the evil Protestants except they be plaine Apostataes and Atheists as many are receive not only the bread but also the thing signified as vvel as M. B. him self and therefore that al his talke against S. Paules vvords is mere sâ—ivolous cavilling vvithout any ground of learning not only Catholike but also Scottish or Genevical For vvhat is there that baâ—â—eth a common Protestant though in life he be never so bad and impure from receiving by faith the body of Christ as vvel as the minister He eateth the bread as vvel as the minister there is the body of the sacrament The life and sowle is put in to it by the ministers sermon as before vve are taught Now vvhen that evil Protestant after the sermon receiveth it vvhy receiueth he not their perfit ful and entier signe vvhereas he receiveth that vvhich hath both matter forme both body and sowle If M. B. reply that he lacketh faith vvhich is most necessarie I answere first that his faith is altogether impertinent to this purpose for that the sacrament hath before his total nature and complement vvhich can not be taken away by his faith vvhich as being very good maketh not the sacrament not is required as essential thereto so nether being very baâ— can it marre the sacrament from vvhose essential perfection it vvithdraweth nothing I say further that such a Calvinist be he vvicked in the highest degree so that he be not an Apostata hath faith good inough to receive besides the bread the thing signified that is Christs body For how is that receiued eaten by faith In vvhat sort thus that as his eye seeth the bread broken so his mind remembreth Christs death and passion And vvhat hinderance I pray yow is evil life to this imagination Can not this remembrance stand vvith evil life Can not he if
his vvit and memorie be but very indifferent especially vvhen he is first vvarned by the minister and after seeth the bread and vvine conceive thus much as vvel as the most honest man in the congregation For let M. B. marke vvel vvhat it is to eate Christ spiritually in their sacrament By his ovvne definition and the coÌ„mon consent of his maisters this eating hath no relation or dependence of charitie of honestie of vertue of good life but only of faith Bring with yow to the table saith M. B. not one mouth only of your body but also the mouth of the sawle VVhat is that A constant persuasion in the death of Christ and al goes wel This persuasion my Protestant of vvhom I speake vvanteth not For I presuppose him to be no apostata though I graunt him to be an heretike and therefore he doubtles hath this mouth of his sawle and therefore eates Christ and so al goes wel Again As the mouth of thy body takes the bread so them â—â—â— of thy â—awle takes the body and blud of Christ by faith For by faith and a constant persuasion is the only way to eate the body and drinke the blud of Christ â—nwardly Then inwardly doth this evil Protestant eate Christs body and inwardly doth he drinke his blud For being a Christian though a bad one he must needs have a faith and constant persuasion of Christs death Christ saith Peter Martyr in the 6. of S. thou promised to gâ—ve his flesh to be eaten And that which he then promised he performed in his lâ—st supper But not then only He also performeth it now so often as we truly beleeve that he hath dyed for vs. VVhat need I repeatâ— that vvhich is most evident that the vvicked have this faith of beleeving Christs death therefore eaâ—e spiritually the flesh of Christ Calvin goeth one point further requiring that they beleeve Christ not only to have died vvhich only M. B. and Peter Martyr vâ—ge but also that he beleeve Christ to have risen again VVhâ—â—â—as I sinâ— in Beza is a question of great 〈◊〉 and not beleeved of many Protestants But yet I presuppose â—â—â— Protestant not to be proceeded so far but â—esting in the vulgar heresies of Calvins Institutions or the Scottish confession of faith not to deny Christs death or resurrection and then nothing yet is said but that he eateth Christ truly by faith be his life never so detestable And thus vvhereas M. B. saith that no evil receive Christ I must conclude rather that al evil receive him after their doctrine as now appeareth But yet remaineth one farther subtilitie vvhich M. B. afterwards toucheth and greatly magnifieth Learne me saith he to applie Christ rightly to thy sowle and thâ—w hâ—â— wonne al thow art a great Theologe Let vs in the name of God learne this high mystical point Is there any other applicatioÌ„ of Christ then by faith by beleeving his death and rejurrection No doubtles as Calvin Beza Martyr M. B. him self have often told vs. Then this is not so mystical a point nor able to make so great a Theologe except every â—inker and cobler that beleeves his Creed be among the Protestants a great Theologe because perhaps most of their chief Ministers and preachers beleeve not so much Na saith M. B. there is yet a farther degree deeper mysterie in this eating and application Let vs once have a plaine descriptioÌ„ thereof that we may know vvhere to rest and vvherevnto vve shal trust That M. B. geveth in these vvords The eating and drinking of the sowle is no other thing but the applying of Christ to my sowle the applying of his death and passion to my sowle Yet this must be made somwhat more plaine and intelligible For as M. B. obiecteth afterwards Christ him self his body and blud can not be geuen or applied to thee seing that looke how great distance is betwixt heaven and earth as great distance is there betwene the body of Christ and thy body or sowle even so touching Christs death passion that is now long sithence past and as the Apostle teacheth he being risen from death dieth no more but liveth at the right hand of God â—â—â—nally and how then applâ—e yow his death and passion to â—â—â—â— sowle Thus and this must vve take for the chief last resolution vvhich this man here geveth vs and vvhich 〈◊〉 learned maketh vs great and profound Theologes The eating of the sawle is no other thing but â—â—e applying of Christ to the sawle that is to beleeve that he hath shed his blud for me that he hath purchased remission of sinnes for me This as being the very key and summe of that he preacheth concerning this matter in his next sermon he enlargeth thus VVe eate the flesh of Christ by faith and drinke his blud chiefly in doing two things first in calling to remembrance Christs death and passion how he dyed for vs. The second point of this spiritual eating stands in this that I and every one of yow beleeve firmely that he died for me in particular that his blud was shed on the crosse for a ful remission and redemption of me and my sinnes In this staÌ„ds the chief principal point of eating Christs flesh VVel then now vve know a thorough perâ—ite definition and explication of this spiritual eating and drinking to