A full declaration of the faith and ceremonies professed in the dominions of the most illustrious and noble Prince Fredericke, 5. Prince, Elector Palatine published for the benefit and satisfaction of all Gods people ; according to the originall printed in the High Dutch tongue ; translated into English by Iohn Rolte.

CHAP. V. Wherefore we cannot agree in all things with Doctor Luther in the point of the holy Supper.

YEa, wherefore doe you it then, might some man say? Wherefore doe you not giue Doctor Luther and his follo∣wers right? and so were the contenti∣on ceased. Answere: That is not the way to exclude discord in the Churches of God, that one should say the other holdes truth to please him, though in his heart he thinke the contrary. For God hath flatly forbidden and said, Esa. 5.20. Woe vnto them which put darkenesse for light, and light for darkenesse. But this is the way, to hold peace and v∣nity

in the Churches of God, that one beare with the infirmities and errours of another (which ouer∣throw not the foundation of saluation) and con∣demne them not for them. And this haue wee hi∣therto done to the vttermost, and will doe it hereaf∣ter, it pleasing God the Lord: and as well beare with Doctor Luther himselfe, as also with his follo∣wers, and not condemne them, being that other∣wise they make a good confession of the foundation of faith. Onely we desire as requisite, that they also may beare with vs, where they vnderstand that wee faile, and not presently giue vs to the diuell, as their custome is. It is well knowne ouer Christendome, that wee haue nothing from the world, but despite and shame, crosse and persecution, because we agree not with Doctor Luther in all things, about the ho∣ly Supper. And therfore euery vnderstanding man can easily iudge, that there is an higher force then a∣ny thing in this world, that must occasion it. For we are not of such a commixture, that we should ra∣ther desire despite and shame, crosse and persecuti∣on in this life, rather then honour, peace, and rest a∣mongst men. Therefore it is our entreaty, that no man will ouershoot himselfe in condemning vs, be∣cause that we are gone aside from Doctor Luther in some measure in the point of the holy Supper. But godly Christians may bee pleased to consider the motiues mouing vs so to doe, and in such considera∣tion, not be led away in respect of Doctor Luthers credit.

He was a notable man, and highly indued. But

it is no new thing with God the Lord, to reueale something to a simple vnlettered man, which hee would neuer make knowne to the greatest Doctors of all. And God will so haue it, that wee shall ac∣knowledge such his counsels, and shall yeeld him obedience therein, as it is written: Quench not the spirit: despise not prophesying: 1. Thes. 5.19.20. Also, If any thing bee reuealed to another that fitteth by; let the first hold his peace, 1. Cor. 14.30.

These are the motiues, beloued Reader, which moue, force, and driue vs to depart from Doctor Luthers opinion in this, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread of the Supper, hidden, &c. because wee see, and wee are perswaded in our consciences, that such an opinion hath not onely no ground in [ 1] Gods word, but indeed is cleane against the same; [ 2] and hath no testimony from the old Apostolicall [ 3] Churches: but was first hatched in the blindest [ 4] times of Popery; and serues to no other end, then [ 5] to vnderprop the Popedome, and to darken the Gospell of Iesus Christ.

[ 1] The aforesaid opinion of Doctor Luther hath no warrant in the word of God, which is from hence manifest and cleere. For whatsoeuer shall haue war∣rant from thence, that must be either expresly writ∣ten therein, or it must be such as can well be drawne from thence by necessary consequence.

Now stands Doctor Luthers opinion, (that the body of Christ should be in the bread) not expresly written in Gods word.

For Christ saith not that his body is in the bread,

but that the bread is his body, as plainely appeares by the text: And hee tooke the bread and thanked, and brake it, and said, This is my body. But not, therein is my body.

And also, such a construction followes not out of the word of God. Christ indeed shewed forth bread, and said, This is my body. But it followes not of necessity, that he meant it so; as if he would haue said, Therein is my body.

For this maner of reasoning, when one saith, This is this or that, hath nor alwaies such a meaning, as if one said, Therein is this or that. But this manner of reasoning, when one faith, This is this or that, hath often this meaning; as if one would say, this beto∣keneth this or that, or which is to one effect, (as Do∣ctor Luther himselfe confesseth, Tom. 3. fol. 343. B.) This is a token and signe of this or that. For example: where Ioseph saith to Pharaoh, Seuen kine are seuen yeeres: that can no otherwise be vnderstood, then as if he had said: Seuen kine betoken seuen yeeres. Euen in like manner when Christ said to his Disciples: The ground is the world, the seede is the word of God, &c. That can be no otherwise vnderstood, then as if he had said: The ground betokeneth the world; the seed be∣tokeneth the word of God. The very like, where Paul speaks of the Rocke, which yeelded forth water for the children of Israel in the wildernesse. The Rocke was Christ. Also of Hagar and Sarah: These are the two Testaments. These speeches can no otherwise be vnderstood, then as if hee had said: The Rocke beto∣kened Christ. Also, Hagar and Sarah betoken the old

and the new Testaments.

And such examples are not onely found in those places, where dreames, and parables, or visions, are spoke of (as some are ready to alleage,) but such ex∣amples are also found in the institution of the Sa∣craments. As in the institution of Circumcision, God saith, This is my couenant, Gen. 17.10 where he meant; this shall be a token of my couenant; as hee pre∣sently after cleared, vers. 11. And as the Apostle Paul saith thereof, Rom 4.11. where hee saith, that Abraham receiued the signe of Circumcision, as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith. The like saith God in the instituting of the Passeouer: It is the Lords Passeouer; where he meant; It shall be a token and remembrance, or a signe of the Lords passing by your houses, when he slue the first borne in Egypt, as hee himselfe also presently declareth, Exod. 12.13.14.27. Exod. 13.9.

Whilest now this construction, when as one saith, This is this or that, can also be vnderstood, as if one said, This betokeneth this or that; and such a con∣struction is not against the word of God, euen when the Sacraments are spoke of: it followes, that one cannot so conclude, as Doctor Luther con∣cludes. Christ spake of the bread: This is my body: that therefore he meant; Therein is my body. That followes not, as is before said. For hee could also haue well spoken, That betokeneth my body, or which is all one, That is a token or signe of my body. Yea it is easilier to to be beleeued, that he meant, This beto∣keneth my body, or this is a signe of my body; then, Ther∣in is my body.

For this manner of speaking, when one saith, This is this or that, in stead of therein is this or that, is neuer any where vsuall, but when vessels are spoken of, wherein something is comprehended: then saith one, This is that or that, when he meaneth, Therein is this or that. For example, a man pointeth to a fat, and saith, this is Rheinish wine; when he meanes, there∣in is Rheinish wine. Now the Sacraments are no vessels, wherein the goodnesse of God are shut in, as wine or beare is in the corner of a fat. But the Sa∣craments are tokens or seales, whereby God beto∣keneth, confirmeth, and sealeth his bounty, and the part wee haue therein, vnto vs, as is well knowne. Whilest then the Sacraments are not vessels, from whence shall a man coniecture that Christ would speake thereof, as men are vsed to doe of vessels.

Is it not more to bee credited, whilest the Sacra∣ments are tokens, that Christ also meant so, as men vse to speake of signes? Now it is the manner both by God and man, when one speaketh of signes, that one giues the token the name of the betokened thing it selfe, and saith; This is that or that, when he would say; This is a token of this or that.

For example: In godly matters, of the Circum∣cision saith God, This is my couenant, whereas hee meant; This shall be a token of my couenant: as is be∣fore rehearsed. And in the like manner in worldly matters; when a man strikes on a painted hand with a bill in a Princes camp or Court, men say this is the freedome; whereas it is meant, this is a token of the freedome, or it is a signe that freedome is in

Behold Reader, this is the custome both by God and man, and so vseth God and man to speake: that they say namely, This is that or that, whereas they would say, This betokeneth this or that; or, this is a to∣ken and signe of this or that. Wherefore should then the Sonne of God onely, in the institution of the tokens of his grace speake any otherwise? for that the holy Supper is a Sacrament; that is, a holy to∣ken, or a holy signe, or remembrance of the death of Christ, that is vncontroleable, it so being that Christ so calleth it himselfe, where hee saith; Doe it in remembrance of me.

