for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
ratification by the death of the testator but vve say further that to make and perfite the testament as it vvas at the last supper blud also vvas by gods order requisite that blud to be first offered to god in sacrifice vvithout vvhich oblation first made to god it could not be receiued of men and the conference of Christs actions vvith those of Moses manifestly conuinceth the same as shal better appeare in the next paragraph For the present the only authoritie of Gregorious Nyssenus brother to S. Basil the great may serue vvho vvriteth very plainly that our Sauiour after a secret and most diuine maner of sacrifice preuented the iudgement and violence of the Iewes and offered him selfe for vs being at one tyme the priest and the lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world And when was this done then when he gaue his body to be eaten and blud to be drunken of his frends the Apostles For a man could not eate the lamb except the immolation went before Quum igitur discipulis suis dedit corpus ad comedendum aperte demonstrat iam perfectam absolutam esse agni immolationem Christ therefore who gaue to his Disciples his body to be eaten euidently declareth that the oblation or immolation of that lamb was now past and performed Now already therefore by his almightie power was that body inuisibly and in wonderfull maner sacrificed The selfe same but more briefly therefore not so plainly vvriteth Hesichius bishop of Hierusalem Christ preuenting the sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse in violent maner sacrificed him selfe in the supper of his Apostles which thing they know who vnderstand the vertue of these mysteries ¶ To this argument the other mysterie of the paschal lambe which Christ also finished in his last supper substituting or placing this sacrament of his body and blud in steed thereof as Musculus truly auoucheth yeldeth great force For plainer declaration vvhereof vve likevvise wil accept that vvhich our aduersaries enforced by manifest scripture graunt thereof dravv a truer conclusion then they do This figure thus the same author expoundeth Christ saith this bread is my body the body of the true lamb which ere long shal be offered in sacrifice This cuppe or to speake more plainly as Th. Beza also teacheth vs that which is coÌ„teyned in this cuppe is not the old but the new testament in my blud the true lamb whose blud shal be shed for yow Therefore as this figuratiue lamb hath bene hitherto accompted the paschal sacrament of the old testament so this bread and cup shal hence forward be accompted in the new testament for the sacrament of my body sacrificed and my blud shed This I take to be the meaning of Christ in these words that as Moses the mediator of the old testament Exod. 12. toke order about that paschal lamb instituted of it a solemne yerely memorial before it was sacrificed that by the blud thereof â—e might turne away the Angel which killed al the first borne and so he appointed that for a sacrament of the old testament in like maner Christ meaning now to make an end of the old testament and to begin the new ordeyned this sacrament of the new true paschal I meane of his owne body and blud before he was to be offered on the crosse for the redemption of mankynd Againe in the same place Christ in his supper endeth the old testament and sacraments thereof by the succession of the new testament There he saith This is the new testament in my blud and so doth substitute the new testament in place of the old and withall ordeyneth a sacrament consisting of two parts which should correspond to the sacrament of the old Pasch which also consisted of two parts In that figuratiue Pasch was sacramental meate drinke so is it here etc. Briefly for I wil not stand vpon euerie his particular circumstance his conclusion is that the plaine text and order vsed by Christ declareth sufficiently that Christs mystical supper succeded in place of the old pasch which was a sacrament of the old law So here we see accorded that the plaine teâ—t of scripture and Christs owne doing proue the paschal lamb to haue bene a prefiguration of this sacrament instituted by Christ at his last supper vvhich as before is confessed was ordeyned by Christ to succede in place of that paschal lamb And this to be so appeareth by euery circumstance of Christs action compared vvith that auncient ceremonie That lambe vvas by God appointed to be sacrificed precisely the 14. day of the first moneth in the euening Christ in the same day and the same time of the day precisely instituted this sacrament That lamb was offered in memorie of our lords passe-ouer and deliuerie of the Iewes out of their Aegiptiacal bondage The Eucharist is offered in memorie of Christs passe-ouer vvhen by his passion he passed out of this world to his father also in memorie of our deliuerance from the power and bondage of Satan which benefite is procured vs by Christs death That lamb was first offered as a sacrifice then eaten as a sacrament as the viage-prouision for pilgremes and trauailers for which cause they who did eate it were then attired like trauailers with their loynes girded shoes on their feete staues in their hands as men being in their iourney tovvards Iewrie their land of promise So this to omitte the