vvit that every man in particular is bound to beleeve that Christ died for him for so I interpret M. B. his meaning and not that every man is bound to beleeve that Christ died for M. B. shed his blud for M. B. and purchased remission of sinnes for him as his vvords sound to conclude my purpose I say vvhat Protestant if he be a Christian doth not thus applie Christ vnto him self doth not thus eate the body of Christ and drinke his blud except he be in desperatioÌ„ or as hath bene said be an Apostata so no Christian For no man can have the name of a Christian â—â—cept he beleeve the death of Christ vvhich vvas suffered according to Christs owne teaching his Apostles both for the sinnes of every particular Christian also of the vvhole vvorld He is the lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world He came in to the vvorld and vvas incarnate to save his people from their sinnes To Christ al â—he prophetes geve testimonie that al receive remission of sinnes by his name vvhich beleeve in him He is the raunsom and propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours only but also for the whole world and so forth in every Gospel Epistle and almost in every chapter of ether Gospel or Epistle so plainly that no creature having the name of a Christian can doubt but Christ died for him and by his death purchased remission of his sinnes therefore every Christian be he never so evil applieth Christ
illis and was â—â—edient to them and therefore somwhat esteemed them Before he tooke flesh of his mother he replenished her vvith al grace and made her blessed among al women vvith this prerogative that al Christian nations and generations vvhich vvere to be borne should ever honour her and account her for blessed in a singular sort Here vvas some esteeme of carnal cognation VVhen the Angel from God said to her Tâ—ow hast â—ound grace with God Ecce â—â—ncipies in vtero paries filiâ—â— behâ—ld thow shalâ— conceive in thy woâ—â—â— and beare a sonne accounting this verie conception and childbearing a great grace here vvas some reverence and regard of carnal band VVhen Christ hanging on the crosse in the extreme anguishes of death commended his mother to S. Iohn it vvas a signe he had some esteeme of her Briefly vvhereas he said in his law vvhich he gave to Moses Maledictuâ— qui non honoraâ— patrem suâ—â—â— matrem suaâ—â— Cursed is he shal esteemeâ—â— â—â—â—â—reth not his father mother vve may assure our selves that this is a cursed collection whereby this propnane minister gathereth out of Christs vvords that he honored not noâ— reverenced not esteemed his mother or the carnal band vvhich he had with her which if he had done or had bene ashamed of her he vvould sever have bene borne of her as noteth S. Chrysostom vpon that place of S. Matthew ¶ An other of his collections as good and Christian â—â— this foloweth in these vvords Saith not Christ him self Ihon 6. to draw them from that finister confidence that they had in his flesh only My flesh profiteth nothing it is only the spirite that quickens In these few vvords M. B. sheweth 2. or 3. very heretical trickes First in perverting the sense of this question like a Capernaite or Nestorian and drawing it to the flesh only as though vve reasoned of Christs flesh only to be geven in vulgar and grosse maner as the Capernaites imagined or as though we conceived it to be the only flesh of a man separated from the spirite Jivinitie the founteyne of life and so vnable to geve life vvhich vvas the sense and meaning of the Nestorians Next he plaieth an heretical part in geving to Christs words vvhat interpretation and meaning him self pleaseth expounding that of Christs only flesh vvhich the very drift circumstance of the place proveth not to be meant of Christs flesh or any flesh at al but only of fleshly and carnal vnderstanding of Christs spiritual vvords according to a common phrase of scripture For after these vvords The flesh profiteth nothing it foloweth immediatly The wordes that I haue spoken to yow are not flesh but spirite life But there are certaine of yow which beleeve not Therefore did I say to yow that no man can come to me vnles it be geven him of my father VVhich vvordes have this plaine and necessarie coherence My wordes are spirite and spiritually to be vnderstood and so geve they life They are not flesh nor to be vnderstood after a fleshly sort as do these Capernaites For so they are not life They are to be vnderstood comprehended by faith not by sense or reason which faith because yow want and folovv your sense and carnal conceites therefore yovv are offended at them So true that is vvhich I said to yovv that no man can come to me and in this sort eate my flesh except it be geven him of my father except my father draw him and illuminate his vnderstanding For flesh and blud hurnainâ— vvit discourse and intelligeÌ„ce can not reveale these matters but only my father vvhich is in heaven This is a plaine evident and true sense of Christs vvords and thus every part aptly ioyneth iustifieth one another vvhereas if in the first ye take flesh for Christs flesh the spirite for Christs spirite there vvil be made ether no sense or a very hard sense of the vvords folowing as the Christian reader by diligent conference of the place may perceive And thus the auncient fathers interprete the place S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Austin Theophilact and others of vvhich S. Chrysostom to alleage one in steed of many as it vvere of purpose writing against M. B. The flesh profiteth nothing saith he Christ speaketh not this of his flesh Absit God defend we should so thinke but he speaketh of those who vnderstand his words carnally The flesh profiteth nothing is not meant of the flesh it self but of the fleshly vnderstanding And in the same place flesh fleshlynes here is spoken of them vvho make doubt move questioÌ„ Quomodo possit carnem su on nobis dare mandâ—candam Hoâ— Christ cangeve vs his flesh to eateâ— But Christâ— words are spirite and life that is are spiritual conteining no carnali ie or natural consequence in the maner of geving his flesh but are free from al earthly necissitie and the lawes of this life as declaring the true geving and receiving of his flesh to be after a divine mystical supernatural vvay The suÌ„marie sense of it is geven in these vvordes of S. Paule Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus the sensual and carnal man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirite of God for it is foolishnes to him he can not vnderstand them But the spirite of God it is vvhich revealeth them A third heretical part and the same vvorse then ether of these two is that he addeth to Christs vvords thereby most vvickedly corrupteth them Christs vvords are as he telleth vs It is the spirite only that quickens and my flesh