Whereas now Christ instituted the Supper to that end, that it should be a remembrance, or a calling to minde, or token and signe, how that Christ gaue his body and blood to death for vs: wherefore should wee not so vnderstand the words which Christ speaketh of bread, This is my body, as it is of common vse both by God and men, to vnderstand the like words, which speake of tokens and remem∣brances and callings to minde: as if hee had said; This bread which I breake before your eyes, and command you to eate, shall be a remembrance or calling to minde, how that I haue, or shall breake my body vpon the Crosse, that is, let my selfe be slaine, martyred, and killed, that I might be vnto you a true bread of euerlasting life, that is, a right powerfull deliuerance from the euerlasting hun∣ger and misery, which else you must haue endured in hell. Wee demand of euery man vpon his conscience, what should hinder that this constructiō of Christ words should not take place?

We doe not yet say that it must needs be so; but onely this is that we say now, that no man shal shew any waighty cause wherefore it may not well bee so.

It is first of all alleaged, that that word is, will not beare it, that it should be taken figuratiuely; but that word is, must alwaies be vnderstood really. But the cleane contrary is already shewed by many exam∣ples, and sufficiently manifested.

Then they alleage the words of Christ; This is my body, being words of a testament, and therefore they must be vnderstood according to the letter, as it standeth. But where stands it written, that in the Testaments all words must be vnderstood litterally as they stand? And where is there any where a Christian man vnder the Sun, who euer vnderstood these words, The cup is the new Testament, literally as they stand? namely, that the cup is the new Testa∣ment, that is, the forgiuenesse of sinnes: the holy Ghost: and the euerlasting life it selfe. For those are the trea∣sures which God hath promised and published in the new Testament, or new Couenant, that is in the Gospell. If now any man should beleeue that a cup, which sometimes a Gold-smith made, should bee the new Testament it selfe, that is the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and the holy Ghost, that would we gladly vnderstand. Yea or if there were any man in the world, that did beleeue that the bread it selfe were the body of Christ, as the words of Christ stand, that would wee gladly vnderstand. Doctor Luther saith, No; but bread is bread, and remaines bread euen in

the middest of eating it: But in the bread is the body of Christ. Then remaines he not by the words, as they sound. For the words of Christ sound vndeniably thus; that that which hee tooke in his hand and broke, namely, the bread, was his body; but not, that in bread was his body, as Doctor Luther saith. Also not that vnder the formes of bread and wine, was his body; as the Papists say. And so is there no man in the world, who vnderstands the words as they sound: but they all fly from the words, and seeke the construction, one this, and the other that. Yea Doctor Luther confesseth sometimes most plainely, that in the words of Christ, This is my body, is a Sy∣necdochea: & that Synecdoche is a figureb, or a tropec: The figure Synecdoche, makes all very cleared, &c. What is then in the mindes of men, that they keepe the common people vp, with this false position? That in the words of Christs Testament, there is no trope or figure to bee admitted, but wee most remaine simply by the sound of the bare letter.

Some say, that though it be without No, that in the words of Christ, This is my body, a Trope must be admitted: yet must it not bee such a trope, which giue the words a figuratiue construction. For in the Sacraments of the new Testament there are no significati∣ons. But this rule is also false. And Doctor Luther himselfe witnesseth in many places, that euen as well in the Sacraments of the new Testament, as in the Sacraments of the old Testament there are sig∣nifications. For euen so speakes he of the holy Bap∣tisme in the little Catechisme: Question. What sig∣nifieth

the Baptising with water? Answere: It signi∣fieth, that the old Adam with all sinnes and bad lusts should be drowned in vs, and wee should arise to bee new creatures, &c. Which is as much as if hee had said with one word: It betokeneth the new birth, or regene∣ration. For regeneration is nothing else, but a dead∣ing of the old man, and quickening of the new. E∣uen so saies Doctor Luther: This is the true significa∣tion of the Sacrament. Also, it is not enough that a man know what the Sacrament is, and what it signifieth. Also, yet was Christs body giuen therefore, that the signification of the Sacrament might be taken to heart. And therfore also is this rule false and nothing, where men say; That in the Sacraments of the new Testament there are no significations: Therefore cannot the words of Christ haue that construction, This is my body; as if he had said, this signifies my body. There are significations in all Sacraments, as well in the new, as in the old Testa∣ment. Onely heere is the difference, that the Sacra∣ments of the old Testament had relation to the Messias to come: but the Sacraments of the new Testamēt haue their relatiō to Christ already come. As Doctor Luther himselfe very notably and well sheweth in the Church Postill, in the exposition of the words of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10.3.4. Our fathers haue all eaten one food (namely with vs) and haue all drunke one spirituall drinke, &c. where he saith; It is euery where one faith and spirit, though seuerall to∣kens and words be there. The tokens and words are from time to time deliuered otherwise. But there remaines yet all one faith in the onely one God, who by seuerall tokens

and words deliuered at times, doe communicate one faith and spirit, and worketh in all the Saints of God by the same one manner of pardon of sinnes, deliuery from death, and purchase of saluation; whether it bee in the beginning, middle, or end of the world. That is Pauls meaning here, that he fathers haue eaten the same food, and drunke the same drinke with vs: yet addeth he that word, spiritual∣ly, vnto it. For outwardly and bodily had they other to∣kens and words then we, but euen the very same spirit and faith of Christ which we haue. But to eate and drinke spi∣ritually, is nothing else then to beleeue the word and to∣kens of God, as Christ also saith, Ioh. 6. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Also, my flesh is meate indeed, and my blood is drinke in∣deed: that is, hee that beleeueth in me he shall liue. Also, they drunke of the spirituall rocke which followed, which was Christ: that is, they beleeued in the same Christ, in whom wee beleeue, although hee was not then come in the flesh, but should come afterward. And the token of such their faith, was the materiall rocke, where they drunke of the materiall water; euen as wee by the materiall bread and wine vpon the alter, eate the true Christ spiritually, that is, in eating and drinking outwardly, doe wee nourish faith inwardly. Whilest now these things are thus, and whilest in all Sacraments there are significati∣ons and signes: as also the Apology of the Auspurges Confession saith, with the ancient Doctor Augustine, of all Sacraments; The Sacrament is a visible word: for the outward token is a picture, whereby the same is sig∣nified which is preached by the word, &c. Seeing there∣fore (say wee) that there are significations in all Sa∣craments,

therefore it followes, that also this man∣ner of speech hath place in all Sacraments, where one saith, This is this or that, when it is meant, this betokeneth this or that.

Neither can any waighty cause be showne wher∣fore the words of Christ, This is my body, should not euen so bee vnderstood, as if hee had said, this beto∣kens my body, or, which is all one, this is a token or re∣membrance, or calling to mind of my body.

Out of which wee doe further conclude, whilest the words of Christ, This is my body, must not bee so vnderstood; as if he had said, Therein is my body; but may well be vnderstood so, as if he would haue said, this betokens my body: that accordingly Doctor Lu∣thers opinion, where hee saith, that the body of Christ is in the bread, out of Christs words, where hee said, This is my body, hath no necessary conclu∣sion.

And this is the first cause why wee cannot leane to Doctor Luthers opinion, about the reall presence of the body of Christ, in the bread: namely, whilest such a construction hath no ground in the word of God: it being so, that in neither stands expresly in the words of Christ, neither can bee drawne from thence by any necessary consequence.

The second cause, why we cannot yeeld to Do∣ctor [ 2] Luthers aboue named opinion, is this; for that wee see and are assured in our hearts, that such an opinion hath not onely no ground in the word of God, but also that it runnes flatly against the same.

