Eutyches affirmed that Christ had but one nature that is to say diuine or of God like as hee was but one person Hee was about the yeere 450 as some think His error was condemned in the Ephesine councell Nestorius deemed our sauior to be God Hee was as some suppose about the yeere 419. so we also say and affirme that Christ consisteth of two natures of which one is the Godhead and the other is the manhood By the way I will speake this thing that we are constreined to vse new speeches that we may auoid new errors or els old ones new polished and trimmed with which manie men at this daie do intangle snare themselues for as in proper place heerafter we will shew there haue risen sprong vp within our remembrance certeine men who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches partlie of Nestorius haue in stead of the word Godhead brought in diuinitie and therfore we are inforced to distinguish Godhead from diuinitie And verilie Paule spake not rashlie where hee saith that the fulnes of the godhead dwelleth in Christ where he vseth also Colloss 2.9 not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is diuinitie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deitie or Godhead The Gretians do in their termes more fitlie expresse religion than the Latinists for the Gretians I know not by what meane do much better and more effectuallie expresse these things than the Latins doo as also in this argument or matter I would more gladlie willingly for plainnesse sake say and vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hominitas if it be lawfull to speake so in Latine or as you would say mans nature or the verie state and condition of mans nature rather than humanitie or manhood Then we perceiue vnderstand that in Christes person there are two substances to wit the Godhead and the manhood Athanasius as we say So speaketh Athanasius in that famous confession of his saieng that he was consubstantiall that is of the selfe same substance with the father and as he himselfe expoundeth it God of the substance of the father and man of the substance of his mother that is of the same substance that we are Afterwards the church vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalcedonensis that is nature We confesse saith the Chalcedon synod that the sonne consisteth of two natures Neither in deed was the terme nature vnaduisedlie vsed or rashlie taken vp albeit it if we would narrowlie consider the propertie of the word the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nature dooth not agree to the diuinitie for it is deriued or commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The reasons moouing the fathers to vse the word Nature to be borne or sprong vp which agreeth well to a thing created but not to God himselfe the creator Wherefore this seemeth to be the reason which led and mooued the fathers to vse this word because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches by whome not onelie the verie natures themselues but also the proprieties of the natures were confounded and shuffled togither Now because Eutyches did mainteine and defend both these errors and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dooth beside the substance comprehend and set out the proprieties also by which proprieties that nature is defined and made to differ from others therefore it seemeth that the fathers vsed the word nature In summe let vs resolue vpon this and set it downe as an vndoubted truth that when we say Christ consisteth of two natures we mean his deitie and humanitie that is his Godhead and mans nature Let vs now come to the word Person Touching the terme person The later writers haue called that person which the former called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vse this word person Now amongst diuines and in their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person are distinguished after this sort Substance and person distinguished vnder the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall number are meant the persons which are in the cōmon essence or being hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto whereby one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person is separated or distinguished from the other and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance God or the Godhead it selfe is signified and meant but the Father the sonne and the Holie spirit are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is persons Neither was it rashlie or vnaduisedlie doone that the church hath vsed the name of person Boetius which Boêtius hath defined thus saieng that it is the communicate propertie of a reasonable substāce because many did throgh very great error freelie indifferentlie vse these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one and the selfe same thing So the Latine writers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or person vsed and said substance euen as the logitians are woont so to call it wherfore that this doubtfulnesse might be auoided the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be vsed Now let vs speake more plainlie what we call person or meane by that name when we intreat of Christ whether that which is as it were compounded of the Godhead taking and of the flesh taken so that if it might be lawfull for vs to diuide Christ into his parts one part of his person should be his Godhead and the other part his manhood Christes manhood cannot properlie be called a person and the cause therof Not so at anie hand for Christ is not said or called a person properlie in respect of his humanitie or manhood but of his diuine nature onelie and yet that not to be separated from his manhood This is the cause or reason thereof If Christes humane nature had beene before it was taken of the diuine nature that is to say of the word there should then be an vnton of two persons and not of two natures and therfore Christ should be a person compact of two persons whervpon would insue manie absurd vnprofitable yea altogither wicked vngodlie matters whereof nowe there is neyther time nor place to speake Therefore thus it must be determined that the diuine nature tooke on it the humane nature forming and fashioning it and euen whiles it was formed and fashioned to haue taken it vnto it selfe that is to saie that Christes humane nature was neuer extant or had beeing but in the Godhead wherfore the humane nature in Christ Christ as hee is God is a person his godhead is a nature as also his manhood is not a person but the humanitie subsisteth and hath his being in this person of the word and therfore Christ is not either in imagination or in deede a double person but one person consisting of two natures For the word is