profiteth nothing But vvhere hath Christ these words VVhere maketh Christ any such opposition betwene his flesh and the spirite VVhere saith he that it is the spirit only that quickens VVhat impudent sawcines vvickednes is this to thrust in of your owne this particle only and to ioyne it to the spirite thereby to take from Christs flesh al force and vertue of quickening vvhich Christ in this same chapter ascribeth to his fâ—esh most expressely Again VVhere saith Christ my fâ—eâ—â— profiteth nothing vvhat a vvicked and execrable and double iniquitie is this First to say that Christs flesh is vnprosirable and then to father this blasphemous â—â— truth vpon Christ him self Saith not Christ him â—â—â— again and again the cleane contrarie Saith he not a the chapiter by yow noted I am the living bread which came downe from heaven If any man eate of this bread he â—â—â— live for ever and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh â—â—â— I wil give for the life of the world Saith he not in the same place He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blud haâ—blâ— everlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day Are â—â— these Christs owne vvords my flesh is meate in deed â—â— my blud is
drinke in deed He that eateth my flesh and â—â—keth my blud abideth in me I in him If these be Christ owne vvords and if to have life everlasting to be raised that life in the last day if to abide in Christ and Christ â—â— abide in vs be some profite and al this Christ him â—â— ascribeth directly to his flesh which is the chief and principal instrument conioyned vvith the diuinitie vvhereby God vvorketh these effects vvhat Iewish impudencie â— infidelitie is it to say that Christs flesh profiteth nothing which flesh geveth life to the whole world Doubtles â—â— Christs flesh had profited nothing Christ vvould neâ—â— haue takeÌ„ flesh nor come in to the world vvhich he diâ— to this end that in his flesh by his flesh he miâ—hâ— coÌ„dâ—â—â— sinâ—e that by his flesh he might make an end of that â—â—â—â—â— vvhich vvas ether betwene Iew and Gentil or â—â—â— and man and in the body of his flesh â— as the Apostle speaketh â—â—â—ght reconcile man to God and by the some 〈…〉 ouen for vs the vvay to heaven And therefore M. â— denying Christs flesh to be profitable vvere as goodâ—â—â—â— vvith our Familianes that Christ never came in 〈◊〉 but only in spirite and mystically and so al Christi 〈…〉 may say to him and of him vvith S. Iohn that he in not confessing that Christ came in slesh vvhich by plaine consequence he flatly denieth is roâ— of God but of the devil he is a very seduâ—er and an Antichrist A third collectioÌ„â—e maketh of like qualitie vvith the â—ormer in these words Suppose Christs body be not â—uâ— in the band â—â— mouth of thy body And wherefore should it Hâ—th he not appointed bread wine for the nurriture of thy body and may not they coÌ„tent â—ow Are they not sufficient to â—uâ—rish yeâ— to this earthly temporal life God â—ath appointed Christ to be deliuered to the inward mâ—uth of the sowle The flesh of Christ is not appointed to nurrish thy body but to nurrish thy sowle in the hope in the groweth of that immortal life And therefore I say suppose the flesh of Christ be not delivered to the land of thy body â—et is it delivered to that part this is should nurrish Here a man might demaunde of M. B. how he caÌ„ match these words vvith the last If Christs flesh profite nothing how nurrisheth it the sowle to life immortal If it may nurrish the sowle vvhy not the body or â—ow is Christ potent to profite the one and impotent to benefit the other Nay if it profite nothing how can it be beneficial ether to body or sowle Next the reader may marke how directly his vvords tend to denial of the rosurrectioÌ„ of our bodies which in deed is an opinion already much spread among these bretherne and this denial of our corporal communication vvith Christ helpeth it forward excedingly For as though there vvere no difference betwene the body of a man and of a beast both vvhich once dying should lie rotte eternally vvhat need Christs flesh saith he for the nurriture of our body May not bread and wine and flesh fish such other good cheere as vve have in Scotland content yow Are not the sufficient to nurrish yow to this earthly and temporal life Yes truly And if vve had no more to looke for but this earthly and temporal liâ—e vvhich belike is al that M. B. and his â—elow ministers care for then earthly and temporal vitailes vvould serve and suffise vs abundantly But vvhereas Christians have an other life vvhich they expect besides this earthly and temporal vvhereas they hope that not only their sowle but their body also shal enioy life immortal they can not content them selves vvith bread and wine and flesh and fish and such other belly cheere vvith vvhich these Sadduces and Epicures can nurrish their bodies to an earthly and temporal life there with wel content them selves looking no farther but they require such food such meate as feedeth both body and sowle to life eternal VVhich seing Christ promised and promised that to that end he vvould geve his owne body the bread of life vve therefore in respect hereof contemne this Geneva bakers bread and tapsters vvine and tel M. B. that in thus preaching he preacheth like an â—picure like Marcion like Cerdon like a number of his felow ministers and Gospellers of this age vvho vpon pretence of the immortalitie of the sowle deny the immortalitie resurrection of the body both vvhich our faviour by imparting his pretious body to both nurrisheth to life immortal and these vvicked and prophane Sadduces by denving that grace vnto the one take from it so great a help and instrument of eternitie immortalitie vvhich in time also they vvil doubtles deny and take from the other Hereof hath bene spoken before vvhere vvas shewed that the auncient fathers drevv from this coÌ„munication of Christs body vvith our body a very common and very effectual argument to prove the resurrection and immortalitie of our bodies Here let it suffise to vvarne the reader thus much that as of old in the primitive church Cerdon Marcion Basilides Carpocrates and such other Archheretikes denyed the resurrectioÌ„ of our bodies the Catholike fathers S. Ireneus S. Gregorius Nyssenus Tertullian S. Hilarie and others argued against them out of this Catholike veritie that our bodies being made partakers of Christs body in this B. sacrament vvere thereby assured of resurrection life eternal so in our daies not only Catholike vvriters bisshops but even Luther also the Lutherans accuse and condemne the Calvinists and Sacramentarieâ— as gilty of those damnable heresies because against the general faith of al the auncient fathers they denie to Christian men the corporal and real participation of Christs body VVhen as Zuinglius