Whiche thing he muste doe not only by preferring the holie scriptures before the wrytinges of whatsoeuer men but also by expoâ—…ding the same according to the greatest authoritie that may be founde in that kinde The greatest authoritie among meÌ„ must nedes be in the whole Catholike Churche of Christe the piller and establishment of truthe whose consent in the interpretation of Gods worde because wee can not knowe by the handwryting of euerie particular member for knowledge is not in all persons we therefore muste not so muche seke after the bookes as after the workes and practise of all faythfull nations to knowe by what meanes they expounded Christes Gospell For as the holie Ghoste instructed alwayes theyr hartes wryting his lawes in them so by theyr conformable deedes we lerne what he inspired to theyr hartes As therefore it is most necessarie to conferre one part of holy scripture with an other for the right vnderstanding of both places euen so it behoueth to ioyne with that conference the vse and custome of the people of God To make this matter the playner by an example the Apostles are willeâ—… to teache all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Now shall this precept be vnderstanded For some thinke that teaching before baptisme is so necessarie that no creature ought to be baptised whiche is not first taught Others thinke both necessarie but yet teaching to belong firste to suche as are able to be taught and baptizing firste to suche as are able to be baptized and not yet readie to be taught And because infautes may be baptized before they can be taught they thynke that Christe meant to haue teaching goe before baptisme in men of discretion and baptisme before teaching in children whose parents aske baptisme for them Whiche later vnderstanding is proued to be more agreable to the meaning of Christe not by the order of his wordes but by the vse and consent of all nations whiche are the spouse of Christe For in euerie age and countrie of Christendome children are brought to be baptized by theyr frindes and the Bishops or Priestes of those countries haue alwayes baptized them So that we haue two great and necessarie poyntes expounded in the precept of baptisme by the custome of the Churche The one is that children maie be christened before they are taught theyr beleefe the other that suche children oulie maie be Christened whose parents or frindes aske baptisme for them But if any Iew or Gentil doe liue among vs who wil not haue his child Christened the Apostles by that fame 〈◊〉 of Christ haue no authoritie to baptize suche a childe Whiche thinge is proued because the Church of God hath no suche custome The same strength whiche the practise of Christian men is nowe sene to haue in baptisme is also founde to be no lesse in other Sacraments For likewise al faithful countries haue asked the Sacrament of consirmation for their baptized children and all Bishops haue geuen it oynting and confirming them in the name of the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby declaring how the holy Ghoste is geuen to the late baptized by the imposition of handes of the Apostles 〈◊〉 all faithfull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adored the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration They haue desyred that holy sacrifice to be made and offered for them all Priestes Bishops and Primates haue said masse and allowed that deuotion of the layemen Wherby it is proued that those wordes of Christ This ys mie bodye and This ys my bloode are to be taken properly and not figuratiuely in so muche as the holy Ghost by the vse of all the people of God hath expounded the whole meanyâ—…ge of Christe Therfore whosoeuer teacheth a figuratiue vnderstanding of those words he goethe syrst from the autoritie of the gospell where yt ys 〈◊〉 sayed This is my body Next he 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of the whole Churche whiche so earnestly beleued these wordes and thâ—…effecte of them that she adored the body of Christe present vnder the forme of breade and acknowledged yt to be offered to God vnbloodely for the obteyuinge of the sruites of Christes death Thirdlie he must nedes 〈◊〉 concluded singular and prowd who had rather leane to his owne iudgement or to the iudgement of a fewe lyke him self then to trust either God or his whole Churche And wheras certayne men are wont to saye that the holy Fathers and faythfull people of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did vnderstande the wordes of his supper otherwise It is Good Reader to to palpable and to muche assected a blindnesse not to ponder and wâ—…igh howe vnsensibly that is spoken All men of neuer so meane witte iudge thinges vncertayne by those that are most certayne not contrariwise leauinge that whiche they euidently knowe and measuringe yt by a rule cleane obscure or throwghly withowt the coÌ„passe of their reache Christ in that dreadfull night wherin he was betrayed 〈◊〉 nowe 〈◊〉 the mysterie of owr redemption after breade taken and blessing 〈◊〉 and gaue and sayd This ys my body Hereof S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. 〈◊〉 beare wytnesse Neither may auie man dowt therof who loketh for saluation by 〈◊〉 Agayne whosoeuer is of lawfull age and hath but the vse oâ—… his eyes and eares can tell that in the Catholike Churche all men 〈◊〉 the real body of Christ vnder the 〈◊〉 of that bread which was blessed by the Prieste These two principals no man aliue may deny 〈◊〉 no man is able to deny that 〈◊〉 three hundred and fiftie 〈◊〉 paste it was decreed by 4. 70. Bishops in the great Councell of 〈◊〉 kept at 〈◊〉 that the body and blood of Christ are trulie contayned vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine the substance of bread and wine being changed into the body and blood of Christ by the power of God The same thing is in effect tawght in the Councells kept afterward at 〈◊〉 at Constance at 〈◊〉 at Trent Fowrthly before those Councells 〈◊〉 was condemned by three other Councells and by the preachers and lerned men of that age wherein he 〈◊〉 and therfore he 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 which now 〈◊〉 mayntayned in England No poynte of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor may be 〈◊〉 denied Wee haue then the wordes of the gospell plaine the worshipping and adoration of the Christians plaine the authoritie of diuers generall Councells exceding plaine These all be thinges so knowen and certayne that our aduersaries cannot say they are not so Albeyt they say they should not be so Well they yet graunt we haue the wordes of the gospell the vse of the Church these nyne hundred yeares and the authoritie of generall Councels of whom I 〈◊〉 on the other side what gospell what Church what Councels they haue First they can bring no gospell where yt is
The common Bible turneth In the remembrance of me A thing may be done best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him But Christ meaneth not so he meaneth to haue this thing to witt his body made to this effect that his death may be remembred and so his words do sound Doe and mâ—…e this thing for the remembrance of me to bring men into the remembrance of me For when my body is made by the Priest and listed vp to be adored and all the peple taught to bow doune to the body of Christ and to come with pure consciences to receaue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me But the Sacramentaries wold haue nothing made in Christes supper But they wold haue bread eaten and wine druncken which is not able to make Christ to be remembred so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth to be remeÌ„bred withall For he seeketh not as the ZuingliaÌ„s imagine a remembrance in words alone but much more in dedes The remembrance of him is the following of his Crosse and death by penance by humility by confessing our synnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them and all this kind of remembrance ariseth by the making of Christes body whiles men are persuaded they may not come to so preciouse a thing without confoorming of them selues to the death of Christ. In translating S. Paule there are other faults not of so greate weight as these others but yet which should haue bene more diligently translated as where the Greek readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CoÌ„municatio sanguinis Christi coÌ„municatio corporis There the common Bible turneth The partaking of yâ— blood of Christ the partaking of yâ— body Whereas it shuld be translated the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ and the communicating of the body Communicating is more then partaking albeit the old Latin text in the later place doth reade participatio partaking But that excuseth not the Sacramentaries who pretend to correct it allwaies by the Greek and now whereas the Greek readeth twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin once communicatio the English agreing throughly with neither oâ—… both turneth twise partaking The communicating of Christes body and blood is when it self and all thing that is in it is made common Partaking is when part therof is taken But because after his resurrection Christ can be no more diuided the partaking of his blood is the communicating of it not by the force of the meane but by the dependence of the thing For as he that hath anie part of God must nedes haue all God because God is a nature whole euery where without any parts therof so he that hath any peece of Christes body and blood hath the whole body and blood because it is unmortal and can no more die Yet if it might be diuided it might also bye so that although partaking must in this argument 〈◊〉 stand for communicating yet the SacrameÌ„taries haue shewed their spite against S. Paule in translating it after the worst maner they could 〈◊〉 after S. Paul saâ—…th we being many are one bread because we all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be Englished of the one bread For such strength hath y◠〈◊〉 article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soâ—…time the common Bible turneth the Greek article into that But here it was not for the purpose of the Sacramentaries that it should be meaned so S. Paul meaneth one certain bread of liâ—…e wherof we partake to shew that he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the one bread to witte of the bread which hath no fellowes of that bread who said I am the bread of life and the bread which I wil geue is me flesh If so manie faults be found without curiouse serching which I haue not vsed in so sinal rome iudge good Reader in what case their soules be who take the word of God at these mens handes iudge whose Gospell they haue deliuered to the simple people in English Uerily their own and not the Gospell of Jesus Christ. ¶ The state of the question betwen the Lutherans Zuinglians 〈◊〉 and Catholikes concerning the Sacrâ—…ment of the altar TO th'inthent thou maiest good Reader the better vnderstand to what point and mark the whole disputation shal be 〈◊〉 I will briefly declare how diuersly the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath beâ—… set forth in our dayes From the beginning of yâ— Christian Churche vntill yâ— yere of our Lord 1517. all yâ— on the earth professed openly Christes Catholike faith did beleue as well in the Breke as in the Latin Church the reall presence of Chrisâ—…es body blood vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration dewly made This faith of theirs was preserued by the delyuery from hand to hand of that docâ—…rine euen sithens the beginning of Christes Church and was mainteined by the preaching and writing of the lerned Fathers and protested by the godly honour which all Christen people gaue to the said Sacrament at the time of masse or otherwise Well it might be that sâ—…me one in his harte thought amisse of that hely mystâ—… and that some 〈◊〉 in corners also conspired against the truthe thereof as 〈◊〉 and some other like as now â—…ull many maie be suspected to think that Christ is not the sauiour of mankind 〈◊〉 as â—…o Christian this daie teacheth openly and in expresse 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 is not y◠〈◊〉 of the world so did no man in open 〈◊〉 with the autoritie or toleration of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preache write or professe that the body of Christ was not present in the Sacrament of the altar if the Priest had once 〈◊〉 the solemne benediction which our lord Jesus commanded On the other syde if in the first six hundred yeres the Christians had beleued as the Lutherans or Zuinglians now doe he that had first begunne to haue taught yâ— real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine must haue ben at that tyme noted reputed for an 〈◊〉 he must haue ben conuinced by som generall or proninciall Councell kept either in the 〈◊〉 Church or in the west the Preachers and Doctours of that age should haue writen against him It is not possible that all the whole Church which to that day had beleued the mysteries that be consecrated vpon the altar to be â—…more but holy bread and wine to be only tokens of Christes body absent in substance to be neither a sacrifice 〈◊〉 nor the reall body and blood of Christ should 〈◊〉 through all nations change the Catholike and vniuersall belefe without any trouble or tumult at all without any contradiction or disputation yea without any man at all knowen or euer
are infected withall His discourse is to long to write it all in this place so muche as apperteineth to my purpose I will translate into English Quemadmodum qui per insidias venenum hauserunt caetera As those that by 〈◊〉 haue drunk in poyson doe by an other medicine put out the strength thereof and like as the poyson so the medicine must goe into the bowels that by meane of them help maie be spread throughout the whole body euen so is it to be don of vs. That seing we haue tasted poyson wher with our nature is dissolued we maie receaue a medicine whereby that nature of ours is gathered together that the infection of the poyson maie be expelled by the contrarie and holsome strength of the medicine What medicine is this None other beside that body which is declared to be aboue death and the cause of our saluatioÌ„ For as a litle leauen saith the Apostle maketh the whole lump of dow like to it self so that body which is made immortal of God entring into our body doth transferre and change the whole into it self For as if a pestilent thing be mixed with a holsom thing it maketh it hurtfull so the immortall body maketh all that wherein it is receaued of the like nature immortal But it can not enter into the body except it be mingled with the bowels by meate and drink Itaque necessarium est vt natura nostra quoad eius fieri potest vim salutarem intra corpus admittat Therefore it is necessarie that our nature as much as lieth in it do receaue that healthfull strength within the body And seing none other thing beside that diuine body of Christ hath receaued such grace to heale our sicknes and seing it hath ben shewed it can not be our bodies should attein to immortality vnlesse they be ioyned with the immortall body and so obtein incorruption it is to be consydered how it maie be brought to passe whereas that one body continually through the whole world is geuen to so many thousands of faithfull men the whole maie become euery mans for his part and 〈◊〉 tarie whole in it felf Consequently Gregorius goeth forward to shew how that 〈◊〉 be and he sheweth it to be brought to passe whiles bread and wine wherwith Christ was nourished in this mortal life and the which by the power of altering and 〈◊〉 were daily turned into his flesh and blood be now also in his holy Sacraments turned by the consecration of his blessing and by his words into his own body and blood For by that meanes he proueth it possible that Christes whole body should both be geuen to euery man a part and yet remain whole in it self But hereof we shall speak an other tyme. All that apperteined to my present purpose was to declare out of S. Bregorie of Nyssa who liued about twelue hundred yeres past that syth Christ hath made his body and blood in the blessed Sacrament of the altar a medicine against that poyson which AdaÌ„ first and in him all we tooke by tasting the apple against the commandement of God it is not only profitable but 〈◊〉 that as the poysoned apple entred in at Adams mouth and was not only receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding but by hand tong iawes and was digested into his bowells and so poysoned all his flesh blood whereby the flesh that we tooke of Adam was also 〈◊〉 and poysoned and our soules vnited to that infected flesh were also infected euen so yâ— medicine which is the body and blood of Christ made of bread and wine must not only be receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding neither only the figure of it must be receaued in at our mouthes and so be 〈◊〉 into our bowels but the body of Christ it self must come to our bodyes and it must be receaued as really into them by our mouthes as euer the apple came into the mouth of Adam Who euer heard that when a mans body was really poysoned it should be sufficient to think vpon a certain true medicine and to receaue withal the figure or signe therof into his body not at all touching and receauing really the medicine it self And yet surely they that teache the body of Christ to be 〈◊〉 into our bodies only by bread and wine the figures therof and into our soules by faith and spirit doâ—… manifestly tell him that is bodily poysoned that it is enough for him to think in his mind vpon mithridaâ—…icum or some other medicine and to receaue the token thereof into his body Such is the physike and yâ— diuinitie of the Caluinists Before that Adam had tasted of the apple he was gâ—…tie of death in the sight of God concerning his own person and soule in so much as in his hart he consented to taste thereof at his wyfes request For he did not taste it so hastely but that he first intended so to doe yea S. Augustine saith it is not to be thought yâ— deuyll should haue throwen doune Adam except a certain pride had ben first in his mynde But when he tooke the apple into his mouth to the eating whereof his hart had allready yelded then had he brought the inward disobedience into the outward acte so that he was inexcusable not only before God but in the sight of angels of his wife and of all creatures his hands his eyes his mouth his throte and stomack was now wytnes against hym Thence came the dredfull necessitie of death to all the children of Adam it was the tasting of his flesh which made all our flesh so farre gilty That polluted body could not beget innocent children with vncleane sede Well Christ is the second Adam which taketh away this obligation and bond of death that lay on our neckes and he taketh it away nâ—…t by force but by iâ—…stice changing and recompensing all that was before done amysse For the corrupt generatioÌ„ which we haue by the sede of Adam he geueth vs a new byrth in the Sa crament of water and renuing of the holy Ghost in which baptism our soule only is not cleansed but our body also is washed For the fruyt of death which Adam did â—…ate as well in mouth as hart he hath geuen the apple of lyfe as well to be eaten in our mouthes as in ouâ—… haâ—…tes so that as the olde Adam caryed a wytnes of damnation for hym and his posteritie in all his membres so doth the new Adam with his children cary the witnes of lyfe in all their membres They haue God and man not in hart alone but also in a Sacrament yea in their â—…ands in their mouthes in their bodyes and become one with the flesh of Christ which they eate as the apple which Adam did eate became one with his flesh This was the supper that Christ came to make not to gâ—…ue bread and wyne not to make figures and shadowes
suum appellat He calleth the bread his body But we can not call a thing except we speake vnto it Therefore when Christ called the bread his body he spake vnto the bread as if he had said to the bread be thou my body For as it is all one in Christ to saie let thy synnes be forgeuen and thy synnes are forgeuen so it is one to saye concerning a certain bread which was taken Let this be my body or this is my body with whatsoeuer words the mind of Christ be vttered out of question it is allwaies fullfilled But among all kind of vtteraÌ„ce none is more plain to vs then when a thing is clerely aâ—…rmed to be this or that for then it is made plain to vs not only that God wold haue it so or wisheth it to be so but that really and in dede it is so Christ calleth bread his body Therfore Caluin saith falsâ—… when he affirmeth that Christ speaketh not to the bread to th' end it might be made his body You will say calling is not making yeas for foutâ—… in God in Christ in those whom Christ willeth to call one thing and make thereof an other thing in all them calling is making Men call a thing by the name of the former nature but God in calling any thiâ—…g or in willing it to be called by a new name changeth the former nature and maketh it to be as he called it And therefore when the Prophet 〈◊〉 wold signifie that the gentils and panims should be turned to the faith how doth he vtter that matter Saith he not in the person of God Dicam non populo meo populus meus es tu I will saye to that which is not my people thou art my people Dicam I will saye it And trow ye his saying is not don Yes it solloweth immediatly Et ipse dicet Deus meus es tu And the people it self shall say thou art my God which thing the people could not saye except in dede it were conuerted and made the people of God from the people of infidelity And therfore S. Paul him self expoundeth this place of Osoe by the word of calling and 〈◊〉 Vocabo non plebem meam plebem meam I will call that which is not my people my people erit in loco vbi dictum est eis non plebs mea vos ibi vocabuntur filij Dei And it shall come to passe in the plate where it hath ben said to them ye are not my people there they shal be called the sonnes God After which sort when Christ hauing taken bread and blessed said This is my body That saying was the calling of that which was before Non corpus Christi not the body of Christ. Corpus Christi the body of Christ. In this sense S. Ambroise saith Ante benedictionem verborum coelesâ—…m alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur Et tu dicis Amen hoc est verum est quod os loquitur mens interna fateatur Quod sermo sonat affectus sentiat Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named an other kind after consecration the body is signified himself saith or nameth his blood Before consecration it is named or sayd an other thing aâ—…ter consecration it is called blood and thou 〈◊〉 Amen 〈◊〉 is to saie it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inward mind cousesse that which the speache soundeth let the harâ—… think Here we lern by S. Ambrose that the naming signisying or calling bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is both 〈◊〉 â—…uident signe that Christ spake to bread and wine otherwisâ—… then Caluin said and also the making of them to be in dede so â—…s they are called and signified also he sheweth yâ— custome of yâ— primatiue Church to haue ben that immediatly before communioâ—… when yâ— Priest said the body of Christ the people vsed to answer Amen it is true it is in dede his body And as the word body soundeth and as our confirmation thereof soundeth so he requireth vs to beleue confesse and think certainly there is none otheâ—… thing sounding to our eares besyde the name of body Likewise Tertullian hauing witnessed that Christ called the bread his body witnesseth also that he made the bread which was taken and distributed to the Disciples his body Fecit panem corpus suum He made the bread his body in saying This is my body that is to saye the figure of my body But neither calling nor naming noâ—… saying nor the being of a figure stoppeth any thing yâ— reall truthâ—… of Christes body the Sacrament is the figure of Christes body because it sheweth his death vntill he come as S. Paul saith But as Christ is the figure or print and form of his Fathers substance and yet also his substance in dede euen so the Sacrament is a figure of Christ and Christ in dede Christ as an other person beside his Father so is he the figure of his substance But otherwise in truthe he is throughly the same substance euen so as the Sacrament is another maner of Christes presence so it is a figure either of his visible body or of his death But concerning the truth of substance all is one Thus without all controuersy the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 â—…ords standeth vpright And his naming signifying figuring calling is the making of a thing to be that which it is named bi him signified figured or called He hath said the things are made Ther can be none more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinioÌ„ then to think yâ— Christ is a bare man â–ª that his word is like our word or his figures and Sacraments like our figures or like the figures of the old law Looke what oddes is betwen God and man so much beleue thou to be also betwen his naming or his figures of the new Testament and all other figures His figures contein the self same substance which they expresse in figure signe or name whereof God wylling I will intreat more hereafter It is at this tyme to be coÌ„sydered yâ— seing the SacrameÌ„t of Chri stes supper is the remeÌ„brance of that great sacriâ—…ice made by his death vpoÌ„ yâ— crosse It self also must nedes partake that nature whereof it is the remembrance consequeÌ„tly it must be certeinly beleued to be a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was In euery publike saâ—… ther is a thing offered vowed vnto God the act which offereth voweth it apperteiueth as wel to the thing 〈◊〉 by the meane of doing sumwhat about it as vnto God to whom the oblation is theifly dedicated As therefore when a lamb is sacrificed hands are layed vpon the lambs head the lamb is killed burnt or eaten and all that while God in the lamb is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked
altar to offer them That offering is a vowing of them to God When are they vowed When the word of vowing or of prayer is spoken When is that prayer made S. Augustine sheweth in the same place Orationes accipimus dictas cum illud quod est in Domini mensa benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur We take prayers to be sayd when that which is on the table of our Lord is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed Mark whether S. Augustine speake like Caluin or no. that which is on the table is blessed that is sanctified that is broken that is distributed that blessing sanctifying is made by prayer that prayer is the vowing to God of that which is brought to the table which was bread and wine The word of vowing is to saye ouer it This is my body For the sense of these words is that Christ so â—…estly offereth so throughly voweth the substance of bread and wine to the honour of God that he maketh them by his almighty power the same flesh and blood of Christ which is vnited to the sonne of God in one person This only is the offering and vowing of an outward thing which came to that perfection whereunto in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 it was destenied Because the Priest who offered it according to the order of 〈◊〉 is God as well as man The instrument of this great sacrifice the word of this prayer the execution of this vow are the words of Christ who said in the waie of blessing of thaÌ„ksgeuing oâ—… praying and of vowing or of offering to God This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Caluin wold neither haue prayer nor vow nor any sacrifice made vnto God in these words but hath with swete poysoned talk made of them a promise apreaching to the people geuing to man the 〈◊〉 of sacrifice dew 〈◊〉 God only But S. Ireneus witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and geuen thanks said This is my body and confeâ—… the chalice to be his blood Et noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem and he taught a new oblation of the new testament Which also he proueth out oâ—… Malachie the Prophet Caluin wold the words to be spoken without working any thing vpon the brend as who should say the bread could be offered according to the state of any law or testament and yet no change of substance be made therein Caluin wold the working to be only in the minds of yâ— hearers whereas yâ— gospell teacheâ—… that Christ hauing taken bread said This is my body But Caluin imagineth that he spake not to the bread but sayd to the people this bread is a witnesse that you shall caâ—…e my body whereas the bread it self was by those words made Christes body and so made that it was his body as sone as the word was spoken So saith Bregorius Nyssenus who writeth that the bread is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ statim vt dictum est â—… verbo Hoc est corpus meum straight as sone as it is sayd of the word of God thiâ—… is my body S. Chrysostom sheweth the words to be spoken by the Priests mouth who saith This is my body Hoc verbo propâ—… sita consecrantur With this word the things set foorth are consecrated S. Ambrose saith Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint sanguis efficitur qui plebem redâ—…it When yâ— words of Châ—…ist haus wrought the blood is made which hath 〈◊〉 the people Is it nâ—…t a great madnesse to resist theâ—…e witnesses Or can the thâ—…ngs set foorth which are 〈◊〉 and wine be consecrateâ—… be chanâ—…d â—…e made the body 〈◊〉 of Christ not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I might bring against Caluin whatsoeuer the Catholikes teache or saie of the reall presence of Christes body and blood of 〈◊〉 and of the sacrifice For 〈◊〉 word destroyeth this foolish inuention of promising and preaching It shal be now sufficient to shew that the whole East and West Church by diuerse meanes yet conformably destroye that erroneouse opinioÌ„ of Caluin In the East Church the words of consecration This is my body which is geuen for you and likewise of the blood are spoken with so lowd avoice that the whole Church maie here the Priest pronouncing them And immediatly after eche of the words the quere and people cried out Amen Which doth signific as S. Ambrose hath expounded it Verum est it is true Wherby all those Churches did signifie that the body and blood of Christ was presently made when the people affirmed it to be true and yet noman had at that tyme receaued the communion Therefore thâ—…se words This is my body which is geuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you Which Caluin calleth words of promise made to the receauers are witnessed by yâ— who le Churâ—…h to be true presently and so to be perfoormed lâ—…g before any man receaue cither kind On the other side in the West Churche the same words are spoken secretly oâ—…er the bread and the wine and immediatly after the pronouncing of eche words the body and blood of Christ is adored of all the people because it is really conteined â—…nder the foormes of bread and wine Which auncient custome of secretly pronouncing these words This is my body shew they are neither words of promise nor of preaching If they were words of promise or of preaching they should be spoken to the people out of the chaire or pulpit or some like place But now they are spokâ—…n at the alâ—…ar of God and not at all directed to the people as the which 〈◊〉 to that office of 〈◊〉 Priesthod whereunto yâ— people is not called For as the high Bishop among the Jewes went alone and that but one day in the whole yere into the Holy of Holies in the temple of Salomon right so when the Priest goeth to consecrate the Holy of all Holies which is the body and blood of Christ it is most conneniently ordeined that he alone enter 〈◊〉 And this custom is in that West Church which S. Peter and S. Paule planted with their preaching and watered with their blood This is the Church which S. Ambrose honoured so 〈◊〉 that albeit himself in manie points followed in his seruice the 〈◊〉 rite and manner yet he openly praised the good and laudable custom of the Romane Churche saying In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam In all points I couet to follow the Romane Churche But now let vs bring a practise of the whole primatiue Churche as well in the East as in the West which so euidently doth confute the 〈◊〉 opinion of Caluin that he is sain to condeÌ„ne the Apostles them 〈◊〉 to auoide that argument For so had he rather doe yea to deny all the whole Bible then once to remoue the breadth of a 〈◊〉 from