both a nature a person but the manhood is not of it selfe anie other thing than a nature which as they speake in the scholes is become a person There is but one sonne of God as there is but one Christ and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe so that now there are not two sonnes to wit one eternall and naturall or of the substance and being of the father and another created and adopted but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to himself so that also there are not two Christs but one onelie God and man together from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke Now we learne what we may call the person of Christ What the person of Christ is to wit the son of God manifested in the flesh Let vs come nowe to the word vnion for vniting is that whereby these two natures to wit the godhead or the person of the word and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What vnion or vniting is that is the coupling or ioyning together of two thinges or more in such sort that of those many things commyng together some one certaine thing is compounded or made There are diuers sorts of vniting And there are diuers kinds of vnitings for sometimes nature is vnited with the forme or shape sometime an accident with the subiect sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts to establish or make a whole matter Vniting and vnion or vnitie differ much Wherefore vniting is one thing and vnitie or onenesse as a man might saye is an other thing For one or onenesse is not a number neither dooth it necessarily presuppose a number◠except in things compounded but is the beginning of a number Therefore we hold that there is in christ a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person and an vniting of the natures These words are diligently to be marked so much the more bicause the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions troubles in these disputations matters Certainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vniting and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vnitie or onenesse are altogither diuers matters For in the mysterie of the Trinitie there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence and a Trinitie in the persons Againe on the other side there is in Christ an vniting of the natures and an vnitie or onenesse of the person Wherefore the Fathers saide well that in the diuinitie there is not an other thing and an other thing that is to say In the godhead there is but one simple being two thinges for in the diuinitie there is but one onely and most simple essence or being but an other and an other meaning persons For the Father is one an other is the Son and the Holie-ghost is an other The reason is because when we say another we mean the person when wee saye an other thing wee meane the nature Wherefore there is not an other thing in the diuinity for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods In Christ on the other side there is an other thing In Christ there is two natures but not two persons and an other thing because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood and not an other and an other bicause Christ is but one subsistence or being consisting not of two persons but of mans nature being taken which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion or vniting This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting Errors cannot be wel confūted til the personall vnion bee well knowne is called personall vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors wherewith too manie at this present are sicke and infected as we shall wel perceiue when we shall come to the matter it selfe wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God Isaiah 7.14 Matth. 1.23 First Isaiah saieth that this our sauiour is Immanuell that is God with vs. Iohn 1.14 Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie saith that the word became or was made flesh Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 2 1◠when hee saith that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham Therefore the word taking openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn And the word was made flesh and both these laid togither doo also declare how Christ is God with vs and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall vnion is They which haue not interpreted that place of Iohn Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues haue fallen into diuerse errors for some haue expounded it thus the word was made flesh because the word was in sted of the soule vnto the bodie taken that is to say that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie that by that meanes he might become Christ So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule in the sted thereof did substitute the Godhead Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man and not a reasonable soule Tripartit hist lib. 5. cap. 44. lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil epist 74. August lib. Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted this also necessarilie foloweth that except the word had taken the soule vnto it likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person neither could Christ properlie haue suffered that I may let slippe many other most absurd points seeing that the soule properlie is troubled and afflicted Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh a ghost or fantasie and to that purpose haue wrested and writhen the worde similitude or likenes Roman 8.3 in these wordes of Paule God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh c whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had a double name Docitae or Docetae and sprung indeede as some suppose from Simon Magus who helde that Christ came not in the flesh but that hee was Christ They held as the Marcionites did that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost See homil 2. following If these mens opiniōs were true christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus or a Sauiour as indeed one that had not bin born or had suffered for vs. There are othersome who forsaking these errors do notwithstāding fall into others no lesse
absurde and detestable bicause as the Poet saieth while fooles auoid some vices or faults they ru◠into others Nestorius whose heresie what it was is opened before For Nestorius interpreted these wordes the word became flesh after this manner that is to saie the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie and fullie powre foorth the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke The absurditie of the former interpretation Which interpretation if it be true Christ is not God but diuine or as you woulde say god-like or heauenlie and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones yet hee is not to be worshipped neither to be accounted as a Sauiour Whereas notwithstanding Paule attributeth vnto Christ Coloss 2. ◠not the fulnesse of the diuinitie but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead and to be both GOD and man which is a proper title to our sauiour Christ is far different from this to be one that beareth or carrieth God So that Nestorius maketh Christ God not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or person of the word but accounts him as most diuine onely by the presence comming force or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts and beside that loosing or destroying Christs person he maketh him a mere or only man he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood whereas on the other side the fleshe taken is sustained and vpholden in and by the godhead taking it Eutyches heresie confuted Eutyches falling into the contrarie error thought that by these words Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie the word was made or became flesh this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh and for the vniting of the natures