For first of all, so witnesseth Gods word cleerely,

that Christ ascended into heauen, fortie daies after his resurrection, and at present is no more vpon the earth. I am no more in the world, saith Christ, Ioh. 17.11. And the Apostle to the Hebrewes shewes it ve∣ry largely, that he must by the offering of his body, enter into the heauenly Sanctuary: And concludes therout, that therefore if hee were vpon earth, then were hee not Priest, in the 8.9. & 10. Chapters. See Reader, this is the cleere and infallible word of God, that Christ is not any more bodily vpon earth: therefore can∣not the contrary that hee is now vpon earth, bee true.

Secondly, the word of God witnesseth cleerely that Christ hath once himselfe renounced, and said, that the bodily eating of his body is not profitable to saluation, the flesh profiteth not, namely, to be eaten with the mouth, (as the Capernaites meant, that they must eate his flesh,) Iohn 6.63. What now Christ hath once cast away as vnprofitable to salua∣tion: that is vnpossible that hee should againe haue euer ordained it, as profitable to saluation. For he re∣cals not his word: neither wil he rebuke himselfe of lying, as Doctor Luther truly writeth, Tom. 3. fol. 530. B.

Thirdly, the word of God witnesseth plainely, That Christ once dying for vs, henceforth dieth no more, Rom. 6.9.10. Therefore shall not his blood heere∣after bee seuered from his body any more really, as Doctor Luthers opinion sheweth. For hee saith, his body is in the bread without blood, and his blood in the wine without the body. This is as much as if he said, that his body is dead in the Supper. For a

body without blood is dead. Now his body can∣not die any more: therefore neither can the opi∣nion of Doctor Luther, of the reall, and separated presence of the body of Christ in the bread, and his blood in the wine, be right.

Doctor Luther troubleth himselfe very much, how he might make these contrarieties agree with the holy Scriptures, especially the first. For hee knowes and confesses, that it stands thereon princi∣pally; but we haue not heard it as yet, wherein hee could giue vs satisfaction in our consciences.

Hee saith first of all; God is Almighty, therefore he can so make it, that the body of Christ can bee at one time in heauen, and also in the bread. Now it is very true, God is Almighty: but hee is also true. Therefore whilest he did say, that Christ is not now present any more bodily vpon earth, it is vnpossible that it should bee otherwise, for it is vnpossible that God should lie, Heb. 6.18.

Hee saith further; a man must put reason aside in matters of faith. Answere. When it is certaine, that any thing is Gods word, then shall wee indeed set aside reason, and beleeue Gods word simply; in consideration that his power is without end, and our vnderstanding not capable. But when it is dis∣putable, whether any thing be the word of God, or the doctrine of men: then hath not God comman∣ded vs that wee should beleeue euery thing alike, like vnto vnreasonable creatures, or ignorant chil∣dren, whatsoeuer is propounded: but he hath com∣manded the flat contrary, and said, Bee yee not like an

horse, or like a mule, which vnderstandeth nota, or as the childrenb, wauering and carried about with euery winde of doctrinec: but try all things, and keepe that which is goodd And hath also expresly set this rule of pro∣uing before vs, that we might see, if any thing bee a∣greeable to the proportion of faithe. For his word cannot bee together, yea, and nayf. And therefore ought no man to take dislike in vs, that wee will not acknow∣ledge these things together, which run one against the other as flatly as yea and nay, as if they were both the word of God. God hath not set such things before vs aboue our comprehension, which are flatly against ano∣ther; namely, euen as yea and nay; said Zwinglius truly, in the conference at Marpurg. For euen so also saith the spirit of God himselfe, that the word of God is not to∣gether yea and nay, in the former recited place, 2. Cor. 1.18.

Doctor Luther saith further, that these things doe not run one against the other, as yea, & nay. For they are vnderstood in seuerall maner: as namely in this manner: When it is said, that Christ is at present Not mo••e on earth bodily; then is it vnderstood of the sightly, moueable, and comprehensible man∣ner. But when it is said that Christ is yea, at present on earth bodily, then is it vnderstood of the vnsight∣ly, vnmoueable, and incomprehensible manner.

Answere, but where stands it written, that the body of Christ, hath belonging to it a forme vnuisi∣ble, vnmoueable, and incomprehensible, besides the visible, moueable and comprehensible? Do∣ctor Luther saith, God is Almighty: therefore the

body of Christ may haue more then two seuerall manners of being.

Answere. God is indeed Almighty; but he doth not therefore euery thing that we take conceite of, but he doth what he himselfe will, as it is written: Our God is in heauen, he doth whatsoeuer he will, Psalm. 115.3.

And therefore our reasonable request is, to know where it stands written, that God will, that the one∣ly one body of Christ should together take seuerall and contrary formes of being vpon it?

Doctor Luther saith, the Sophisters, (that is, the Popish Schoole-men) say, there are three maner of waies, to bee in a place.

Answere. First, our faith is not to bee grounded vpon the Schoolemen. Secondly, neither doe the schoole-men say, that any where one onely thing can haue three seuerall formes together of being in a place. But this say the Schoole-men: Euen as there are three seuerall things; bodies, created spirits, and God: euen so there are three seuerall manners of being in a place. For a body is in one place Circum∣scriptiue, that is, so that it is compassed with a cer∣taine space, and is neither greater nor lesser then the place wherein it is; therefore also it is sightly and comprehensible. A created spirit is in a place defini∣tiue, that is, that it is most certainly there, but yet not comprehended in a certaine place, and needeth not a space, but pierceth through wood and stone, as a sound passeth through a wall. God is in all places, Repletiue, that is, so that hee filleth heauen and earth

with his presence. This say the Schoolemen; name∣ly, that these three seueral things: bodies, spirits, and God, haue three seuerall manners of being some∣where. But that any where, one onely thing should haue together all three aforenamed formes of be∣ing somewhere, that haue the Schoolemen neuer spoken: neither yet did euer any man else speake it. But Doctor Luther is the first that said it.

Therefore we haue reason to aske wherefore he saith it? and what ground he hath for it in the word of God?

Hee saith, that wee cannot denie it, that Christ went through dores being locked▪ & arose through the graue stone it being sealed. Which hee must needs performe by the second manner of being in a place, and so must he indeed be without space and place: it so being that hee passed through the shut doore, and the sealed graue stone, euen as a spirit passeth through wood and stone, or as a sound for∣ceth through a wall; or as the Sun-shine glanceth through a glasse window, &c.

Answere. It stands not written in Gods word, that Christ came to his Disciples through locked doores: but only this stands in Gods word, that he came vnto them, when the doores were locked, Ioh. 20.19.26. Out of which it followeth not, that hee pas∣sed through the lockt doores fast shut, with his bo∣dy, as a spirit passeth through wood and stone; or as a sound through a wall, &c. For Peter came also out of prison, when the doores were locked, and yet neuerthelesse he passed not through the shut dores:

but the doores must giue way vnto him, as standeth expresly written, Act. 12.10. When they were past the first and second watch, they came vnto the iron gate that leadeth vnto the city, which opened vnto them of it owne accord, &c. If now the doores must open to Peter, that he could go out of prison without change and alteration of his true body; wherefore should not much more all doores and stones giue place to the Son of God himselfe, that so hee might passe where he would, without change and alteration of his true body? should not the thing that is formed, giue place to the former? saith Hierome.

And euen in like manner is it with the sealed graue stone; though it cannot bee shewed that Christ did arise, till such time as the Angell had rol∣led the same away; euen as Matthew expresly wri∣teth, that he rolled it away, Chap. 28.2.

It is beleeued also, saith Doct. Luther, that Christ was also so borne of his mother.