had reproved Luther for vvriting that Christs body cateÌ„ corporally nurrisheth and preserveth our bodies to the resurrection Luther at large defending this proposition both by the authoritie of Christ and of the auncient fathers in fine concludeth thus According to the old fathers our bodies are nurrished with Christs body and blud to the end our faith and hope may rest vpon a more sound foundation that our body naturally receiving the sacrament of Christs body shal also in the resurrection become incorruptible and immortal And for that cause Christ wil be naturally in vs saith Hilarie both in our sowle and also in our body according to his word Ioannis 6. VVhich thing because Zuinglius and OF colampadius denyed he therefore pronounceth sentence against them as plain infidels These gentil Sacramentaries saith Luther make a faire way to deny God Christ and al the articles of our Creed and for a great part of them they have begon already to beleeve nothing And certain it is that they tend to a verie Apostasie in this article of the resurrection Certum
remit the reader Concerning the priest who only can say the masse one thing required in him that so necessarie as without it he can not be a priest is that he have power geven by the bisshop to consecrate which power is iustified by the vnction and shaving of his crowne as truly as the ministers power geven him by the Superintendent as in England or by the assembly of ministers and Elders as in Scotland is iustified by hauing a faire long beard and a sister in the lord to keepe him companie at bed and at bourd I omit a number of other falsities vttered in this place by him for that they are not particular but general agreing to him vvith the rest of the ministerie as that a priest hath no calling nor office now in the church of God that he â—ffereth sacrifice withâ—ut a commaund that he should speake out cleerly in â—knoweâ— language so forth these are coÌ„mon lies therefore I vvil not heâ—e lay theÌ„ to M. B. his charge Albeit he may take that to him self vvhich is an vntruth ioyned vvith ignorance and I thinke not avouched by any of the more learned Calvinists that sorsooth vve make two things necessaâ—iâ— to the actiâ—n without which the action can not be VVâ—â—h uâ— the lor â—â—â—â—â—ver it can not be without the â—ive words of the institution it can â—â—â— le For if he vnderstood vvhat is meant by the action in the masse he should find that vvithout the lords praier if by it he meane the Pâ—â—â—r noster the action mâ— le and tâ—erof â—re that he falsely and ignorantly coupleâ—h together as things of like necessitie the wordes of the Iâ—stituâ—ion and the Lordes praâ—â—r Touching the forme of consecration so far as I vnderstand of it saith he it standes in these 5. wordes Hoc est enim corpâ—â—â—eum and in the whispering of them For if ye whisper theâ— not ye tine the fashion of incantation For the thing that we câ—â— sanctifying they cal whispering Here is again vntruth vpoÌ„ vntruth only somwhat excusable for that he pleadeth ignorance adioyning to his assertion so far as I vnderstaÌ„d vvhich is almost as litle as nothing For nether do they sanctifie the bread vvine nor can they by their doctrine ioyne any sanctification vnto it and M. B. him self albeit he vse the terme of sanctification yet in this very place refuteth al true sanctificatioÌ„ of the bread vvine we cal not sanctifying whispering no more then they cal it gâ—pling or halowing as hunters do a fox because after Caluin M. B. requireth and urgeth very carefully that the minister preach proclame his sermon publikely with â— cleare lowd voyce As for the vvords of consecratioÌ„ whether by a lawful priest they be pronounced a lowd vvith an audible voyce as from the beginning vntil this present hath bene the vse of the Greeke church and of old it seemeth to have bene so likevvise in the Latin church or vvhether the vvords be pronouÌ„ced as novv the vniversal custom is vvith vs in a lovv voyce and in silence the effect is al one and no Christian of any vvit ever doubted but as of old in both churches so novv in the Greeke vvhere the vvordes are vttered alovvd as vvel as in the Latin church vvhere they are pronounced othervvise the effect of consecratioÌ„ folovveth in both alike That in the auncient church the priest spake the vvords alovvd vve find in S. Clement the Apostles felovv in S. Ambrose â—â— others and that the people vvere then accustomed to say Amen and by open confession to acknovvlege for true the priests vvords VVhereof vvriteth S. Ambrose thuâ— The priest saith it is the body of Christ and thow answereâ— Amen as much to say as truly so it is That thow confesseâ—â— with they tonge reteyne and hold fast in thy hart and mind For in vayne saith Leo the great do they answere Amen to the priests words who dispute and make arguments against that which is there received The like vsage of answering Amen by the people appeareth in the most auncient Masses or Liturgies of S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostom and others And that at this present the same order stil continueth in the East churches it is testified by Bessarion Patriarch of Constantinople in his booke of the sacrament c. The priest saith he pronounceth the words of consecration with a lowd voyce iuxta orient â—is Ecclesiae rituÌ„ according to the maner of the East church and the people seuerally first at the consecration of the body then againe of the blud answere Amen truly so it is And by answering Amen to those words verily say they these giftes are the body and blud of Christ So we beleeve so we confesse Thus Bessarion And to ioyne hereto one 〈◊〉 example vvhich may serve in steed of many as being takeÌ„ out of the Liturgie or Masse called VNIVERSALIS CANON vsed vniuersally by al Christians in a maner over al Africa especially in the most large and ample kingdoms of Aethiopia at the consecration of ether part of the sacrifice the people likewise geve assent and approbation to the priest in this sort The priest speaketh Christ the night in which he was beâ—rayed tooke bread in to his holy and immaculate hands looking vp to heaven to thee O God his father geve thankes blessed sanctified it saying take eate ye al of this This is my body which shal be delivered for yow to remission of sinnes The people answere Amen Amen Amen truly truly truly so it is VVe beleeve and trust and praise thee O our God Hoc vere tuum corpus est This here is truly thy body The priest procedeth Christ likewise taking the chalice geuing thankes blessed and sanctified it and said to them Drinke ye al of this This is the chalice of my blud which shal be shed for yow and for the redemption of many The people answere we beleeve and trust and praise thee O Lord our God Hic vere â—â—us sanguis est this truly is thy blud This is the order of the Christian churches in the East and South in Asia Africa this vvas sometimes the custom in the VVest in Europe And if it vvere now reteyned it vvould not â—arme tyne or hinder the veritie of consecration or Christs real presence but it vvould harme hinder and discover perhaps many faithles godles and Christles Calvinists vvho now sometimes like hipocrites are present at the church sacrifice because they are not driven to make such Christian confession of their faith in this behalf as vvas the auncient custom in both churches East and VVest and at this present continueth in al churches of the East And therefore vvhen M. B. speaketh as here he doth every vvord he speaketh is a fowle vntruth It is a fowle vntruth to say that vve cal whispering that