sacrifice first due to god is imparted to Christians as their proper viage prouision their viaticum by which they are strengthened comforted in this vale of miserie and peregrination wherein they trauaile towards heauen their eternal country and promised land That lamb could not be lavvfully eaten but in Hierusalem only the place which god had appointed peculiarly for his name to dwel in nor this but in the Catholike church with out vvhich who so euer eateth it he is prophane he is in the high way of damnation as saith S. Hierom. S. Augustin That was appropriated to those only that were Hebrewes circumcided and cleane so this to only Christians baptised of pure life and conscience for vvhich cause S. Paule willeth euery one to proue and tâ—ie him selfe before he presume to this table Finally as Moses coÌ„maunded the Israelites to keep the memorie thereof for euer so Christ vvilled his Christians to do this in memorie of his passioÌ„ death for euer vntil his second aduent VVhere as this then so exact a prefiguration of the Christian Eucharist and which was ended and fulfilled in our Eucharist before it was eaten was by Gods ordinance commaunded to be offered to him in sacrifice how can it be denyed but that the Eucharist was also sacrificed before it was eaten How was the figure fulfilled if the principal part and ceremonie most touching the honour of God were omitted And how is it credible that
of his blud the bread there broken is the participation of his body should also be partakers of the table sacrifice of deuils In which argument albeit the Apostle being brief and writing to Christians whom he accounteth skilful wei instructed in this thing by mentioning litle signifieth more setting downe one part willeth them to vnderstand the whole as Calvin also truly noteth and therefore vseth not in everie part of his comparison the terme of altar and sacrifice yet as otherwhere he acknowledgeth the Christians to haue a true altar to sacrifice on and consequently a sacrifice from which the Iewes were debatredâ— so here the very drift of his reason exact correspondence of ech part to other require that as the Iewes had an altar a sacrifice so had the Gentils so had the Christians As the Iewes offered to their god so did the Gentils to their false god so did the Christians As the Iewes by that seruice were partakers of the worship of the true god so were the Gentils by the like seruice concluded conuinced to worship a false god that is the deuil therefore could not haue any part or coÌ„munion in the worship of the true god which was performed by the dreadful sacritice of Christs body blud among Christians VVhich triple sacrifice that of the Gentils to the deuil these two of the Iewes Christians to the true god S. Chrysostom veâ—v we observeth writing vpon the same place His words are In the old testament Pagans idolaters offered the blud of beasts to their idols This blud god tooke to him selfe that so he might turne away his people from committing idolatrie which was a great signe of infinite loue But here in the new testament he provided a sacrifice far more wonderful excellent both in that he changed the sacrifice withal in place of beasts killed in sacrifice he coÌ„maunded him selfe to be offered And this to be the true sense of the place Vib. Regius ioynt-Apostle with M. Luther in preaching this new gospel whom the Protestants of Germanie acknowlege cal a perfite absolute Diuine of infinite learning the Evangelist cheef Superintendent of the churthes of Christ in the Duchie of Luneburge as Luther was in the Duchie of Saxonie plainely graunteth Many there are saith he which thinke a sacrifice to be proued by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the societie of such as sacrifice to idols by arguments taken from the faith of the sacrifice vsed by the Iewes Gentils For he seemeth to compare sacrifice to sacrifice as Chrysostome teacheth his comparison so to stand that by it is gathered Christians in the Lords supper to haue a certaine peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our lord as the idolaters by their abominable sacrifice are made partakers of deuils VVhich if it be so me seemeth it may be answered that in the supper of Christians are the body blud of Christ which are a holy sacrifice but coÌ„memoratiue sacrosanctum sunt sacrificium sed memoriale By which later word albeit he thinketh to haue answered the Catholiks excluded the truth of the sacritice yet is he much deceiued therein For so far are Catholiks from denying the sacrifice to be commemoratiue that of al other sacrifices which euer were or can be imagined we graunt this to be moste coÌ„memoratiue as which most neerely liuely truly expresseth the verie condition efficacie nature of that sacrifice offered on the crosse with which being one in substance it differeth only in maner of offering generalitie of redemption And as Christs transfiguration on the holy mount before his passion vvas the best most persite sigure examplar representation of that eternal glorie which the same person of Christ vvas to enioye in heauen after his resurrection ascension in like maner vve are to iudge of this mistical coÌ„memoratiue sacrifice in respect of his sacrifice on the crosse yet not excluding the veritie of Christs presence in one place more then the other Nether is