Answere. It is not euery where beleeued, and there is no necessity to beleeue it; for it is not writ∣ten any where in the word of God. This is written in the word of God, that Christ was conceiued su∣pernaturally without the helpe of man, only by the power of the holy Ghost. But that hee should bee borne supernaturally, and come out of the body of his mother being closed, that stands not at all in the word of God: but much more the cleare contrary is written therein. For the Law is expresly referred to Christ, which saith: Euery man child that first open∣eth the wombe, shall be called holy to the Lord, Luk. 2.23.

and what needeth much disputing? Christ him∣selfe cleareth it, Luk. 24.39. where hee saith: Behold my hands and my feete, it is I my selfe, handle me and see: for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see mee haue. By which words he most clearely sheweth, that the se∣cond manner of being somewhere, namely, to bee vnseene, and vnpalpable, is not common to bodies, but belongeth to the spirits. Therefore this opini∣on, that the body of Christ should be vnuisible and vnpalpable as the spirits are, hath not onely no ground in Gods word, but is also flat against the same.

And admit that it could bee shewed out of the word of God, that the body of Christ were at pre∣sent vnsightly, and vnfeeleable; yet were not the Contradiction which is betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion, where the holy Scrip∣ture saith, hee is not at present more vpon earth; but Doctor Luther saith, hee is yet now vpon the earth) nothing at all ended thereby. For the spirits also or Angels, though they bee vnuisible, and not to bee handled, as they bee, yet neuerthelesse are they but in one place at one time. Therefore if it bee true, as it is, that Christ is at present in heauen: then can he be no more vpon the earth after the second maner, then after the first together at one time. And accor∣dingly the bodily presence of Christ together in many thousand places, (that is, in all places where the holy Supper is celebrated) by the second man∣ner of being in a place, (namely, as the created spi∣rits are in one place,) can neuer bee defended and

maintained. But will a man haue the bodily pre∣sence of Christ alike in many thousand places, then must hee also of necessity ascribe to the body of Christ the third manner: which manner is to be a∣like, wholly, and altogether in all places.

Now Doctor Luther confesseth, that this manner is proper to God onely. Tem. 3. fol. 457. B. where he saith: This manner is onely ascribed to God, as hee saith by the Prophet Ieremy: Am I a God at hand, and not far off? doe not I fill heauen and earth, &c. See Reader, there Doctor Luther confesseth, and proues it by the word of God; that the third manner of being, (namely, to be wholly in all places) entirely belon∣geth to God himselfe. And yet neuerthelesse where he seeth, that the bodily presence of Christ in the bread of the holy Supper, cannot otherwise bee maintained by him, he lets the heate of contention, and desire of the victory so farre beare sway, that he addeth against the presently forenamed knowledge and confession of his owne, and saith: The body of Christ hath also the third manner vpon it of being some∣where, Tom. 3. fol. 459. 460. &c. And clearer yet: The body of Christ is euery where, Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 457. And was at that time euery where, when hee walked vpon the earth. Tom. 3. fol. 354. 493. Also. Yea hee is in all places from his mothers wombe. Tom. 3. fol 464. Also, It is all through and through full Christ, euen according to the manhood, Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 458. Also, Heauen and earth is his sacke: as the corne filleth the sacke, e∣uen so fils he euery thing. Tom. 2. Wit. fol. 115. B. Also, Hee is ouer all, in all creatures, so that I can finde

him in stone, in fier, in water, or euen in the snare, as hee is certainely there. Tom. 2. Wit. fol. 96. B. Yet suffers he not himselfe to be catcht and laid hold on, hee can well de∣liuer himselfe, &c. Tom. 3 Ien. fol. 355.

This is in truth a lamentable example, out of which one may see what contention can do, when one yeelds too much vnto it. It is also a sufficient, & more then sufficient testimony, that the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper can∣not be right. For what is right, that can also bee maintained with vpright grounds, as Sirack saith; The Law shall be fulfilled without lies, and wisedome is sufficient to a faithfull mouth, Chap. 34.8. Now can the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper, neuer be maintained with found grounds. But if a man will maintaine it, then must hee take the falsest grounds to helpe him, which may bee thought of, to maintaine it, namely, the omnipre∣sence of the body of Christ, as the reader seeth: ther∣fore it is vnpossible, that such a doctrine can be true.

But some man might say, you haue not as yet proued, that the Omnipresence of Christ is a false ground.

Answere. What need is thereof much proofe, Doctor Luther hath at last himselfe againe acknow∣ledged and confessed: as the Brunswicks Diuines at the conference at Quedelburg, openly testified and with sufficient documents explaned and mani∣fested. Also, most of the Lutheran Diuines doe at present acknowledge it: for all that, they former∣ly vnderwrit the Concordien booke, which was

taken in hand to ratifie this opinion. And all Chri∣stian men must acknowledge it; or must confesse that the whole story of the Gospel is false: yea that the whole Christian faith is nothing, but a very meere sight in a looking glasse. For a body which is euery where, can neither be conceiued nor carried in a body, nor borne into the world of such a mo∣ther who is not euery where. Also, a body that is euery where, can neither bee captiued nor bound, nor carried from one place to another, nor be scour∣ged, nor crucified, nor put to death, nor bee taken from the Crosse, nor bee buried of those who are not euery where, &c.

That must all Christian men confesse. And all doe vniformely confesse it also; three or foure Ca∣uellers excepted, with whom wee hereof dispute in vaine. For they know well aforehand, that they faile therein: and yet for all that, they will not giue the glory to God. Yet and if they haue delight in dis∣puting, they should giue vs an answere heerein wherfore they cease not so to smooth the matter to their good Lords, that either the māhood must be euery where, or the two natures in Christ must be separated from each other. Whereas they neuerthelesse confesse in open writing, that Christ (when he was in his mothers body, also, when he hung vpon the Crosse, yea for the most time that he walked vpon the earth) was not euery where in body actually, and yet for all that, the two natures that are in him are not separated from each other. When they can vntie that knot vnto vs, then will we yeeld vnto them. But if they cannot, then should they

yeeld vnto vs: or the whole world shall take know∣ledge, that they doe not contend for the glory of God, but onely for their owne glory and profit.

And thus much be spoken of the first contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion, and the holy Scripture. Which is, that the holy Scripture saith, the body of Christ at present is not any more vpon the earth: but Doctor Luther saith, that hee is now vpon the earth.

The second contrariety is, that the holy Scrip∣ture saith, that the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ, is not profitable, Ioh. 6. But Doctor Luther saith, that it is profitable. Tom. 1. Ien. fol. 82. 358. 464. 455. &c.

This contrariety the better to salue vp, saith Do∣ctor Luther. Where Christ saies, The flesh profiteth not, Ioh. 6. That he there spake not of his flesh, as if that were not profitable to be eaten with the bodily mouth: but he spake of our bad flesh, that the same is not profitable.

Answere. The whole disputation with Christ held with the Capernaites. Ioh. 6. Chapt. is of his flesh, how a man should eate the same, and not of our flesh, whether it bee bad or good. Christ saith, one must eate his flesh, else could hee not bee saued. Whereat the Capernaites were offended, and vn∣derstood the speech of Christ so, as if his flesh should be eaten bodily. To remoue this stumbling blocke, Christ gaue them to vnderstand, that it was not his meaning that his flesh should be eaten bodi∣ly: for he must ascend into heauen. Also, that the

flesh profited not. These were the grounds where∣by Christ ouerthrew the bodily eating of his flesh. How can Doctor Luther then say, that Christ did not speake of his flesh?

He saith: his ground for it, is this: that where the two words, flesh and spirit, in the Scripture are opposed one to another, there cannot flesh bee called the body of Christ, but is alwaies called that old flesh, which is borne of flesh, Iohn 3.

Answere. This ground is manifestly false. For there are many places in the Scripture, where flesh and spirit are opposed to the other, and yet therein the word flesh is vnderstood of the body of Christ, and also cannot bee any otherwise vnderstood. As where it is said: God is manifest in the flesh, iustified in the spirit. 1. Tim. 3.16. Also, Christ was made of the seed of Dauid, according to the flesh, and declared migh∣tily to bee the Sonne of God, touching the spirit. Rom. 1.3.4. Also, Christ was put to death concerning the flesh, but was quickend in the spirit. 1. Pet. 3.18. And also Doct. Luther himselfe, neuer otherwise expounded this saying of Christ, where he saith: The flesh profiteth not, then we expound the same, when he contends not about the Sacrament: namely, the eating of the flesh of Christ with the bodily mouth, not to bee profitable to saluation: as is to bee seene in seuerall writings of his.