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
these places and M. B. his dealing in them is very corrupt and heretical and the sacramentaries vvho vsually care not for a thousand Austins nor a thousand Cyprians vvhen they make against them here make much of one Austin vvhen he seemeth to speake for them especially for that these places are in a maner the only vvhich these men have as very important are obiected by P. Martyr by Bullinger by Beza by Iohn Calvin I vvil briefly set downe in particular vvhat answere Calvins adversarie the Lutherâ—â— Protestant maketh to them Thus vvâ—iteth he The place of S. Austin to Dardanus I expound by very many plaine places of S. Austin wherein he declareth that the body and blud of Christ are geven and received in the sacrameÌ„t And both those many places of S. Austin and this one to Dardaâ—â— I examine and trye by the rule and touchestone of Christs word therefore I hope the indifferent reader wil iudge that I expound S. Austin a right Next he answereth that S. Austin in that epistle to Dardanus as likewise in his third ad Volusâ— axum in his 30 treatise vpon S. Iohn talketh not nor entreateth of the sacrament therefore his words are perversely applied against the real presence therein Against vvhich answere because Calvin stormed as Ioachimus writeth rayled most barbarously he iustifieth it by the authoritie of Philip Melanchton Calvins special frind and a frind of the sacramentaries and so a close favourer at lest no great enemy of M. B. his opinion and vvhom therefore Peter Martyr calleth a fingular incomparable man adorned with al kind of learning vertue VVestphalus words are these Before me even thus wrote that most famous maâ— Philip Melancthon in one litle booke geving thrise warning to the reader that Austin in that 30. treatise vpon S. Ithe where he saith the body of our Lord may be in one place corpus Domini in vno loco esse potest maketh no mention of the Lordes Supper It is a great matter and importeth much to marke in what place vpon what occasion a thing is spoken For we speake otherwise wheÌ„ we talke of any thing by chanâ—e by the way accidentally then when we entreate of it directly and of purpose and our words cary with them one sense in the one place which they do not in the other VVhere by the way let the reader note the intolerable coâ—â—uptioÌ„ of S. Austins words made by M. B. the Calvinists For where S. Austin saith Christs body may wel be in one place M. B. maketh him to say the body of Christ must of necessitie be in out place VVhich differ as much as these two propositions M. B. an heretike a corrupter and falsifâ—er of the fathers and scriptures to as shal appeare may become a Catholikâ—â— and M. B. such an heretike c. must of necessitie be a Catholike Again VVhere S. Austin to Dardanus vvriteth that Christ as man is in heaven and not every vvhere as he is according to his deitie M. B. for his better aduauntage maketh S. Austin to say that Christ it only in heaven and that according to the nature of a true body as though otherwise it vvere no true body vvhich is far from S. Austins vvords and being referred to the sacrament much farther from his meaning And now to retourne to Melanchton he saith further that he can never be persutded that Austin in that place here cited meant so to tye Christ to one place that he could not be in another especially for that the scripture never so teacheth and nothing can be brought to bind Christ to one place besides the iudgement of humane reason In an other place he affirmeth that he had rather suffer present death then say with the Zuinglians that Christs body can be but in one place And the self same is the effect of my answere to the place of Dardanus For Calvin or M. B. sindeth not in al that Epistle or any place of S. Austin that the truth of Christs body or nature is denyed if the veritie of Christs words be credited and his body beleeved to be received in the sacrament S. Austin never saith as Calvin doth that Christs body is only in heaven and not in the sacrament He never denieth the presence of Christs body there Let Calvin or M. B. bring furthâ— so much as one place where S. Austin affirmeth Christs body to be absent from the sacrament whereas we shew many in which S. Austin clearly teacheth and assureth vs that the body and blud of Christ is present is giuen and received there Concerning the last place taken out of S. Austin Epistola 146 that Christ is in heaven as he was in earth as he ascended vvhereof Calvin concludeth as doth M. B. But in eâ—rth and when he ascended he was circumscribed Ergo he iâ— likewise in heauen albeit the right answere be short plaine that these words must needs be vnderstood in respect of the substance only not of other properties and qualities for here he did â—aâ—e drinke sleepe as in heauen he doth not yet VVestphalus enlargeth it som what and iustifieth it by the vvords of S. Austin in the same place and sentence next eusuing and therefore telleth Calvin as I do M. B. that these words are nothing against vs. For we teach not that Christ is in the Eucharist visibly and localy of which forme S. Austin speaketh as appeareth by thâ—â— be citeth the words of the Angel As yow have seene him go in is heaven so shâ—l he come And S. Austin him self interpreteth that particle of similitude sie so of the substance and forme of Christ affirming that the same Christ which then ascended iâ— to heauen shal in the end of the world come to iudge in visible forme And this is a true plaine very sufficient answere to these places of S. Austin and S. Austin never speaketh otherwise if we take his sentence according to the general tenor forme of his writings agreably also to Christs owne words as this Protestant truly testifieth and not by peeces and quillets and snatches as do the sacrameutaries therein so filthely and shamefully as Luther writeth mâ—â—gle him for defense of their venemous heresie as nothing câ—â— be more tam foede contumeliose deformant vâ—â—ihil supra ¶ The text of the Acts yet resteth which as he telleth vs proveth most evidently that Christs body can be but in one place And vvhat are those vvords vvhich prove this so euidently These of S. Peter that heaven must conteyne Christ vntil al things be restored This perhaps proves that Christ must be in heaveÌ„ vntil that tyme but that he can be no vvhere els how is this proued by these words save only in the blind and reprobate sense of a sacramentarie who evermore stumbleth vpon this condusion that vvhen Christ is said to be in oue place he can