his derebeloued phaâ—…tasy such is the stubburnesse of heretiks The holy Bishop and Martyr S. 〈◊〉 doth witnesse as 〈◊〉 allegeth him that the Bishops of Rome before the tyme of Pope Uictor to wit Soter Anicetus Pius Higinius Telesphorus Xistus did all kepe Easterday alwayes vpon the sunday and yet withal kept peace with ohter Churches which did otherwise For a demonstration of that peace 〈◊〉 allegeth generally that all the Priests which were before Uictor which were in number from S. Peters time twelue at the least vsed solemnely to send Eucharistiam the Eucharist which is the Sacrament of Christes supper to suche Priests who came out of those quarters where Easter was kept otherwise then it was at Rome By that sending of the SacrameÌ„t from the Pope to other Priests aâ—…d Bishops Jreneus concludeth all those to haue communicated together To our purpose I note that there is a certain thing so â—…crated in Christes supper that it hath in it the whole vertue of yâ— sâ—…pper And it is a torporall and real thing which may be â—…ued caried sent vp and down and so at the last receaued Mark wel the Historie Al the Bisshops of Rome vsed to send to straÌ„ge Bishops comming to Rome the holy Eucharist in token that they were al of one communion of one Church and one religion This Eucharist was the Sacrament of Christes supper this Sa crament was first made and then kept for straÌ„gers and sent vnto them when they came Which they receaued as the bond of peace loue The consecration of that Eucharist could consist in none other thing so essentially as in the pronouncing ouer bread these words This is my body Now remember I beseche you what Caluin iudgeth of our Lords supper He teacheth those words to be words of promise and of preaching Which being heard of the faithfull stirr vp their harts to receaue Christ by faith But the custom of the primatiue Churche euen of the first hundred yeres after Christes death manifestly reproueth his opinion For the Eucharist was made then and sent afterward to those who were not present at the making thereof Who neither heard any preaching nor toke hold of any promise but came like strangers to Rome and so had the blessed body of Christ deliuered them wherefore his body was not only coÌ„secrated in the harts of men but also in a corporall thing which might be sene touched caried deliuered and râ—…ceaued The consecration was fulfilled in that external thing which was called the Eucharist And so it is proued without any escape that when bread was taken and blessed these words This is my body were said to the bread and ouer it and changed it into the substance of Christes body And by that meanes the body of Christ was conteined vnder the foorm of bread and so caried vnto the faithfull Prelats which came to Rome The Eucharist it self was caried The body of Christ was sent from one Bisshop to an other The words which Caluin dreameth to be words of promise were not suche but in dede were wordâ—… working the reall presence of Christes body And truly when Christ gaue his Apostles authoriâ—…ie to make his last supper He â—…ad them not make a promise of any thing But he said Hoc facite Doe and make this thing A certayn external thing was made and don by Christ which he wil led his Apostles to doe make He said not to them preache thâ—…s nor say thus nor doe thus albeit the homilies corrupt the gospel after that sort but he said doe this thing make this thing to wit make my body with the same words of blessing which you heard me vse when I toke bread and hauing gâ—…uen thanks sayd thereof This is my body make this thing Which thing the Apostles and their successours haue alwayes made not in pulpits as Caluin who wold haue them words of promise and of preaching must nedes allow best But they haue made the body and blood of Christ vpon the blessed altars holy tables where they oâ—…ered vnblody sacrifice and sanctified the holy mysteries with that mind oâ—… celebrating of daing and making but not with the mind of promising or preaching Neither only was this the custom of Rome to send the Eucharist already consecrated vnto other Bisshops but wise and learned men think the like vse to haue bene in euery other Churche And certeinly Iustiâ—…us Martyr of sufficient antiquity to them that care for Apostolical doctriâ—… or traditioâ—… doth witnesse that the Eucharist was made in the assembles of the 〈◊〉 and afterward sent by the Deacons to those that were absent by Deacons I say who could in no wise them selues either consecrate or iterate again the words of consecration already spokeÌ„ For as S. Hierom writeth Priests differ from Deacons because at the prayer of Priests the body and blood of Christ is made Which thing the Deacons can not doe They on'y can minister vnto the people the body and bâ—…od already consecrated and made by the Priests And therefore Iustinus Martyr writeth thus of them and of the whole making of the mysteries Panis vinumque aqua afferuntur tumque is qui primum locum tenet eodem modo preces gra tiarumque actionem pro virili mittit populusque acclamat dicens Amen Et ijs quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt vnusquisque participat Eademque ad eos qui absunt Diaconis dantur perferenda Bread wine and water are brought And then he which is chief prayeth and geueth thanks to the vttermost of his pâ—…wer after the same maner which was described before and that people reioysingly crieth Amen And euery man partaketh those things which are consecrated with thanksgeuing And the same things are geuen to the Deacons to be caried to these which are absent What can be more plainly spoken Bread wine and water are consecrated by the words of prayer which we toke of Christ. those words are This is my body and this is my blood After which consecration the people cried Amen And the consecrated things to wit the body and blood which are made by the consecration of bread wine and water the body and blood I say are deliuered by the 〈◊〉 to them first which are present And when they haue communicated to others also which are absent Therefore the holynes rested in yâ— things that were consecrated and was not made by 〈◊〉 in the eares and 〈◊〉 of yâ— people but the consecrated mysteries were geuen and caryed geuen to yâ— present caryed to the absent geuen by hands not by words geuen to their hands or mouthes and not to their eares they were caried to the absent as hauing real vertue made in them by the words of Christ. what saith Caluin to these practises of the primatiue Churche what spirit will he in this point shew to vs whether will he shew the spirit of humility in wondering at and in following those Fathers which lerned all their
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith
consecrantur The words are pronounced by the Priests mouth And the things set foorth are consecrated by the vertue and grace of God This sayeth he is my body With this word the things which are set foorth are consecrated Who seeth not here the visible Sacrament and the thing or inâ—…isible grace of the Sacrament The Sacrament is the due pronouncing of the words ouer bread oâ—… wine As for example taking bread I say in Christes person This is my body The words naturally haue their knowen signification as other wordes of other things haue Which who so heaâ—…eth spoken or perceaueth to be spoken can tell what they meane and signifie Neither can it be denied but they betoken the being or substance of Christes body That natural betokening of theirs alone without the matter of bread and wine present should not be a Sacrament that is to say an euident signe and token of a holy thing But when those words are spoken ouer bread by a Priest as Christ appointed them to be spoken then by his institution they are a Sacrament to wit an euident token of a holy thing Now as God and Christ can not lye so they do not institute a false signe and token If the token be true and it be the token of Christes body present that thing which it betokeneth by the institution of Christ must nedes be not only true but also present if it be so betokened ¶ What signe must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper And what a Sacrament is IAm not ignorant that in the Sacrament of the altar diuerse kindes of signes tokens are founde some be tokens of the making and consecrating the Eucharist others of it being now consecrated and made vntill the outward signes be consumed a signification also of the Church of Christ is gathered out 〈◊〉 it now made and consecrated Yea the very eating is again a signe of a maruelous banket in the life to come The first signe of all is the signe of consecrating our Lords sup per and it is the words duely spoken by a Priest ouer bread and 〈◊〉 which both betoken the making of Christes body blood and make it in dede The signe of the Eucharist now made is the forme of bread and wine But this later signe presupposeth the first signe and token For except it had bene sayd ouer the bread and wine This is my body and this is my blood the formes of bread and wine could not betoken the reall body and blood of Christ vnder them For not wheresoeuer we see such formes we doe there beleue the body and blood to be except we thinke the words of consecration to haue bene spoken ouer them We now speake of that first signe and token which both signifieth and maketh the Sacrament Wherein Christ would that to be wrought inuisibly whiche the words do signifie to our cares and whicâ—… the doing sheweth to our eyes A man is able to institute a token of the truth but not always able to make present the truth of the token As when he leaueth a ring in token of him himselâ—…e not being able to leaue his owne substance in the same ring or vnder the forme of it But Christ as he is both God and man so he leaneth both an outward token according to his huâ—…ane nature and worketh an inward truth of the same token according to his diuine allnughtynes The outward token is called the Sacrament the truth thereof is called the thing of the Sacrament Christ intending to shewe to the people that his Father allways heareth him sayeth Father I thanke the because thou hast heard me These words betoken a thanksull hart Wheresore if in â—…ede the hart be thankfull they are a Sacrament or holy signe because they betoken a most holy sacrifice of thankigeuing But if in dede the hart geue no thanks they are a false token therefore please not God who is truth and loueth nothing but truth Upon this ground of holy scriptures and of lerned Fathers the definition of a Sacrament is agreâ—…d â—…pon by all diuinâ—…s taken specially on t of S. Augustine as 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 in these words Sacramentum est 〈◊〉 gratiae visiâ—…ilis forma A Sacrament is the visible forme of 〈◊〉 grace whereby 〈◊〉 may perceaue a Sacrament to 〈◊〉 oâ—… two parts the one is ap prehended by faith whiles the other is outwardly shewed to the senses If we see one baptized in the name of the Trinitie we say a Christen man was made to day How proue we that because yâ— Sacrament which we saw telleth vs what was wrought inwardly Therefore seing Christ hath willâ—…d vs to say at his holy table ouer bread and 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood there is no doubt but the very naming of body and blood soleÌ„nly commaunded is the commaâ—…udement to make a holy signe which is asmuch to say as to make a Sacrament Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is inuisibly wrought which is outwardly signified Otherwise a Sacrament may be false it may be of one part alone it may lacke the operation of the holy Ghost And to be short it may be made voide and of none 〈◊〉 The token and signe sayeth when bread is present Hoc est corpus meum This is my body The proâ—…ne Hoc This and the verb est is betoken a thing present The thing spoken of is the body of Christ. If this whereof I speake it be not made my body here presently I signifie and betoken a false thing No false signification can be a Sacrament because rather it is an execration or cursing wherein au vntruth is betokened from which God abhorreth The Apologie confeâ—…eth the supper of our Lord to be a Sacrament and whereas euery SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 of words and things of which twaine the words are the more plaine token of the holy thing which is made seing the words of Christes supper are This is my body This is my blood of necessitie there must be a truth of that thing which these words doe signifie And for asmuche as they signifie the presence of Christes body his body must nedes be present where they doe signifie it to be present I will exemplifie it in an other Sacrament also Christ at his last supper hauing sayd This is my body which is geuen for you sayd to his Apostles Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me In these words Christ betokened somewhat surely that they shoâ—…ld make and doe the thing he spake of I aske now whether he gaue in deed power to the Apostles to make and doe that thing for the remembrance of him or no If in deed he gaue them no power the signification of his words was false and the tokeÌ„ which they make to our eares vntrue On th' otherside if in deed by that precept Priests
throughly tryed as hys He lacked not grace vertue and vnderstanding but he lacked the flesh and blood of Christ Which flesh when it came really into the world when it was crucified and gusshed out streames of blood then the soule of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other Fathers out of prison Wel to end this matter Christ to shew that he wold be in his supper by yâ— nature of his manhed for that cause he named not his person but his flesh his body his blood And S. Paule named his bones as you shall see hereafter Wherefore yâ— talke of his presence by fayth is vnfaythfull yâ— talke of his presence by spirite as thereby excluding his body soule from our bodies and soules is spritish and diuelish A spirit hath no flesh and bones Christ is with vs in the substance of his owne flesh of his owne bones And yet that we might vnderstand that Christ naming flesh blood meaneth not that either his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread without blood or his blood vnder the forme of wine without flesh but that vnder eche kinde both flesh and blood and soule and Godhead is he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood taryethin me I in hym That is to say when I promise flesh and blood I name them only to declare plainly that my being in the Sacrament is a being according to yâ— truthe of my humane nature and not as though I were not there in mine owne person for he that eateth my flesh and drynketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him But it I had sayd that I geue my self no more 〈◊〉 false preachers had expouÌ„ded my selfe by my Godhead and by fayth vppon me my simple faythfull people might haue bene deceaued I name flesh body and blood to shew according to what nature I am 〈◊〉 But I am not diuided as though my flesh were vnder one kynde and mie blood vnder the other And therefore I say last of all He that catcth me he also shall lyue for me so that I am altogether in mine owne person vnder eche kynde after coÌ„secration Marke this agayne and agayne and let not the doctrine of Christ him self preteÌ„ded in suttil words deceaue thee any longer Beleue thou the presence of body of blood of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh ¶ It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper ANd we say not this is done sleightly and coldly but effectually and truly The eating of Christ by faith and spirit is no sleight or cold thing But to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly coldly sayd Partly because so much may be done without the supper namely when so euer a man with good faith and charitie doth meditate vpon his gloriouse victorie ouer death synne Partly because it is a cold thing to 〈◊〉 men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to geue their bodies none other meate then corruptible bread and wine as you teache whereas Christ did forbid vs to work the perishing meate at his banket How can yâ— be worthely called yâ— supper of Christ which a man may make at home without coming to the table of Christ As though it were not for his honour to haue a singular kind of supâ—… of his owne Euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne howse with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither wil Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled And is not that which may be done at priuate mens tables coldly and sleightly done in comparison of that great sacrifice of the true Melchisedech who by his blessed word turneth the substance of the bread and wine into that body of his which died and into that blood which was shed for vs ¶ By eating we touche the body of Christ as it may be touched vnder the foorm of bread FOr although we do not touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth yet we hold him fast and eate him by faith by vnderstanding and by the spirit These men haue lost their wits through malice As who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which eating shal be without touching the meate that is eaten with teeth and mouth For in the supper of Christ it is a detestable heresie and an intolerable ignorance to say that Christ saying Take and eate did not meane taking by hands or mouthes and eating by teeth and mouth Taking and eating is not without touching Christ sayd Take and eate this is my body therefore he sayd in effect touche my body with your teeth and with your mouth Neither doth it skil that his body is immortal and impassible for though it be not perished by the eating yet the eating and tou ching is not therefore false but so much the truer by how much the meate receaued is the more profitable cueÌ„ to our bodies And as we are sayd truly to kisse the Kings knee when we kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined euen so in touching the accidents of bread and wine we touche the body and blood of Christ which is coÌ„teined vnder them For which cause S. Chrysostom sayd 〈◊〉 we doe not only see we doe not only touch but we eate and fasten our teeth in yâ— slesh of Christ thereby noting and teaching the vndoubted presence thereof vnder the foorm of bread Which foorm we see we touche we eate we chaw and by that meanes we doe these things to the body of Christ vnder that foorm not perishing the body one whit For the same cause S. Cyrillus speaking of the blessed Eucharist sayeth of Christ Praebet nobis carnem suam tangendaÌ„ vt firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit He geueth vs his flesh to be touched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath truly reised his temple that is to say his own body Christ geueth vs his flesh to be touched and yet doe we not touche it But how do we touche it Uerily as S. Thomas touched the Godhead of Christ. For as in touching his flesh he confessed him to be God because the Godhead lay hid in that flesh right so when we touche with teeth mouth the forme of bread in the holy mysteries we confesse that we touche thereby the flesh which lieth hid vnder that forme and yet the Apologie denieth vs to touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth And whereas it sayeth we hold him fast by faith that is true also but it is not the whole truthe for as S. Thomas the Apostle did beleue vpon the Godhead of Christ and withall touche the flesh wherein it dwelt corporally euen so we beleue the presence of his body and
nourishments because the only spirit shall suffise to nourish it qua causa etiam spiritale erit for which cause also the body shal be spiritual now as after resurrection the spiritual being which our bodies shal haue doth not diminish the truthe of their nature but declareth a wonderful abettering of them in that they be made in maner equal to spiritual substances euen so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual not for any lack of his true substance vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine but because it is wholy possessed and replenished with the Godhead and is present after the maner of a spirit as being neither sene nor felt nor tasted but only beleued And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthely called of the Churche at the consecration of the blood yea as I think it is called of S. Paule also mysterium fidei the mysâ—…erie of faith because it secretly coÌ„teineth vnder the formes of bread ond wine the flesh the blood the soule and the spirit or Godhead of Iesus Christ. The which mysterie of faith the Deacons vsed to deliuer to the faithful after consecration as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse and therefore S. Paule willed the Deacons to vse that mysterie of faith with a pure and cleane conscience To be short The Sacramentaries abuse yâ— word of God miserablie when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do For Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man who is no God The Sacramentaries expound it as if it were sayd it is nothing worth to eate Christes own flesh really but only it is profitable to fede on it by faith Christ sayd it is the spirit that quickeneth meaning the Godhead to make his flesh profitable vnto vs. They take it so as though the spirit alone did qâ—…icken vs at his last supper without eating his fleshe really Christ by naming the spirit reuoketh â—…ot the real gift of his flesh the eating whereof he auouched to be necessarie for vs. They vse it contrarily to proue his flesh to be geuen vs really in his last supper as though he had corrected his former words Christ meant to adde more dignitie and worthinesse to the eating of his flesh then is in other mens flesh because the spirit made it alone quick aliue and profitable They endeuour by the precense of the word spirit to say he wold not geue his flesh to be eaten in dede and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift Christ sayd my words are spirit that is to say of diuine power proceding from God They imagin he sayd my words be vnproper and cropicall or parabolicall as being only true by an allegory Christ meant his words to procede from his own spirit and maiesty and thereâ—…ore to be true aboue the course of nature They expoâ—…nd theÌ„ as if he had sayd you must care my flesh in your spirit only not in very dede Thus they wreast that to the spirit of maÌ„ which Christ said of the spirit of God and vnder this ambiguitie of words they couer theyr poisoued doctrine Christ would vs to vnderstand spiritually the reall â—…ating of his reall flesh because he would geue it vs without losse of his own body without lothsomnes of our stomacks and without remouing from his own place in heauen They apply the spirituall vnderstanding of eating his flesh to take away the real â—…ating of it as though he that vnderstandeth a thing spiritually should not therefore eate that really which he vnderstandeth to be mysticall The substance of Christes flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery figure Sacrament or spiritual vnderstanding which Christ spake of Because he would them to eate his flesh not to fil theyr bellies but to signifie and partake yâ— merits otherwise done in that flesh They taking away the ground of the figure which is Christes fleshe adde of theyr own iâ—…ention bread wine to be the grouÌ„d of this figure and of the spirituall vnderstanding They making Christes spiritual words tropicall and gramatically â—…iguratiue abase theÌ„ beneth yâ— condition of coÌ„mon words For a proper word iâ—… of more dignitie then an improper and meÌ„ for the most part speake properly Christ sayd my words are life meaning theÌ„ to be so proper that they performe whatsoeuer they promise or speake as hauing the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures shadowes and changes They make them dead words For seing the mind of the speaker vttered in plain words is yâ— life of the words the same words vttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life vntil they be expouÌ„ded What shal I say more they take these words to be figuratiue in such sort that they make theÌ„ inferiour to the common words of mortall men who neuer ligthtly vse yâ— words flesh and blood for the signes of flesh and blood but for the substances of them and muche lesse doe they vse flesh and blood so to signifie bread and wine that the same bread and wine must again signifie Christes fleshe and blood as I haue noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say if they will defend theyr false and 〈◊〉 doctrine the which I praie God they may haue grace to see and to amend The preface of the fourth booke VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum for his reall and corporal presence in the Eucharist it remaineth we nowe declare the same truth by that whiche he performed in his last supper And because the chefe controuersie is whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound or els must be taken otherwise I wil first make it plaine that they ought to be taken properly as they sound to men of common vnderstanding vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly therewithal I shew that no reason is now to be heard for the vnproper interpretation of them because the tyme of all such allegatioÌ„s is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning Afterward I wil proue the proper literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde If in conferring the promise with the performance or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat whiche was before touched I must aske pardon thereof as who endeuore partly to make al things playne partly to confirme the present matter whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance Once I am sure it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft albeit either the affinitie
of the argument or the desyre to haue the thing wel remembred or my forgetfulnes may cause me to fall in to that default The Chapiters of the fourth Booke 1. That no reasoÌ„ ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expouÌ„ded vnproperly or figuratiuely that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof 2. That as al other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vntill the coÌ„trarie doth euidently appere 3. The proper fignification of these words this is my body and this is my blood is that the substance of Christes body blood is conteined vnder the visible formes of bread wine 4. That the pronoune this in Christes vvords caÌ„ point neither to bread nor to vvine 5. That the pronoune this can not pointe to any certein acte vvhiche is a doing about the bread and vvine 6. That the sayd pronoune pointeth finally to the body and blood of Christ and in the meane tyme it signifieth particularly one certaine kind of food 7. The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of the vvords to be figuratiue but helpeth much the reall presence 8. That the vvordes of Christes supper be proper though many other vnlike to them be figuratiue 9. The reall presence is declared by xxvij circunstances vvhich belong to Christes supper 10. The same is proued by conference of holy scriptures in the nevv Testament 11. Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration 12. The real presence is proued by câ—…nference of holy scriptures of the old Testament 13. Item by the vvords hoc facite vvhich do signifie make this thing 14. Item by the vvords for the remembrance of me 15. The grosse error impudent chalenge of M. Novvell is corrected and fully satisfied concerning the coÌ„ference betwene these vvords this is my body and I am the true vine ¶ That no reason ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expoundâ—…d vnproperly or figuratuely and that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof CHrist in his last supper was bâ—…th like a testatour who disposeth before his death what shal be comâ—… of his goods afterward and like a maker of lawes who prescribeth an order to be kept in his commoÌ„ weale The legacie bequeath ed or rather the gift made by his life tyme in consyderation of death cerâ—…einly approching was the deliuery of those inestimable tâ—…wels which he called his own body and blood willing his heyrs and fruids to take to care hâ—…s bodâ—… which should be geuen for theÌ„ and to drink his blood of the new Testament which should be shed for the remission of synnâ—…s The law which he made was that the Apostles and their successones in the like degree of Priesthood should make that Sacrament which he had then instituted for the remembrance of his death vntill he came again to iudge the world His Testament and the gift made therein was confirmed by that famouse death which he siffered the next day vpon the Crosse. His law was receaued and practised from the coming doune of the holy Ghost euen to this day through al the catholike Church A few yeres after Christes death his TestameÌ„t and law which he made by mouth was by witnesses of sufficient credit put in writing published and acknowleged of al faithful men If therefore any question arise coÌ„cerning such words as were either in yâ— last wil or in the law or the narration of them who wrote the Gospell We ought to weigh whether that question be moued of a thing not already determined or els vpoÌ„ that which many yeres before was accustomed and receaued For as reason would a new doubt to be newly dissolued so no reason no law no conscience can suffer that a matter once fully decided and perfitly ended should be again called into iudgement The question is whether the words of Christ be figuratiue or proper I say that question was decided aboue fiftene hundred yeres past For when that wil law of Christ was first published al men toke those words This is my body and this is my blood to be proper And so we receaued of our forefathers from hand to hand in so much that the Church neuer heard before these daies any other doctrine preached by publike auctoritie it neuer saw other practise then to adore with Godly honoure those things ouer which the Priest as Christes mynister had sayd the words before rehearsed The vniuersal preaching and vsage of Christes Church is a sufficient witnesse that it hath always taken those words to be proper not figuratiue Whiche thing sith it is so minimè sunt mutanda sayth the lawier quae interpretationem certam semper habuerunt Those things are least of all to be changed whiche haue always had a knowen vnderstanding And yet if we should come to geue accompt of these vniuersall customs how reasonably might it be applied to our purpose which yâ— same lawier saith Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur inprimis inspiciendum est quo iure ciuitas retro in huiusmodi casibus vsa fuisset Optima enim est leguÌ„ interpres 〈◊〉 If a question be moued coÌ„cerning the interpretation of a law it is principally to be attended what order and law the common weale hath vsed before in those cases for custome is the best interpreter of lawes We are sure that before the birth of â—…uther yea also of Berengarius al the Church vsed to worship the body blood of Christ vnder the forms ofbread and wine and yet it could not haue done so if it had taken the word body for material bread only signifying the body that name of blood for wine which was appointed only to signifie Christes blood For the Church of God wold neuer haue worshipped with Godly honour bakers bread wine of the grape though they were tokens of neuer so goodly things But if the Sacramentaries answer that once the Church did other wise and that the auncient fathers neither adored the body blood of Christ vnder that formes of bread and wine nor preached the words of Christes supper to be proper besyde that such answer of theyrs is stark false as by that plain words of S. Ambrose of S. 〈◊〉 of S. Augustine and of Theodoretus it shal hereafter euideÌ„rly appere yet surely though so much could not be presently declared yet it were a great folly vpon the allegation of a thing so far beyond memorie of maÌ„ as the primitiue Church is to leaue the manifest vse and custom of the present Church the which Christ no lesse redemed no lesse gouerneth and loueth theÌ„ he did the faithfull of the first six hundred yeres Furthermore if all that is presently beleued shal be vndone as oft as it is pretendâ—…d that the primatiue Church thought otherwise what quietnes can there be in the Church after this order what end shall we haue of controuersies When shall