First, in the Sermon on Corpus Christi day, printed in quarto, Anno, 1523. 36. leafe, where he saith: For euen so saith he, (namely Christ) himselfe afterwards the flesh profiteth not: And againe, my flesh giueth life, how

shall we separate that? the spirit separates it. Christ will haue it, that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable, but to beleeue that the flesh is the Son of God, come downe from heauen for my sake, and shead his blood for me, &c.

After, in the repetition of this Sermon in the Church Postill, printed at Wittenberge, Anno, 1527. in the Summer part, fol. 111. B. where he saith: But that this is the true vnderstanding of the Gospell, (name∣ly, that it is to be vnderstood of the spirituall eating and drinking,) the words which the Lord spake at the end of the Chapter doe shew: It is the spirit that quicken∣eth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speake vnto you are spirit and truth. With which words Christ will haue vs know, that the bodily eating of his flesh is not profitable: but to beleeue that this flesh is Gods Son, come from heauen for my sake, and shead his blood for me, that is profitable and is life euerlasting.

Also, againe in the Church Postill, Anno, 1540. printed at Wittenberge in the winter part, fol. 275. B. where he saith: When the word of God, and tokens are not there, or are not acknowledged, then helpes it not though God were there himselfe. Euen as Christ saith of himselfe, Ioh. 6. The flesh profiteth not, so long as they re∣spect not the words which he speaketh of his flesh, which word makes his body to be food, where hee saith: hee is the liuing bread from heauen, &c.

And therefore also in this point the contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers o∣pinion, is without No: namely, that the holy Scrip∣ture saith, the flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten is Not profitable. Doctor Luther yet saith, the

flesh of Christ bodily or mouthly eaten, is profita∣ble. His followers take this refuge to helpe them: that in Ioh. 6. Christ spake only against the naturall grosse Capernaitish eating of his flesh, that it is not profitable.

But euen that is also a vaine refuge. For first, Christ spake generally against all bodily eating of his flesh, and opposeth that to his ascension, & saith: What then if ye should see the Son of man ascend vp where he was before? vers 62. As if hee would say, how will yee then reach my flesh with your mouthes? Se∣condly, so is also the difference betwixt the bodily and naturall eating in it selfe, false and of no worth. For the mouth cannot eate supernaturally, but all eating with the mouth is a naturall eating.

And so the second Contrariety betwixt the holy Scripture and Doctor Luthers opinion for all this, without No.

The third Contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion, and betwixt the holy Scripture, (as wee haue aboue touched) is this, that the holy Scripture saith, Christ once dying for vs, can henceforth die no more. Which is euen as much as if it said: his body can be no more without blood, and his blood can be no more really seuered from the body, or be shead out of the body. But Doctor Luthers opinion brings this with it, that now euery day, namely, as often as the holy Communion is administred, that the body of Christ is without blood, and that the blood of Christ is really seuered from his body. For the bread is indeed seuered from the wine really.

When now the body is in the bread, and not in the wine; and contrariwise the blood is in the wine, and not in the bread: then is it indeed manifest that they must be separated really from each other. And Doctor Luther yeelds, that that is his meaning, where he saith: I am to know, that I receiue the body of Christ in the Sacrament without blood. Tom. 3. fol. 529.

Vpon this Contrariety doe wee not finde any thing of respect, which Doctor Luther hath answe∣red in his strife writings. Neither doe wee see how it is possible to answere any thing groundedly; and therefore it remaines as it is.

And this is now sufficiently spoken, of the se∣cond cause, why wee cannot giue approbation to Doctor Luthers opinion, about the bodily presence of the body and blood of Christ, in the bread and wine of the holy Supper; namely, whilest such an opinion hath not onely no ground in Gods word, but also is manifoldly against the same.

The third cause is, that such a construction hath no testimony from the Apostolicall Churches: but was first founded many hundred yeeres after the birth of Christ, in the very darkest daies of Popery, as the Reader may easily come to vnderstand out of the following witnesses of the old Doctors of the Church.

Tertullian, who liued about the yeere of Christ, 200. saith: The Lord tooke bread, and diuided it a∣mongst his Disciples, and made the same his body, in that he said, This is my body, that is, a representatiō of my body.

Cyprian, who liued about the yeere after Christ, 240. saith: That the bread and the wine are the body and the blood of Christ, as the betokening, and the beto∣kened thing vsed to be tearmed with one name.

Gregory Nazianzen, who liued about the yeere of Christs birth, 360. nameth the bread a signe answerable to the body of Christ.

Chrysostome, who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ, 370. saith, Bread and wine are a figure of the body and blood of Christ. Also, the Supper is a to∣ken and signe of remembrance of the death of Christ.

Augustine, who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ, 390. saith, The Lord hath commanded a representation of his body in the Suppera. Also, The Lord hath himselfe not spared to say, This is my body, when he gaue but a token of his bodyb. Also, The Sacra∣ment is named, being one thing with the name of the same thing which it signifiethc. Also, The Scripture vseth e∣uen so to speake, that it nameth the token as the betokened thingd. Also, The heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is in his kinde called the body of Christ, it being in∣deed a Sacrament, (that is, a holy token) of the body of Christ: which was hanged vpon the Crosse visibly palpa∣bly, and dyingly. And the offering of the flesh, which is performed by the hands of the Minister, is tearmed the suf∣fering and dying of Christ vpon the Crosse, not that it is the thing it selfe, but that it betokeneth it, as a mysterye.

Theodoret, who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ, 440. saith, Our Sauiour himselfe hath changed the names, and hath giuen the name of the to∣kens to his body, and of his body to the tokens, &c. And

in sundry places, hee nameth the bread and wine in the Supper, a representation, and opponent signe of the body and blood of Christ.

Beda, who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ, 730. saith, Christ hath instituted in stead of the flesh and blood of the Lambe, the Sacrament of his flesh and blood, in the representation of bread and wine.

Bertram, who liued about the yeere after the birth of Christ, 800. when some began to beleeue the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper: and being demanded thereabouts by Charles the great, freely declared, That the bread is figuratiuely, and not really the body of Christ.

From the witnesses it is very manifest, that the e∣uill custome of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper, did not arise before such time as that Pope∣ry got the mastery. Wherefore cannot wee other∣wise estimate such a custome but for a Popish lea∣uen.

About which no man hath any iust cause to wonder, that Doctor Luther, who otherwise was a deadly enemy to the Popedome, did neuer en∣counter this abomination of the Popedome. Euen Elias the Prophet also did not encounter the calues of Bethel, which Ieroboam had set vp: but they re∣mained euen vnto the daies of King Iosias: and yet neuerthelesse they were Baalitish abominations. God hath such a manner, that hee accomplisheth not all by one man, that so no man might be made an idoll, but must ascribe the honour onely to him. And also there were outward causes which were a

hinderance to Doctor Luther, that he could not at∣taine to the true ground of this matter.

For first, hee was borne and brought vp in the Popedome, and hee was a Frier full fifteene yeeres long, in which many yeers, and from his childhood the euill custome of the bodily presence of Christ in the bread, was so strongly rooted in him, that he could not easily remoue it out of his heart after∣wards. Euen as also many other Popish errours (as the Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the Communion vnder one kind, and honouring of the Sacrament, calling vpon the Saints, &c.) in the beginning of his Reformation, for certaine yeeres together cleaue fast vnto him.