he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead that is to say darknesse for light in which matter he was most foulie deceiued for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable it would follow if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth that the word ceased to be God so soone as it was made or became flesh because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod Exod. 4.2 and began to be a serpent Aristotle euen as Aristotle teacheth that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme another is brought in But if the abolishing or taking away be denied that a mingling a mixture may be established whether it be of the natures themselues it is of the Godhead and the manhood or of the properties of either nature then will insue that which is more absurd than the former to wit that Christ is neither God nor man but a certeine third thing compacted of both as the drinke called Mulsum made of wine and honie sodden together is neither wine nor honie alone but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundrie errours But all these errours are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted if the worde of assuming or taking bee rightlie expounded that is by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture Wherefore declare at the length will some saie The personall vnion what it is what is the hypostaticall or personall vnion in Christ It is the taking of mans nature which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature that is to say such a taking or vniting that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting but one subsistence or being onelie in which subsistence that diuine nature that is to saie the person of the worde beareth swaie or ruleth I repeate this againe The hypostaticall or personall vnion is that from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the soule Athanasius Athanasius who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth being chiefly the author thereof A similitude Wherefore as a certaine soule beeing ioyned to a certain bodie maketh one certaine person as Peter Paule Iohn So that eternall worde of the Father tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine that is to saye made the same so proper vnto it selfe that from hence commeth and proceedeth that person whiche is called Christ It appeareth plainelie vnto vs out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn Iohn 10.18 that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort Christ there saith I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake either secretlie in respect of his bodie The place of Iohn 10. expounded which cannot be vnderstood either of the or in respect of his soule or else in respect of his bodie and soule together or else distinctly and plainely in respect of his godhead Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrumēt that which is rather subiect to the soule or Soule alon◠But is it in respect of the soule it self considered by it selfe No indeede for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule and to take vp againe my selfe a soule Verily in the resurrection the soule is not taken vp againe but the bodie therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ either in respect of his bodie onelie or in respect of his soule onely or of them both togither What then is it in respect of them both together No rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing which may be saide to laie downe and to take vp his soule Wherefore Christ so spake according to his deitie and when hee saieth but of the godhead that he hath power to laie downe his life and to take it againe he dooth againe open that mysterie or secret which wee handle For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together are in suche sorte sette out that not two things but one alone is established and that without confusion yet so that the one nature beareth rule And it is meete to be marked that Christ saieth I haue power to laie downe not euery soule but mine owne Wherefore this cannot so be taken nor referred to this end that God should be the lord of all being things but he sheweth that that soule of his which he would lay down take again was otherwise his soule than other mens soules are theirs How then is it Christes soule will some men say Verily by personall vnion The scripture saith
much lesse was it confirmed as an article of faith before the Councell of Laterane which was kept and holden in his dayes And though wee might by authoritie of good historiographers make it yet somewhat more new namely that it was not ratified as an article of religion till the Councell kept at Constance a citie so named in Germanie in the dayes of Pope Iohn the 23 which was about the yere of our Lord Garan in sinu Concilio Harding in confut Apolog. 1415. Yet to gratifie them wee wil grant it to be as old as the councel of Lateran in Rome held in the yere 1215 thaÌ„ the which also their own writers will not prescribe further But alas what get they hereby namely that this their dotage and dreame of transubstantiation at the least in the name of it hath not so manie gray haires on the head or yeares on the backe of it as they would beare the world in hand it hath for as by computation it may appeare it is but 300 do yeres old Neither wil that shift serue that they flee to here to wit that though the terme were not till then yet the matter was before A verie likelie thing forsooth as though the fathers of the Greeke and Latin churches so well skilled in those seuerall languages had not bin able aswel to haue deliuered the word as the matter In points of greater consequence than this by farre they hadde their peculiar and significant words as trinitie harmonously hypostasis and such like and yet in this they must faile forsooth to the end that the glorie of new inuention or forgerie rather may bee ascribed to some other But to conclude â—his point If papists vnder a false cloke of â—oueltie will not spare to reiect not onely olde but good and true things also then much more may we and that vppon good ground refuse this fantasie not onelie because it is new but also bicause it is false as shal god willing hereafter more fullie appeare 2 Howbeit that there is a chaunge no man of sound iudgement I thinke dooth or will denie but that is not in respect of the nature of the thinges themselues for the elements of bread and wine remaine in their owne proper peculiar substance wherof not only al men may be sufficient witnesses but almost all the senses of euery man as sight taste feeling c but this mutation is made in regarde of the vse and ende wherevnto they are applied because that they are by the Lordes owne institution and appointment separated from the common vse yea as it were froÌ„ common bread and wine and applied not onlie to a holy vse whilest they are vsed in holie assemblies wyth sanctified and religious mindes but dedicated also to holie endes that is to saye to ratifie and confirme our Faith in the trueth of Gods promises and to be sure seales and pledges to our consciences of holy things to wit of christs body and bloud and of the effects and fruits that by his death passion wee receiue But that this chaunge shoulde be wrought by any words as they say of consecration I am so farre off from allowing