soule must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospell that as now they doe in England when one cup is drunken vp an other should be filled out of a prophaue pot that staudeth by as though al were one so that wine be drunken with a remeÌ„brance of Christes death and resurrection it is not so All must drink of one chalice that is to say of yâ— one blood of Christ which is consecrated at one tyme though the chalices which hold it were diuerse as sometymes they haue bene when a great multitude of people did receaue at once This circumstance doth shew that it is more then wine which is drunke This doth shewe that these words This is my blood work somewhat in that one chalice whereof all must drink And consequently that Christ speaketh to bread and wine at his supper and not only preacheth to the audience as Caluin most ignorantly aud impudently affirmeth This is the cup whereof S. Ignatius writeth VnuÌ„ poculum vniuersis distributum est one cup is distributed to the whole eâ—…mpanie and he meaneth not so much one cup in nuÌ„ber as that the drink is al one in euery cup to wit the blood of Christ. This cup was so throughly communicated to all the twelue that Iudas one of the twelue drank thereof and that to his own damnation because he made no difference betwen the blood of Christ and other drinkes And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case concerning that they teache the substance in Christes chalice to bethe substance of common wine and not the blood of Christe As our Sacramentaries in England by geuing the faithfull people drink they care not whence so it be wine doe by that facâ—…e shew them selues to beleue that the blood of Christ is not present in the cup of the holy table so Christ by willing his Apostles that all should drink of that one cup because it was his blood geueth vs a greate warning to beleuc that cup to haue had really his owne blood in it For contrary doctrines haue contrary vsages ¶ The xxiii circumstance of these words This is my blood I Must nedes touch in this place somewhat spokeÌ„ of before but I will doe it for a farther purpose and to an other effect whereas the Sacramentaries teache the wine to be made a â—…igure of Christes blood wine is neither named at the consecration tyme as it is euident nor pointed vnto because the article hic this which only pointeth to all that is pointed vnto can not agree with wine but diffeâ—…eth from it in gender for so much as in Latine hic this is of the masculine gender and vinum wine is of the neuter Again in Breeke the articicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the maculine so that if the pronoune hic this be not a noune substantiue it self but do point vnto a certain substance and yet that substance by the rules oâ—… grammar can not be wine and withall it both may be blood and of Chist is sayd to be his blood there can be none other literall proper and historical sense of these words but that This which is shewed by pointing vnto it is the substance of Christes blood I chose rather to say this much vpoÌ„ these words then vppon yâ— other This is my body Because though in them also yâ— pronoune hoc this doth only agree with the noune body not with bread yet I know that the Sacramentaries would striue therein say impudently that hoc standeth substantiuely for this thing and so would resolue it into this thing which is bread But in the consecration of Christes blood they can not pretend so much for it is not sayd hoc est sanguis meus in the neuteâ—… gender but hic est sanguis meus in yâ— masculine gender where the pronoune hic may only agree with sanguis blood By the which words we are certified also that in hoc est corpus meum the pronoune hoc this may only agree with the noune corpus body and neither with bread nor with any other acte which at the supper tyâ—… is a doing It can not now be sayd that est doth staÌ„d for significat seing there is no nominatiue case at al to go before the verbe significat for hic this can not stand neutrally but is of the same case geÌ„der and number that his substantiue sanguis blood is of It can not therefore be sayd Hic significat sanguinem meum this doth signifie my blood because in that speache this doth lack a noune substantiue to whome it may be referred and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noune substantiue to be the nominatiue case vnto it By which meanes the Sacramentaries leaue no congruitie of speach at all And so as S. Hierom wel noteth of their forefathers they build a roofe without walls or fouÌ„dation For what sense can they make without congrue words or what congruitie of words is in hoc panis and hic vinum what proposition will they haue without a nominatiue case or what nominatiâ—…e case without a noune substantiue or without an other thing which may stand substantiuely Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantiuely The words of S. Hiâ—…rome are Debemus scripturam sanctam primûm secundum literam intelligere facientes in ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt Secundô iuxta allegoriam id est intelligentiam spiritualem Tertiô secundum futurornm beatitudinem Vos autem primam inquit secundam contemnentes diem spiritualia vobis quaedam figmenta componitis sine fundamento parietibus tectum desuper imponentes We ought first to vnderstand the holy scripture according to the letter doing whatsoeuer things are commaunded concerning morall vertues Secondly according to the allegory that is to say according to the spirtual vnderstanding Thirdly according to yâ— blessedues of the things to come But you sayth God contemning the first and yâ— second day do frame you certain spirituall imaginations putting a roof thereuppon without a foundation and walles Euen so the Sacramentaries tel a goodly tale of eating and drinking by fayth and of spirtuall feeding but they take away the meat and drinke whereupon we should â—…eed they take away the literall sense of Christes words which being once gone all that is buylded vppon the words is the putting vp of a roofe without walles or fouÌ„dation These three propositioÌ„s are found hic est sanguis meus haec est caro mea hoc est corpus meum In all three it is euident that the pronoune agreeth only with the noune folowing the verbe The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis blood ioyne it to vinum wine They pul haec from caro flesh and hoc from corpus body and ioyne haec and hoc to panis bread Is not this to
according to yâ— Hebrew worde Lehem which betokeneth all what soeuer is to be eaten of man but espe nally bread as being the chief fruite of the earth After which sorte when Christ saith in yâ— Ghospel man lyueth not by bread alone but by euery worde which procedeth from the mowth of God he meaneth by the name of bread al kinde of natural nourishment which man taketh by moâ—…th without all whiche he may liâ—…e either by naturall bread as Manna was or if it so please God to say the worde without any meat at all as Moyses and Elias fasted fortie days according to which generall taking of bread we aske in our Lordes praier our daily and supersubstantiall bread that is to saye all necessary sustenance for body and sowle It is further to be noted that in holy scriptures when one thinge is conuerted into an other the later thinge is many times called by the name of the first thing not because it is still the first but because it was made from the first As when it is sayd that the rod of Aron deuoured the rods of the Coniurers of Pha rao where that is called a rodde which was in dede a serpent and not then a rod but it is named a rod because from a rod it was turned into a 〈◊〉 Likewise Adam is called earth because he was made of earthe Thirdly a thing is callâ—…d in holy scripture not only as it is but also as it semeth outwardly to be so the Angel which the godly wâ—…men sawe at the sepulcher of Christ is called a yonge man because he appered so although in dede he were not so Which things being wel pondâ—…red it is casie to satisâ—…ie them that saye the holy communion is bread still because after consecration it is called bread To whome I answere first that it is called bread because it was bread and still semeth bread but that notwithstanding it is flesh and was made flesh from of the substaâ—…ce of bread being conuerted into flesh by the almightie wordes of Christ who taking bread sayd in the way of blessinge of thanks geuing this is my body Secondly I answere that in dede after consecration it is a kinde of bread and foode not that whiche it was before but ineâ—…ably bitter and of more price and more worthy of that name of true bread then it was before that is to say it is the true flesh of â—…hrist which nourysheth the bodies and soules of the faithfull men to liâ—…e euerlasting And to proue this answere true it may please the Reades to remember that Christ called himself the bread of life and named the gifte of his supper the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting the liuely bread which came downe from heauen After which meaning he saith and the bread which I wil gene is my â—…esh Behold the kind of bread Agayne S. Paule saith The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body For we being many are one bread one body all we that partake of the one bread all partake of the one bread and it be the bread which we breake surely that which is brokeÌ„ can not be any material bread but is only the body of Christ the bread of life And least any man should thinke that in saying the name of bread in Christes supper standeth for meate for flesh I speake without sufficient authoritie besyde the authoritie of yâ— scriptures already alleged which can not be otherwise taken let him also weigh together with me how coÌ„formably the auncieÌ„t Fathers taught the same doctrine S. Ignatius sayth Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desier the bread of God which thing is the flesh of Christ Which thing in the nenter gender is none other to say then which substance Iustinus the Martyr affirmeth first that the Deacons geue to euery man the bread wine and water which are coÌ„secrated with geuing of thankes Where he calleth them by the â—…ames which they had before consecration And sâ—…raight expounding yâ— names of bread wine and water which they haue by consecration he writeth thus Hic cibus apud nos Eucharistia nominatur This foode is called with vs the Eucharist Wherefore for all three names he putteth this one name of food wherein they all meete Neither so content he sayth yet againe For we take not these things as common bread and drink but we haue learned the meat which is consecrated by the words of prayer taken of him to be the flesh and blood of Christ. So that first he declareth him self by bread wine and water to meane the matter of the SacrameÌ„t Secondly he confesseth the consecration to make them a more heauenly food Thirdly he denieth them to be now common bread and drinke Fourthly he affirmeth it to be that kind of foode which is the flesh and blood of Christ. Of the same very Sacrament S. Hilarie sayth Nos vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus We take the word truly â—…esh in our Lords meate Where he calleth the thing which is geuen at Christes supper cibum Dominicum the meate which our Lord geueth meaning it not to be any more common bread but that kind of bread which is also called meate or food S. Cyprian sayth Christ offered bread and wine suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say his own body and blood Mark the kind of bread S. Ireneus sayth It is not now to wit after coÌ„secration common bread but the Eucharist S. Ambrose asketh why after coÌ„secration we say in oâ—…r Lords prayer Geue vs this day our daily bread And him self aunswereth He calleth it bread in dede Sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est supersubstantialem That is to say as S. Hierom expoundeth it qui super omnes substantias sit such a bread which is aboue all substances And yet farther S. Hierom sayth Panem illum petimus qui dicit Ego sum panis viuus we aske that bread which sayd I am the liâ—…ely bread But to return againe to S. Ambrose he concludeth Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panisvitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not that bread which goeth into the body but that bread of euerlasting life which holdeth vp the substance of our soule Gregorius of Nyâ—…a speaking of the Sacrament of the altar saith Panis est absque semine absque aratione absque alio humano opere nobis paratus It is bread prouided for vs without seed without plowing and without any other work of man S. Augustine saith wheÌ„ would flesh vnderstand this thing that he called bread flesh Isychiâ—…s nameth the bread whiche S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthely nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis the nourisher of our intelligible or spiriâ—…all substance Sedulius speaking of the bread whiche Christ gaue to
which words all the Fathers haue called the words of consecration The reall blood of Abel was taken into yâ— mouth of yâ— sensible earth They deny the Church which is the earth of God to take the blood of Christ into her sensible mouth whereas S. Augustine sayth Terra quae ore accepit sanguinem Ecclesia est The Church is the earth which hath taken the blood in her mouth The blood of Abel cried from the bowels of the earth to God They deny the blood of Christ to cric to God out of our bowels Abel figured both the supper and passion of Christ They deny Christ to haue fulfilled the figure concerning his supper Abel offered him selfe two ways once vnder a signe and again in the visible truth of nature They deny Christ to haue offered him self vnder any signe but only in yâ— visible truth of his nature The deuil had the more power vppon â—…ain because he came to the high office of sa crificing vnworthely They graunting that Satan entred into Iudas at the banket of Christ yet deny Christ to haue made a sarifice there And so coÌ„fessing that Iudas did eate vnworthely they will not confesse the worthines of the thing eaten To be â—…hort the Sacramentaries who teach bread and wine which are fruites of the earth to remaine in theyr owne earthly nature not hauing the body and blood of Christ offered vnder the formes of them and accepted make the supper of Christ to be like the earthly fruites of Cain who neither him selfe went about to change them neither obteined to haue yâ— earthly grossenes of theÌ„ pâ—…rged with fieâ—… from heaueÌ„ neither offered his owne body and blood vnder the outward signes of them but keping backe that which was of most price he offered only a few base fruites of the earth geuing an example for his part what a base and â—…arthly communion heretikes would set vp directly against the blessed sacrifice of Abel which in all pointes Christ fulfilled the Catholikes doe kepe and folowe If I should haue handled euery member of this comparison at large thou maiest iudge good Reader how great a booke it would haue made In matters of the old Tâ—…stament I had rather be short then tediouse which excuse I desire thee to accept throughout euery part of all this whole chapiter ¶ The figure of Melchisedech THe Sacramentaries deny yâ— Christ exercised any Priestly office after the order of Melchisedech in his last supper As though â—…elchisedech did not bring forth bread and wine and Christ like wise did not take at his last supper bread wine Melchisedech did blesse and Christ blessed Melchisedech gaue thankes to God and Christ gaue thankes The thing blessed by Melchisedech was Abraham And the thing made by Christes blessing was his owne body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue thankes to God for the victory of Abraham by coÌ„secrating the person him self who was the conquerour saying Blessed be Abraham to the high God So did Christ make his â—…charist yâ— is to say he gaue his thankes to God for the victory obteined at his death by consecrating the selfe same body which died and wherein he wan the field saying This is my body which is geueâ—… for you And yet did not Christ at his supper sulfill the whole order of Mâ—…lchisedech The weakest and basest thing that Melchisedech had in all his Priesthod was the bringing forth of bread and wine At yâ— which he staied not but went forward to blesse Abraham the end of his sacrifice And now the Sacramentaries make Christ to staie vpoÌ„ the substance of bread and wine without going forward by blessing to make there of his blessed body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue his bread to Abraham to the ende it being eaten of him might be made a better substance in his flesh then it was in it selfe But Christ geueth not vs the naturall substance of common bread for coÌ„mon bread profiteth nothing but Christ changeth it into a better substancâ—… verily into the substance of his owne flesh to the ende we eating his flesh might be made a better and more holy substance whiles we abide in Christ whom we eate and to whom we are vnited The Sacramentaries who confesse Melchisedech to haue had Abraham really present as it were in his handes at the tune of blessing and consecrating him to God denie Christ to haue had his owne body and blood present in his handes at the time of his blessing and consecrating which he made in his last supper As though Melchisedech were the figure of Christ because Christ who is the truth should haue lesse then he had Melchisedech in the shew of bread and wine shewed an image of the supper of Christ. But vnder his image he had not present the reall truthe because an image of a liuely thing made in a dead kind of stuff or matter differeth from the chief paterne in substance But Christ acknowleging his owne image in the sacrifice of Melchisedech kept the formes of bread and wine because they were images and formes of the priesthod which he excersiced in his supper but he changed the inward substance of them for so much as the substance of bread and wine were not the substance of his priesthod And in dede an artificiall image of a liucly thing made by man neuer can haue the truth it selfe vnder it whose image it beareth but when Christ had put the substance of his owne flesh vnder the formes of bread and wine then was the image and shadow of Melchisedech fulfilled with the truthe which it signified And so is the whole Tatholike faith perfitly shadowed by conferring the figure of Melchisedech with the supper of Christ. ¶ The figure of the 〈◊〉 Lambe THe paschall Lambe was taken vp that tenth daie of yâ— first moone that fourtenth daie at night it was after y◠〈◊〉 thereof wholy offered and 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 bread the blood being sprinkled ouer and vpon both postes of the dore Christ is the Lambe of God who in his owne person came to 〈◊〉 the tenth daie of yâ— first moneth being receiued with great triumph in somuch that daie tooke thereof the name of Palme sondaie The fourtenth daie at night which was 〈◊〉 Thursdaie he offered him selfe to God by consecrating his owne body and blood turning the substance of common bread wine by the fier of his diuine word into the pure substance of his heauenly flesh which him selfe tooke of his mother and he gaue the same selfe body of his to be eaten vnder the forme of vnleauened bread sprinkeling with it as well the post of our mouth as of our harte in token that we receiue the same selfe blood into our mouth which our harte beleueth In which supper Christ must be vnderstanded to be as truly offered rosted eaten and his blood as really sprinkled after a mysticall sorte as all this was visibly done
about the Lambe The mysterie we speake of taketh not away any truth from the thing but sheweth the maner of the doing to be spirituall For the offering is made without slaughter the rosting without operation of sensible fier the eating without coÌ„suming of the meat the sprinkling without diuision or losse of the blood But as the incarnation being wrought without the seede of man did not cause the 〈◊〉 of Christ to be the lesse true euen so the inuisible changing of the substance of bread and wine into his body and blood the vnbloody offering the Sacramental eating and drinking doth rather shew to all faithfull people the worker of so high a mysterie to be true God then any whyâ—… hinder the reall presenâ—… of his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The Prophecie and figure of Manna GOd sayd to Moyses Behold I wil raine bread to thee froÌ„ heauen Christ sayd worke the meate abyding to life euerlasting which the Sonne of man will geue you This is the bread which came downe from heauen And the bread which I will geue is my flesh for the life of the world The Israelits said Manhu What is this For they knew not what is was The Capharnaits striued saying How can this man geue vs his flesh to eate Moyses pointing to Manna sayth This is the bread which our Lord hath geuen you to eate Christ pointing to that true Manna coming down from heauen which him self made sayeth Take and eate this is my body which is geuen for you Moyses sayd this and Christ this Moyses sayd is Christ is Moyses the bread Christ my body Moyses which our Lord hath geuen Christ our Lord sayth which is geuen Moyses to you Christ for you Moyses to eate Christ sayd take and eate The bread which Moyses shewed was not the substance of wheaten bread but heauenly Neither the bread which Christ geueth is the substance of wheaten bread but the true bread which by the mysterie of the incarnation came from heauen The bread which Moyses shewed was made by Angels of such earthly stuffe and vapours as they found in the â—…ppermost part of the ayer And the bread of Christ was made by the Angell of great Councel of such earthly stuffe as he found vppon the table of the Paschall Lambe which was bread and wine willing also his Priestes who are his Angels in earth to doe and make the same The bread which Moyses shewed was truly eaten of the Israelites within the cumpasse of that white and cleare dew which they gathered And how much more is the body of Christ eaten of the Apostles and of other Christians within the cumpasse of yâ— forme of bread which they receaue from the altar of God The bread whereof Moyses him self bearing but a figure of the truth at this tyme spake was a signe not the truth The bread which Christ being the truth it self geueth is both a signe the truth The bread which Moyses shewed was perfect in his own nature before the Israelites did eate it Euen so the meate which Christ geueth is perfect in the Sacrament it self vnder the forme of bread before we do 〈◊〉 it whether more or lesse were gathered of Manna oue measure was always found in the ende to signifie that sith whole Christ is vnder euery part of yâ— forme of bread whether you take a greater peece of the forme or a lesse euer the same substance of Christes body is wholy receaued of euery Communicant Neither is it sufficient to fulfil this figure if we say that euery man hath the vertue and grace of Christes body geuen him by faith and spirit for the measure of that grace is as S. Paule teacheth diuers in diuers men according to the measure that Christ geueth it in Some haue greater giftes and some lesse and no one member is the whole body But Manna was in one measure to all men Euen so the substaÌ„ce of Christes body vnder the forme of bread is geuen to all that receaue the sayd forme in one measure and equally concerning the body it self For euery man receaueth the whole As wel the good men as the 〈◊〉 did eate Manna But the euill did eate with 〈◊〉 but to the good it gaue the taste of all swetenes Right so yâ— body and blood of Christ which is vnder the forme of bread and wine is as really taken of the euill as of the iust But they take it to their damnation these to their saluation He that marketh these comparisons shall easily perceaue that the holy Ghost both by the figure and by the truth condemneth their false doctrine who teache the reall body of Christ not to be geuen vnder the forme of bread and wine after consecration is once made ¶ The figure of the old Testament MOyses hauing offered oxen to God powred one halfe of the blood vpon the altar the other halfe he powred into basins And after he had readen the booke of 〈◊〉 betwene God and the Israelites and the people had promised to kepe the conditions thereof he sprinkled them with the blood saying This is the blood of the Testament which our Lord vpon all this talke hath made with you Christ intending to offer him self vnto his Father and certaine yeres before publishing to his people the conditions of his new Testament at the last in his supper he geueth his own blood the very same blood which con firmeth the new agreemeÌ„t made with vs And in stede of â—…ling vs with it he toke the chalice and gaue thanks and gaue to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which shal be shed for many for the remission of synnes The figure and the truth answer maruelously as they may finde who will conferre the partes It is sufficient at this tyme to note that as the blood of the old Testament was in the 〈◊〉 or cup really whence it was sprinkled so the blood of Christ which is the blood of the new Testament is really in the chalice whence it is receaued As the noune blood in the old Testament which is but a figure of the new yet was not taken figuratiuely but properly for true naturall blood so much more the noune blood in Christes words which appertein to the new Testament it self may not be taken tropically but euen as the word most literally doth sound As the substance of blood which Moyses spake of was shewed vnder the accidents of the naturall blood of calues so the substance of the blood whereof Christ spake was shewed vnder the accidents of wine For as Iacob had Prophecied Christ wasshed his garments and cote in wine because he tooke the â—…orme of wine to couer his owne humane nature which was his garment in respect of his Godhead as S. Paule sayeth Habitu inueÌ„tus vt homo Found in his apparell as man ¶ The prophecit and figure
Christes supper hoc facite do not only signifie doe this but much rather make this thing whereof it foloweth that yâ— body of Christ is commaunded to be made FAcere doth more properly stand to make then to doe specially when it hath an accusatiue case ioyned with it wherevppon somewhat is to be wrought as facere librum nauem domum is to make a booke a ship a howse But when it hath a generall word ioyned with it as hoc this thing is then it may stand either to make or to doe according as the matter spoken of doth require For if I doe a thing first and afterward say to an other hoc fac doe this thing if my dede were also the making of a thing as the making of a chayer or of a sword then my word importeth that he must by doing make this thing But if my dede were only doing not making as if I did only play vppon a harp in that case hoc fac doth not import make this but only doe as I haue done Christ in his supper both did and made His doing was to take bread to breake to geue His making was to say with the intent of blessing and of thanksgeuing This is my body For yâ— word so spoken made his body Therefore when he sayeth afterward to his Apostles hoc facite he meaneth doe and make this thing Or by doing the like to that which I haue done make this thing which I haue made That is to say by taking bread and by blessing and saying This is my body make my body Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly For making doth first signifie such a work as presupposeth a matter to worke vppon Which is the difference betwene creare and facere in that creare is to make a thing of nothing Facere is to make one thing of an other according to which sense Christ made bread his body as Tertullian sayth And when one thing is made of an other that whereof it was made may either kepe his old substance as it chaunceth in artificiall things which are made and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo to make one thing of an other as a chayer is made of wood or els the substance may be changed and it is more properly called facere aliquid de aliquo to make one thing from an other thing that is to wit so to make it that the thing whence it was made remaineth not in his former nature And so S. Ambrose sayth De pane fit caro Christi from of bread the flesh of Christ is made Moreouer facere which is in Greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ as S. Basile noteth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speculari and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agere Speculari is an action of the mind exercised by thinking or studying without any outward working at all Agere is to worke with the body not leauing any work behind as he that daunceth can not shew what part of his dauncing remayneth after that it is past But facere doth signifie the doing of a work which remayneth to be seen or vnderstanded after the working of it As God made heauen and earth not only to tariâ—… for the tyme of working them but also to remaine still as a witnesse of his handy work The Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Basile writeth is the same which S. Luke and S. Paule haue vsed to expresse the commaundement geuen in Christes supper by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this commaundement what thing is it that Christ will haue made Wil he haue bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunken for his remembrance No surely For he had sayd before Take and eate and drink ye all of this which notwithstanding he sayd hoc facite clerely certifying vs that he now coÌ„maundeth an other thing besyde eating and drinking And that is verily the making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine by blessing speaking the words of consecration Let vs now consider also the persons to whome this commaundement was geuen They were those twelue Apostles whome Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament as S. Ireneus writeth geuing them authoritie by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and blood As for bringing of bread and wine to the table it is a kind of doing which may be performed by other as well as by the Apostles eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone but to all that coÌ„municate with them But when it is sayd namely to them Make this thing such a thig is commaunded which none other man may doe besyde them and their successors And that is not only to eate and to drink but to make the body of Christ. That body is the only thing which is so precisely appointed vnto in Christes supper For whatsoeuer els is done at the supper which may consist in any action whether it be taking blessing breaking eating or drinking it is rather the doing of a like thing to that which Christ did then the making of this thing When Christ had washed his Apostles feete he sayd not hoe facite make this thing But I haue geuen you an example that as I haue done Ita vos faciatis euen so you also may doe In which place the word facere doth signifie to doe not to make And therefore Christ doth not say doe you that thing which I haue done but ita faciatis doe ye so as I haue done But straight after that he had sayd This is my body he then sayd not ita facite doe so as I haue done But hoc facite make this thing to wit my body Moreouer as it is here sayd Hoc facite in meam commerationem so in an other place Dauid in the spirit of prophecie did say concerning this very facte of Christ Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator dominns escam dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marueilouse workes he hath geuen meate to them that feare him Behold as it is sayd in the Gospell Make this thing for the remembrance of me so it is said in yâ— Psalme He hath made a memory of his miracles And euen as he hath made a memory so hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory Making then can not 〈◊〉 excluded from these words hoc facite which hitherto being proued by the proper nature of the word facere by yâ— circumstance of the words this is my body make this thing ioyned together by the word hoc this thing which is ioyned with facere by the conference of a like place in holy scripture and by the condition of the persons