there any reason vvhy Vrbanus Regius a Lutheran should imagine the sacrifice to be disproued for that it is a memorial or done in coÌ„memoration of Christ more then the real presence is disproued reiected because that also in the Lutheran religion must needs be done in coÌ„memoration Christs vvords being most plaine do this in coÌ„memoration of me VVhich vvords doubtles haue no more strength to overthrovv remoue a sacrifice of Christs body as al Catholikes vrge then a true presence of the same body vvhich al LutheraÌ„s graunt So that out of these vvords of the Apostle is confirmed the mistical sacrifice that it vvas vsually frequented in the first Apostolical church vvhich rec aâ—ed directly from Christ and his Apostles the order administration thereof ¶ This sincere sound beleefe concerning both sacrifice sacrament continued in the catholike church for the first thousand yeres almost vvithout contradiction of any man or sect vvorth the naming Only as our Sauiour him self in the veâ—ie beginning vvhen he first promâ—seâ— that the bread which he would geue should be the same flesh which he was to geue for the life of the world signified obscurely that Iudas the traytour certaine other for want of faith vvere scandalized at his vvords repâ—neâ— at them so a fevv veres after it may be gathered that some there vvere of Iudas folovvers vvho likevvise denyed the truth of this heauenly mistery vvhereof S. Ignatius scholer to the postles vvriteth thus as his vvords are recorded by Theodoretus Some sectaries there are who like not nor approue the oblâ—â—ions sacrifiâ—e◠〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 for that they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Iesu the selfe same flesh that suffred for our sinneâ— which the father of his merciful goodnes raised from death But vvhat these men vvere vvhat svvay they bare vvhat scholers they had appeareth not by any ecclesiastical record therefore belike vvere sone put to silence in that happie time of our primitiue first faith vvhen the Apostles them selues and many by them instructed had the governement of the church VVherefore the beleefe first taught by Christ and his Apostles proceded on from hand to hand from age to age vvithout any notable resistance VVhereof being a thing at large treated proued in sundry bookes both latin and english set forth of late I vvil bring only thre or fovver testimonies but the same most auncient S. Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Fraunce martyr S. Cyprian bishop of Carthage in Africa a martyr likevvise and the first general Councels of Nice Ephesus in Asia S. Ireneus vvriteth thus Christ taking bread gaue thankes said This is my body and that which was in the chalice he confessed to be his blud and
as these men forsooth haue taken it euen at Christs owne hands and that is that 3. or 4. of the bretherne go together take bread blesse it and geue it one to an other without vsing any farther ceremonie or words of Christ or consecration But here arise 3. or 4. great difficulties One whether there must necessarily be other meate and prouision besides the bread of the Eucharist as was at this supper whence these men take the paterne of their coÌ„munion A second how it wil stand with the sinceritie of their gospel to blesse the bread which blessing they so generally detest the English and Scottish coÌ„munion bookes refuse a late English Doctor in a large treatise hath condemned as superstitious wicked magical which words truly must needs proceede from a very prophane and Paganical hart mouth considering that Christ our Sauiour him self vsed it as here these martyrs tel vs. Thirdly which perhaps is greatest of al how they can frame their coÌ„munion by this paterne where is no mention of drinke And very probable coniecture there is that Christ vsed none for that as here the storie is rehearsed after Christ had deliuered them the bread their eyes were opened Christ forthwith vanished out of their sight And ioyne for a fourth that if the breaking of this bread were but breaking of common bread as our M. Iewel wil haue it an act of hospitalitie then foloweth it that the paterne whereby they frame out their communion teacheth them a coÌ„munion of such common bread as is vsed at euerie hosterie at euerie Inne and ale-house therefore they can not with reason blame Catholikes if they make no more esteeme of it But how soeuer this â—al out M. Fox with his Martyrs proceedeth oh wil needs proue that as Christ in the place before noted so his Apostles had no other communion nor ministred it in any otherwise For it foloweth Here also it seemeth to me the Apostles to folow their maister Christ to take the right vse of the Sacrament also to teach it to those that were converted to Christ as mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles where it is said They continued in the Apostles doctrine felowship in breaking of bread and prayer they did breake bread in euerie howse c. By al which he laboreth to perswade that the Institution of Christ as it is described by the Euangelists Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. should quit be remoued from the administration of the supper and only bread broken by the minister VVhich if he do and withal tel pronounce to the coÌ„municants the Lords death he maketh vnto them a persite and