it as true that I am verily persuaded that they speake they knowe not what because it is not yet resolued not onely amongst the doctors of their side as Bessarian Biel Bonauenture Catharin Durand Scotus and others which be the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ or with which words Christ and the priest by his example maketh the bread Christs body but because a pope himselfe who hath the fulnes of all knowledge in his breast and cannot erre if all bee true that they affirme I meane Pope Innocent the third Innocent de saâ—r altar myster lib. 4. cap. 6. a great fauourer and furtherer of such fantasies coulde not well tell how to resolue it as appeareth by his writings Yea in ascribing mutation and change of things to a forme of wordes vttered by the mouth of a mortall man they blasphemoussy robbe God of that glorie which is due vnto him alone Psalm 148.5 For to him onelie it belongeth to speake the woorde and to haue thinges made and giue it to an other to whom it at no hand appertaineth And if words be so strong in the one Sacrament as to turne bread into Christes body and wine into his bloud what reason is there that the wordes of institution vttered by the same person I meane the priest with intent also to consecrat it shold not alter the element of water in the other sacrament to wit of Baptisme and be so strong and powerfull as to make the same the very true and naturall bloud of our Sauiour Christ But let them say what they will For mine owne parte I rest resolute in this that this assertion and their whole action in consecration sauoureth verye stronglie of a magicall incantation and I am so muche the more confirmed in this because the Papistes reioycing as inchaunters and sorcerers doo in theyr odde numbers haue added one woorde that is to saye enim which is not in the Greeke or Latine textes Missali Roman ex decreto concil Trident. restitutum Pij quinti iussu editum pa. 23. col â— to the wordes of institution sayeng Hoc est enim corpus meum as may appeare in their misfall or masse booke and that not their old ones onelie but in one newlie furbished by the decree of the councel of Trent and published abroad to beholde the light like an vntimelie birth by the authoritie and commandement of Pope Pius the fift 3 And as the noueltie of this fained fantasie of transubstantiation is a brand good enough to worke the discredit thereof euen as though it had beene bored thorow the eare or worne a paper for forgerie and deceit so the grosse and palpable absurdities which follow the same opinion are sufficient and strong enough of themselues to make it out of credit with all persons indued with holie wisedome and right vnderstanding and to cause theÌ„ to esteeme of it not onely as a thing false and eronious but very vngodlie and blasphemous also To reckon vp all or largelie to discourse vppon the particulars neither is it my purpose neither is it almost possible so fertile a soile is this point in falshoode and yet I minde to touch some and that in suche sorte also as the vanitie and falshoode of this greate corruption may thereby easilie appeare to all suche as will not be wilfully blinded or stoppe their eies and eares at the brightnes and sound of truth At the least my hope and persuasion is that though I preuaile not either with the malicious blinde or simple ignorant yet I shall confirme and strengthen my brethren who together with me as in many other pointes of our christian religion so in this haue embraced the truth of God to our coÌ„forts 1 First I saye that this assertion of Transubstantiation or reall presence of Christes naturall bodie dooth
such odde deuises and that his â—ustice shall be answered with the works â—f our owne inuention causing vs also â—o thinke that sinne is no heinous thing â—hat can be expiated and doone away by â—he offering vp a poore thinne cake as â—hough that spirituall and innumerable offenses might be taken away with bodiâ—ie exercises and that not of a holie and innocent man but manie times of one of the woorst amongst the people but vtterlie also euacuat by that means and make of no force the eternall preesthood and sacrifice of our sauiour Christ which consisteth speciallie in this that he hath once for all vpon the altar of the crosse offered vp himselfe vnto God the father a full and sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of the people as the apostle plainelie prooueth in manie places of his Epistle to the Hebrues But no maruell that they should annihilat and deface Christes offices which destroy his natures and by consequent his whole person also as these men doo by confounding the proprieties of either nature as hath beene before declared yea and ouerthrow all their own religion for if the sacrifice of the massâ— as they call it will doo away all sinne what neede wee regard praier to deadâ— saints auricular confession the popes supremacie and a thousand more such abhominations seeing that by setting a soulâ— preest on worke they may haue full forgiuenes and why should we esteeme pardons indulgences and such like trash and trumperie nay rather why should they not liue as they lust not onlie as epicures but as brute beasts seeing he may be assured for mony that that which another performeth for him shall be auailable both to bodie and soule and that to eternall saluation but fie vpon all such beastlie blasphemous dotages 2 Secondlie there is but a little lesse leauen in that matter that they hold of vncomitancie by which they haue not onelie spoiled the people of the vse of the cuppe which both by Christes owne institution by his expresse commandement saieng Drinke ye all of this doth in all truth and vprightnes belong vnto them and by consequent also robbed them of the frutes effects of his bloud as the forgiuenesse of their sinnes and their full reconcilement to almightie God but also accused our â—auior Christ of follie and rashnesse instiâ—uting more signes in the sacrament of his supper than he needed And all this they â—aue done vnder this shadow that because â—o bodie is without bloud and they haue â—efore presupposing that the bread is turâ—ed into the bodie as in deed if men will â—resuppose either vnpossible or vntrue â—hings euerie thing will follow of it eaâ—en the bodie therefore must it needs folâ—ow that they haue drunke also his bloud Tell vs I pray you why might not we as â—ell say respecting alwaies the sacrameÌ„t â—hat when men haue drunke of the cuppe â—hey haue eaten his flesh for if the parâ—aking of the one include the other or if â—hole Christ as they say be in euery part â—f the visible elements then why doo not â—en receiuing the wine as well receiue â—e bodie as the bloud or why may not we â—y that eating is drinking or drinking is â—ting or why doo not they themselues â—minister it in the element of wine oueâ—e as well as in the bread alone or why â—ay not we euen beating them with their owne assertions of an vnbloudie sacrifice and of the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie in the same say and affirme that the bodie may be there without the bloud or the bloud without the bodie for if the sacrifice conteine the naturall and fleshiâ— bodie of our sauior and yet of it selfe it is vnbloudie we see no reason why we may not saflie conclude that the bodie is therâ— without bloud But I know not