to whom it was spoken I will now proue the same truth more plainly out of yâ— old Fathers S. â—…ames of whose Masse mention is made in yâ— sixth Generall councell when he was effectually working and fulfilling the commandement of Christ when he was doinâ—… yea rather making that which Christ bad him make thus he praieth vnto God Spiritum tuum caet Send doune o Lord thy most holy spirit now also vppon vs and vppon these holy giftes put before vs that he comming thereuppon with his holy and good and gloriouse presence sanctificet efficiat may sanctfie and make this bread yâ— holy body of thy 〈◊〉 Behold what is to be made The bread is made the body of Christ. Can you say that the holy Ghost doth this bread the body of Christ No verily that were no English The trewe English is that the holy Ghost doth make this bread the body of Christ. Therefore facere in this place is not taken for to doe but for to make The like may be noted in S. â—…lemeÌ„t S. Basile S. Thrysostom who all haue writen Masses and liturgies wherein the like praier is vsed Which thing is coâ—…firmed yet more strongly by the auctority of S. Cyrillus Archebisshop of Jerusalem who expounding the order and mysterios of the Breeke Masse hath these wordes Deum benignissimum oramus vt S. Spiritum super proposita emittat we beseche God to send his holy Ghost vppon the thinges which are set before vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt panem quidem saciat corpus Chri sti vinum verò sanguinem Christi that he may make the bread to be the body of Christ the wine to be the blood of Christ. Lo the holy Ghost is desired of the priest to make bread Christes body he is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so high a mysterie if Christ had not commanded him to make this thing S. Dionysius â—…reopagita sheweth that the Priest purgeth and excuseth him self of this great office saying Tu dixisti hoc facite in meam commemorationem Thou hast sayd make this thing for the remembraunce of me after which excuse made thâ—… Priest sayeth Dionysius desireth that he may be made worthy of this holy sacrificing or of making these holy things For so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie It is worth the labor to marke how S. Dionysius hauing declared that the Priest maketh his excuse coÌ„cerning the making of that thing which Christ bad him make consequeÌ„tly sheweth what the Priest doth make saying The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diuina perficit diuinissima consecrat seu sacra operatur He maketh the diuine things and worketh holy or coÌ„secrateth the most diuine things He saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est agit sed perficit opera tur consecrat He saith not that the Priest doth holy things he saith he maketh them he worketh them he consecrateth them Manifestly witnessing that facere in these words hoc facite is to make to worke to consecrate and not only to doe 〈◊〉 Martyr is of the same mind who rehersing Christes words make this thing consequently addeth that is to say my body As if he sayd make my body 〈◊〉 I spake before S. Ireneus hath these words Quando mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia corporis sangui nis Christi 〈◊〉 the chalice mixed with water and the bread being broken taketh the word of God then the Eucharist of theÌ„ body blood of Christ is made TheÌ„ it is made saith 〈◊〉 it caÌ„ not there be Englished yâ— Eucharist is done but only is made Likewise 〈◊〉 saith Acceptum panem distributuÌ„ discipulis corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his own body fecit paneÌ„ corpus suuÌ„ he made the breade his body It were 〈◊〉 English to say he dyd bread his body S. Ambrose hath these words Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur And again Hoc quod 〈◊〉 corpus ex virgine est This Sacrament whiche thou receauest is made by the worde of Christ and this body which we make is of the virgin The Sacrament 〈◊〉 is made and we make the body of Christ. By what other 〈◊〉 then by the worde of Christ who sayd make this thing â–ª For if these words hoc facite do not conteine facite corpus meum make my body S. Ambrose in 〈◊〉 saith conficimus corpus Christi we make the body of Christ. But so wise a man saith not so 〈◊〉 vaine because he well knoweth that hoc facite doth signifie thus 〈◊〉 make this thing to wit make the body of Christ. See now what is facere and see whatis hoc Facere is to make hoc is this thing whiche is the body of Christ. According to the whiche meaning S. Hierom said Absit vt de ijs quicquà m sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore consiciunt God forbid yâ— I should speake any thing amisse of them who comming in place of the Apostles degree make the body of Christ with their holy mouth If they make it with their mouthes surely it is because Christ after yâ— he had made it with his owne mouth said vnto them hoc facite make this thing S Chrysostom writeth thus Sacra ipsa oblatio siue illaÌ„ Petrus sine illam Paulus siue cuiusuis mâ—…riti Sacerdos offerat 〈◊〉 est quá deâ—…it Christus ipse discipulis quamque Sacerdotes modo quoque conficiunt That self holy oblation it is the same which Christ him self gaue to his Disciples and which the Priests now also doe make Again in an ocher place Operantibus Sacerdotibus Sacramenta haec quae dico initiantur perficiuÌ„turque â–ª when the Priests work the holy things which I speake of are begun ended or made persit And shewing that 〈◊〉 Priest doth not this in his owne but in Christes person he saith Non homo est qui corpus Christi facit sanguinem sed ille qui crucifixus est pro nobis Christus Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est enim ait corpus meuÌ„ 〈◊〉 verbo proposita consecrantur it is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ but Christ who hath bene crucified for vs. the words are spokeÌ„ by the Priests mouth the things which are set before vs are coÌ„secarted by the power grace of God for this sayth he is my body with this saying the thiÌ„gs put before vs are consecrated Thus much Chrysostom S. Angustin affyrmith that our bread and chalice certa cosecratione mysticus fit nobis non nascitur is made mysticall vnto vs by a certein coÌ„secration
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
no stomack but ouercometh all their natures that touche him By that meanes it is brought to passe that as 〈◊〉 approching nigh to any thing â—…urneth all that is apt to be burned into it self making it of his owne condition and qualitie yea rather of his owne nature so Christ who is consuming fier turneth into his mysticall body all that worthely eate and drinke his naturall body in the Sacrament of the altar Yf we did eate common bread drinke common wine out of all question both the bread and wine wold be ouercomed of our stomack and by lytle and lytle wold be conuerted into our flesh and blood to norrish them corporally by which meanes neither we should by eating wheaten bread at any time be made one bread neither any of vs should become one with an other For they that differ by reason of diuers persons as diuerse men doe can neuer in any kinde of meate be made one whiles they eate that which is digested into their vaynes and made parte of their persons but only they are able to be made one who eate that which taryeth styll whole and sound in his owne nature styll common to all neuer appropriated to any one but gathereth all them into it self as making one spirituall mysticall body of all faithfull men Yf then we eate a kinde of bread in the holy mysteries and are one bread because we eate of the one bread surely it is no common bread but such a foode and meate as being eaten is not consumed of vs but rather consuming our weaknes maketh al vs that eate it of the same immortall nature with it which none other meate doth absolutely besydes the reall body and blood of Iesus Christ and it so mightely worketh our spirituall vnion that Christ wold his owne body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be the Sacrament of that self vnitie which it worketh Nothing is more common in S. Augustine then to say that we take in the Sacrament the body of Christ which we are Vos estis in mensa vos estis in calice ye are in the meate ye are in the cup but we are not in the substance of wheaten bread albeit we are after consecration signified by that forme of bread which bread it self was from many graines of corne made one loaf but we are not at all signified by the substance of the bread For so euery bread in the world were the holy signe of yâ— Church of God by that meanes it were much more the body of Christ which thing S. Augustine denieth saying that euery bread and cup is not borne mysticall to vs but it is made mystical by a certeine consecration If then the natural substance of bread suffise not to signifie the body of Christ and the felowship of the elect and yet they be manifestly signified to be one in the Sacrament of Christes supper what other ground must concur to shew them to be in the meate which they receane in the cup whereof they drink The Catholikes haue learned of the auncient Fathers that it is the reall body and blood of Christ which only being vnder the foorm of bread and wine can make vs to be shewed in the meate in the chalice For we are shewed in them because our head Iesus Christ is there within the forme of bread and wine now where the head is there also the members be signified to be specially seing the head is there to gather his members nere vnto him and as S. Chrysostome speaketh to make them as it were one lumpe with him For as many grains of corne are made into one loaf and that loaf by consecration is turned into Christes body the forme of bread stil remaining so many persons are in Baptisme made one mysticall body and that body at Christes supper is againe naturally ioyned to Christes own flesh and by that corporall vnion is mingled wholy tempered with him so that one thing is made of Christe and of his Church ¶ The reall presence is proued by ioyning together all the former wordes HAuing particularly declared how breaking communicating vniting make for the real presence of Christes body and blood I thought good now to coÌ„ferre al these things together The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of the one bread Here bread is thrise named and foure things are affirmed of it 1. We breake breade 2. bread is the communicating of Christes body 3. we are one bread 4. we partake of the one bread Seing in all these places the name of breade is put to expresse one and thesame mysteriâ—… it must nedes be ment so that all these sayings may be verified without 〈◊〉 of the one to the other which can be done by no meanes except we take the substance of Christes body vnder yâ— form of bread to be called bread By that meanes the body in respect of the form of bread is conuenieiuly said to be broken By that meanes the substance of the body is the thing coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder the form of bread By the communicating of that substance we are vnited to the one bread and be made one body not only by faith and will as in baptism but by the corporall coÌ„innction of Christes flesh because we partake of that one bread in his own substance whereof we did partake before in certaine effectes of grace proceding from it Thus the breaking distributing of such a bread is the cause of the communicating of Christes body and such a coÌ„municating is the cause of ioyning vs corporally in one body and such an vnion procedeth of the partaking of that one bread in his owne substance And consequently all things agree well together But if we once take the sub stance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither that substance is the communicating of Christes body because euery bread in the world should by like reason be the communicating thereof for so much as that which is the substance of any thing is in euery particular propriety of the same kind nor we are not all one material bread as it is euident nor we all partake not of one wheaten bread either in baptisme or after Again if the wheaten bread which is said to be the communicating of Christes body be interpreted to signifie yâ— coÌ„municating betwene vs and Christ when it is likewise said of the Apostle we are one bread and one body for it is one verbe and oue noune in both places est there sumus here communicating of one body there one bread and one body here If the bread which is the coÌ„municating of Christes body be the bread which is the figure of the communicating we that are said to be one bread are said to be the figure of one bread Likewise seing we
coming of his grace into our hartes His grace can not come except we first be made mete to receaue it but his body may come to our bodies so may condemne our soules before that we are made mete to receaue it His grace therefore must come first to vs by faith and charitie that we may thereby haue power to receaue worthely afterward his blessed body least if we receaue it vnworthely we take it to our damnation But so great preparation should not be requisite if our bodies receaued none other substance besyde bread and wine for they are of baser degree then eating by faith is But now we may somtime absteine from the Sacrament euen for honour and reuerence whiche we beare to it and yet we may not absteine from eating by faith or spirite Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance which is receaued in the SacrameÌ„t then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating And seing it should not be a worthier thing if it were the substance of bread and wine we may be assured the substance of the Sacrament to be that selfe body whereof the Centurion sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof It is the honour of that body whiche S. Paul and S. Augustine respect and not the honour of bread and wine in so much that the faithfull as well in the Greke as in the Latin Churche haue vsed alwaâ—…s the very same wordes in adoring the Sacracrament whiche the Centurion vsed to Christ. one praier to one Lord the same reuerence to the same God and man ¶ That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did adore the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the altar DIonysius Areopagita scholer to S Paule made a praier to the Sacrament of the Altar in these wordes Sed ô tu diuinum sanctumque Sacramentum c. but o thou diuine and holy Sacrament open and display clerely to vs as it were the veyles and clokes wherewith thorough the signes of obscurities thou art couered and fill the eyes of our vnderstanding with suche clere light as may no more be dymmed Thus did that auncient Father pray not to bread and wine ye may be sure but to that blessed body of our Lord which is present in the mysteries Upon whiche place Pachymeres noteth that S. Dionisius speaketh vnto the Sacrament as being a thig which hath sense and life and that worthely For so the greate diuine Gregory saith But o passouer that great I say and holy passouer For that our passouer and this self holy Sacrament our Lord Iesus Christ him self is to whoÌ„ the holy man spâ—…aketh Lo this selfe holy Sacrament is Christ. And as nothing in the world is our great and holy passouer besyde Christ him selfe so this holy Sacrament hath none other substance at all besyde the substance of Iesus Christ who couereth him selfe as it were with the veyles of bread and wine As you haue heard the most direct wordes of S. Dionysius adoring this blessed mystery and of Pachymeres geuing the reason why he did speake vnto it as the which is Christe him selfe now you shal perceaue that all the other Fathers did beleue the same in so much as all men will graunt that they must needes adore that thing which they confessed to be either Christ or God or one in person with the sonne of God S. â—…yprian writing of the Sacrament of Christes supper saith In sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est In the sacrifice which is Christ only Christ must be followed It is knowâ—…ll well what sacrifice we offer how we take bread and wine coÌ„secrating them by the wordes of the last supper wherein it was said This is my body and this is my blood doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me This consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is our sacrifice and because Christ is not diuided nor dieth any more but where his body and blood is there him selfe is therefore S. Cyprian saieth Our sacâ—…ifice is Christ. Neither doth he speake of the death and passion where Christ was our sacrifice bloodily but he speaketh of the sâ—…pper of our Lord where we daily sacrifice Christ vnbloodily For he speaketh of yâ— matter of coÌ„secration which he saith must be wine mingled with water and not water alone because Christ made his owne blood of wine mingled with water Now saith S. Cyprian In the sacrifice which is Christ none must be followed but Christ. If our sacrifice be Christ because of bread and wine which we bring foorth the body and blood of Christ is made by his word is it possible that Christe should not be worshipped of S. â—…yprian with godly honour If Christ be so worshipped and our sacrifice be Christ our sacrifice must be worshipped with Godly honour our sacrifice I say because the thing that is made by coÌ„secration is none other besyde that body of Christe which is the price of the world and the only sacrifice for mankinde The same thing S. Ambrose saith euen as expressie of the Sacrament which S. Cyprian speaketh of the sacrifice In illo SacrameÌ„to Christus est quia corpus Christi in that Sacrament Christe is because it is the body of Christe To the same purpose apperteine the words of S. Ignatius calling this Sacrament the bread of God the heauenly bread the bread of life which thing saith he is the flesh of Christe the Sonne of God And of S. Ambrose calling it the nourishment of the diuine substance And of Eusebius Pamphili calling it Sacrificium Deo plenum And againe horroreÌ„ afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia a sacrifice full of God and the sacrifices of the table of Christe making men to tremble and quake And of Cyrillus saying those that receaue those mysteries to be made diuinae naturae participes Partakers of the diuine nature And again corporaliter in nobis Christum habitare participatione naturali that by these mysteries Christe dwelleth in vs corporally and by naturall partaking And of Isychius calling the same mysteries the bread of life panes mysticos viuificantes and mysticall loaues and those which quicken vs to life euerlasting And is it to be thought that Christ that the bread of God of life the diuine substance the sacrifice full of God which maketh men tremble quake that yâ— mysteries which cause Christe corporally to dwell in vs yâ— the nature of God whereof we are partakers by eating that the Sacrament of Christes supper being al this yet should not haue godly honour done to it Did al the Fathers who wrote thus of that mysterie honour and worship it according to their own doctrine and writings If all they and al the rest did professe that which was vpon yâ— table of Christ
holding and lifting vp the consecrated host said with a lowd voice Sancta sanctis the holy things for holy men The quere and people answered Vnus sanctus vnus dominus vnus Iesus Christus in gloria dei patris cum Spiritu sancto Amen one holy one Lord one Iesus Christ in the glory oâ—… God the Father with the holy Ghost Amen The Priest by lifting vp the holy consecrated hoste proâ—…oketh the people to adore and receaue the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread saying as it were These holy thinges are not for prophane synners or those who are not baptized but for holy Christians whereby the Priest meneth aswel to shew where the holy things be that he speaketh of as for whom they be Uerily they are those which he hath in his hands which he lifteth vp and sheweth to them Which I do so much the more earnestly presse vppon because now a dayes the Sacramentaries would make vs beleue that the holy thinges which must be adored to sanctisy vs and which must be adored be stil in heauen and not vpon the altar vnder the form of bread Why doth then the Priest hold vp the sanctified host cry holy things if those â–ª which he sheweth be not the holy things Why doth he adde holy tbings for holy men if those men that be holy shall not content them selues with those holy things but must looke for a new supper from heauen at the same tyme But the people of the primatiue Churche well knowing the things that were shewed to be the most holy of all holies because they are the body blood of Christ yet wil not acknowledge them selues to be holy and therefore do aunswere that there is one holy and he their Lord Iesus whiche words Cyrillus of Hierusalem expoundeth thus Sacerdos dicit Sancta sanctis Sancta scilicet ea quae in ara proposita sunt aduentu Spiritus sancti sanctificata Sancti vos cum sitis sancto spiritu donati atque ita sancta sanctis conueniunt Vos deinde respondetis vnus sanctus c. The Priest saith holy things for holy men Uerily the holy things are those whiche are set forth in the altar consecrated by the comming of the holy Ghost And seing ye are holy indewed with the holy Ghost by that meanes holy things are mete for holy men But afterward ye aunswere one holy one Lord Iesus Christ. In dede he alâ—…ne is holy as who is holy by nature For although ye are holy yet ye are not holy by nature but by partaking by exercise and by praier Behold the holy things â—…re not only in heauen but also vpon the altar S. Chrysostom saith Cûm dicit Sancta sanctis hoc dicit Si quis non est sanctus non accedat When he saith holy things for the holy he meaneth this thing If any man be not holy let him not come And in an other place Consydera quaeso Mensa regalis est apposita Angeli mensae ministrantes ipse rex adest cae Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before thee Aungels minister at the table the king him selfe is present and thou standest by idle thy garments are foule and thou carest not But if they are cleane then adore and receaue By conference of these places we vnderstand that the Priest by saying holy things for holy men warned that none should comme but those that were cleane from synne And yet those that were holy might not receaue before they had acknowleged and confessed by theyr fact and word the king to be present The confession by wordes was to answer the Priest one holy one Lord Iesus Christ. The confession in fact dede was to bow doune bodily and to adore the holy things which are the body and blood of Christ and Christ him self Adore saith Chrysostom and communicate worship and receaue The eleuation of the consecrated host was made for these two purposes that the king of glory should be worshipped vnder the form of bread receaued of holy men By worshipping we conâ—…esse him to be holy by nature in his Godhead and person by communicating we partake the fruits of his passion Of this lifting vp of the holy host Dionysius writeth Pontifex laudatis sacris dei operibus ea quae diuinissima suut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificat vel consecrat laudata oculis subiicit per symbola quae ritè proponuntur The Bishop hauing praised the holy works of God doth offer vp in sacrifice or consecrate the most diuine things and after praise geuen to them he sheweth them to the eyes by meanes of the signes which are duely set forth The consecrating or offering vp in sacrifice of the most diuine things doth shew the real presence of the body and blood which only are the diuine things and only may be consecrated or finally offered in the state of the new testameÌ„t The praising of theÌ„ whiche is made of the Bishop doth witnesse that they are not creatures without life as they were before consecration but such as may receaue of a reasonable man praise and thanksgeuing offered vp to them The shewing of them declareth that other men are prouoked to the like praysing and honouring of them The shewing of theÌ„ by meanes of the signes declareth their presence not to be intellectuall only albeit the maner thereof be spirituall but their presence to be reall vnder the formes of breade and wine For those are the signes whereof Dionysius speaketh Neyther must one of these things be considered alone without the other as some men consider them who suppose they are lifted vp to be only as it were a watcheword of lifting vp our harts to heauen whereas they are first said to be consecrated and then to be lifted vp If the diuine things that were consecrated be lifted vp they be not now a signe only but they are made the diuine things theÌ„ selues and those diuine things are shewed to vs by the signes Lo there are diuine things shewed signes also but the diuine things being praised are shewed by the signes What is that to say but vnder the signes of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are shewed to be praised and honoured of other men as the Priest him self hath already praised and honoured them The word signifying the praise of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things praised with an hymne which worde hymne is most peculiar to the things of God for hymnes are specially dedicated to God in the praise of his workes S. Basil speaking of the same matter saith Inuocationis verba dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit which of the Saincts hath left in writing to vs the wordes of innocation whiles yâ— bread of thankes geuing and the cup of blessing is shâ—…wed The word which S. Basile vseth
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