absolute supper according as these men haue receiued it at the Lords owne hands And the verie same ministration of the supper I fynd practised by the Scottish martyrs as writeth their friend and patâ—â—â—â— Bucâ—aâ—an About the yere 1545. one George Seâ—â—â—carde was aâ— S. Andrewes to be burnt VVhen the day of execution came the keeper of the castle and his seruants ready to go to breakfast asked George whether it would please him to take part with them He answered he would with a very good wil. But first quoth he I request yow to sitte downe here at the table with me and geue me leaue to make yow a short collation that I may pray vpon the bread which as brethren in Christ 〈◊〉 to eate so bid yow farewel In the meane season the table was couered bread being set on George began to entreate shortly plainely of Christs supper his paynes and death about halfe an hower Then he exhorted them especially to mutual loue that they wold become perfite members of Christ who continually prayeth to his father for vs that our sacrifice may with him be auayleable to life euerlasting VVhen he had thus spoken and yelded thanks to god he brake a lâ—fe of bread reached to euerie one a peece of it and likewise wine after him self had drunke a litle prayed them al that now with him in this Sacrament they would remember the death of Christ Afterward saying grace he retyred him self in to his chamber By these examples we learne how the communion is rightly ministred namely without al words of Christs Institution only that bread be divided among the bretherne and sisterne they willed to loue one an other and remember the Lords death VVhich seemeth generally to be the forme of the coÌ„munion among the Zuinglians in Suizzerland For as Zuinglius him selfe and Bullinger his successor rehearse the maner of it The people â—it al a long in order vpon formes and geue â—are to one who readeth to them the 13. chapter of S. Iohns gospel In the meane season is bread caried about in baâ—keâ—s or paâ—iaâ—s and wine in glasses One man geueth bread to an other likewise of the wine Thus endeth this coÌ„munion or Sacrament of the supper as Zuinglius termeth it And Musculus earnestly disputing against S. Chrysostom for that he attributed great force to the words of Christ by vvhich there is made in the Sacrament a sanctification alteration far surpassing the power of man as S. Chrysostom thought among other things thus reproueth him It is not needful that Christ should now againe sanctifie by a second repetition that which once for al he hath sanctified by the deed word of his Institution For that Institution once done hath sanctified the Sacramental signes for the churches vse euen to the end of the world And that being once done by him is of force through al churches to the worlds end without any other repetition or iteratâ—on thereof Once for al he said This is my body This cuppe is the new testameÌ„t in my blud Do this in remembrance of me and by these words once for al he instituted sanctified this ceremonie turned the bread from a natural vse to a Sacramental By which words especially conferred vvith those of Bullinger and Zuingliê° before rehearsed the practise of that church a man may perceiue that al these English Scottish Geneuian and Suizzer Protestantes agree in remouing Christs vvords from the supper and accompt the supper very sufficiently gospellike administred if the brethern diuide bread drinke amoÌ„ng them selues in memory of Christ without any nevv mentioning of his institution vvhich being once done by him selfe serueth for al without any more a do or new repetition of the same And this is the very exact forme of the Scottish coÌ„munion or supper now in practise as hereafter shal be declared ¶ Here before I end this chapiter I thinke it good to informe the reader of the resolution of the church of Geneua about the matter of this Sacrament for that of the forme we haue sufficient knowledge by this which hath bene said hitherto Concerning the matter this is the determination of that
Christ therein according to S. Austins teaching and the Christian faith of S. Austins tyme. Now concerning the horriblenes of eating Christs flesh vvhich S. Austin mentioneth in the other place True it is the vulgar and vsual vnderstanding of eating Christs flesh drinking his blud is horrible For it is in deed thâ—â— vvhich the Caphâ— naiâ—es vvere scandalized at that is to â—ate it cut out in sundry portioÌ„s after sod or rosted â—liâ—â— vel assa et secta meÌ„bratim as saith S. CypriaÌ„ They vnderstood Christs words saith S. Austin of his flesh cut in to peeces ioyntes sicut in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello vendiâ—â—â— as in the butcherie a quarter of beef or mutton is cut out from the vvhole sheep or ox and so sold to be dressed eaten so far forth Christs vvords are mystical figurative and not to be taken as they lye For so according to vulgar speech and the proper vse of eating and drinking to â—ate Christs divine flesh and drinke his blud vvere horrible impietie But to â—ate Christs flesh as the Catholike church hath ever taught and practised it is no more horrible for true Christians then for M. B. and his felow ministers to â—ate their bread and drinke their vvine And if he had vvith him but a litle consideration he might remember that at this present in the