whetheâ— heerin I should blame theÌ„ for their beastlinesse or reprooue them for their pride that dare thus presumptuouslie alter thâ— Lords very ordinance and institution 3 Thirdlie their adoration is as corrupâ— and filthie whilest they cause men tâ—â— commit grosse and palpable idolatrie iâ— falling downe before a peece of bread what doo I say I know not whether I may call it by that name or no for it maâ— be disputed of whether their masse caâ—â— be bread and worshipping a wafer cake the worke of mens hands And if it werâ— a foule fault in the Gentils to turne thâ— glorie of the incorruptible God intâ— the similitude of the image of a coâ—ruptible man Rom. 1.23 and of birds and four footed beasts and of creeping thinge all which notwithstanding had life in theÌ„ and were in deed the creatures of GOD what must it be in the papists who transforme his wonderfull maiesty into a mustie or whory cake which though it be kept but a small while is yet notwithstanding subiect to putrifaction and wormes But suppose it were Christes body as they say it is yet I affirme that they may not adore Christes bodie alone yea and that they cannot worship the same of it selfe without horrible idolatrie wherof also the reason is plaine and euident namelie because it is a creature to which it is not lawfull to giue that honor that is due vnto the creator alone because he being ielous ouer his owne glory will not haue it giuen to anie other For though it be true that Christ as he is god is to be worshipped as his father yea Christ God man in one person is to be adored yet we cannot without great sin and greeuous offense against God his word worship the humanity or manhood of our sauior Christ onlie And if they will say as I my selfe haue heard some of theÌ„ ignorantly affirme that if Christ God man may be worshipped therefore christ also as he is maÌ„ may be worshipped I answer that besides it is a fallacie or deceit in reasoning called in schooles Fallacia diuisionis it is a flat contrarie to the truth of christian religion which teacheth vs that many things may be spoken of the person of our sauior Christ which can not rightlie or truelie be said of either nature and the reason is because as the vnitie of the person must be maineteined vpheld so must godlie men haue an especiall regard that they confound not the seuerall proprieties of either nature To make this plaine by a point or two A man may saflie say that Christ God and man in one person was crucified on the crosse died for our sinnes whereof also this is the verie true and sufficient reason because in his whole person he performed the worke of our redemption and not in either of the natures alone or by it selfe but nowe if heerevpon a man should say and conclude therfore Christ God was crucified for our sinnes besides that he should vtter an errour or heresie in christian religion hee should speake blasphemie against God whose nature as we haue said heertofore is altogither impossible Likewise a man may
it it was not bread onlie but his bodie also Wherefore they must of necessity confes that these words This is my bodie these againe This bread is my bodie meane and signifie all one thing which not onlie all the ancient fathers do affirme in innumerable places Luther Brentius but Luther in manie places and Brentius also both in his booke called Syntagma and in his catechisme likewise Seluerieus Eberus yea Seluericus Eberus doo as it were in so many words testifie also this truth If yet notwithstanding they will haue euen the bodie vnited to the bread to be shewed out thereby I answer they must of necessitie then admit the trope or figure Synecdoche and that therefore the institution of Christ or the words of the institution can not be vnderstood without a trope or figure He proueth the aduersaries to fall into that which they dislike in others And what man that is in his right wits shall they persuade that the word bodie can at one the selfe same time be spoken of the bread of the bodie without an other Synedoche also And this you see what they haue gained who thinke it and publish it in others to be a horrible heresie by a trope or figure to vnderstand the words of the supper wheras they themselues are inforced and found out to make a double trope or figure Now let vs come to the word Est The word Est is expounded that is to say Is. Seeing that whatsoeuer is is not after one sort for to be hath place in all the predicaments when these men from hense gather thus or doo after this sort expound these words This bread is Christs bodie therfore it is essentiallie Christes bodie doo they not I beseech you speake as if they should say This is a liuing creature therfore it is a man And againe doo they reason lesse fondlie when they gather thus This bread is Christs bodie therfore this bread is Christs bodie not absent but present Now whereas they say that the word bodie because it is a substance cannot be otherwise spoken or vttered than substantiallie I say they should haue left this to the papists who are therefore inforced to bring in their transubstantiation of the bread because they say that things sundered or separated one of them from another could not be spoken one of another that therfore also this propositioÌ„ was false the bread is the bodie except they granted either that the bread it selfe became nothing or by changing were tourned into a substance of another sort to wit Vbiquitaries in vrging the baâ—e letter as absurd as Papists at the least the substance of his body Therfore these men alone do keep or vrge that most fondlie the bare worde or letter But these men of whom I now speake though in outward shewe and speech they refuse all tropes and figures in the exposition of these words of the institution doo yet notwithstanding ouer and besides the two tropes aboue mentioned that is to say The aduersaries by power of trueth constrained to fall into three tropes in the exposition of a fewe words though otherwise the name be odious to them the figure Synecdoche diuersly vsed in deede bring in an other and that same very strange and woonderfull when they will haue this speech this bread is my bodie to signifie and meane as much as if Christ shoulde haue saide my bodie is verily present wyth or in or vnder this bread Concerning which this is my minde that whosoeuer hee is that vseth this last forme or manner of speaking dooth not shew what the bodie it selfe is but rather declareth where the body is and therefore vseth the worde is not in the predicament of substance but in the predicament of Site as they call it Nowe I come to speake of that worde Body The word Body handled The thing that about this matter is laide vnto our charge The aduersaries charge is this that instead of the true bodie of Christ deliuered to death for vs wee substitute and place I can not tell what typicall or figuratiue or as it pleaseth them to call it fantasticall bodie when wee affirme that the bodie is spoken of the bread not that the bread is the very bodie it selfe but because it is as a signe and pledge of that true body of his which was giuen for vs. The answere thereto But is this to ascribe vnto Christ a fained body as these men slaunder vs Or is it not rather rightly to declare and shew in what sense that true and onelie bodie may bee saide or spoken of the bread to wit not as it is bread