and such like places is that Christ is not so in the world as for â—â—â— sake he was in the world 33. yeres poore afflicted mortal In this sense we truly vnderstand Christs words Me your shal not haue alwaies with yow For we haue not Christ as in the time of his dispensation be liued with his disciples and as they desired to have Christ always present in the external conuersatioÌ„ of this life Visibly as then he conuerseth not with vs he eateth not he drinketh not he sleepeth not he needeth not to be enterteyned in our howse or table or to be anoynted as Simon and Lazarus enterteyned him a certaine woman anoynted him The Apostles desired to haue in Christ carnal comforts and earthly benefites So Christ was not to remayne with them in the world So it was conuenient for them that he should depart should forsake the world and not be in the world In this sense the Apostle Paule saith that he knoweth no man no not Christ according to the flesh But these places and al other of like effect conclude no more then we graunt that Christ is not in the Eucharist after a wordly maner according to philosophical and earthly properties of a body as is to be circumscribed and shut vp in a place and such like qualities of this mortal and worldly life But yet truly he is with vs in his power and maiestie and most specially in the boly supper and that in his flesh and blud according to his owne worde Other arguments against the real presence ansvvered The Argument Five other arguments made against the real presence are answered It is not necessarie that al such things be present in the sacrament or administration of the sacrament as are signified by bread and wine the material parts thereof How it is horrible wickednes to eate Christs flesh how therefore such speech is vnderstood mystically spiritually yet without hindering the real presence but rather confirming it CHAP. 19. THE arguments proposed in the last chapter are M. B. his principal argumeÌ„ts which as very principal have bene heretofore pressed againe and againe by the greater Rabbines of the sacrameÌ„tarie synagoge and because they seeme consonant to humane reason and are beautified vvith the name of one auncient father of greatest estimation may seeme to cary some credit though being indifferently wayed they are very light and prove nothing The rest that folow are for the most part as I ghesse his owne For so the povertie and miserablenes of them maketh me to thinke One or other of them vvas at the beginning vsed by Zuinglius and Occolampadius but are al of one fashion and grace some Iudaical some heretical some founded vpon manifest lyes some plaire derogatorie to Christs glorie al sond and contemptible vvithout any pith vvhich therefore I vvil the more briefly runne ouer The first is The effect of the sacrameÌ„t is spiritual But of a corporal presence no spiritual effect can euer â—â—â—â— So this corporal presence must ay tend to a corporal end which is directly coÌ„trarie to the end why the sacrameÌ„t was instituted This argument is more meet for a Iew then a Christian It is as good against Christs real incarnation death and passion as against the sacrament For if a corporal presence of Christ can vvorke no spiritual effect then nether did his incarnation any good nor death nor passion The next If the bread â—e chaunged in to the body of Christ thâ—â— this sacrament wanteth a signe which is to nurrish vscorporally as the body of Christ doth spiritually But the accidents cannot nurrish vscorporally This argument is false in evenâ— part and parcel and flat repugnant to the last For 〈…〉 Christs corporal presence can not worke any spiritual effect vvhat need vve to have bread to signifie that And if Christs body being present can not nurrish spiritually much lesse can it absent as by M. B. his divers reasons and similitudes vve haue bene before instructed Secondarily the signe in the sacrament vvhich he and his felowes most vrge vvhich is to moue the external senses more properly is found in the external accidents then the internal substance vvhich no man can see and therefore can not be moued vvith the sight thereof by his eye to informe his mind of Christ the spiritual bread VVherefore as to a sacrament is required only that there be an external signe representing the internal gift so this is fully don by the external figure alone as the brasen serpent in the old testameÌ„t vvas a sacrameÌ„t of Christ very fully and sufficiently represented him albeit in that vvere no true substance and nature of a serpent but only the external shape Thirdly I demaund vvhere findeth M. B. in al the Euangelists in S. Paule in Christs words that this sacrament vvas appointed to signifie spiritual nurriture vvhich vvas in deed appointed to nurrish spiritually to life eternal Again it is false that the accidents in the sacrament do not nurrish and true it is that even in ordinarie food meat and drinke doth nurrish by reason and meane of the accidents Furthermore as the fathers teach vs that to the sacrament is required bread for this signification of spiritual nurriture so the same fathers tel vs and so doth S. Paule him self though not so plainly that the sacramental bread signifieth our mystical vnion and coniunction one vvith an other Our Lord saith S. Austin commended to vs his body in those things which of many are made one Of many vvheate cornes is made the bread of many grapes is made the vvine vvhich is also the similitude of S. Cyprian and very largely prosecuted in the English and Scottish communion vvhere thus the brothers and sisters singe And that vve should not yet forget VVhat good he to vs wrought A signe Christ left our eyes to tel that he our bodies bought in bread and vvine here visible c. VVhich signification is there artificially and Rhetorically thus dilated As once the corne did live and grow and vvas cut downe vvith sith And thresshed out vvith many stripes out from his huske to driue And as the mil vvith violence did teare it out so smale c. And as the ouen vvith fier hote did close it vp in heate c. So vvas the Lord in his ripe age cut downe by cruel death Again And as the grapes in pleasant tyme are pressed very sore a pitiful case And plucked downe vvhen they be ripe And let to grow no more So Christ his blud out pressed was c. Thus much for ech part in seueral now for conclusicâ— vvhat both these parts ioyntly signifie And as the cornes by vnitie in to one loaf is knit So is the Lord and his whole Church Though he in heauen sit As many grapes make but one wine So should vve be but one In faith and loue c. These significations and