Catholike church over al Christendom so likewise for these thowsand yeres at lest al vvhich tyme he wil graunâ—â— suppose that the real presence hath bene beleeved there have bene in Christian realmes men and vvomen of as tender stomakes as is him self or his vvise ether vvho yet had never any horror in eating sacramentally the true body of our saviour for that as vvriteth S. Cyril the auncient biâ—â—hop of Ierusalem it is not eaten in his owne sorme but Christ most mercifully in specie panis dat nobis corpus in specie vini dâ—t nobis sanguinem in the forme of bread geveth vs his body in the forme of wine geveth vs his blud and that to this very end as vvrite the same S. Cyril S. Ambrose Theophilact and others because vve should not account it horrible because I say it should be no horror to vs in such di vine sweete and mystical sort to eate the body of our Lord and god S. Cyrils words are That we should not abhorre the flesh and blud set on the holy altar God yelding to our infirmitie converteth the bread and wine in to the veritie of his owne body and blud vvhich yet reteyne stil the forme of bread and vvine Thus it is done by Christs merciful dispensation saith S. Ambrose ne horror cruoris sit Christ condescending to our infirmitie saith Theophilact turneth the bread and wine in to his owne body and blud but yet reteyneth the forme of bread and wine stil And thus much doth S. Austin him self signifie in the place corruptly cited by M. B. For thus stand S. Austins vvords The mediator of God and man Christ Iesus geveth vs his flesh to eate and his blud to drinke which we receive with faithful hart and mouth albeit it may seeme to prophane men in vvhich number M. B. putteth him self by this very obiection a more lothsome or horrible thing to â—ate mans flesh then to kil a man and drinke mans blud then to spil it In vvhich vvords S. Austin no vvayes improveth the real communicating of CHRISTS flesh but in plaine termes avoweth it confessing that we receive it both vvith hart and mouth both spiritually corporally And albeit this seeme absurd to grosse fleshly ministers and brutish Capharnaites vvho vvhen they heare vs speake of eating Christs flesh conceive streight vvay that vve eate it as the Anthropophagi and Canibals â—ate mans flesh yet because Christ hath a divine secret hid and spiritual vvay to coÌ„municate it other then such earthly gospellers flesh-wormes can imagin vvhereby truly and really yet not bluddily and butcherly Christ imparteth that his flesh vve confesse frankly saith S. Austin that vve receive that flesh even with our mouth corporally albeit to men that vnderstand it not it may seeme a more lothsom and horrible thing to eate a man then to kil a man VVhere vvithal M. B. may remember him selâ— answered even by S. Austin whom he so busely allegeth against the Catholike faith for one false assertioÌ„ vvhich he so confidently avouched vz that the body of Christ was never promised to be received corporally or as he expresseth it vvas never promised to our mouth For by this very place vvhich him self so much esteemeth it is plain that Christians then beleeved that they received Christs body not only by faith in their hart but also etternally by their mouth As also in other places he saith that it was ordeined by the holy ghost that the body of our lord should be received in the mouth of a Christian man before any other meates Vt corpus dominicuÌ„ intraret in os Christiani c. that ChristiaÌ„ meÌ„ should receiue with their mouth that blud with which they were redeemed the same which issued â—orth of Christs â—ide and therefore doubtles Christ so promised oâ— els they could never have so received nether would the holy Ghost ever so have ordeyned Ansvvere to places of scripture alleaged for proofe that Christs vvords spoken at his last supper must be vnderstood tropically The Argument Five places of scripture cited by M. B. by comparison of which with Christs words vsed at his last supper he would prove these to be figurative The difference betwene Christs words and those other Those places are examined in particular especially that of â— Paule The rocke was Christ and withal is shewed how falsly or vnfitly they are compared with Christs words If it were graunted that these 5. were al figurative yet from them to inferre the like of Christs words is most absurd and ridiculous The principal of these places suggested to Zuinglius by a sprite in the night is answered effectually by Luther in whose words is implied also an answere to al the rest CHAP. 20. AFter this M. B. from disputing falleth a litle to rayling thus Al this notwithstaÌ„ding they hold on stil say the words of the supper ought to be tane properly So that it appeares that of very malice to the end only they may gainstaÌ„d the truth they wil not acknowlege this hoc est corpus meuÌ„ to be a sacrameÌ„tal speech VVhat vvorthy reasons yow have brought for vvhich yow so triumph let the reader iudge by that vvhich hath bene alleaged Verily except peevish assertions of your owne authoritie bare vvords vvithout any matter manifest falsities vvithout al face or shew of truth even against your owne principal doctors and maisters must stand for Theological arguments and demonstrations vve have yet heard litle stuff able to vvithdraw a meane Catholike from his faith to Zuinglianisme or