but in as much as it is a sacrament of that his bodie Therfore all these interpretations following which that stincking slanderer Illyricus tosseth too and fro Illyricus and his slaunders as if they were contrary one of them to an other that is to saye This bread sacramentally signifieth or sacramentallye is Christes bodie or againe This bread is the sacrament of Christes bodie doo in deede and trueth and altogether expresse but one and the selfe-same iudgement and matter Now that the worde bodie is in many places vsed by all the old right beleeuing writers for the verie signe of the bodie All the auntient Fathers vse the worde bodie for the signe of the bodie our aduersaries must of necessitie whether they will or no confesse sith that they feare not to affirme that Christes bodye is made broken consumed and why shoulde it not bee so likewise when it is saide to enter into the mouth To be short what strife and stubbornenesse is this of theirs They dare not denie the bread to be the sacrament of Christes body and why then will they not allowe of this interpretation Heere is the reason forsooth because they woulde haue it called the Sacrament of the bodie present Then the controuersie shal not be The state of the controuersie or question is not about the interpretation of the wordes of institution but about the presence of Christs bodie yet touching the interpretation and meaning of these wordes of the institution in which there is no mention at all neither of presence nor absence but herein onelie shall they consist whether that bodie of which that bread is saide to be the Sacrament be absent or present which controuersie I can not so much as suppose howe these men should determine out of these wordes This is my bodie The second part of the Lords supper to wit the institution of the cup and what is meant thereby Hitherto wee haue spoken of the first part of the Lords supper to wit the bread but now let vs come to the other part to wit the cuppe But tell vs I pray you what wee must vnderstande by the woord cup Verily by their confession euen that which is contained in the cuppe that is to say the wine and yet ouer and besides that the bloud
admonished to refer all that they doo to the glory of their head and capteine Christ and to the mutuall comfort and sustentation one of another Out of all that hitherto hath beene spoken or said I would pray the godlie and well affected reader diligently to obserue and note these three things following 1 First that though it be most true that euen by the ministerie of the Gospell preached we haue Christ with all his benefits offered vnto vs and doo by faith wrought in our harts by the ministerie of the same word and working of his spirit take hold of him all his graces of which also S. Paule speaketh to the Galachians saieng Galath 3.1 that Christ was described in their sight and crucified amongst them that yet all this notwithstanding we haue him more plainelie and plentifullie set foorth vnto vs in the vse of the supper whilest that we by faith feeding on him that is the bread of life which came downe from heauen Iohn 6.51 are by that meanes become bone of his bones Ephes 5.30 and flesh of his flesh and after a sort made one with him Iohn 17.21.22 euen as the father and he are one which I speake not to the debasing of the word as though the sacraments were more woorthie and excellent or to the diuiding of Christ for as in respect of his substance he is but one both in the word and the sacraments but as in respect of vs and for our weakenesse sake we hauing more of our sences satisfied in and by the vse of the elements of the Lords supper as for example our sight our tast our feeling yea and our hearing also whilest that in the deliuerie and partaking thereof Christes death is preached vnto vs than we haue in the word which is directed onelie to the eare or hearing 2 Secondlie that this holie sacrament dooth not onelie direct our faith to the death and passion of our sauiour Christ which was performed for vs and all the faithfull manie hundered yeeres agone as the one Hebr. 9.28 Hebr. 10.14 and the onelie sacrifice for sinne neuer to be reiterated because that thereby he being the onelie high priest and eternall sacrificer hath consecrated for euer all them that are sanctified but also yea cheeflie and especiallie to the gracious frutes and effectes that wee receiue thereby as the forgiuenesse of sinnes our reconciliation to GOD the death of iniquitie in vs the assured pledge of eternall life and such like all which are liuelie set foorth and preached vnto vs in the same to the ende that wee maye by faith in a strong persuasion of Gods goodnesse towards vs in Christ be made partakers thereof For otherwise if we had but Christes death onelie and nothing else it would be little auailable to vs for what would it haue profited vs that he had died if by his death he had not brought life and immortality to light 2. Tim. 1.10 but for asmuch as his death and the effects and frutes following the same and flowing from it can not be sundered we therefore stedfastlie beleeue that the faithfull are neuer partakers of the one alone but that also they are partakers of the other likewise 3 Thirdlie that wee must certeinelie know and stedfastlie beleeue that though this holie sacrament doo speciallie and cheeflie direct vs to Christ his death merits obedience and the frutes thereof yet notwithstanding also it doth sensiblie and plainelie instruct vs in the speciall duties of that sound and sincere loue which in Christ and for Christ we as the members of that bodie whereof he is the only head Ephes 1.22 5.23 ought vnfeinedlie to carrie and accomplish one of vs towardes another not onelie as profitable and necessarie for the parties to whome such dueties are performed whilest in the daies of their distresse we releeue them by our wealth or comfort and councell them by our wit which are things that God hath giuen vs euen to the same end but comfortable also to our selues whilest by that as by a bage or cognizance we are knowne both to others and our selues to be Christes disciples in deed Iohn 13.35 and haue sealed vp in our hearts the free pardon and full forgiuenes of all our sinnes Luke 7.47 Iohn 3.14 and an assured pledge also that we are translated out of darknesse into light without the which all we haue in this life and therefore the sacraments also could tend but to our greater condemnation In the third place for the cleering of this controuersie or question of the Lords supper we must haue a watchfull eie to Satans subtleties who painfully laboureth in this point as in all other pointes of Christian religion also by extremities to drawe vs into all corruption Nowe the extremities that in time heeretofore haue burst foorth and are yet euen to this day in manie places stoutlie and stiflie mainteined are especiallie three 1 The first is that of the sacramentaries who hold and defend that Christ in his supper hath left vs nothing saue the bare and naked signes of his death and passion But the trueth is that we are so farre off from allowing this conceit and opinion whatsoeuer our aduersaries babble and prate to the contrarie that wee feare not openlie and in the sunne light to affirme that besides the signes themselues yea and euen togither with the signes wee and all true christians haue the thinges themselues signified not onelie truelie and effectuallie exhibited vnto vs but giuen vs also and bestowed vpon vs because it is most certeine that our Sauiour Christ Iohn 14.6 who is the trueth it selfe and cannot lie dooth in deede and assuredlie accomplish vnto vs all the promises which hee made vs and meant to seale vnto vs by the vse of the signes in the sacrament that so we might become partakers euen of his verie substance and grow vp also with him into one life and being And though this cannot be comprehended by the eie of mans reason and vnderstanding no more than manie other things in our christian religion yet we cannot choose but know and confesse that this is sensiblie set foorth vnto vs in the vse and participation of the supper by seuerall meanes and instruments some of them being outward as the elements in the sacrament and some inward as the spirituall grace represented thereby for we are not angels but men Eccle. 