as Christ said it sicut ipse dixit as him selfe said it without glosing without additioÌ„s without figures orparables euen as Christ spake it so it was beleued and beleued of euery man And who so did not beleue it was rekoned a damned person without grace without saluation without life euerlasting Thus haue we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Churche the one a Latine S. Hilarius the other a grecian Epiphanius But now I will bring foorth not as before the old Fathers bearing witnesse of the belefe of the people but I will bring foorth the whole people it selfe yea the people of the primatine Church You shall heare al the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice in one word their most constaÌ„t faith touching the Sacrament of the altar Amen is an hebrew word which partly wisheth and partly affirmeth signifying as it were at once be it so and it is so It signifieth be it so when it is ioyned with praiers and petitions It signifieth it is so when it foloweth any parte of Christes doctrine which is alredy pronounced or affirmed Thence we reade so oft in holy scripture Amen amen I say vnto you which is to say verely verely S. James the Apostle S. Iustin the martyr S. Clement S. Cyrill of Hicrusalem S. Basil S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostom doe witnesse that the people vsed at Masse tyme to answer Amen Which thing they did specially twise once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood and againe at the tyme of communion At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinatly ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my bloood Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings Amen they affirme the same that is affirmed as though they said with one voice It is verely the body of Christ and it is verely the blood of Christ whereof you speak And least you should thinke this coÌ„ment to be of myne making S. Ambrose expounded yâ— same word before me saying Ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meuÌ„ our Lord Iesus him selfe crieth this is my body He calleeh the crying of our Lord when his minister crieth so in his name For of that crying he speaketh as it may appere by the word folowing Wel Our Lord Iesus him self crieth out this is my body before the blessing of yâ— heauenly words it is named another kind after consecration that body is signified him self calleth it his own blood before consecration it is called an other thing after consecration it is called blood and thou sayest Amen that is to say as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it verum est it is true That the mouth speaketh let the inward mind confelse that the speache soundeth let the hart think Hitherto S. Ambrose who would not bid the people thinke that whiche the speache soundeth if the speache were figuratiue for a figuratiue speache soundeth otherwise then we ought to thinke thereof as when we say God is sory Christ is made synne the rok is Christ. As it was the custome of the primatiue Church for the people to say Amen straight vppon the consecration of the body and blood whereby they shewed them selues to beleue the wordes of Christ and the work of the Priest euen so was it also the custome that when the tyme of communion came as S. Clement and diâ—…erse others doe witnesse the Bishop should geue the oblation to the people saying â–ª Corpus Christi the body of Christ and he yâ— toke it should say Amen it is true And yâ— Deacon wheÌ„ he deliuered yâ— chalice did say sanguis Christi calix vitae â–ª yâ— blood of Christ yâ— chalice of life he that drank said Amen so it is or that is true To which custome being in vse at his tyme S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus Dicit tibi Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis amen hoc est verum quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The Priest saith to thee the body of Christ and thou saiest Amen that is true that which thy tonge confesseth let thy hart kepe But what speake I of S. Ambrose Would the Apostles haue made all the people to cry amen to that which had not bene so as the word did sound Would they haue made the simple men to witâ—…esse their belefe to such words as neded a farther commeÌ„t or interpretation It is rather to be thought yea to be most assuredly beleued that they ordeined that custome to thend all men might know that the thing consecrated vppon the altar was in dede the body of Christ S. Augustine beareth witnesse to the same custome saying Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra cùm eo accepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen the blood of Christ hath a greate voice in earth when after it is taken all nations aunswere amen Haec est clara vox sanguinis quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum This is the cleere voice of the blood the which voice the blood it selfe forceth out of the mouth of the faithfull being redemed with the same blood Pope Leo the greate agreeth with S. Clement S. Ambrose and S. Augustine Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis caeâ—… Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christe for yâ— thing is taken in the mouth which is beleued in faith And Amen is in vayne answered of them who dispute against that which is receaued This place declareth that some disputation was moued by some of the heresy of Manicheus who liued in Rome vnder Leo against the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the forme of bread For seing the Maniches beleued not Christ to haue a true body at all they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof shewing that we do not eate the body of Christ only by faith but also by mouth Now because Leo setteth the receauing of the truth of Christes body by mouth against the receauing thereof by faith only we may coniecture that heretikes euen in those days were of the mind that their ofspring is now of verily to draw as much truth from Christes works as may be and to set all things vpon faith spirit and vnderstanding But Leo proueth his doctrine by the generall custome of the whole Church â–ª wherein the people answering Amen did in open words witnesse them selues to beleue that it was true which the Priest sayd concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them who vsed to say Amen disputed whether the substance and truth of Christes body were present in the mouthes of
the booke of Canticles whiche you against his iudgement there set out in the vulgare tong to be readen of euery wanton boye or girle wold perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally But that it should be any carnal thing to eate Christes flesh either by â—…aith or as we do it by moâ—…th that was neuer thought a wanton or fleshely thing as the practise of the Catholiks can witnesse who neuer came so wantonly to any caâ—…nal banket as they came deuoutly to receaue Christes body into their mouthes preparing them selues with contrition consession and satisfaction The spirituall dedes of them shewe that they vnderstode Chriâ—… stes supper moste spiritually Therefore D. Harding hath not erred in saying that Christes body is to be â—…ceaued into our bodies Iuel The bread is a figure San. Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the words this is my body are said ouevit Vbi verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi when the words of Christ are come thereunto it is the body of Christe Againe Damascene expreâ—…y saith Non est figura panis vinum corporiâ—… sanguinis Christi absit enim hoc The breade and wine is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ. God forbid that thing sed est ipsum corpus domini Deificatum but is the selfe Deified body of our Lord. Deified is to say made glorioâ—…se and immortall as God is by nature M. Iuel neuer brought nor can bring any Doctor who said that bread tarying in his olde substance is after consecration the body of Christe and yet he teacheth that doctrine as bold therein as blind bayerd Iuel The bread is subiecte to corruption Christes body is immortall therefore Rabanus Maurus saith The Sacrament is receaued with the mouth with the vertue of the SacrameÌ„t the inner man is repaired The Sacrament is turned into the nourishing of the body by the vertue of the Sacrament we get euerlasting life San. This place is alleged that noman is the nere where to find it For 〈◊〉 hath writen moe bookes then one or two Again he is no Doctor to be alleged of M. Iuell Who estemeth â—…one of them which haue writen these last nine hundred yeres and yet seing he bringeth them for him selfe wheusoeuer he is able to make any colour to peâ—…ade his owne doctrine thereby he doth vs to vnderstand that his resolution is that no writer of these last nine hundred yeres should be brought against him but yet that he may bring what him list against vs. Thinke you M. Iuel that this 〈◊〉 coÌ„dition shal be taken at your haÌ„ds are you not ashamed to cite them whom you haue 〈◊〉 if you did cite them to mock at them only or to shew their folly errours it were tolerable in a man of your profession But to allege them in earnest to build vpon their words and to proue your doctrine by some one of them and that where he disagreeth perhaps froÌ„ his sellowes yet not to admit them where they al agree together it is to speake all in briefe the very point of an heretike who seketh singularitie wheresoeuer he can find it and leaueth alwaies vniuersall and Catholike consent But these words we must take as you geue them vs. be it so Rabanus saith The SacrameÌ„t is taken with the mouth is not that against your doctrine M. Iuel who said the body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only none otherwise did you not speake of the body of Christ as it is eaten in the Sacrament But your own Doctor saith the SacrameÌ„t is taken with the mouth therefore the body of Christ is so taken and that is expresly proued by the words which follow in Rabanus With the vertue of the Sacrament the inner man is filled For so you should haue translated satiatur is filled and not is repaired as you haue done But howe is the inner man filled with the vertue of the Sacrament if wheaten bread be the Sacrament doth wheaten bread fill the soule of man Moreuer is the vertue of any thing absent from it is not that vertue in the Sacrament whereby the inner man is filled sith it is called of Rabanus the vertue of the Sacrament but the only 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 is the vertue which in this 〈◊〉 filleth 〈◊〉 soules Therefore the body of Christ is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ is 〈◊〉 with our mouthes Yea but say you the Sacrament is turned into the 〈◊〉 of the body I aunswere that the Sacrament is necessarily there meant to be the forme of breade or of wine whiche in dede nonrisheth our bodies by the power of God but vnder those formes the vertue lieth whereby as 〈◊〉 saith we get euerlasting life What haue you won now by your Doctor truely nothing els but your own confusion For he saith not that the bread remaineth still as you doe falsely teache Iu. The Sacrament saith S. Augustine is receaued frome the Lordstable Of some vnto life of som vnto destruction the thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receaued of euery man to life and of no man vnto destruction whosoâ—… be partaker of it San. Here is a heape of falshodes and lyes To disproue the which I must first open the Catholike faith which teacheth that the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is our Lords own body vnder the forme of bread The thing of the Sacrament is not the body 〈◊〉 Christ as your words put in among those of S. Augustins do falsely 〈◊〉 but the thinge here ment by S. Augustine is the 〈◊〉 of the Churche of God and the mysticall body of Christe which he knitteth together into one lump by vnspeakable meaues of 〈◊〉 loue 〈◊〉 flesh and blood And that is so plaine in S. Augustin that I can not sufficiently wonder at your enormous either blindues or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iuel Thus he writeth in yâ— selfe place where you cite him Hunc cibum caet Christ willeth this meate and 〈◊〉 to be vnderstanded the felowship of his body of his 〈◊〉 And again Huius rei Sacramentum id est 〈◊〉 corporis sanguinis Christi 〈◊〉 sacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of the vnitie of the body and blood of Christ 〈◊〉 where euerie day somewhere certeine dayes comming betwene is prepared in our Lords table and is receaued 〈◊〉 our Lordes table to some men vnto life to other vnto destruction But the thing it selfe whereof also it is a holy signe or Sacrament is receaued of euerie man to life of no man to destruction who soeuer be partaker of it Hitherto S. Augustine M. Iuel saith the thing it self is yâ— body of Christ but if he had not falsely and miserably diuided S. Augustines words the very contrary would haue appeared to the eyes of the Reader
signifie most properlie Iuel Besy de these figures they haue imagined many moe Sand. We haue imagined none but we teache as we receaued But wil you geue me leaue M. Iuel to repete a few of your figures or of your absurd doctrines in this behalfe and then let the discrete reader iudge who doth more contumelie to Gods words you or we 1. First ye ioyne together this bread otherwise then the Ghospell hath don where it is not sayd this bread is my body but this is my body 2. Ye haue don it cleaue against the Ghospell for hoc this is of the newter gender but panis bread is of the masculine gender 3. You haue iterated the same fault in ioyning hic this being of the masculine gender to vinum wine being of the â—…ter gender 4. You haue diuided the pronoun this both 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ with which substantiues only it may agree in right construction 5. You expound the same pronoun somtime for bread somtime for the body when ye say this is my body are words of promise For I dare say you meane not that bread is promised to any maÌ„ If theÌ„ the body be promised by these words this is my body as Caluin your homilies say doutlesse in that interpretation this doth appertein to the body and not to bread 6. Est is you expound for significat it doth signifie and that without any example For that verb In this is my body standeth not betwene two seueral natures as in these words the rock was Christ but it only 〈◊〉 meth one substance of Christes body 7. You take the very same verb est is properly referring it to the body of Christ which 〈◊〉 euery maus hart you consecrate by preaching these words this is my body as Caluin teacheth 8. Some other of you will haue the verb est alwaies to stand properly euen in respect of the bread because it is a signe of Christes body and in dede it must nedes stand so for you know that the verb substaÌ„tiue is nâ—…cessarily eyther expressed or supplied in euery propositioÌ„ in so much yâ— these words this doth signifie my body must be resolued this is signifying my body 9. When the verb est is in greeke is left out by S. Luke ye supplie it by force of common vse which leaueth out that verb as being easye to be vnderstanded and when you haue supplied it you cast it out again as though it were superfluouse 10. The â—…oun body you take properlie when you haue taken est for significat 11. The same noun you take vnproperlie for the figure of Christes body when est is taken properlie 12. You expound the relatiue quod which so as it can not agree with his antecedent and with the verb solowing together for when body is taken for the signe or figure of body as you take it most commonly and therein pretend to folow Tertullian S. 〈◊〉 then the relatiue which must nedes repete his antecedent in his whole sense and so the sense is This is the figure of my body the which figure of my body is geueÌ„ for you Now as you will say this is the figure of Christes body wherof he sayd this is my body so you can not say that the sâ—…gure of Christes body is geuen for vs. Thus quod the which standeth betwene corpus body and datur is geuen in such sort that it can not agree with both except ye say with Marcion that a figure is geuen or offered vp to God for vs. 13. Datur is geuen you expound dabitur it shal be geuen denying that it is presently true that it is geuen at the supper We say it is geuen at the supper shall be geuen also vpon the crosse not denying one truthe by an other 14. You expound facite â—…oe ye only whereas it is also make ye we graunt both ye denie the one sense 15. Hoc ye English this expound it in your homilies thus do ye as if it were sayd fic or ità do ye so or do ye thus whereas the true English is this thing 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationeÌ„ ye english in the remembrance of me whereas in with an accusatiue case doth signifie rather for the remembrance of me as we say in meam gratiam fac hoc doe this thing for my sake and nâ—…t in my sake 17. When you haue expounded est is for significat to signifie then remaineth the pronoun hic this in the confecration of the blood without a noun substantine For Hic significat sanguinem meum can haue at all no substantiue with whom it may agree in case and gender sanguinem is the accusatiue case and vinum is the neuter gender 18. If in these words this cup is the new Testament in my blood ye take the noun blood for the signe of my blood the new Testament is established in a figure of blood and so is worse theÌ„ the old which was established in true blood of oxen 19. If there you take the name of blood properly and without a figure likewise in these words this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t it must stand properly which is against your doctrine 20. The construction of these words this cup is shed for you in S. Lukes words doth import this sense The thing with in this cup is shed for you but you say the thing within the cup is winâ—… therefore you teache wine to be shed for vs. but we teache the thing in the cup to be reall blood therefore we teache blood to be shed for vs. 21. When Christ sayed the bread which I wil geue is my flesh You so expound I will geue that it meaneth also I haue geuen and I do geue For you take it spoken only of a spirituall geuing which was both past and present and therein ye breake the nature of the word 22. In S. Paule the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body you expound signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paule distinâ—…eth our Sacraâ—…ent from theirs 23. The cup of blessing which we blesse you will haue to be a cup of wine still as though the blessing wrought nothing in it For if it work any thing it worketh the blood which at the consecration is affirmed present 24. You make Christ geue thanks to his Father in beginning the state of the new Testament in better words then dedes for his words be this is my body Yet you will haue him in dede to offer no body at all to his Father in that thanksgeuing but bare bread and wine still to remain 25. You teache Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to geue externally that is to say to our mouthes bodies lesse then Moyses For Manna was better then common bread and a gist more
his death he sayd to his Apostles hoc facite make this thing Thus we see good cause why this signe should differ from all other signes because a naturall thing was not appointed at the supper to signify Christ but a supernaturall thing was prepared and made there a new to signify his wonderfull death and resurrection Iuel Touching our beholding Christ in the Sacrament S. Augustine saith it woâ—…keth such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord him self present vppon the crosse San. You care not what you heape vp together so it may make a shew S. Augustine there speaking properly of the solemnity of Easter which now in England is wholy takeÌ„ away saith although death shall nomore beare rule ouer Christ yet Anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est the yerely remembrance doth represent that which was done in old time and it worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord present vppon the crosse those signes were externall and as it may appere were made to the senses by preaching and shewing some image of Christ and by creping to the crosse and by such like godly ceremonies as the Church of God hath alwaies vsed at Easter but in our Sacraments as S. Chrysostom saith Omnia quae tradidit insensibilia sunt al things which Christ hatâ—… deliuered are without yâ— cumpasse of yâ— seÌ„ses S. Augustine therefore spake not of yâ— SacrameÌ„t but of other external ceremonies Iuel This is it that Eusebius writeth that the body might be worshipped by a mystery and that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spiritual sort and not fleshly Christ is layed present vpon the table San. Beside that you omitt the beginning of this senteÌ„ce you haue also left out foure lines euen in the middest thereof which doe shew that because a daily redemption such as neuer fainteth did still run on for the saluation of men the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting By which words Eusebius declareth what kind of mystery the Sacrament of Christes body is verily such as offereth vp that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. For as Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heauen by his reall presence there maketh continuall intercession in his manhod for vs and causeth the redemption of mankind to be alwaies in his force and strength before God so the mystery which is consecrated according to his institution in earth doth from hence offer and present vnto God the same selfe redemption by the very same substance of flesh which is in heauen To this end Eusebius sayth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood is consecrated and in what sort consecrated The inuisible priest saith Eusebius by secret power turneth the visible creatures with his word into the substance of his body blood and again before yâ— creatures be consecrated by the inuocation of the highest name or power the substance of bread and wine is there but after the words of Christ it is the body and blood of Christ. This was the homily which M. Iuel thought good to alleage that all men might think that there was nothing writen that made not for his purpose Is that no reall presence where consecration is so made that the creatures be changed into the substance of Christes body blood was not the wine really present at Cana into which the water was changed Well consecratioÌ„ is made the creatures of bread and wine are thanged into the substance of Christes body and blood and in that body blood the redemption of mankind is offered to God and is preserued in the remembrance of men and yet all this while that body and blood by M. Iuels verdit is not present The change is made by the word of God yet that word is figuratiue if we may beleue M. Iuel yea but he hath a phrase in store I warrant you to plaiâ—…er this wound Iuel S. Augustine saith you are vppon the table you are in the cup. as the people is layd vppon the table so and none otherwise the Councel of Nice saith the Lamb of God is layd vppon the table Sand. What M. Iuel is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christes body and blood I haue shewed an other where in my v. booke the v. chapiter that euen that our being on the table and in the cup doth proue Christes reall presence For we should not be there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder that forme of bread and of wine wherein we are signified Iuel The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really but these two words truly and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the one doth vtterly exclude the other San. If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh it is all one in speaking of flesh to say truly and fleshly but as concerning the corruplible qualities of flesh so it is not al one If it had pleased your malice to haue denied Christes presence in heauen as you deny it in the Sacrament you might as wel haue mocked all the places brought against you for his reall presence there with this word fleshly as now thereby you mock at his presence in the Sacrament This licenciouse wantonnesse in taking aduantage by a fleshly terme when soeuer you be pressed with a good argument shal get you neuer the more credit among wise men The real presence which we defend in the SacrameÌ„t is not carnall and fleshly but cleane and pure in so much that Angels wonder at yâ— marueâ—…lous vnspekable mystery of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament Yea S. Chrysostom saith Quod angeli videÌ„tes c. That thing at the sight wherof Angels quake because of the brigthnes which shineth out of it therewith we are fed therevnto we are vnited and we are made one body of Christ and one flesh And yet is this a â—…eshly kind of presence M. Iuel Iuel He that eateth most spiritually eareth most truly as Christ is the true vine the true manna and we are veâ—…ily one bread and the Apostles verily the heauens and these are the paschall feast wherein verily the Lamb is slaine San. In comparison of bodilie eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort But a thing both eaten in bodie in spirit as the Sacrament is eaten is farre more trulie eaten both waies then by one waâ—…e alone Again when the name of anie thing affirmed of Christ apperteineth to the true nature of his manhad which he hath assumpted it is to he verified of him not onlie by a metaphor but in verie dede Christ is no naturall â—…ine because he assumpted not that substaÌ„ce to him Likewise he is not Manna
is not possible to vnderstand the mingling of two waxes to be other then reall and substanciall For wax hath neither faith nor spirit 3. D. Harding hath alleged fiue or six most plain sentences which may â—…e sene in his booke To none of all which M. Iuel hath iustly aâ—…swered or scant sayd any word reade also S. Cyrâ—…l in Ioan. li. 3. cap. 36. lib. 4. cap. 18. c. Now touching the corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament it is to be vnderstanded that S. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood mysticam benedictionem the mysticall blessing and therefore he exhorteth the faithfull peple to come to receaue it to be partakers thereof as the which putteth away both death and disseases Of this benediction and Sacrament thus he writeth 1. It differeth from Manna because the benediction is verily meate whereas Manna was a figuratiue bread But if the Sacrament conâ—…sted of materiall bread and were not Christs flesh it were no more the true bread then Manna was A litle blessing to wit a litle peece of the consecrated foode draweth the whole man to it Et sua gratia replet and filleth him with his owne grace Therefore the Sacrament hath grace of his own and is no common bread because then it shoâ—…ld not drawe vs vnto it but it should be turned into vs â–ª but nowe the benediction that is to say the Sacrament draweth vs to it therefore it self in his own substance is the flesh of Christ. He declareth the worde of God to be life according to nature yâ— it hath made his flesh able to geue life Et hac ratione facta est nobis benebictio viuificatrix And by this meane the Sacrament is made of power to geue vs life Marke the degrees the life it selfe is first in the sonne of God and afterward in the fleshe assumpted and so is the Sacrament able to geue life how hangeth this discurse but only because he presupposeth it for an vndouted truth that in the Sacrament the flesh of the sonne of God is really present After he had shewed that the Catechumeui can not partake of our mystical benediction he saith The ministers crie with a loud voice to those who come to the mystical blessing Sancta sanctis holy things for holy men Meaning the touching the sanctification of Christes body to agree only to those who are sanctified with yâ— holy Ghoste He calleth the mystical blessing the body of Christ and sheweth that those who come to it doe touch Christ whiche is of necessity vnderstanded by the meane of the foorme of bread vnder the which Christ is But if Christe were not really vnder that forme of bread why are the Catechumeni kept frome it For seing they confesse the faith with a loud voice as there S. Cyrillus doâ—…h witnesse and seing they may by their faith â—…eed vppon Christ in heauen shew me a reason M. Iuel if you be able why he that may eate Christe in faith may not eate the bread as you terme it which is the signe of him Specially sith S. Augustine confesseth that they also had a kind of halowed bread but not yâ— body of Christ geueÌ„ to them We geue this reason hereof because in the Sacrament of the body of Christe his own body is really present whiche is of suche honour that no meane sanctification should suâ—…ise for the admitting therunto And for as much as the Catechumeni who be not yet baptized haue not that grace of the holy Ghost which is geuen in baptism they are not sufficieÌ„tly prepared to receaue this marueilouse sacrifice and dreadfull myâ—…erie whiche you not withstandinge repute so vile that you crum your potage dishes with it sometymes caste that which is left in the cup of your own blessing vpon the ground as I my selfe sawe it done in king Edwardes tyme at a communion in Gloceter shere You make in words muche of it but your dedes do shew your blasphemouse hartes Harding The Catholike fathers sithence Berengarius haue vsed the termes really substancially c. to exclude Metaphores and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion vvith Christ by meane of his natural flesh really though not locally present Iuel These Doctors liued within these three hundred yeres and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming San. He named none that were sithens the six hundred yeres after Christ because he saw your impudeÌ„t proclamation to haue bound him to yâ— tyme. But otherwise he neither lacked sufficient witnesses elder then Berengarius nor iudged them vnworthy the naming And because by these your insulting wordes you sâ—…e to loke for some witnesses aboue three hundred yeres olde I will geue you a taste euen of the best that were from the first six hundred vntil the last three hundred yeres after Christ. Within which time many notable fathers haue liued How thinke you by Damascene who saith the bread wine and water is superturally changed by the inuocation and the comming of the holy Ghoste into the body and blood of Christ. And that he proueth because our Lord said this is miâ—… not figure of body but body and not figure of blood but blood Saith not Theophilact that the bread is with secrete wordes by mysticall blessing and comming of the holy ghooste changed into our Lords fleshe saith he not it appereth bread but in dede is fleshe again why doth it not appere flesh because we should not abhor from the eating thereof For if it had appered flesh wâ—… had bene vnpleasantly affected towarde the communion Is there any dout but he who telleth that the bread is changed into flesh and sheweth why yet it doth appere bread and not flesh did verely beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread or is he not more impudent then any haâ—…lot who wil staÌ„d in deâ—…nse that Damascene Theophilact beleued not tâ—…ansubstantiation as we do and yet these two are not only aboue three hundred but also aboue seuen hundred yeres old Saith not Haymo licet panis videatut in veritate corpus Christi est although it â—…me bread it is in truth the body of Christ Saith not â—…igius that after consecration it semeth bread and wine but in truth it is the body and blood of Christ Saith not Paschasius although the figure of bread and wine be hâ—…re yet after coÌ„secration they are to be beleued to be nothing at all but the flâ—…sh and blood of Christ What shall I speake of Lanfrancus Iuo 〈◊〉 Anselmus â–ª 〈◊〉 Algerus Euthymius who were al notable men for lerning and al aboue three hundred yeres old I come to S. Bernard whom you haue alleged manie tiâ—…s in this your work Thus he writeth Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had sone in his manhod but yet
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