more be in the sacramental bread and vvine of the English and Scottish Communion And yet as I suppose nether the English not the Scottish ministers thinke it necessarie that vvhen they minister the communion there be present in the congregation reaping and thresshing grinding and baking and so forth nether yet that in their cup being made of vvine or ale there be many ale cornes or many grapes or in the bread many wheat cornes to signifie the vnitie of the lord with the congregation as also the vnitie of the bretherne and sisterne one vvith an other in faith and love but it is counted sufficient that to the matter of the sacrament these things vvere requisite before it could be made bread or vvine If he thus thinke and answere as he must of necessitie then he answereth him self that it suffiseth this sacrament in the Catholike church to be made of bread and vvine vvhich signifie spiritual nurriture though after consecration the substance of nether remayne vvhich yet nurrish even then sufficiently to performe that vvhich his argument requireth Finally this argument is condemned by Iohn Calvin him self and the vvhole consistorie of Geneva For vvhereas this man argueth that vve haue no sacrament because we want a signe if the substance of the bread be chaunged although that notwithstanding vve reteyne al properties qualities effects and operations of bread Calvin vvith his consistory as before is noted holdeth the sacrament to be perfite and absolute though there be no bread at al though there vvant both substance and qualities of bread al shape forme and nature of bread and vvine both internal and external And vvhereas against that opinion or licentious dispensation there vvas obiected belike by some minister of M. B. his conceite this argument vvhich here he opposeth the Consistorie answereth very gravely This analogie or signification of bread made of many graynes and wine of many grapes to declare our mutual coniunction although it be not to be contemned yet nether is it so precisely to be vrged but that it may suffise vs to testifie that coniunction and faith by like signes in general by other meate and drinke If then the Geneva bretherne may have a very perfit sacrament vvithout any kind of bread and vvine â—ther in substance or accident M. B. his reason proceedeth of smal vvit in denying vs a sacrament vvho reteyne the formet al necessarie properties of bread suâ—ficieÌ„t fully to signifie although according to Christs expresse vvord vve beleeve the substance of bread to be changed in to the substance of a more celestial and divine bread vvhich came from heauen Thirdly saith M. B. if there were such a wonderful thing as they speake of in this sacrament there would haue bene plaine mention made of it in the scripture VVhat playner mention can yow require then This is my body the self same which shal be deliuered for yow This is my blud of the new testament the same which shal be shed for the remission of sinnes for the redemption of the world Can M. B. vvith al his study devise vvords more plaine more effectual more significant Fourthly he much troubleth him self to find the veritie of this proposition This bread is my body vvhether it be true before the words spoken or after c. I answere first let him set downe a truth and not a falsitie and after propose his difficultie and then ether it shal be satisfied or vve wil acknowlege his deep and vnanswerable subtilitie But for ought appeareth in our testaments English Latin or Greeke Christ never vsed any such speech Christ never said This bread is my body but as hath bene declared before Christ so vttered his vvords as possibly they can not yeld that proposition Let M. B. marke vvel the words in the Euangelists and conferte them vvith his grammer rules ether in Greeke or Latin and if he can make Hoc to agree vvith panis or Hic vvith vinum then he may chaunce to trouble vs. Otherwise except he his vvil take vpon them to make vs a new Grammar a new Latin and Greeke language vvhich they may better do and vvith more reason then make vs a new faith new sacraments new Theologie as they have done he shal not find in al the testament that â—â—â—â— Christ said This bread is my body This wine is my blud ¶ Fiftly Austin saith lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana cap. 16. To eate Christs flesh and drinke his blud seemeth to commaund a wickednes or mischief Therefore it is a figuratiue speach whereby we are commaunded to communicate with Christs sufferings and with gladnes to locke vp in perpetual memorie that the flesh of our Lord was crucified and wounded for vs. For otherwise as the same Austin makes mention it were more horrible to eate the flesh of Christ really then to murther him to drinke his blud then to shed his blud S. Austins vvords answere them selues and so doth S. Austin in other places and even here the second place answereth the first because it notifieth how far forth this speach is figurative Only this may be added to the first that vvhen S. Austin saith that to eate Christs flesh is to coÌ„municate with Christs sufferings and to locke vp in perpetual memorie that Christs flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs he meaneth no other thing then S. Paule doth and the church also vvhen they vvil al Christians vvhich ether offer the mystical sacrifice or receive it to do it in remembrance of Christs bitter passion vvherein his flesh vvas truly wounded and crucified for vs as here it is not And that S. Austin thus meant and never meant by locking vp Christs death in perpetual memorie to shut out this real sacrifice and sacrament vvhich most directly and perfitly continueth that death and bluddy sacrifice in perpetual memorie let S. Austin him self be iudge in a number af other places vvhereof some heretofore have bene other hereafter shal be cited For this present this one may serue The Iewes saith he in their sacrifices of beasts which they offered after diuers sorts and fashions as was connenient for so great a matter practised a fore signification or representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse VVherefore now the Christians also celebrate and keepe the memorie of the same sacrifice past How by vvords only or cogitations or eating bread and drinking vvine as in the Scottish and Geneua English supper No but by a holy oblation and communication or receiving of the same body and blud of Christ Peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosanctâ— oblatione participatione corporis sanguinis c. This S. Austin thought the best vvay to locke vp Christs sacrifice and death in perpetual memorie And this perpetual memorie of that bluddy sacrifice standeth wel and is best preserved by the churches mystical sacrifice and real presence of