Secondly, and whereas Doctor Carlstadt would shew vnto him that hee failed in this point; then did not Carlstadt onely bring it in very vnbefitting∣ly, in that that he said, that Christ with the word this pointed not to bread, but to his by-sitting body at table, which Doctor Luther could easily confute him in, and so thereby he was more and more forti∣fied in his opinion: but hee propounded it also in such a rough manner, that it was no maruell that Doct. Luther would not receiue information from him.

Thirdly, and for all that Zwinglius did afterwards propound the matter better and in behoofe fuller manner, then Doctor Carlstadt had done, vsing such waighty arguments, which might very well haue opened the eyes of Doctor Luther: yet neuerthe∣lesse hee was so inflamed by the contention with

Doctor Carlstadt, that for very anger thereof hee could neither see nor heare more thereabouts. As all his strife writings testifie, wherein hee approueth or denyeth such things, as no man can approue or denie, who is setled in his minde.

For example. Whereas Zwinglius shewes him, that the word Is, often in the Scripture betokeneth so much as Calleth, as, whereas Ioseph saith to Phara∣oh, Seuen kine are seuen yeeres, &c. Whereas it cannot be denied; yet for all that, ere he will yeeld to Zwing∣lius, he denies it, and saith: The seuen kine did not be∣token seuen yeeres, but were really seuen yeeres, Tom. 3. fol. 443.

Also, where Oecolampadius alleaged vnto him, that there were figuratiue speeches very vsual in the institution of the Sacraments, as in the institution of the Easter Lambe, did God say: This is the Lords Passeouer, &c. Where his meaning was, this is a to∣ken and remembrance of the Passeouer. Howsoe∣uer that also was vncontroleable, yet for all that ere he would yeeld himselfe vanquished, hee rather de∣nies it, and saith: It is not a bare figuratiue speech in the institution of tha Easter Lambe, and in all other figures of the old Testament. Tom. 3. fol. 477. B. Also, whereas Oecolampadius alleaged vnto him, that this speech, when one saith, This is this or that, is often in effect as if one saith, This is a token of this or that: and a∣mongst others alleaged the text, Genes. 17.10.11. where God saith of Circumcision, vers. 10. This shall bee my Couenant: and presently thereafter ex∣plaines

his speech thus, The same shall be a token of the Couenant, vers. 11. Yet ere hee would approue Oeco∣lampadius therein, he denies it, that this text was in the Bible. For these are his owne words hereof: My Genesis saith not (saith hee) that Circumcision is a coue∣nant and token. Tom. 3. fol. 478. B.

And whilest he saw that hee could not vanquish Zwinglius with sufficient grounds, then tooke hee vpon him to ouerbeare him with heauie imputati∣ons, and saith, he denied the Communicationem idio∣matum, that is, the Communion of the properties of both natures in the one onely and vnseparable per∣son of Christ, as did Nestorius; and taught, that not the Sonne of God, but onely a meere man died for vs, &c. Which thing he knew very well, that Zwing∣lius neuer beleeued in all his life, but much more, that hee had testified and written many times the cleane contrary. This Processe now giues sufficient information, that Doctor Luther was wholly ouer∣come with anger in the handling heereof, and was not his owne master therein. And therefore let no man maruell that hee could neuer come vnto the true vnderstanding of the truth thereof.

And so much bee also spoken of the third cause, wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers opi∣nion, about the bodily presence of Christ in the ho∣ly Supper; namely, whilest we see that such an opi∣nion hath no testimony from the ancient Apostoli∣call Churches, but was hatched first of all in the ve∣ry darkest daies of Popery.

The fourth cause is, because wee see that such an opinion also at this present day, is the principall pillar and foundation of the Popedome. For the whole Popedome together with all his inuentions, poyseth it selfe principally vpon the Masse. But the Masse consisteth onely and alone vpon the bodily presence of Christ in the bread of the holy Supper. For if Christ were not there bodily, then acknow∣ledge the Papists themselues, that the Sacrament should neither bee bowed vnto, neither should or could a man offer vp God, for the sins of the liuing and the dead. But when he is bodily there, say they, then cannot a man renounce the honouring with∣out sinning. And Doctor Luther himselfe writeth thus, Tom. 3. fol. 206. B. where hee saith: Whosoeuer beleeueth not that the body and blood of Christ is there, he doth right, that he neither worshipeth spiritually nor flesh∣ly. But who so beleeueth it, he cannot possibly deny him his worship without sinne. Further, and if Christ be there bodily, say the Papists, wherefore shall not he be of∣fered vp to God the father, or testifie and dare to pray, that he will be gratious to his folke for his sake, This say the Papists. And it is vnpossible that any man can answere them with sufficient grounds, so long as a man yeelds vnto them, that Christ is there bodily.

Where we now see, that the greatest idolatry of al, that euer was committed, and the whole strength and power of the Popedome, dependeth vpon this one euill custome, that Christ is bodily in the Sa∣crament, should wee not then necessarily loath

such an euill custome?

The fifth cause, wherefore wee cannot but loath such an euill custome, is this: for that we se that the same also doth procure no good in the Protestant Churches, but it leadeth the people daily more and more, from the right way to saluation, vnto the opus operatū, that is, vnto these perswasions, that they can be saued by the outward worke of the Sacrament, though inwardly, there be no liuing faith, and true conuersion. Yea the poore people in the Lutherisch Churches, know for the most no more, what should be the true conuersion of God the Lord: but think that it is sufficiēt, if he doth but once in the moneth goe to Confession, and receiueth the Sacrament with an indifferent meditation; though hee liue af∣terwards as it pleaseth him. If one tell them; that they who haue receiued Christ truly, and haue eat and drunke him, are wholly changed by him and and made new men, and liue now no more, but Christ liues in them: then tels a man them of meere Bohemian villages. For not one of a thousand vn∣derstands what it is to be a new creature, who is cre∣ated in Christ Iesus. To say nothing that they should examine themselues, whether they find any such change in themselues or no. Yea those that will bee the wittiest, knowe of all others the least thereof. Which is hereby manifest, that they also mocke vs about, and for it, when we say vnto them, that nothing stands for good with Christ, but a new creature; and they alleage, that the Caluinish spirit is a very spirit of sorrow, which will not affoord a

man any mirth. As if that were a Christian mans ioy, that he need not feare to sinne. O blindnesse a∣boue al blindnesse. And from whence proceedeth such a pernitious blindnesse? verily, from nothing else then that the poore people thinke, that howso∣euer they liue, when they can but receiue the Sa∣crament vpon their death beds, then do they there∣in receiue Christ bodily. Out of which they con∣clude, that they receiue also the forgiuenes of sins, and euerlasting life therewithall. And what other concllusion can they make? for the Apostle Paul saith himselfe: Seeing he gaue vs his Sonne, how should he not with him giue vs all things also? And so they de∣part with their pasport; verily, verily, like to like, and to be feared many of them to that place, where they will exclaime and cry against their soules-sor∣rowers euerlastingly, that they haue not better in∣structed them in the way to euerlasting life.

Now the God-fearing Reader may consider, whether these fiue causes, which wee haue hitherto mentioned, bee not weighty enough to hold vs [ 1] from Doctor Luthers opinion? The first cause were sufficient. For whatsoeuer hath not his foundation in the word of God, that shall no man endure to be forced vpon him, as an artickle of faith, as Doctor Luther right and truly vsed to sing and say:

And take thou heed of mans deuise, Thereby consumes the Pearle of prise, This learne I thee, for the last.

Where now this is added to it, that the aforena∣med opinion is also flat against the word of God,

should wee then resist the word of God, to pro∣cure [ 3] the loue and fauour of men? Also, whereas [ 4] wee see, that such an opinion did not onely arise in the Popedome, but is also at this houre, the princi∣pal pillar of the Popedome, and giues a forcible fur∣therance thereto, the easilier to inthrall the whole Dutch Nation againe, euen to day before to mor∣row with the Masse: haue not wee then sufficient [ 5] cause to loath it? Lastly, where wee see that in the Protestant Churches also, the poore cōmon people are detained by such an opinōi in as great blindnes and misunderstanding, of Christianity, as possibly might bee in Popery: Should wee not mourne for this? and should wee not endeauour our selues to the vttermost, to preuent this abomination?