The supper of our Lord SET FOORTH ACCORding to the truth of the Gospell and Catholike faith By Nicolas Saunder Doctor of Diuinitie with a confutation of such false doctrine as the Apologie of the Churche of England M. Nowels chalenge or M. Iuels Replie haue vttered touching the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament MANHV What is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath geuen you to eate The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my bread drink that wine which Ihaue mixed for you The promise Ioan. 6. The bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matt. 26. Luc. 22. He gaue sayiÌ„g take eate this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break is the coÌ„municatiÌ„g of our Lords body The belefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed we beleue it to be flesh in dede The custome of Heretiks Tertul. de Resur car The contrarie part reiseth vp trouble by presence of figures LOVANII Anno domini 1566. CVm Regiae Maiestatis priuilegio sub 20. mâ—…sis Augusti anni 1565. permissum esset Nicolao Saundero Anglo sacrae Theologiae Doctori vt 〈◊〉 in scriptum The supper of our Lord set forth according to the truth of the Gospel c. imprimere posset posteaquà m prodiisset liber quidaÌ„ a duersus CatholicaÌ„ fideÌ„ quâ—…m D. Nicolaus defendisset anglicè conscriptus quem etiam confutandum sumpsit renouato Priuilegio concessum est eidem Nicolao vt ei vnâ cum confutatione contrariae doctrinae suum librum typis mandare ac impunè distrahere liceat Datum Bruxellis 22. Decembris Anno Christi 1565. S. de la Torre Approbatio sex priorum librorum AVthor ipse huius voluminis Nicolaus SauÌ„der sacrae Theologiae Professor eius est apud nos fidei vt sine aliquo metu tutò posset euulgari estque praeterà à multis Anglici idiomatis sacrae Theologiae peritissimis perlectum qui illud meritò plurimum coÌ„mendarunt Cunerus Petri Pastor Sancti Petri Louanâ—… 7. August Anno. 1565. TO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF ouâ—… Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the foormes of bread and wyne all honour praisc and thanks be geuen for â—…uer IF he that mainteneth a right good cause yet partly for feare of the deceits and suttiltie of his aduersaries partly for mistrust of his own knowledge and memoric dare not appere in iudgement without his aduocate or proâ—…tour with 〈◊〉 seing yâ— sending foorth of a booke into yâ— light of yâ— world is yâ— dangering to haue it suÌ„moned to so manie courts as it shal be brought into howses yâ— appering before so manie iudges as be readers thereof what aduocat and proctour yea rather what Doctor and Patrone am I constrayned to seek who do not only set foorth mie book to be readen of whatsoeuer English man but also write of suche a matter as being of most weight is most diligently examined in these our dayes and wherein I am sure to find as wel the Lutherans as the Zuinglians though vtterly dissagreing betwene themselues yet against me not only agreing to be seuere iudges in the reading but also to be cruel aduersaries in their iudgement Which seing it is so let noman wonder that I not mistrusting anie whit the vniuersal cause of the Catholiks but misdoubting mine own wit and the shamelesse shifts of our aduersaries haue chosen to dedicate this work to yâ— mysteri of thy glorious body and blood Lord Iesu Christ to 〈◊〉 those that now take vpon them to misiudge yâ— manifest effectuall words of thy blessing and thanksgeuing pronounced by thâ—…o in thy last supper making a figuratiue speache of a proper and whereas thy true body and blood itself worthie of all honour is through thy godhead made really present teaching not withstanding for their parte the substance of bread and wine still to remain and therefore an idol to be falsely â—…et vp and worshipped by the Catholiks to th'inteâ—…t I saie those false teachers maie either through thy grace be conuerted from thâ—…r misbelefe whereof I most humbly beseche the or els if they wil stubbâ—…nly persist in their detestable opinion maie euen presently be confounded with the maiestie of thy name whose glorie they oppâ—…gne For what can be more dishonorable to thy goodnes then if it maie be truly reported that the wisedome of god did institute his chief Sacrament in such words the which either being true and not beleued should bâ—…rden our consciences with infidelitie or being earnestly beleued and yet not conceaâ—…ed in proper speache should bring vs into manifest daâ—…nger of idolatrie sith no faithfull man beleuing this to be thy body as thou hast said it is can abâ—…teine from the singular worshipping of that singular fotestole of God Now soeuer it be with other men I adore thee my God and lord really present vnder the formes of bread and wine after cousecration dewly made Beseeching thee of pardoÌ„ for my synnes by the same propitiatorie sacrifice of thy body and blood which being made once with bloodsheding vpon the crosse causeth the fruits therof to be daily applied in that cleane and vnbloody sacrifice of the masse To this great mysterie of thy real presence I dedicate these my paines as to the most vndoubted fountain cause and supporter of them In this faith I was baptized and made a member of thy mystical body in the hope to mainteine this 〈◊〉 miâ—… parents and frinds did set me to schole in the vehement loue and affection thereof I haue written this rude and simple work And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it but vnto the alone Or of whom shuld I craue the protection thereof but of thee seing thou only art a meet patrone for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shal be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and blood I offer this poore mite of my simple vnderstanding thy mercifull gift whatsoeuer it be trusting thou wilt not suffer neither the truthe of thy gospel to be long vnrestored in the desolate I le of pitifull England nor me thy poore seruant through 〈◊〉 or naughty liuing to perish euerlastinglie AMEN The Contentes of the first Booke 1. The preface to the Reader 2. Notes concerning the translation of holy scripture in this argument 3. The state of the question 4. What the supper of our lords is according to the belefe of the Catholiks 5. What it is according to the doctrine of our aduersaries 6. A speciall errour of Caluin concerning the vvords of Christes supper is confuted The preface to the Christian Reader WHo so will auoyd the danger of pride of schisme and of hearesie he hath no greater helpe therevnto in this world then to mystrust his owne iudgement and to followe the authoritie of greater wisdome
heard of that should first commend vnto them this new opinion of nine hundred yeres old Is it credible that so many thousand millions of Christen men as were in the Church at the end of the first six hundred yeres beleuing the one yere those halowed things vpon the altar to be still bread and wine should the next yere after alltogether in all countrâ—…es and languages fall 〈◊〉 prostrate or 〈◊〉 or at the least bow to the very same things as to the true body of their maker and sauiour which before they had ben taught to haue ben vnreasonable and vnsensible creaturesâ—… And did they al this thing without any guide or preacher who might will them so to doe Or did all the Preachers in 〈◊〉 at onâ—… moment change their mind 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Or did som few go through the sower parts of the world and without resistance of any man preache that new 〈◊〉 Were all the pennes of all the writers of histories so tyed that 〈◊〉 of them all was able once to write any one mans name who after the six hundred yeres 〈◊〉 taught first second or third or at any tyme that change of belefe through out Christendom Was that heretiâ—…ke alone so almighty that noman durst write his name neither whiles he liued nor when he was departed out of this life If the man were vnknowen at the least why hath the sect no speciall name Was there not one lerned man in the whole Church of God either willing or able to resist that fury of new doctrin in the matter of Christes supper If none were lerned enough to conquer it by preaching or disputing or writing at the least wise wold none do bis best to sett 〈◊〉 a bare historie of that tragedie Or who euer hath writen that the whole Church chaÌ„ged her saith in this matter So many Councells haue ben kept in all ages and countries so many heâ—… names and opinioÌ„s who were but in priuie corners haue ben of late 〈◊〉 left writen to vs as Bogomili VValdenses Petrobusiani Pseudoapostoli Begardi Beguinae with such like and could this main heresie of Christes reall preseuce ouerrunne the whole Church so far that fifty yeres past and vpwards no small chapell can be named in the wide world where Christes supper was made without adoration of his body and blood as present vnder formes of bread and wine and yet 〈◊〉 noman vpon the earth be found in the space of eight hundred and fiftie yeres to leaue in monumeÌ„ts of histories when that heresy began or by whom it was promulgated or what name was geuen to it Did Satan in those eight hundred yeres so strongly oppresse Christ that his gospell was cleane darkned and his kingdom lost Did hel gates auaile against the whole Churche Did the rock it self 〈◊〉 Did yâ— holy Ghost 〈◊〉 to teache yâ— people of God all 〈◊〉 I think it wil be sayed that the Bishops of Rome did preache commend set foorth and mainteine that 〈◊〉 But they must shew which Bishop first began and who writeth it of him and by what meanes he was so 〈◊〉 obeyed that no resistance in the world is read to haue ben any where made against him And yet surely he neuer lacked eâ—…emies in the cast Church The truth is that all the Bishops of Rome yea all the Catholike Bishops of the whole world lerned of Christ this to be his reall body and this to be his blood And this faith dured from the last supper of Christ in all faithfull men without any denying or direct 〈◊〉 therof vntill Berengarius began to teache otherwise It was in dede 〈◊〉 indirectly by Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus and all those that thought Christ to haue had no true body of his own Again by Arrius and Nestorius who taught the body of Christ to be the body of a man Arrius because Christ was not equal in substance with his father but a creature only Nestorius because he had two persons one of God an other man therfore seing this was his humane body Nestorius wold it not to be the body of yâ— sonne of God But directly yâ— reall presence of Christ in this blessed Sacrament was not impugned vntill Berengarius about fiue hundred yeres past began to sow in the field of the Churche the corrupt sede of false doctrine concerning that question But his owne 〈◊〉 and the three Councels gathered straight against him at Uercelles Tours and Rome do rather shew what and how constant the Catholike 〈◊〉 was of old time in that behalfe then any thing help and 〈◊〉 the opinion of those men who now adayes endeuour to establish a new inuention of their owne The Church therefore as I said beleuing most 〈◊〉 that Christ gaue his owne reall flesh and blood in the mysteries of his last supper taught consequently the meane of making present that blessed body to be not the comming downe of Christ from heauen but the changing of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his 〈◊〉 and blood by the almighty power of 〈◊〉 word spoken by a Priest with such minde and 〈◊〉 as that solemne 〈◊〉 required This â—…hange wherein the whâ—…le subsâ—…ance of brâ—…ad and wine should by the 〈◊〉 of Christ be so mightely conuerted into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 for vs and into that holy bloud which was shed for vs on the â—…rosse must of 〈◊〉 be a dreadfull and propitiatorie sacrifice as well by reason of the body of Christ sacrifiâ—…ed once to death which is now made 〈◊〉 as for the cause and finall end why it is made present For Christ sayd at his 〈◊〉 This is my Lody which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembraunce of me If it be at the tyme of consecration geuen for vs 〈◊〉 by the commaâ—…dement of Christ who can deny but it is a sacrifice and that we take greate profit and aduantage by that gift Upon this ground the Christen people were taught to esteme this holy sacriâ—…ice abouâ—… all other externall â—…inds of worshipping God in this life Thence came so goodly biâ—…ding of so many Churches so riche decking of altars so great foundations of â—…hanteries in 〈◊〉 so much estimation of Masse that some came to the holy order of Priesthod not for 〈◊〉 but for welth And some other went into monasteries rather for case then for 〈◊〉 to serue God All which became thâ—…ough ouer much ease lacke of the feare of God negligent in their office dissolute in their behauiour ignorant in good lerning and which in that vocation is most filthy of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couâ—…touse And the moe that in such sorte vnworthâ—…ly presumed to those holy prosessions the greater anger of God theâ—… synfull doing prouoked against them selues The people on th' other side seing the vnhonest liâ—…e of certaine religiouse persons and Priestes and how vnreâ—…erently they handled the diuine seruice sell in hatred
not so much with their faultes as with the office it selfe imputing the vices of euill men to a most holy vocation and ministerie against the commaundement of Christ. They withdrew vniustly their tithes and oblations they enuied the riches of the clergy and in euery alehouse dâ—…couered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their spirituall fathers When these great enormities were comme to the highest so that the cockle began to ouergrow and hide the good corne and now tyme required that iudgement should beginne at the house of God and those that in dede were good and faithfull should be disseuered from the euill Martin Luther a Frier of S. Augustines order in Saxonic was permitted like a proud â—…ing of Babylon to comme out of the north and to make spirituall bataile to the holy Citie of Hierusalem because her Citezens did not worship Christ in such puritie of good life as they ought to haue done Whereby it came to light who were the chaâ—…e which is with euery 〈◊〉 of windecaried vp and doune who were the true wheat which lieth 〈◊〉 against all tentations and perseuereth in the Church of God For those that were light and euill disposed when they vnderstode they might kepe their liuinges though they did not dischardge the office belonging therevnto seing they came to the office only to haue the liuing those I say embraced with all their endeuour the new religion of Martin Luther And that whether they were Monkes and religious men or secular Priestes only Make them sure of good 〈◊〉 they will assure the Prince to geue vp their Abbeys and monasteries And good reason why For they neuer loued neither the cote nor the vow but only the â—…ase and filling of their bellies Then God made it euident vnto the world which were those who had standered in dede the holy order of Priesthod Who they were that hauing 〈◊〉 kept wemen sayd afterward they were their wiues and who they were that 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 more them their vowes made to God I shall nede name no man But I thinke there are few men aboue forty yeres old in all England but they can of their owne knowledge reckon vp diuers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 who before the preaching of Luther shamed with their vnhouest behauiour the clergy of the realme And the same men shewed themselues when broching tyme came not to haue ben of the Church but of that religion whatsoeuer should be set foorâ—… most carual This good then Luther hath doâ—…e that whereas the euill were in profession mingled among the good now it should be no more so For two bodies are made ouâ—… of Catholikes an other of the Protestantes And the Churche of God remaineth 〈◊〉 purged from that wicked generation of men Not that Cathoâ—…kes lack their great 〈◊〉 or can be iustified in the sighe of God as no synners But it skilleth much whether a man doe syn with fear of 〈◊〉 and with desyre of repentance or els whether he desend his syn make a doctrine of his euildoing The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priest sayeth he doth not synne in marying though he 〈◊〉 not to marie Yea to amend the matter he sayeth no man ought to vowe chastitie condemning in that doctrine besyde an infinite number of holy professed virgins the blessed mother of God who woÌ„dered how she might haue a childe 〈◊〉 she knew not any man Whereunto her own reason migâ—…t 〈◊〉 haue replied that hereafter she might know a man except she had vowed her selfe not to know at all any man Now Luther was permitted to discouer such synners as were most desperate and of least purpose to repent This Luther hath shaken the walles of moe Chapels Churches Monasteries then euer any king of Syria did shake 〈◊〉 Castels or houses in the land of the twelue tribes of Israel and â—…uda He began with lesse matters but as the Prince of the 〈◊〉 throwing 〈◊〉 and conquering such small fortes as lay in his way alwayes made hast to besiege Hierusalem itselse the chiefe Citie of the land of Iury so Luther hauing his eye vpon the highest mysterie of all our faith as him selse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ouerthrow the great reuerence which all good men gaue to the blessed Sacrament of the altar He went about to be persuaded In Sacramento praeter panem vinum esse nihil that nothing was in the Sacrament besides bread and wine For these are his owne wordes But sinding the scriptures to plaine as himself also 〈◊〉 and the saith and consent of 〈◊〉 doctours and people to strong he 〈◊〉 gaue ouer thaâ—… 〈◊〉 and contented himselfe with 〈◊〉 the sacred â—…ower of 〈◊〉 He taught that bread and wine were not in their substance changed into the body of Christ 〈◊〉 withall the 〈◊〉 presence of our Sauiours flesh and blood Whose 〈◊〉 oâ—…ce being spred in Germanie a great multitude of 〈◊〉 Rutters voluntarily folowed his 〈◊〉 But when the Catholikes had euidently shewed that two diuers natures alâ—…ready extaâ—…t in the world as Christ and 〈◊〉 bread or wine could neuer without a maruelouse vnion be made one and be incorporated together the which vnion betwen Christ and materiall bread and wine neither is expreâ—…y acknowledged by the holy Gospell neither gathered thence by generall Councels or lerned Fathers â—…or who euer heard De Christo impanato of Christ imbreaded moreouer when the Catholikes declared their belefe of 〈◊〉 to be conformable to the Scriptures and expresly alowed by the holy spirit of God in generall Councels and in the bookes of auncient Doctours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Capitain Luther neither to be able to withstand the reasons brought against him neither yet willing to geue ouer the opinion which him selfe had chosen he much misliked with Luther and within foure yeres after began to publish at zurich in zâ—…cherland that the reall substance of Christes flesh and blood was not in the Sacrament of the altar as Luther had said but only was named and signified to be there To whom Decolamâ—…s a renegate out of S. Brigittes Cloister ioyned him selfe stoutly defending that figuratine doctrine both against the Catholikes and against Martin Luther The Catholikes out of hand shewed how much against the wordes and workes of Christ that opinion is how absurd vnsemely and vncredible it were that Christ who is the truth it selfe and by whom truth is made and who came to fulfill all figures should leaue in his owne supper contrary to the meaning of his owne sayinges nothing but figures and shadowes Satan therefore vnderstanding this doctrine of zuinglius to be much better impugned by the Catholikes then by Decolamâ—…dins defended fearing yâ— onerthrow of the whole armie spedily sent in a fresh band vnder yâ— conduct and gouernance of John Caluin who restoring yâ— fight protested yâ— he neither thought nor taught a bare figure to be geueÌ„ at yâ— supper of Christ as zuinglius did seme to teach In dede quod he a figure it is but
euery man as he was most riche so he made hast to take his owne meale neglecting to call other poore men to it S. Paule mislyking this custome in them sheweth that Christ did other wise who communicated his supper to all his Apostles equally For as S. Cyprian saith Aequa omnibus portio datur An equal porcion is geuen to all men And S. Hieroine sayeth Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus We take the body of Christ equally And Theodorite sayeth All men are indifferently partakers of our Lords supper At this time we chiefly consider that Christ hath a supper of his own as yâ— Corinthians had one of theirs And it is our question what Christes supper was If we shall beleue the holy scriptures 〈◊〉 toke bread wine when he had geuen thankes he said This is my body which is geuen for you and this chalice is the new testament in my blood By which words we are informed the supper of Christ to be his owne body blood geuen vnder yâ— signes of yâ— bread wine whâ—…re vpoÌ„ he gaue thaÌ„kes turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood The Sacramentaries take the wordes of Christ to be spoken figuratiuely and therefore they put bread and wine to remaine in their olde substance sayng we are 〈◊〉 by faith with the body and blood of Christ. Leauing other argumentes for other places we now only deâ—… whether the name and nature of a supper be more agreable to our belefe or to their meaning Whether is more like that Christ made his 〈◊〉 supper to his Apostles of the substance of common bread and wine or of his owne reall body and blood When a man departeth from his frends taking his leaue with a banket it is lyke that his banket shal be according to his habilitie full of deinty dishes and costly cates specially if it be published before and long tyme loked for as Christes banket was The which Melchisedech had prefigured more then two thousand yeares before 〈◊〉 had foreshewed it shuld contein al that might be delectable to the taste Dauid had called it a table prouided by God Salomon a table set forth by the wisedome of God whereunto poore men in spirit and the fooles of the world were called Elias lying hidden at the Torrent of Laryth was sed by crowes that brought him bread and flesh euery euening Christ in a parable describing the great supper made at the mariage of the kinges sonne which him self was telleth of oxen and other satlings kylled and made readie for that purpose And now shal we suppose that the sonne of the king of heauen making a parting supper unto his best beloued and the pillours of all his Church doth geue them ouâ—…wardly at his farewel none other deâ—…uties besides common bread and wine sanctified in vse only and not 〈◊〉 in substance A 〈◊〉 before he had 〈◊〉 with the same Apostles the paschall lambe and rising from that table as being the table of Moyses rather then of Christ he 〈◊〉 his Apostles feere to make them meete â—…or a greater mysterie And sitting doune againe he toke bread and wine not as the dishes of his banket but as matter and stuff wherof he wold make his owne supper For it is to be well weighed that this banket is called our Lords supper that is to say made and ministred and â—…ornished by Christ himselfe He now did not send S. Iohn S. Peter to prepare his supper as he sent them to make ready the Paschall lambe Christ in his owne supper is the prouider and maker of it He taketh bread and wiâ—…e into his holy handes inteÌ„ding lyke a most conning workeman of simple and litle stuff to make the greatest and finest feast that euer was hard of It is a great glorie in the profession of cookery to be able to make of one kinde of stuff as for example of egs alone sixtene or twenty diuerse dishes But to doe that feate much labour many spices and sauces great compositions and mixtures are required Christ in stede of all those shyfts vsed blessing working words of thankes geuing which were so sure to worke their intent that some men haue doubted whether he gaue thanks first because he forsaw the whole purpose out of hand should be obtained as him selfe wished or else which is more probable whether the very working of the feate were not the selfe thankes geuing for the worke For his blessing and thankes geuing was the sayng ouer the bread This is my body and ouer the wine This is my blood By the vertue of which wordes his body and blood being made of the creatures of bread and wine as well were a thankfull sacriâ—…ice them selues to God euen vnder the forme of bread and wine as Christ also in his visible foorm hauing wrought this worke did praise and thanke his Father for such an excellent effect The which body and blood his Aposâ—…les eating drinking were made partakers of the greatest baÌ„ket that euer was made in earth For the better vnderstanding wherof it maye please the reader to repete in his minde how God in the beginning adorned this world first with angels and heauenly spirits Secondly with the heauens them selues Thirdly with the elements of fyer ayer water and â—…arth And as the angels occupie the highest place so doe the heauens with the lights and starres in them occupie the second place the foure elements are beneth them When 〈◊〉 were come after this sorte from the highest order of 〈◊〉 to the earth which is the lowest element of all then it pleased the wyâ—…edome of God to make as it were a reuolt of all things and to returne his creatures from the bottom of the earth vpward againe towards him selfe He therefore made the â—…arth to bring sorth grene grasse with all such kind of things as haue animam vegetatiuam that is to saye as liue and are quick by the strength which they haue in them selues to grow and encreace of which kinde all herbes springs and trees be Aboue those in a higher degre were byrdes fishes beasts which haue a life sensitiue being able those that be perfit to moue from place to place Last of all God made man who hath not only the vegetatiue power and sensitiue in his soule but also reason and vnderstanding In whose body are the vertues of the foure elements with the 〈◊〉 of the heauâ—…ns in whose soule is free will and power to gouern agreable to the nature of angels and of heauenly spirits For which cause this creature hath bene worthely called euen of the Christâ—…n Philosophers 〈◊〉 a lytle world for that he alone hath in him all the degrees of creatures both liuing and without life both sensible and reasonable and therefore he is called in holy scripture Omnis creatura â—…ll creatures Now when the sonne of
God taking pitie that this litle world the worke of his great power was by the deuyll seduced came doune and toke flesh of the virgyn Mary being true God and true man in one person At that tyme were all things briefly brought again to God whence they first were created brought forth Christ aboue is all in one In his Godhed he is all that is aboue the heauens and that fylleth the world In his manhod which is the 〈◊〉 of God he is all that is in or vnder the heauens In this manhod are all creatures most perfectly compiled without all blemmysh of nature of mynd or of body So that seing this body of Christ wherein also the fullnes of Godhed dwelleth is geuen and eaten at a banket there is no doubt but the same is such a banket as can not be made with all the creatures of heauen and earth gathered together In this one dysh is a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fysshes byrds beasts of reasonable men and of God hym selfe No kind of salit meate sauce sruyts confection no kynde of wyne aqua vite aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by arte deuysed by wyt but it is all set vppon this table and that in a small rome where it cloyeth not with the abundance ue annoyeth with the vncleane handling it sylleth without lothsomues it prouoketh the appetite without daunger of surfcating To be shorte were it not a banket prouided by the sonne of God no man wold think it possible to haue any such feast made in the desert of this wycked world Thus good reader doe the Latholyks teache of the supper of our Lord and beleue it agreable to his word and worthy his worship This banket fedeth the whole man there is a reasonable soule to fede our reason a naturall substance of flesh to fede and nourysh our flesh there is the spirite of God which quyckeneth both soule and flesh to lyfe euerlasting This is the true Manna which conteyneth the taste of all swetenes and hath in it selfe all maner of pleasant refection This is the fode of lyfe the which who so eateth worthely he shall lyue for euer This is the feast whereof SalomoÌ„ speaketh Hoc itaque visum est mihi bonuÌ„ vt comedat quis bibat fruatur laetitia ex labore suo This therefore semeth good to me that a man should eate and drinke and enioye myrth of his traualic Which words S. Augustine allegeth and expoundeth after this sorte Vbi ait Non est bonuÌ„ homini nisi quod manducabit bibet quid credibilius dicere intelligitur quà m quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet quam Sacerdos ipse mediator testamentinoui perhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore sanguine sue when Salomon sayeth There is no good thing to a man but that which he shall eate and drinke what is he more credibly thought to meane then the thing which belongeth to the partaking of this table yâ— which table yâ— Priest him selfe who is mediatour of the new testament doth furnish according to yâ— order of Melchisedech with his owne body and blood If then the Prophet haue affirmed the greatest good that man hath in this life to be eating and drinking and that eating and drinking belong to the supper of Christ we maye perceaue right well that the matter and substance of Christes supper consisteth not in bread and wine for then we might be better occupied then in eating and drinking it but in the reall flesh and blood of Jesus Christ wherein all goodnes spirituall and corporall is collected into one heape and geuen to vs vnder the forme of bread and wine For so God hath appoiÌ„ted Instaurare omnia in Christo quae in caelis quae in terra sunt in ipso Briefly to renew all things in Christ which are in heauen and which are in earth in him The Breek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth such a brief gathering to one certain head and somme that not only heauen and earth but all things that are in them are brought into Christ and in him as it were begun again renewed The which cometh to passe by the taking of his flesh and geuing it to death vpon the crosse sor man in whom all things were both briefly collected and pitiously corrupted Now when Christ gaue to vs in his banket that flesh which he toke of his mother and that blood which he did shed on the crosse bidding vs make and eate that thing for the remembrance of him then was the head the floure the cheif composition of all meats drinks and iunkets in the world geuen vs in his last fupper S. Cyprian consydering the great deinties of this feast sayth Vident haec Sacramenta pauperes spiritu hoc vno contenti ferculo omnes mundi huius delicias aspernantur possidentes Chri stum aliquam huius mundi possidere supellectilem dedignantur The poore in spirit see these Sacraments and contenting them selues with this one dishe they despise all the delicates of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuff of this world Contrariwise the wise men of this world abhorring as the same Cyprian saith the commandement of this religion euen to this day go backward he alludeth to the Capharnaits who through the doctrine this Sacrament forsoke Christ à secretis diuinis omnium intra se mysteriorum continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt And they flee and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them the brief or somme of all mysteries A great deale more is found in S. Cyprian after the same sense in so much he calleth the supper of our Lord Omniâ—… consummationis sinem the end of all perfection All which praises only rise vpon this ground because these mysteries truly really contein within them the body and blood of Christ. when S. Cyprian sayth within them intra se he meaneth within the compasse or soormes of bread and wine For those only are the things that we can point vnto within or without Other meate or drink we see not S. Chrysostom hath so much in the praise of this feast that it wold make a great volume to bring all he saith therof I will con tent myself at this tyme with one place Quando corpus Christi tibi propositum fuerit dic tecum Propter hoc corpus so foorth When the body of Christ is set before thee saiâ—… with thyselfe For this bodies sake I am nomore earth and ashes For this I hope to receaue heauen and the good things which are in heauen immortall life the seat of Angels the cumpanie of Christ. The verie table is the strength of our soule the bond of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If we goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascend to the