12.7 consisting as the scripture teacheth vs of bodie and soule and therefore the Lord by the vse of his word and sacraments hath prouided for both parts as the word for our eares Rom. 10.17 and our eares for hearing of the same that so faith might be wrought in our hearts and the elements in the sacrament for our tast sight feeling c and yet our soules to be nourished and fed not with anie or all of these outward things for how cā outward corruptible things nourish inward immortall substances but onelie with
aunsweared as which indeede if it bee well weighed is not onelie vntrue as in respect of it selfe because though glorification implie a most excellent and heauenlie estate dooth not yet for all that destroye the essentiall properties of bodies glorified but most absurde and false also as in regard of vs. For if the glorification of Christs bodie haue remooued or taken awaye that essentiall propertie to witte that it shoulde truelie and indeede bee tied vnto a place then the like shall bee perfourmed and the same effect followe in all the glorified bodies of the faithfull after the resurrection because our Sauiour hath not onelie glorified his owne bodie for himselfe hee rising therein a mightie conquerour ouer death and hell and nowe triumphantlie ruling and raigning in the heauens in all maiestie but for our sakes also hath atchieued that greate honour wee hauing from him this assured promise in his worde Philip. 3.21 that God shal chaunge our base and vile bodies that they may bee fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie according vnto the mightie working whereby hee is able to subdue all things vnto himselfe But to saye that our bodies glorified after the rising againe of the same in the generall day of iudgement shall be euery where a rashe and vncertaine yea a beastlie and blasphemous assertion because it ascribeth that vnto vs which is proper and peculiar onelie to GOD for vnto hym alone it perteineth to fill heauen earth and all places alwayes and at one tyme as infinite places of Scripture doo plainelie prooue therefore this opinion also concerning Christes glorified bodie beeing euerie where or in infinite places at one time must of necessitie be suche likewise 4 Fourthlie it dooth directlye destroy and as it were at one blowe blotte out and deface all those Articles of our moste pretious Faith and Christian religion whych doo concerne Christes assured ascension into Heauen hys maiesticall sitting at the right hande of the Father and his glorious comming agayne from thence together wyth that infinite number of moste playne places of GODS holie woorde that out of the writinges of the Prophetes and Apostles may bee drawen for the proofe of those moste comfortable and necessarie pointes To deale wyth euerye one of these by themselues shortely and in fewe woordes I woulde faine knowe if our Sauiour Christ be here vpon earth in respect of his bodilye power and presence howe hee can iustlie as in regarde of the same hys bodye bee sayde to haue ascended into Heauen Or let them tel vs if hee remaine wyth vs in hys flesh how hee can bee truelye saide in hys manhoode to sitte at the right hande of hys Father in Heauen Or howe it can bee in religion or reason affirmed that our Sauiour shall come from Heauen with great power and glorie to iudge the quick and the dead seeing he is here on earth already The Scripture telleth vs for his ascension Actes 1.9 that in the sight and beholding of the blessed Apostles yea whiles they looked stedfastly towards heauen he was taken vp Let them shew so much for his bodilie abode vpon earth and proue it by such substantiall witnesse and wee are readie to yeelde Besides we knowe by the worde and therefore beleeue it that as he was seene go into heauen Actes 1.10 so shall he come againe but hee was seene to ascend thither bodilie and therefore so shall hee returne from thence againe I suppose they will not saye that our Sauiour had two bodies one that hee tooke wyth him an other that hee left heere for that were to make him altogether monstrous and men scrupulous none knowing in whether of them hee perfourmed the work of their redemption And to saye that that one blessed bodie of his was diuided is as absurde and erronious because it can not be so but that the whole bodie it selfe must be impaired and mangled at the least if not destroyed and so the woorke of saluation ouerthrowne To stand vpon anie naked interpretation touching the right hand of God will not serue their turne for there being nothing meant thereby in this article of our beleefe but the great glorie that is in heauen prepared for the saints and that most excellent blessednesse that belongeth to them whereof our sauior Christ was in a most full measure made by his ascention into heauen as in respect of his humanity absolute partaker what could they gaine Doo they imagine that it would heervpon insue that Christ should be euerie where and by consequent on earth but they are deceiued for why doo they not as well consider the word sitting which implieth locall residence in a place or doo they not know and beleeue that heauen it selfe is not euerie where but locall rather or will they not see that without warrant of the word yea contrarie to the same which in sundrie places opposeth heauen and earth one of them against another or sence of humane iudgement they iumble and confound them togither Reason will lead vs to this that none can be said to goe vp into the place where he is or to come downe from it when he remaineth there And though wee minde not to subiect our sauior speciallie as in respect of his eternall Godhead to humane sence yet by the same we may and ought to be ledde not to destroy the essentiall properties of his manhood Now then whether shall wee beleeue this trueth of the Lord or mens fantasies that go about to peruert our persuasions and deceiue our vnderstandings Let men of the worlde deeme what they lust this is the truth that God hath sanctified vnto vs in his word and I doo stedfastlie beleeue it in my heart and will throgh Gods goodnesse and strength alwaies confesse the same with my mouth that from the very time of Christes ascension into Heauen Acts. 3 2â— The Heauens must conteine his naturall bodie vntill the time that all things be restored that is euen to the worlds end 5 Fiftlie I say that this opinion dooth vniustlie depriue vs of all such spirituall graces and comforts for our consciences as God the father in his sonne Christ by sending the Holie ghost the third person in the deitie hath not onelie promised but in good time wil performe and bestow vpon the whole church generallie and euerie sound particular member of the same yea if we wey it well we shall finde that it is the ruine and bane of the church it selfe both in the whole bodie of it and in the seuerall parts Our sauior himselfe in most plaine and expresse terms faith Iohn 16.7 I tel you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away for if I go not away the comforter will not come vnto you but if I depart I will send him vnto you Hee that knoweth anie thing of truth is well acquainted with this that generallie all the word but most especiallie the comfortable promises conteined in the same be as it were the life