We trust in God, that men of vnderstanding shal acknowledge, that in this matter we hold the truth.

Onely this will yet be a stumbling blocke to ma∣ny, hindring them from entring into Christian bro∣thership with vs, for that they are informed, that we not only in the point of the Supper, but also in ma∣ny other high and waighth points: as namely, Of the Person of Christ: Also, Of the foreknowledge or al∣mighty prouidence of God ouer all creatures: and of ori∣ginall of sinne: Also Of the euerlasting Election of God; and of holy Baptisme: doe beleeue and teach other∣wise, then Doctor Luther did beleeue and teach. Wherefore it is of necessity, that wee doe also shew our minds in these points: as we will presently doe hereafter.

But we must prepare the Reader aforehand, that

he may know how the calumniation arose, that it is said, that our Religion is from the diuell, and that Zwinglius so confessed himselfe, that his Religion was reuealed vnto him in a dreame, by a spirit, of whom he knoweth not, whether hee were white or blacke. Now then the estate of the businesse was thus.

When Zwinglius was come so farre by diligent meditation in the holy Scriptures, and especially by the 6. Chapter of Iohn, as also through daily stu∣dy in the writings of the ancient fathers, that hee now doubted not any more of the true vnderstan∣ding of the holy Supper, according to the intent of Christ: he declared first of all the fame in writings and Sermons to the Churches of God, and after that hee entreated the Counsell of Zurick, that hee might publikely vtter the same vnto the two hun∣dred. Which being done, and audience affoorded him, hee propounded, that the worshipping of the Sacrament, and the Masse ought to bee abolished, and in stead thereof the holy Supper should be esta∣blished and commanded, agreeable to the instituti∣on of Christ: in consideration, that now, blessed be God therefore, it was apparant, that the custome of the corporall presence of Christ, (vpon which the aforenamed abominations were founded) was false. For it was most cleere in the 6. Chapter of Iohn, that Christ had himselfe cast away the carnall eating of his body, as vnprofitable to saluation. And also the articles of the Christian faith, were vn∣doubtfull, which say plainely, that Christ is bodily

ascended into heauen, where hee shall remaine, till he returne to iudge the quicke and the dead. Wher∣fore cannot those words, This is my body, in any manner bee so vnderstood, as if Christ would haue said, This is really my body, or, therein is really my body: But the words of Christ, This is my body, must so bee necessarily vnderstood: as if he had said, This beto∣keneth my body: as it was vsuall in the Scripture, to say, This is this or that, in the stead of, this betokeneth this or that. For example, Luke 8. Christ saith: The seed is the word of God. Also Mat. 13 he saith: The field is the world; the weeds are the wicked; the sower is the diuell. In which sayings it is vncontroleable, that this word Is, is as much as bet••keneth. And therefore the exposition of the word of Christ (that the word Is, is as much as betokeneth) is not disagreeable to the vse of the holy Scripture. This was the drift of the speeches of Zwinglius: which speech indeed was well acceped of the greatest number: but yet not of them all: but part of them gainsaid him. But aboue all others, there was a Clerke amongst the compa∣ny (A••ter an albus fuerit, that is, whom hee was, will not Zwinglius nominate) hee opposed himselfe a∣gainst him very hotely, two daies together. And a∣mongst others, hee cauelled against those examples which Zwinglius had alleaged to shew, that the word Is, is often taken in the Scripture for as much as betokeneth; saying, that those examples agreed not with the cause in controuersie. For they spake of parables. But in this was it not spoken of para∣bles, but of the Sacrament. And howsoeuer that

Zwinglius gaue him presently such an answere, wherewith all men of vnderstanding were well sa∣tisfied, (as namely, that these speeches, The seed is the word of God, the field is the world, were not parables, but expositions of the before going Parables: and if they were indeed Parables, yet did they not con∣tradict his purpose. For hee would onely thereby make plaine, that it was not vnusuall in the Scrip∣ture, that the word Is, was taken for betokeneth. But that in like manner also it must bee so, that did not hee conclude from this example, but from the grounds aforenamed, that Christ had himselfe cast away the bodily eating of his flesh, Ioh. 6. and that hee were not at present any more bodily on earth, but in the heauens; according to the article of Chri∣stian faith. For all which, whilest some weake ones, were brought into a mamuring by this allegation, touching parables, the Councell held it for good, that the next day they should come together again, and should well consider the matter as it behoued. And Zwinglius was very well content therewith, and in the meane time hee thought further on the same. And whilest hee perceiued that it depended principally vpon this, that hee should produce ex∣amples, wherein there were no parables, and yet ne∣uerthelesse the word Is, was taken for betokeneth, hee was very much troubled in himselfe, where hee might find such an example. And when hee found none before night, and went to bed with such a troubled mind, in the night that he had this dreame which we now following, not with our owne, but

with his owne words, will make manifest: which truly translated, are as followeth.

It was amongst others not the least trouble, name∣ly, that I should bring examples, in which there were no parables. Then thought I heere and there, and searched euery where; but could find no other example, besides those which I had already publi∣shed in my booke: or if I found any, then were the same parables. But when the 13. day of Aprill ap∣proched, (I tell the truth, and it is so certainly true that I tell, that my conscience enforceth mee also, that I must declare it, though I had rather not vtter it. But I must vtter what the Lord hath imparted vnto mee, though I know very well what iests and mocks will be made of me for it,) when as now, the 13. of Aprill approched, I thought in my sleepe, as if I were againe disputing with the contradicting Scribe, in great heauinesse, and that I was so put to silence, that I could not stirre my tongue, to deliuer that truth, which I neuerthelesse well vnderstood in my selfe. Which perplexity troubled me very sore, as is very vsuall in dreames (for I make not relation of any higher then a dreame, for so much as concer∣neth my selfe: howbeit it was no small thing which I learned out of the same dreame, God bee praised; whom onely to honour, I make this manifest to the world,) with this there comes vnexpectedly, (who hee was I say not; for I tell a dreame) who put into my mind, and said: thou sluggard, wherefore doest thou not answere him by that which is written in the second booke of Moses in the 12. Chapter? for

it is the Lords Passeouer. So soone as that appariti∣on came before mee, I awaked, and sprang out of the bed, and turned to the specified sentence first in the Greeke Bible: and after that I made relation thereof in the best order I possibly could, to the whole congregation. Which Oration of mine, be∣ing gladly and willingly heard by them, (as shall be by and by declared) all they that were studious in the holy Scripture, and were before brought to doubt by the mentioning of parables, were now by this fully freed of all doubtings. And they celebra∣ted vpon the same three daies, one after the other, (namely, on holy-thursday, good friday, and Easter day,) the Supper of Christ in such multitudes, the the like thereunto I neuer beheld in all the daies of my life.

Behold Reader, these are the words of Zwinglius of his dreame, which words are so euilly construed in di••ers places, as if he had therby acknowledged, that the diuell did reueale vnto him his doctrine of the Lords Supper: where he yet for all that, twice testifieth the cleane contrary, and saith, that God re∣uealed vnto him, what he learnt in the dreame, and his conscience inforced him, that hee must tell it, to the praise and honour of him, Also he maketh no mention in a∣ny speech, that a spirit appeared vnto him. But hee saith onely, that one came before him, who put in his mind, which can also well haue been a man. For it befals often, that in dreames by night, the cogita∣tion of this or that man comes before ones sight: as Ananias came in the sight of Paul, Act. 9.12. more

then that, Zwinglius doth not say, that he learned his opinion of the holy Supper, (namely, that the word, This is my body, is in effect as much as, this be∣tokeneth my body,) first of all in a dreame: (which also he could not say; it so being, that hee had pub∣likely preached the same oftentimes, and had twice maintained it before the Councell.) But onely this saith, Zwinglius, that a befitting or example then for∣merly he could finde, was made knowne vnto him in this dreame, to make his opinion to bee beleeued the better. And so there are three falshoods in this Calumnie. The first is, that Zwinglius learned his o∣pinion of the Communion first in a dreame. The second is, that a spirit did reueale such a doctrine vnto him. The third is, that he confesseth he knew not whether it were a good or wicked spirit.