holy porche or entry as it were compassed round about with golden garments But what reherse I things to come Dum in hac vita sumus vt nobis terra caelum sit facit hoc mysterium Whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. By the iudgement of Chrysostom the fame body of Christ which is our saluation and life is set besore vs vpon the verie table to th' intent whiles we liue the earth should be heauen to vs and when we departed heuce carying that body with vs we should be safe conueied vnto heauen it self When he saith the earth is heauen to vs through this mysterie he meaneth nolesse to be set vpon the table it self or altar then is at the right hand of God the Father And this is the supper of our Lord which the Catholiks beleue and not an emptie dish of faith which although it be much worth when truthe is absent yet as in heauen where clere vision is no faith abydeth euen so when earth is through this mysterie made heauen to vs we receaue and eate the body of Christ not only by faith from heauen but also in truthe from the verie altar and table For as there is a truthe lesse of our bodies then of our soules and as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith spirit so Christ therefore toke flesh that our bodies also might haue a banket made to them and so the whole man might be noâ—…rished to life euerlasting Oportuit enim certe sayth Cyrillus vt non solum anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam alcenderet verum etiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truly that not only yâ— soule should ascend by the holy Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body should be brought to immortality by tasting touching eating the meate which were of alliance or kynred with it that is to say of the same nature and substance whereof our bodies are Thus in the Câ—…tholik banket of Christes supper not only the soule but euen the body eateth tasteth and toucheth such meat as is of the same blood and kynred with it That is to say our flesh eateth Christes flesh our body his body It was flesh that made vs all borne in originall synne it is flesh that maketh vs all regeâ—…erate in Christ. Our soule was spâ—…tted by the entrance into that flesh which was spotted Thereiore our soule is made cleane by the wasshing of that our flesh which was borâ—… in syn The flesh sayth Tâ—…rtullian is washed that the soule maie be cleansed The flesh is oynted that the soule maie be consecrated The â—…esh is sigued that the soule maie be defenced The flesh is shadowed with imposition of hand that the soule also may be defenced The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made sat of God Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniung it They cannot therefore be parted in reward whom work ioyâ—…eth Hitherto hath Tertullian commended to vs the great priuileges which God geueth to our flesh The greatest of all which is the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. As therefore we Catholiks beleue most vndoutedly not only that our soules be 〈◊〉 and redemed of Christ but euen that our flesh is the creature of God made with his own hands redemed by Christ and shall 〈◊〉 again at the later daie really and liue for euer with the soule of the iuste man euen so we beleue and professe that not only our soules but euen yâ— same flesh receaueth â—…to it the benefits of Chriâ—…s paâ—…on the Sacraments which he left to vs eating draiâ—…ing really vnder the formes of bread and wine the true substance of Christes body and blood This is the last supper of Christ which we Catholiks beleue and prosesse ¶ whâ—…t the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestants and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof NOw let vs consyder on the other syde what kinde of banket our new brethern teache They saye Christ geueth to the body bread and wyne but to the soule he geâ—…eth hym selfe by faith spirit and vnderstanding This opinion shall by Gods grace be straight waies proued faulâ—…ye and erroneous In dede before that Christ was made man such a banket as they speake of had bene much worth and was kept of Melchisedech and Abraham of the children of Israell eating Manna of the priests eating the bread and cakes which was offered according to the lawe For then with an earthly banket of bread of flesh and of wyne the ioyning of a spirituall eating by fayth and vnderstanding was the highest banket that could be made For as the spirit and fayth was vertuously occupied in lifting vp it self to God So was the body occupied in making a figure and signe of the true banket of Christ which was to come But when Christ had taken flesh of the virgyn Marye tunc 〈◊〉 Christum facta est then the truth was made by Christ. Truth perfoormed outwardly in fulfilling the corporall figures doth adde much vnto fayth and spirit In the fayth of good men and in the spirit of God Christ was euer man but not euer man in truth of nature Whilâ—…s Christ was only a spirit and only God so long the feast or banket which was geuen for hym had no better thing in it then the fayth and spirit of the eaters and drinckers for that was the highest gyft thâ—…t God as yet had geuen to man But all those eatings and drinkings which were in nature and in the law of Moyses though they had corporall meate with faith and spirit are so farre behind the supper of Christ after his manhod really assâ—…pted as the fayth of Christes incarnation is behind the incarnation it felfâ—… Mark the point good reader and thou shalt not be deceaued by false doctrine As Christ by his incarnation did geue a reall truth to the fayth of the old fathers and not a new spirite so in his last supper he geueth the same spirituall gyft to vs that he gaue to Abel Noe Abraham Moyses Dauid Daniell and such others but he geueth vs an other kind of truth then euer he gaue them The truthe made by Christ is the true flesh and blood which he tooke of his mother and the geuing of that truth to be eaten is the geâ—…ing of that flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wyne Therefore they that now say Christ geueth bread and wyne with spirituall gyfts wherein our soule eateth and drinketh Christes flesh and blood they graunt a good thing one way but an other way they take away the greatest goodnes that euer was geuen to man Their
not to geue vs a drinking in stede of a solemne feast In comparyson of this banket all fayth is impeâ—…t For we eate the ende of our belefe All vnderstanding fayleth in so much as more is in our mouth then we are able to comprehend in our wyt or mynde All spirituall gyfts are inâ—…erlour because the flesh is present which triumpheth ouer death and ascending into heauen sytteth at the right hand of God thence distributing gyfts vnto men We haue the cause of all 〈◊〉 present and letting it go shall we chiefly commend the feast for â—…ertayn spirituall effectes In respect of Christes reall substance thy supper O Caluyn is but a mere sauour of swete meates Geue me the flesh of Christ and take thou the sauour of it But alas the sauour hath alredy kâ—…lled thee â–ª so much the lesse I wonder if thou art wery of the flesh it selfe In setting forth our damnation in old Adam thou lackest neither diligence nor eloquence thou hast therin set foorth the lumpe of perdition the seuere doctrine of induration the impotent weakenes of the wounded man to helpe forward his owne destruction But when thou commest to Christ the new Adam he hath a sâ—…ly pore vnknowen and vnsene cumpanie fewe children a cold supper small offering of sufficient grace his baptisme is with thee lyke a marke set vpon shepe that sheweth somewhat and worketh nothing his Church hath no externaâ—… sacrifice no priesthod no one chief shepherd in earth no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saâ—…ts by the way of praying to them or for yâ— soules departed no reall ioyning vâ—…iting with Christes flesh and blood in the holy mysteries What is this but to preferr euill before good the deuill before God shadowes before truth vice before vertue and the power of darknes before the kingdom of light It is no eating now as S. Paule sayeth of our Lords supper for euery heretyke taketh a supper of his owne before hand making Christes supper to geue place to hym And that I maye speake nothing of so great change of communions as hath bene in England Luther saith that Christes words be proper and that his supper is bread and flesh wyne and blood as though the immortall flesh of Christ must be eaten with materiall bread How do mortal things agree with immortal in one banket Carolstadius supposeth that Christes words be proper but that he touching hym selfe on the brest sayd Take bread and wine this is my body which I touche as though it were a supper mete for Christes making if he only shewed his body to his Apostles which euer was in their sight not suffering them to eate thereof Zuinglius said the bread and wine were only figures of Christes body and blood geueÌ„ to our bodies to represent to our harts tâ—…e death of Christ. And that the words of Christes supper were figuratine only by which reason the supper of the Paschall lambe was better then the supper of Christ because the dead flesh of an vnspotted lambe was more apt then bread and wine to shew the death of Christes innocent flesh wich is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Calâ—…in added to Zuinglius bare figures an efficacie of feeding by faith and taught the words of Christ not so much to be figuratiue as words of promise which being heard with faith cause that the minde by faith eateth of Christ sitting in heauen a mete supper for such a deuiser who setting the men that should be fed vppon earth kepeth the meate wherof they should be filled in heauen promising them who consist also of bodies mortal and corruptible that they shall fede vpon immortall meat in their soules such an eating were good for Angels I denie not but it is not the supper that Christ made to corporall men for his farewell when he said Take and eate this is my body and Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood Taking with our bodies is more then beleuing in our soules eating yâ— body of Christ is more then signifying the eating of his body The meate is the body of Christ the drinke is the blood of Christ. Beleue and thou hast it in harte before thou commest to the table But come to the blessed Sacrament of the altar and thou hast it in thy mouth and body Bothe is better then one Christ hath 〈◊〉 and fullfilled all maner of iustice he made both body and soule redemeth both fedeth both rayseth both crowneth both He doth not now diuide the hand from the harte the mouth from the minde the figure from the thing the token from the truth That he sayth he doth that thou beleuest in heauen thou receyuest at his table in earth yea earth is heauen to thee saith Chrysostom through this mysterie make his gift no lesse then he nameth it leste for vnthankfullnes thou be giltie of iudgement He that beleueth his plaine wordes is on the surer syde The Corinthians fault concerning the supper of our Lord was partely for that they came to it after they had eaten their own supper and vndoutebly so doe heretyks They first deuise with them seâ—…ues what supper they will allow to Christ and then they come to his supper entending to conforme it to their formeâ—… deuise Partely the 〈◊〉 were reproued of S. Paule for eating and drinking alone without making their meate common to the poore Euen so the heretiks eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ only by the measure of his own faith which hath diuerse degrees in euery man and therefore it maketh euery man eate Christ after his own faith only Whereas the supper of Christ is equall and common to all as S. Cyprian S. Hierome and Theodorite witnessed before wherein he geueth oâ—…e 〈◊〉 one blood one person to all that come without any respecte concerning the meate and substance of the supper although not without discerning the diuerse merites of the geastes It is the honour of him that maketh the feast to haue the meate most bouÌ„tifull and most reall howsoeuer the weak stomaks of euill men are able to beare it Wilt thou yet see more plainly how liberall Christ is in his supper All that he hath he geueth for he geueth his own selfe indifferently to euery man that sitteth at his table be the nian riche or poore good or bad The 〈◊〉 of this feast at his table is the maker of the feast him selfe Who sayeth so Uerily he that caÌ„not lye Who after that he said My flesh is meate in dede douted not to add moreouer He that eateth me shall liue for me doing 〈◊〉 to vnderstand that by eating his flesh we eate himself The same thing teacheth S. Hierom a man worthy to be credi ted as well for his own great learning as for that tyme wherein he liued and the faith wherof in his writing he witnesseth S.
Hierome I saie expounding these wordes of 〈◊〉 the Prophet Declinaui ad eum vt vesceretur I bowed downe or turned in to him that he might eate writeth thus in Christes person Declinaui ad eos deserens regna coelorum vt cum eis vescerer assumpta forma hominis siue dedi eis esum corporis mei ipse cibus 〈◊〉 Forsaking the kingdome of heauen I bowed downe or turned in to them that the shape of maÌ„ being taken I might eate with them or else I gaue them the meate of my body I my selfe being both the meate and the banketer or feaster And yet he speketh in an other place more plainly Nec Moyses c. Neither Moyses hath geuen vs the true bread but our lord Iesus him self the feaster and the feast himself the eater and he that is eaten Behold Christes supper it may worthely be called his 〈◊〉 for neuer any man made any such before him he biddeth geasts and fedeth them with his owne flesh He is at the table as he was at the altar of his crosse For these two things are in most points agreable For this table is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and reall remembrance of that crosse As therefore vpon the crosse Christ was the preist who made the sacrifice Christ the hoste that was killed Christ the God to whom it was offred Christ the head of that body of his Church for whom it was offered Christ alone played all partes non fuit de gentibus vir cum illo and of all nations no man was with him so likewise in the last supper Christ 〈◊〉 the geastes telling them 〈◊〉 yere before of his ban 〈◊〉 at Capharnaum and the hower being come Christ geueth water not only to their hands but euen to their feete Christ is the panter Christ is the butler as S. Cyprian also hath writen Christ is the meate Christ is the drinke and what creature should haue parte with him in his supper Are bread and wine mete ban ketting dishes for his table They are in dede mete by their owtward shew to signifie the supper of Christ but not mete to be a substancial part therof He that is Lord of heauen and earth will he borow the substance of his creatures to make vp his feast As though he lacked bread of his owne or as though his flesh which is the true 〈◊〉 conteining al swetnesse in it lacked the swetnesse of wheaten bread or of materiall wine as though Christ had not better bread and meate of his 〈◊〉 and better drinke of his owne then the grape maketh and who shall haue them if he be without them A great shame it is that either any thing should chalenge part in Christes supper besydes Christe himselfe or that he should 〈◊〉 the table with bare odours of spirituall grace hauiug at commandement the substance of flesh and blood wherein the fullnes of Godhed dwelleth corporally Think of Christes supper according to the worship of him that made it leaue bread and wine for Lutrish tables beleue thou that Christ gaue no lesse to his geasts then he had to geue for verily all that he toke he toke it to geue for vs and to vs for vs vppon the crosse and to vs in his last supper Both which he expressed manifestly when he 〈◊〉 saing Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you that body was geuen bloodily for vs in the forme of man because he died for man the same is vnbloodily geuen to vs in the form of bread because man liueth by bread But earthly bread is to maintein life to earthly men HeaueÌ„ly men eate the bread which came doun from heauen which is the sonne of God assumpting the flesh of man For the bread which Christ promised to geue is his flesh for the life of the world His flesh is meate in dede and his blood is brink in dede Therefore who so teacheth the body blood of Christ to be now receaued by faith spirit only he denieth the supper of our Lord where the body was geuen by the hands of Christ receaued with the hands of the Apostles eaten with their corporal mouthes and the blood drunken out of the chalice of blessing the which Christ deliuered by their hands to their mouths and harts by that meanes feeding the whole man with his whole substance ¶ A speciall 〈◊〉 of Caluin is conâ—…ed who taught this is my body which is geuen for you to be words of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are words of perfoormance in the way of working THe special authoritie that Caluin hath gotten through his scholars in England moueth me specially to coufute I can not tell whether I shall name it his more false or more foolish opinion Who perceauing the Catholiks wholy to stick to the most proper and most effectual words of Christes supper and therevpon to build the belefe of the real presence of his body and blood thought best to inuegle the strength of those words as much as might 〈◊〉 to bring them from doing to saying from making to speaking from perfoorming to promising and therefore among manie other words of the same argument thus he writeth Atqui non panem alloquitur Christus vt corpus suum fiat sed discipulos iubet manducare atque illis corporis sanguinis sui communicationem pollicetur caet But Christ speaketh not to the bread that it might be made his body but he commandeth his disciples to eate and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and 〈◊〉 And afterward Let vs vnderstand those words to be a liuely preaching which may edifie the hearers etc. which in the fulfilling of that it promiseth may bring foorth his efficacie Hytherto Caluin whose worthy scholars haue consecrated that vnsensible deuise of his in the booke of their English homilies Where after an exhortation made that men should come them selues to communion it is sayd To this Christes commandement forceth vs saying do ye thus to this his promise enticeth vs this is my body which is geuen for you this is my blood which is shed for you This fault I find with my countriemen There can not be a foolish saying in al Germanie or â—…uicherland which they must not allow follow preache to their audience and set foorth in print And therefore if euery man might haue his will so many schismatical Churches as they had seâ—…e beyond the seas so many orders of communion they wold haue embraced Men that neuer brought foorth of them selues any thing worthy name and yet neuer saw in other places so apish a toye which they did not wonder at and gredeily practise Wherein they are both most like their master Caluin for so much as they specially follow his peuish inuentions and most vnlike him because he followed none other man in his doctrine but himself inuented a new religion of his own making What
say we then This is my body which is geuen for you are they words of promise or no I answere Words of promise may be taken for suche as make a promise or els for suche as haue a promise made cōcerning them Those who beleue in God as Isaac did are named in holy scripture the children of promise not of that promise which themselues make to God but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed sede Iesus Christ they are made his chil dren And in that sense This is my body which is geuen for you may be called words of promise in so much as they fulfil at Christes supper the promise made before at Capharnaū When Christ sayd work the meate which the sonne of man will geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh Again these words which is geuen for you at the tyme of Chri stes supper might stand to signifie which shal be geuen for you and so the old Fathers did reade them and the Latin copies of S. Paule haue so at this daye But the◅ the promise was to be consydered concerning the death of Christ which was to come and not concerning his supper which was present Caluin speaking of Christes supper as it is a supper saith this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise and that not because they are iustified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum neither concerning the death which is now past but because they make a promise of Christes body to be spiritually eaten at his supper For he saith those words were not spoken to the bread wine but vnto the disciples to whom Christ pollicetur promiseth the communicating of his body and blood Also he saith the promises are offered to the faithfull together with bread and wine Moreouer let vs vnderstand saith he these words to be a liuely preaching which maie shew his efficacie in the accomplishement of that it promiseth First these words be a breif collation or sermon Secondly they promise the cōmunicating of Christes ◅ody Thirdly they being receaued of the faithfull bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise Last of al he saith Take eate is the commandement like vnto Inuoca me call vpon me This is my body is the promise like vnto Exaudiam te I will heare the. I am the longer in shewing his mind because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slaunder to faine so folish an opinion vpon a man taken for wise and lerned For it semeth an extreme madnesse to affirm that those words which shew a thing really present and bid vs take the same are notwithstanding words of promise At the transfiguration of Christ it was said this is my derebeloued sonne in whom I haue delighted heare him But who was euer so mad as to think that Christ was promised in those words and not rather shewed present Likewise when Christ said to him that had the palsey take a good hart sonne thy sinnes are forgeuen thee we beleue his sinnes were presently forgeuen him and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgeuen A promise lacketh many conditions which the performance hath A promise beginneth the bargain the perfoormance endeth at the least some part of it A promise consisteth in bare words the perfoormance besyde words hath dedes also ioyned A pr◅ mise belongeth to the time to come the performance to the tyme present A promise maie be differred to a certain daie or suspended with conditions the perfoormance must ◅edes be altogether without delay And how can these words Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise which neither speake of the time to come but of the present neither begyn but end the couenant nor consist in bare talk but also in reall dedes nor haue any condition or delay annexed but haue all things presently said signified made and deliuered If this is my body make to y◠hearers a promise of a spirituall communicating then seing those words were spoken to Iudas one of the twelue and are daily spoken to euil men without any condition or exception it maie seme that a spirituall communicating is promised to them which possibly can not be so For how can light and darknesse agree But if Caluin saie these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithfull I aske whether those words be writen in the supper of Christ or no If they be not writen how dareth Caluin supply them It is not said this is my body to you only that be faithfull as Caluin vseth falsely to interprete those words But it is absolutely said This is my body whosoeuer take it and eate it whether he take it by faith to his comfort and to euerlasting life or in deadely sinne to his iudgement and death For as God the Father said This is my derebeloued sonne and as thereof it foloweth that the person then shewed and pointed vnto by y◠voice was y◠sonne of God in dede whether euill men had to doe with him to whom he was y◠sauour of death or good men to whom he was the sauour of life right so this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed be the man y◠cometh to eate it good or bad And as this is my derebeloued ◅ne are no words of promise but of a diuine witnes ◅oward Christ euen so this is my body promise not but witnesse and make presently the thing shewed to be in dede Christes body If this is my body doe promise the body of Christ yet this must nedes shew where the thing is whereunto it pointeth the body of Christ which is promised is also pointed vnto and the sense is I will geue you this thing to eate which is my body and by that meanes the eating is promised and the body is pointed to but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing but vnto that which semeth bread therfore that is affirmed to be Christes body and is promised to be geuen vs as meat bu◅ bread is not naturally the body of Christ therfore it is made his body And consequently Caluin who will haue these words to promise the ◅ing of Christes body by faith must nedes confesse that they make the same body in dede to th'◅nd the promise of eating that body which is so directly pointed vnto maie be fulfilled Howbeit Christ said not I will geue you my body but presently geuing said take eate this is my body But seing Caluin teacheth this that is pointed vnto still to remain bread I see not how those words which as he saith point vnto bread can withall promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple and affirmeth but one thing and that thing doth concerne the substāce as we beleue of Christes body as he saith of bread so
thing before hand yea that a promise is conceiued for the time to come For it could not be told before hand if it were not to come in respect of him to whom it is told But these words This is my bâ—…dy do not tell a thing before hand they doe not belong to the time to come but vnto the time present therefore they be not words of promise they do not saie this shal be my body but this is my body Who knoweth not that there are three differences of tyme one paâ—… an other present the third to come out of question a promise iâ—… self is of a thiÌ„g to come therfore the words of promising must nedes be words that may beloÌ„g to the time to come For the nature of the time is applied to the nature of the thig except they be suche words as being inuented principally to signifie yâ— present bond of that thing to come do contein at once eche strength in them as when we say polliceor spondeo ê“mitto I promise then it is all one to say â–ª I promise to geâ—…e or I will geue which thig is proued by yâ— custom of all nations which speak so and by the autoritie of the auncient ciuilians who when they bound men most strâ—…ightly to words and termes yet they gaue them leaue to say any of these following as being all of equall power Spondes spondeo Promittis promitto Fideiubes 〈◊〉 Dabis dabo Facies faciam Where these words are put for words of like meaning aâ—…d sense doest thou promise or wilt thou geue or wilt thou doe al which induce and make both a promise and an obligation of words Whereby we lern yâ— words of promise either must be vttered by expressing the name of promise as if Christ should saie I pâ—…omise him the eating of my body who 〈◊〉 eateth with saith this bread or â—…ls must be 〈◊〉 in the fâ—…ure tense as if it were said Take cate this shal be my body to you but seing neither of both is don it is a vain folly to saie that words of present affirmation words oâ—… working consecrating be words of promise or of preaching Yea but God speaketh not to the bread saith Caluin that it should be made his body But he commandeth his Disciples to eate and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and blood In dede God saith to his Disciples take and eate But that is a commandement and no promise He saith farther this is my body and that is the making of the meate which must be eaten and the shewing of it but no promise For Christ maketh his supper ready by dede alone or by his word dede together by dede alone in taking bread by his word and dede together in blessing and saying this is my body which words turn the substance of bread into his body so that these words doe not promise any thing but they perfoorm an old promise made before at Capharnaum What saie we then to 〈◊〉 words who affirmeth that Christ spake not to the bread that it should be made his body but that he spake to his Disciples I answere he spake yâ— words eate and take to his Disciples but he spake these words this is my body to the bread or as the Catholiks rather vse to speake ouer the dread and vpon the bread But yet we might saie very well and truly that Christ spake to the bread euen as he is reaâ—… to haue commanded the windes and they cessed and to haue spoken to the figtree when he said let sruite neuer spring more of the. And as he said the Apostles hauing faith should speake to any certain hil Transi hine illuc transibit passe from this place to that and it shall passe from hence The speaking of God or of his ministers to any creature whether it be a reasonable a sensible or a diuine creature is the signisying that his wil is don alwayes vpon euery creature according as it pleaseth him neither â—…oth it skyll in what foorm of words he speaketh seing that somtime he is readen to saie Volo I will Mundare â—…e thou cleanied Somtime he saith Sicut credidisti â—…iat tibi be it don to the as thou 〈◊〉 beleued Somtime he cureth by touching alone without words Somtime he saith in the present tense RemittaÌ„tur tibi pec 〈◊〉 tua thy sinnes are forgeueÌ„ thee And thereuÌ„to these words of his supper are like For when he toke bread and hauing bleâ—…d said This is my body His word at that instant made his body of that bread which was taken euen as these words thy synnes are forgeuen thee made a iust man of a synner The speaking therefore of God vnto creatures is the shewing of his will to be don vpon them In so much that in Iob God confesseth himself only to dispose order and command all creatures he seâ—…deth lighting 's and they goe and returning they saie to him adsumus here we are which thing they could not say except they heard his voice Therefore it is not wel said of Caluin to make it an absurd thing for bread to heare the words of Christ seing they doe not only heare but also answer in so much that an other Prophet saith the starres were called and they said Adsumus we are at haud To be short S. Paul saith that God calleth things that be not as things that be Meaning that it is no lesse easy to God by his calling or naming to make a thing to be which was not at all or els to be that which before it was not then it is to call a thing by his old name It is all one to God to saie to vs this is water which before was water and to saie of water thiâ—… is wine for at his word it is made wine as who cannot possibly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seing experience teacheth vs that all creatureâ—… will go against their own particular nature rather then the order which God hath appointed in yâ— who le world shall in any â—…oint faile seing when a quill is put into any liquour the ayer thereof drawen vp with his breath that sucketh it yâ— heauy 〈◊〉 of water will rather against his nature goe vpward then any voide or emptie place should be shall we yet wonder that Gods will is don euery where euen at yâ— speaking of his word shall not his visible 〈◊〉 make faith of his inuisible mysticall doings so thâ—…t all which will not beleue shal be inexcusabâ—…e Caluin saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the bread not as to a thing that should tarie bread but as to that which should be chaÌ„ged into his body for he called the bread his body will Caluin graunt me that or no If he will not I bring foorth Tertullian one that is nere haâ—…d fourtene hundred yeres old who saith that Christ called the bread his body Panem corpus