eternall arise to such a huge number in the seueral sorts and great varietie of them that are not able to thinke of them or anie one of them according to their woorthinesse muche lesse to account or number them and thirdlie to consider our selues receiuing them to whome the Lorde freelie and of his owne goodnesse giueth these great mercies not onelie when wee had not deserued the least of them but euen then when euery one of vs had deserued eternall death and condemnation to be poured foorth vpon vs and ours 3 And lastlie in care and conscience of a most holie and christian conuersation that seeing wee are in the holie Supper made partakers by faith of Christs death and resurrection and that wee fullie perswade our selues by the truth of the word Roman 4.25 that he did not onlie die for our sinnes and rise for our righteousnesse but also performed that excellent and great worke to teach vs Roman 6.1 Coloss 3.1 by his death to die to vngodlinesse and by his resurrection to rise vp to that holinesse that may bee acceptable before God profitable to our brethren and comfortable to our selues wee hauing by that meanes and to that end our spiritual life and being from him that therefore we should liue soberlie righteouslie Titus 2.12 and godlie in this present euill world and that in the sound affections of our harts before God and in words and deeds before men that when it shall please him to finish the daies of our wearisome pilgrimage we stedfastlie looking for that blessed hope and full-fruition of eternall life may be glorified with him in eternall blessednes which thing the Lord grant vs euen for his crucified Christes sake to whom with the Father and the Holie ghost three persons and one eternall God be giuen all honor praise power glorie both of vs and of all people euen now and at all times for euer and euer So be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO THE READER AT the motion and request of sundrie my deere friends in the Lord I haue thought good to put downe these two praiers following not thereby minding either to tie anie person to the vse of these onelie for they may according to their seuerall necessities conceiue some other of their owne or practise some better forme alredie set foorth by men of greater gifts or feeling nor yet so to busie their minds and to occupie their heads as that they should be imploied in these when the publike praiers and exercises of the church performed by the ministers are in hand for be it farre from vs when the minister Gods mouth speaketh from the Lord to vs or when he as our mouth speaketh to the Lord for vs to haue either our hearts or our mouthes occupied about any other thing than the reuerend hearing and consenting vnto of such things as hee vttereth But that aiding the infirmitie of our brethren such as haue not the gift to conceiue praier and shall thinke this fit for themselues might haue a forme to exercise themselues in both before they repaire to the publike exercises of the church and also after the celebration and partaking of these reuerend mysteries shall be finished A PRAIER TO BE SAID BEFORE a man repaire to the partaking of the Lords supper O Eternall God and most mercifull father I thy poore and vnwoorthie seruant doo humblie beseech thee in Iesus Christ thy deere sons name and for his sake gratiouslie through his death and obedience to pardon and forgiue me all my sinnes whatsoeuer which at anie time by thought word or deed I haue through negligence ignorance or knowledge committed against thy diuine maiestie or anie other And because both by reason of the curssed corruption of mine owne nature and the infinit multitude of my sinnes also I am slow dull of heart to beleeue seale vp in my soule I pray thee O Lord this great benefit of the free pardon full forgiuenesse of all my sinnes by the assured testimonie of thy blessed spirit bearing record vnto my spirit that I am thy childe and by vnfeined parddoning and forgiuing of others which anie maner of way haue offended against me Yea make the death and resurrection of thy sonne so powerfull effectuall in me that I may not onelie feele and finde in the same the forgiuenesse of all my sinnes both generall and particular and the hope of eternall saluation but also that I may be instructed thereby all the daies of my life more and more to die vnto sin and dailie more more to liue vnto righteousnes of life and holie conuersation And forasmuch as through thy goodnesse I haue purposed this day to communicat in the vse of thy blessed word and sacraments I beseech thee good father to pearse mine eares to prepare my heart yea and so to direct all the parts and powers of my body and soule that I may not onelie reuerentlie and profitablie hearken to thy voice speaking vnto me out of thy word laboring all the daies of my life to conforme my selfe to the knowledge faith and obedience of the same but also that I may assuredlie be made partaker of the frutes and effects of the death and passion of thy deere sonne which it pleaseth thee in that holie sacrament to offer vnto me To this end and purpose I beseech thee to grant that I be not carried away in the contemplation and consideration of the earthly and corruptible things obiected therein to my sences but that my faith may be set vp raised to the spirituall beholding assured feeling and full fruition of these graces which it pleaseth thee by the same to offer vnto me Giue me grace good Lord to bring with me a stedfast faith in the truth of thy promises that by it as by an eie I may looke vpon and by the same as by a hand I may apprehend Iesus Christ thy sonne sitting at thy right hand to be my onelie and continuall iustifier sanctifier and redeemer Grant me grace also to bring with me as an earnest hatred of all my former euils whatsoeuer so a sincere loue of all righteousnesse and well dooing that I by the power of thy spirit crucifieng the old man with the lusts and concupiscences therof speciallie such as beare the greatest sway in me may be strengthened in the new man dailie to thinke speake and doo those things which may be acceptable and well pleasing in thy godlie presence And I beseech thee further to giue me grace to bring with me sound sincere loue towards all men yea euen towards mine enimies that I may not onelie forget and forgiue all the iniuries wrongs that they haue deuised said or doone against me but also pray earnestlie vnto thy maiestie for them and purchase and procure