The colour the defamers haue for it, is this; for that Zwinglius saith of the same that hee see in his dreame, in Latine: Ater an albus fuerit nihil memini: this construe they so vpon him, as if hee had said, whether it was a blacke or white spirit, know not I. But first of all, Zwinglius maketh no mention of any such matter, that it should bee a spirit, as is formerly mentioned. Secondly, the words also, white and blacke affoord it not. Yea indeed the words affoord the cleane contrary. For not of spirits, but of men, whom one either knowes not, or will not know or nominate, is it vsuall to say in this manner in Latine: Albus an ater fit, nescio: and it hath no other man∣ner of construction, then when a man saith, I know not who he is. As the truth may bee seene to the desi∣rous

Reader in the Adagijs Erasmi. Chil. 1. Cent. 6. A∣dag. 99. And Zwinglius also vseth euen the very same forme of speech of the aforenamed Clerke, who had so stifly repugned him: and saith, Whether hee were blacke or white, is not necessary to bee spoken in this place. For euery honest man seeth plainely, that hee would not otherwise say, then that hee would not nominate who the same Clerke was: which so to doe, hee might haue seuerall motiues to occasion him. Euen in the like manner would hee not also specifie, whom he was that appeared to him in his dreame, that none should taxe him of desire of glo∣ry, if hee should haue spoken too exquisitely of this reuelation: but hee esteemed it sufficient to giue God the honour therof, praising him, and thanking him, before whole Christendome for that he gaue him so profitable an information. That and no o∣therwise was the meaning of Zwinglius. And the Defamers know it assuredly. For it is not to bee thought, that they should know so much Latine, and not know and vnderstand the nature of this Prouerbe, Ater an albus fuerit: and yet for all that, as yet they make no conscience at all to say the cleane contrary. But let them looke well vnto it, that they deale not too rudely with God the Lord. For assuredly he will not suffer himselfe to be iested withall. Zwinglius did neuer boast that any new thing was reuealed vnto him in a dreame: but on∣ly this did he giue God the glory of, that he had in∣formed him in a dreame of a sentence in the Bible, which else he could not call to mind. Which saying

is written, Exod. 12.12. where God saith of the Ea∣ster Lambe, and of the whole feast, which should be held thereupon, It is the Lords Passeouer: and pre∣sently after hee expounds it himselfe euen in this manner: That it should be a token and remembrance of the Passeouer. Exod. 12.13.14. And Exod. 13.9. This saying saith Zwinglius, did God informe him of in a dreame. Whereas now his Calumniators doe say, that it is a diuels doctrine which Zwinglius learnt in his dreame; what doe they otherwise, then raile vp∣on the word of God, as if it were a diuels doctrine? God be mercifull to them and vs all. But verily ve∣rily, it appeares to be much like, as if they did herein commit the sinne, whereof Christ speaketh, Matth. 12. which shall neuer bee forgiuen, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. But the mercy of the Lord is superaboundant. And we will not bur∣then any man with our iudgement: but what wee say, that speake we onely for this end, in hope that happily some man may reforme himselfe, by their information.

And so much also bee spoken of this matter.

Notes

• The first cause wherefore wee cannot receiue Doctor Luthers opinion: whilest (plainely to say) it hath no war∣rant in Gods word.
• Gr. 26.
• Mat. 13.38. Luk. 8.11.
• 1. Cor. 10.1.4. Gal. 4.24.
• Exod. 12.11.
• Gen. 17.10.11.
• Tom. 3 fol. 471. B.
• Tom. 3. fol. 485. and many other places.
• a

  Tom 3 fol. 80. and 484.
• b

  Tom. 3. 80.
• c

  Tom. 3 456.
• d

  Tom. 3 80.
• Brentius in John. 6.
• Tom. 3. fol. 503.
• Many more the like places there are, Tom Ion. fol 183. 184. 115. 186. 187. Jn the Sermon of Baptisme.
• Tom. 1 Jen. fol. 204. 205 26.
• Postill Witten∣berg, anno 1540 in the winter part. fol. 275.
• The second cause why we cannot leane to Doct. Luthers opinion: name∣ly, whilest it is flat against Gods word.
• Tom. 3. fol. 529.
• C'earan••e of the first difference betwixt D Lu∣ther and the ho∣ly Scripture.
• Tom 3. fol. 454. 455.
• Note. We denie not the almighty power of Christ.
• a

  Psal. 32 9.
• b

  1. Cor. 14 20.
• c

  Ephes. 4.14.
• d

  1. Thes. 5 21.
• e

  Rom. 12.6.
• f

  2 Cor. 1.18.
• 1529.
• Tom. 3 Ien. fol. 40••.
• Tom 3. fol. 255. & 455. &c.
• Note. We denie not the Almighti∣nesse of Christ.
• Tom. 3. fol. 457.
• Tom. 3 Jen. fol. 457. B.
• Hier ad Pam∣mach.
• Tom 3. fol. 460.
• Ier. 23.23.24.
• Marke Reader the fountaine of vbiquitie.
• In the Sermon against the Swarme spirits.
• Note. This Sermon is left out in the Jenish Tomis.
• Pag. 152.
• In concordium booke, fol. 246 B. Also in the Apo∣logie of the Con∣cordium booke in the first Chap∣ter against the Bremers fol. 3. A. & fol. 7. B.
• Also in the con∣futation of the printed confes¦sion of faith at Herborne, page 138. Protocol. Maulbrun. Act. 5.
• Clearance of the second contra∣riety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion, and the holy Scripture.
• Tom. 3 fol. 364. A.
• Clearance of the third contrariety betwixt Doctor Luthers opinion and the holy Scripture.
• 3 The third cause wherefore we yeeld not no Do¦ctor Luthers opi¦nion; namely, whilest it hath no testimony from the old A¦postolicall Chur¦ches, but was first batch••d in the blindest times of Popery.
• Serm. de Chrism.
• Apologet.
• Psal in 22.
• Homil 17. ad Heb.
• a

  Psal. 3.
• b

  Contra Adim. C. 12.
• c

  Epist. 23 ad Bonif.
• d

  In Joh. N. 63.
• e

  Sent. Prosp.
• Dial. 1.
• Super Lucam.
• De coe•••• Domi∣ni ad Carolum Magnum.
• 2. King. 25.15.
• Gen. 41.
• Tom. 3 fol. 250. B.
• Tom 3. fol. 462. B.
• 4 The fourth cause wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doctor Luthers opinion; namely, whilest such an opinion is the chiefest ground and foundation of Popery.
• 5 The fifth cause wherefore we cannot yeeld to Doct. Luthers opinion; name∣ly, whilest such an opinion leades men from the right way to saluation, to the Opus opera∣tum, &c.
• Ioh 6.5.7. Ephes 2.••0. Gal. 2.20.
• 2. Cor. 5.17. Gal. 5.6.
• Rom. 8.32.33.
• Necessaries for their voyage.
• Tom. 2. fo 247.
• Tom. 11. Zwing. fol. 249 in sub∣sidio de Eucha∣ristia.
• Note. Doct. Luther writes indeed the diuell dispu∣ted with him∣selfe, and pro∣ued vnto him, that the hedg Masse was false. Tom. 6. Jen. fol 81. But in Zwig∣lius cannot the like be found.
• Hieron. aduersus Heluidium, ego ipse, qui contra ••escribo, cum in eadem vrbe te∣cum co••sistam, qu•• balbatis & crub••scis, albus, vt aiunt, an ater fi••nesci••. Tom 2. fol. 247.