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or
this to good life by necessarie sequele faith decaieth vvith good life and conscience But how matcheth this vvith his former preaching that the best and most sincere Christians fal every day seuen tymes yea seuenty times seueÌ„ tymes and that in to grosse sinnes Is not this as much as if he said that the best Christians every howre of the day become infidels can not haue faith in the mercy of god to vvhom their coÌ„science vvitnesseth that daily hovvrely Gods wrath is kindled against them for that their conscience shewes then to be giltie of many offences against God and al those offences grosse deadly and damnable after the Calvinists Theologie Much more this doctrine repugneth to that vvhich Calvin Beza the vvhole church of Geneva and M. B. him self preacheth aftervvards in this self same sermon in these vvords It is sure certain that faith is never wholy extinguished in the children of God Be it never so weake yet shal it never vtterly decay and perish out of the hart where once it makes residence A weake faith is a faith and where that faith is there man ever be mercy Again Faith once geven by God can not be revoked again Faith when it is geven by God is constantly geven neuer to be chaâ—nged nor vtterly tane from them Again This gift of faith where ever it be and in what hart so ever it be it is never idle but perpetually working and working wel by love charitie VVhere ever it be it is not dead but lively How oppoâ—ite and most evidently repugnant is this to the former preaching If saith vvhere ever it be be never idle but perpetually working wel by love and charitie how saith he that they haue faith vvhich oppresse the poore keep deadly feid and so forth vvhich are no vvorkes of Christian charitie how soever they be esteemed among the Calvinists as vvorkes perhaps of their sole iustifying faith and hote love If vvhen â—aith is once geven it can never be lost never revoked by God never vtterly tane from them vvho are once possessed of it how saith he that it is lost by evil life and that God spoiles them of faith hope of mercy vvhich commit such mortal sinnes But a most vvicked barbarous sensibly false paradox it is to say that faith once had can not be lost the contrary vvhereof vve see by lamentable experience of thowsands vvho depart daily not only from Catholike faith to heretike in heresie from one to an other from Lutheran to Zuinglian or Calvinian from Caluinian to Anabaptistical from that to Triuitarian Antitrinitarian c. but also from the general name and pretence of Christian faith to plain Apostasie to Iudaisine to Mahoâ—â—ctisine to Atheisme VVith professors of vvhich gospel as by vvitnesse of my Lâ— of Canterburie the English church is vvel replenished so M. B. him self signifieth the like of his Scottish congregation of vvhich he vvriteth thus Alas we are come to sic a loath disdain ofâ—asting of this heavenly food he meaneth Gods vvord in this country that where men in the beginning would have gane some 20. myles some 40. myles to the hearing of this word they wil searcely now come fra their howse to the kirk and remayne one howre to heare the word but bâ—des at home This being true if as he in this same place teacheth faith formed in our harts by the holy spirit vvil decay except it be nurrished and if to the nâ—â—risâ—ing of this faith it be requisite that we heare the word of God preached and preached not by every man but preached by a lawful pastor by him that is sent vvhich point he doth inculcate diligently without which preaching it is not possible saith he that a man continue in the â—aith how can it be avoyded but vvhere this vvord is not thus preached as it is not in a number of places of England nor perhaps of Scotland there the faith among the bretheâ—â—e not only may but also must of necessitie decay vvhich vvithout this kind of preaching can not possibly continue And if there be no such preaching preaching I meane by pastors lawfully sent as in truth there is noâ—e nether in England nor yet in Scotland amongest al the ministers as of the English ministerie is best proved by the Puritanes by Caâ—twight by Calvin by Beza by Knox by the Scottish communion booke and election of ministers appointed there and for the Scottish ministerie to let passe my L. of Canterbury and the English Pontifical it is very clearly proved by Buchanâ—â— in his storie and the first original and foundation of this new Scottish kirk in our age layd by that seditions and infamous man Iohn Knox his comparteners in despite and against the vvil of both magistrates as vvel temporal as spiritual that I mention not Catholike vvriters vvho have made demonstration of this against both Scottish and English in sundry writings how can there be remayning any faith among them vvhere is no orderly preaching of the vvord by any such lawful pastor orderly sent vvho is so necesiarie to preserve this faith And how plentifully is this most barbarous fansie refelled in the holy scripture by a nuÌ„ber of examples facts and sentences vvhere vve find that Simon Magus beleeved Christs gospel as other Christians did vvho yet after became an Arch-heretike or Apostata as likewise did Hymeneê° Alexander vvhere the Apostle forewarneth that in the later dayes many Christians shal depart from the faith vvhereof vve see daily experience vvhere he reproveth the Galathians for that they receiving the spirite and for a vvhile continuing in the spirite afterwards gave over the spirite and ended in the flesh vvhere is declared that some vvho vvere sanctified by the blud of the new testament afterwards despised trode vnder their feete the sonne of God the same blud by which they had bene sanctified being washed from their sinne afterwards as vncleane swine returned and wallowed in their former filth vvhere the Evangelist vvriteth plainly and our Saviour him self teacheth vs that some there are vvho gladly receiue the word of God and beleeue for a tyme but vvhen trial and persecution cometh then they depart and geve ouer their faith And to vvhat purpose is it that the Apostles exhort Christians to stand fast in their faith that S. Paule threatningly vvarneth some Christians to become humble and thinke lowly of them selves and to feare lest God who spared not the natural branches the Iewes spare not them but cut them of also reiect theÌ„ as he reiected the Iewes If it vvere then an article of faith that faith once had can never be lost that God vvil never take faith from them on vvhom he hath once bestowed it vvhat vvit or vvisdom vvere there in these ether exhortations or threats As much as if M. B. should exhort his ministers