and praised euen so when the bread is taken the words which are the instrument to make our sacrifice are spoken to the bread iâ—… the way of vowing and dedicating it vnto Christ into whose flesh it is turned by his almighty word in such sort that God is withal the last end of the whole offering to whom this thâ—…nkful sacrifice is made For S. Ireneus hath witnessed that when the mixed chalice and the bread broken percipit verbum Dei taketh the word of God the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made Ireneus saith the 〈◊〉 taketh the word of God Caluin affirmeth that Christ speaketh not vnto the bread As though the bread could take that word which is not directed vnto it Bread is the matter of the Eucharist to witt of the most thankful sacrifice of Christes supper Words are the instrument which the word of God vseth in working and consecrating the bread When the words come vnto the bread or as S. Ireneus speaketh when the bread taketh and re ceaueth or heareth yâ— word of God yâ— Eucharist of Christes body and blood is made Is a thing made of bread by words and yet doth not Christ speake those words vnto yâ— bread How caÌ„ words work or make any thing but by speaking In an other place likewise S. Ireneus saith panis percipiens vocationem Dei bread receauing the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly an other heauenly The earthly thing is yâ— old soorm oâ—… bread yâ— heauenly is yâ— body of Christ newly made vnder that 〈◊〉 â–ª And yet doth not Christ speak vnto bread to 〈◊〉 it should be made his body Iustinus Martyr intreating of the self same sacrifice writeth thus Cibum qui per verbum precationis quod ab eo accepimus consecratus est Iesu Christi carnem sanguinem esse accepimus We haue learned that sood which is consecrated by yâ— word of prayer which we toke of him to be yâ— flesh and blood of Iesus Christ. Thâ—…re is a kind of meate or food coÌ„secrated by what meanes by the word of prayer which we toke of Christ. What word can that be I pray you but only This is my body Caluin thought they had bene words of preaching but Iustinus scholar vnto yâ— Apostles calleth them words of prayer because he that speaketh them mindeth by that speaking to make a sacrifice vnto God which is yâ— highest kind of prayer of worshipping God y◠〈◊〉 be Of which kind Christ said my howse shal be called that howse of prayer Preaching is principally directed vnto the people prayer only to God But among all prayers that which is most peculiar to publike sacri fice is most proper vnto God For he that offereth sacrifice to any other thing besyde to God alone is most properly an idolatour Now seing Caluin is content that yâ— word of prayer and sacrifice which we receaued of Christ shal be so principally directed to the people yâ— it shall not in the like degree appertein to the bread which is that matter of our sacrifice I say he is content that â–ª sacrifice by nature dew to God alone be offered vnto mortal men because in stede of God to whom these words are chiefly directed he hath placed yâ— ticklish eares of yâ— rude multitude he hath coÌ„mitted mayn idolatry As chosing to speake these words This is my body altogether to the men standing about him whereas they are dew finally to God aloue and by the way of sacrificing appertein to the bread which is chaÌ„ged into Christes body As therefore if a man should kil an ox or a Calf referrig the last end thereof vnto that people which standeth by he should vndoubtedly be an idolatour euen so when he affirmeth yâ— those words which by yâ— appointment of Christ make yâ— Eucharist sacriâ—…ice of thanksgeuing vnto God ought to be spoken to the people as for the cheif vse where vnto they were created he not only committeth but also defendeth mayn idolatry Which is 〈◊〉 most grosse fault that euer was don by so spiritual a worshipper of Christ as Caluin wil seme to be Ad Pres by teroruÌ„ preces saith S. Hierom Christi corpus sanguisque consicitur The body and blood of Christ is made at the prayers of the Priests Doutlesse at none other prayers then wherein they say 〈◊〉 yâ— mind of sacrificing 〈◊〉 bread This is my body ouer wine this is my blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of these words yâ— body blood of Christ be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words promise nothing For as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstulit verba promitteÌ„tia The 〈◊〉 or the perfienesse of the thâ—…igs promised haâ—… taken away the promising words And again Tam diu quisque promissor est donec det cum dederit mutat verba non dicit adhuc dabo quod se daturum dicebat sed dicit dedi mutauit verbum So long euery man is one that proâ—…iseth vntil he geue When he hath geuen he changeth the words He saith not stil I wil geue of yâ— which he said he wold geue but he saith I hauâ—… geuen He hath chaâ—…ged the word S. Augustine putteth a difference betwene a gâ—…er and a promiser Betwene words dedes betwene sayings and doings He accompteth dabo I wil geuâ—… for a word of promise but dedi I haue geuen for a word of perâ—…ance Seing therefore Christ in his supper did not sayâ—… he wold geue his body to the faithful but said expresly take eate thiâ—… is my body and seing the Euangelist saith of that fact dedit Discipulis he hath geuen to his Disciples out of question yâ— words which are ioyned with a reall gift be not verba promissiua sed completiua as S. Augustine nameth them they are not words which promise but which accomplish and fulfil the former promise And now to return to the forâ—…er talke of sacrifâ—…ce they are such words as fulfil the act of the sacrifice and therefore they are called of Iustinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orationis aut voti verbuÌ„ the word of prayer or of vow â—…or as S. Augustine hath well noted in expounding the words of S. 〈◊〉 to Timothe ea proprie intelligenda est oratio quam facimus ad votum That is properly vnderstanded to be prayer which is made at vowing that is to saye which we make with a special â—…owing and reâ—…ring vnto God of our selues or of some 〈◊〉 thing where by we pro 〈◊〉 our faith So that the word of prayer in the Eucharist is the word which voweth and dedicateth vnto God the substance of yâ— bread and wyne which is taken to be consecrated Vouentur autem omnia que offeruntur Deo maximè sancti altaris oblatio Truly all things are vowed saith S. Augustine which are offered vnto God specially the oblation of the holy altar We bring bread and wyne to the
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
blood This can be but one thing Therefore Christ deliuering that whereof he sayd This and this deliuered at eche tyme but one thing in all but two things He deliuered his body blood as him self sayd and you coÌ„fesâ—…e he truly deliuered them wherevpon I conclude that he deliuered neither bread nor wine and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ and the wine was changed into his blood For seing Christ toke both bread and wine and deliuered truly his body and blood yet deliuered but one thing at eche tyme and that also keping the forme of bread and wine it must nedes be graunted that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken and not truly deliuered because an other thing was truly deliuered was in the meane tyme truly changed into that body and blood which was truly deliuered O masters truth is strong and by the aduersaries own weapon getteth the victorie Again remember that the name of body and the name of blood are names belonging to the manhod of Christ to which manhod when you adioyne any act or work which may truly be verisied thereof it must be meant according to that truth which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhod When we say Christ was truly scurged nailed to the Crosse bound and buried it is not here to be vnderstanded that these things were don in figure in spirit in faith But that his body suffered according to the fâ—…esh all these things And he that saith the contrarie is an 〈◊〉 which heresie wold the manhod of Christ to be changed into his diuine nature If then the body and blood of Christ be truly dâ—…red you must not vuderstand a figure only to be dâ—…red neither a spiritual dâ—… only For if the body of Christ be deliuered truly and yet by spirit only then the truth of his body is by these men brought vnto the truth of a spirit and the flesh of Christ hath losi his true nature and propâ—… Mark wel the reason when the body of Christ is truly deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his own nature The nature of a body is to be dâ—…d after some bodily maner verily by hands or by some other corporail action And they to whom it is delâ—…red likewise receaue it by some part or sense of their body For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood not immediatly to be geuen to the spirit and soule but to come to it by meane of the body Whereof it is inferred that the body and blood of Christ which are truly deliuered in the supper are bodily deliuered and bodily receaued But from the body of Christ who made the dâ—…ance vnto the bodies of the Apoâ—…es who receaued the things deliuered none other thing can â—…syde that which semed bread and wine therefore vnder that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly contâ—…ined and by yâ— meanes truly deliuered and truly receaued Thirdly when you say the â—…sh of God quickeneth our soules you should haue sayd also that it quickeneth our bodies as in other places I haue proued out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉 anâ—… out of S. Jreneus â—…tullian Cyrillus and other auncient Fathers ¶ what it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ â–ª ANd that the same supper is the coâ—…ion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we are qâ—…ned we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which 〈◊〉 and â—…th can not be 〈◊〉 from them whom it nourisheth and when it is cut of their reache they can not haue it before it be geuen If then we haue in 〈◊〉 yâ— body and blood of Christ we receaued it by his gift at his supper And surely it was the thing whereof he sayd Eate and whereof he sayd Drinke Other food was not deliuered in Christes supper beâ—… his body and blood Nor possiblie can we haue the food of his supper at any other mans table then at his Wel. If we be nourished by the meate which Christ gaue vs when he sayd Eate and yet we be nourished by his body and blood vndoubtedly he sayd Eate of that which he gaue with his hands and which the Apostles toke into their mouthes and that was bread to see vnto therefore vnder that â—…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are sed to immortalitie Otherwise what warrant haue we to come by this food which is cleane out of our reache vntil God geue it saying Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood By those words oâ—…â—…ate one liquour only is geuen which also â—…deth vs to immortalitie as yâ— Apologie coâ—…h But none other food that man may receaue bodily can feed vs to immortalitie besyde the reall substance of Christ. therefore that substance is receaued nourisheth vs when Christ sayd Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood ¶ The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must nâ—…s be a naturall vnion â—…ore it be a mysticall ANd by the which we are coupled we are vnited and grafted into the body of Christ that we might â—…well in hinâ—… and he in vs. Christes â—…sh is deliuered to the end we should be nourished therewith And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of yâ— which is eaten and of him that eateth it The flesh deliuered to nourishe vs is not any mysticall flesh but only the natural flesh of Christ neither can it be any other food For none other thing that coâ—…th in at the mouth of man is able to seed him to immortalitie besyde the substance of Christes flesh and blood If then it be the naturall flesh which feedeth and the vnion doe come by seeding the vnion must of necesâ—…ty be made with the naturall flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh as being vnited to God hath power to geue life and â—…mortality out of the naturall vnion which is made with it by eating an other spiritual and mystical vnion floweth which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mysticall body So that we haue now fiâ—…e degrees First the slesh of Christ is deliuered to vs in his supper Next we eate the same flesh Thirdly we are fed by it if we eate it worthely Fourthly of yâ— feeding conuneth a reall and naturall vnion and ioyning with Christes flesh as S. Hilarie teacheth and other auncient Fathers Of that naturall vnion procedeth a spirituall vnion with the whole body of the Church Because being made one with Christes flesh we are vnited thereby to his spirit and Godhead liuing for him as he â—…th for his Father whereof I will speake more hereafter The Apologie acknowledgeth a ioyning with Christ by eating But it surely meaneth the last spirituall ioyning which ariseth of the other naturall vnion Whereas that spiritual ioyning doth â—…ude the other natural as euery effect presupposeth the necessarie
cause thereof We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his which he deliuereth to vs. But Christ deliuereth it not only spiritually but also with his hands saying Take eate this is my body As therefore yâ— deliuery is real and not only spirituall so is the eating reall and the coupling reall I haue proued this thing in other places folowing Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apologie ¶ That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God VVE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament yâ— is to say an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former vaâ—…t of the word of God already brought foorth to the reproche of the Catholikes also the Apologie aâ—…tle before these words witnessed that yâ— auctours abâ—…tours thereof gaue thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raysed to them which they might allwayes haue before theyr eyes as a moste certayne rule to which all doctrine of yâ— Church ought to be called for his triall And within lesse than 〈◊〉 lines after the same Apologie cometh to denie our Lords supper calling it a Sacrament that is to say an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. What mâ—…ers Hauâ—… you in the holy Scriptures that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a signe of yâ— body and blood of Christ From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later ende of tho â—…ocalips you finde â—…t our Lordes supper so called Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it yâ— mâ—…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not but 〈◊〉 into lâ—…e 〈◊〉 He saieth yâ— bread which he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 â—…or yâ—â—…se of yâ— world He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the sonne of man meate in dede and drinke in dede his flesh and his blood the eating of him the bread which who so eateth shall liue for euer In S. Mathew and in S. Marke his body and his blood of the new testament In S. Luke his body whiche is geuen for vs and the chalice which is the newe testament in his blood which is shed for vs. In S. Paul the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the coÌ„municating or partaking of Christes blood the one bread yâ— table of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord the body which is broken for vs the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood the eating of this bread and drinking of this chalice So many names are geuen in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament and it being no where called a signe or token yet the Apologie which thanketh God for yâ— holy scriptures aâ—…d will trie all doctrine by them in the chief question of our age goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth the Eucharist or the Lordes supper is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in wordes you make so much of holy scripture and in dede so litle What Apostle what Euangelist what Prophete or Patriarke taught our Lordes supper to be a signe or token S. Paul threateneth damnation to him who vnworthely eateth it and he calleth vnworthy eating not only the contempte thereof or lacke of faith but euen the omitting to proue or examine him selfe before he eate our Lords body And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meates And come you with a new doctrine affirming that we receaue not our Lords body into our bodies but an euident signe and token thereof you 〈◊〉 no authoritie no rule no triall of matters belonging to faith but only the holy Scriptures and immediatly ye breake your owne rule in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord his body and blood and you teach it to be an euident token of his body and blood If you kepe not your owne rule whom can you binde to kepe the â—…aine Ye will aske me perhaps whether the Lordes supper be not a Sacrament if a Sacrament then also a signe and token I aunswere ye that prescribe rules of beleuing to the world ye that wil haue all thinges iudged and proued by that touchestone of Gods worde ye that for pretense of folowing the gospell haue stirred vp so greate strife through all Christendome must not talke with vs with if with and with conditions and peraduentures But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say Although the supper of our Lord were neuer so much a Sacrament surely to you it were none because ye cannot proue out of the word of God where it is so named To vs it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice A Sacrament because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles A sacrifice because Malachie the prophet in the person of God expressely saieth In omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda â–ª quia magnum est nomen meum in geÌ„tibus In euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed and offered to mie name because my name is greate amonge the gentils There is absolutely no pure and cleane oblation besides the sacrifice of Christes body and blood whiche was offered to death not in euery place but without the gate of Hierusalem alone and the same is at this daie vnbloodily offered in the masse in euerie place where so euer among the gentils the name of God is 〈◊〉 called vpon Thus both we and you maie proue the â—…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice but that it is a 〈◊〉 â–ª we can proue because our forefathers delyuered such a doctrine to vs You can not proue the same seing you will not be bound to folow vnwritten traditions If you flee to the Church for naming it a SacrameÌ„t the church hathe seuen Sacramentes But ye in this present Apologie acknowledge only two properly to be rekoned vnder yâ— name for so many saie you do we find deliuered and sanctified by Christ and allowed of the olde fathers Ambrose and Augustine Concerning the deliuery of Sacraments by Christ ye might haue found in the word of God ConfirmatioÌ„ Actor 8. Penance IoaÌ„ 20. Extreme vnction Iacob 5. Priesthod Luk. 22. Matrimonie Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist But what kind of talk is this to say that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that workes of Christ was not the deliuery and consecration of Christ of sufficâ—…ent autoritie except Ambrose and Augustine had approued it I thoâ—…ght Ambrose and Augustine should haue bene allowed by the scripture and not the scripture by them I stand with you vpon the autoritie of the word of God proue me thence that these two are Sacramentes alone yea proue that thei are so named at all what gospell calleth baptisme a Sacrament What holy write nameth
the supper of our Lord a Sacrament dare you geue these things a name which is not in the word of God What warraÌ„t haue you for that dede you will say Ambrose and Augustine calle them so I replie Peter and Paul doe not call them so At other times and with other men I will stay vpon the authoritie of Ambrose and Augustine ' whom as I ought to do I reuerence for men of excellent vertue and learning But yet they were men as you are wont to saie they might erre they might be deceaued At this time we haue appealed chiefly to yâ— holy scriptures and out of them we must ground all our talke and next vnto them we will heare what the Fathers saye I saie that neither the old testament nor the new calleth the supper of our lord a Sacrament Therefore the Apologie that so calleth it goeth from the assurance of the word of God to the good and â—…audable inuentions and traditions of meÌ„ which them seiues 〈◊〉 when they lilte And yet the said Apologie so calleth it a Sacrament that vpon that only word the auctors thereof grounde all their doctrine Thence it hath to be a signe to be a token to be a badge a seale a paterne a counterpaâ—…e Thence all the figuratiue doctrine ryseth Thence it commeth that the reall body and blood of Christ is denied to be vnder the formes of bread and wine Shall now so much as Christ hath plainely spoken of his body and blood so much as his Apostles and disciples haue preached and writen in that behalfe shall now all this be ouerthrowen by an vnwritten veritie Are these the men oâ—… God who fâ—…ee from S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn S. Paul to Augustine and Ambrose Will the Apologie allowe that dede If it will not why hath it done so it selfe If none but prophetes and Apostles had written where had they found two Sacramentes where had they readen that the supper of our Lord is a signe and token They make much a doe about the word of God till they haue gotten credit among the ignorant and then they quite lead theÌ„ from all the word of God To you I speake good Christen readers that haue the true loue of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hartes to you I speake geue not ouer S. Maâ—…hew S. Iohn S. Paul for Ambroâ—…e and Augusâ—…ine 〈◊〉 not ouer Christ who is God and man to haue the opinion of what sâ—… euer â—…ottor and Father in causes of belefe Some men in comparison of others be of greate authoritie But in comparison oâ—… God all men be nothing at all God saieth this is my body Now what so euer man or angell from heauen tell you this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it beleue him not but let him be â—…cursed to you Shal we not be well occupied if we leaue yâ— plain worde of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacramentes or mo then twaine S. Paul teacheth Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And yet shall we goe from him to Ambrose and Augustine to see whether it be one or no Was euer such a vile practise heard of as to brag of scriptures to boast of holy write to crie vpon vs for comyng to the worde of God and nowe that we are come thither to call vs from all Prophetes and Apostles yea froÌ„ Christ him selfe to Ambrose and Augustine Is this the waie to the holy scriptures Can this fault be excused Can this hypocrisie be tolerated To winne to you the itching eares of the inconstant multitude to get you the applause of licencious libertines in yâ— pulpit you call to yâ— word of God and when you haue gotten them within your nettes you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine Yea would God ye did so at the least And although it be alitle out of mie way if to detect falshod can euer be out of a mans way yet what if now we proue that ye deceaue them also by fathering that vpon Ambrose and Augustine which they neuer wrote 〈◊〉 thought ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two Sacraments DOe they teache but two Sacramentes only What if they taught two especially yet if they do not deny the other your proof is none But let vs see Doe they approue no more then twaine What if besydes these twaine which you haue named I bring within the compasse of one chapiter two moe out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him as possibly can be Where then will this Apologie reâ—…t Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti caet The good sayeth S. Augustine which riseth of mariage through all nations and all men consisteth in yâ— cause of begetting children and in the faith of chastitie And in so much as appertaineth to yâ— people of God it consisteth also in the holynes of the SacrameÌ„t through which it is vnlawfull yea though diuorse come betwen to marie an other whiles her husband liueth not so much as for the very cause of bringing foorth of children which though alone it be the cause why mariages are made yet the band of mariage is not loosed vnlesse the husband die albeit yâ— thing folow not for which the mariage is made Much like as if to bring the people together some of the clergie should be ordered or consecrated with holy orders for although the meeting of the people do not insewe yet Sacramentum ordinationis the Sacrament of geuing orders abideth in them that be ordered And if for any fault any man be remoued from the office he shall not lacke the Sacrament of our Lord which is once put vpon him although it remaine to his damnation In these words S. Augustine hath shewed that amoÌ„g Christian men there are two other Sacramentes of Priesthod of Matrimonie besides baptisme and the Eucharist And eche of them so greate and so strong that they can not be loosed and taken awaie but only by death of the partie although the chief cause â—…asse why the Sacrament was geuen I could bring if nede were an other notable place out of S. Augustine where he nameth together the water of baptim oile the Eucharist and the imposition of hands S. Ambrose like wise confesseth moe Sacraments then Baptim and the Eucharist Cur baptizatis si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet In baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omniuÌ„ est Quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent Vnum in vtroque mysterium est Sed dices quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia Quid in paenitentia Nonne Dei nomen operatur Why art thou baptized if it be not lawfull synnes to be forgeuen
Christ â—…ayd to the Leprouse man Be thou made cleane which words gaue a signe and token of cleansing therefore in deed he was made cleane Christ gaue a signe and token that synnes were forgeuen to him that had the palsey by these words Remittuntur tibi peccata tua Thie synnes are forgeuen the therefore in deed they were forgeuen Likewise Christ bad him take vp his bed goe home for a token that the sonne of man had power in earth to forgeue synnes therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgeue synnes Because his token and signe is neuer false When Iohn Baptiste had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that shuld come or an other were to be looked for Christ gaue a token to the eyes and eares of the messengers that the blind sawe yâ— lame walked yâ— leepers were cleansed Therefore in deed it was so And he bad them tell S. Ihon what they had heard and seen Christ sayd to the deafe and domme man Adaperire Be thou opened and as it foloweth in the Gospell straight ways his eares were opened and the bond of his tonge loosed Thus might I goe through euery example of the whole Gospell and allways when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inward grace is rehersed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh Marke well good Reader that this rule be not wreasted to that mere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing For then I confesse many parables many obscure sayings were vttered to prouoke his audience to be humble to think of their owne ignorance to depend wholy of Christ to aske him the vnderstanding of the darke sayings But now I speake not of sole doctrine I speake of a worke that Christ maketh and of words ioyâ—…d with his worke In this case I say what so euer signe is outwardly made the same is inwardly wrought Christ sayeth to his Disciples Take ye the holy Ghost and withal he 〈◊〉 vpon them Beholde the word and the doing The outward word is a holy signe or Sacrament so is the outward doing which is breathing The inward worke is the perfoorming of thâ—… 〈◊〉 signe which the worde and breath did betoken Seing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat seing he tooke bread seing he blessed seing he brake seing he gaue seing at the tyâ—… of this outward doing and working he sayd somewhat which saying was a signe a Sacrament a figure a token a pledge a 〈◊〉 of his body we are assured by the word of God which neuer shall perish that Christ gaue at the same tyme his true body vnder the forme of that bread which he tooke and which by blessing he turned into his body Hath not now the Apologie depely reasoned Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the Sacramentarie doctrine to saye the supper of our Lord is the euident token of the body and blood of Christ thereby meaning thâ—… his body is not in dede really present wherein although it speake otherwise then the holy scripture â—…oth in the same case â—…et mangre the will of the makers thereof it proueth the Catholike faith because the signe that euery Sa crament of Christ maketh euidently to our senses is inwardly wrought in that creature whereof the signifying words are spoken By this true declaration of the nature of a Sacrament it is proued that so many Fathers as call the supper of Christ a signe or figure geue witnesse that it is also the truth it self And if the Apologie will disproue the reall presence of Christ vnder yâ— foorm of bread it must shew that his supper is not so much as a signe of his body and blood But as long as they graunt vs the sigâ—…e the word of God will conuince the truthe to be present which is signified ¶ The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of tokens WHen I graunt the supper of Christ to be a signe a token a figure yet I do not graunt the words wherewith it is made to be figuratiue If I geue you a ring and say were this token for the remembrance of me I both geue a token of me and name a signe or token and yet my words are not figuratiue It is therefore to be noted that how many Fathers so euer call the Sacrament a figure yet none of them all teacheth these words This is my body and this is my blood to be words figuratiue For when they call it a figure they meane not a figure of Rhetorike but a mysticall figure and calling it a signe they meane not a naturall signe or token but a mysticall signe that is to say a secret and miraculous kind of token such as the state of the new Testament requireth the nature whereof is to doe that which it sayeth â–ª because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his diuine power and substance which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhod in holy Sacraments doth vtter and signifie Now he that wold the Sacrament of Christ so to be a signe that he should not make that thing to be his body in deed whereof in word he sayeth This is my body he most wickedly denieth the Godhead of Christ. Ebion was an heretike who denying the diuine nature of Christ sayd him to be NuduÌ„ hominem a bare man Epiphanius will proue against Ebion that he is God How so Because he was geuen to the world for a signe As the holy Ghost had prophecied before of him when he sayd to Achaz Pete tibi signum ask to the a signe And for as much as he wold not ask then sayd the Prophete Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum our Lord him self will geue you a signe Behold a virgin shall conceaue Now sayth Epiphanius Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari He yâ— is alltogether begotten as a man can not be geuen to the world for a signe For that which is customably don what signe of the Godhead could be therein Epiphanius therefore doth signifie that sith Christes birth was geuen to the world for a signe it could not be such a byrth as other men haue but it must be miraculous and the miracle stode in this point because he was truly born of a true virgin Muche more we may say sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath bene left vnto vs as a signe of the body and blood of Christ It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine and not in deed his body and blood what signe what secret token what miracle were in the eating and drinking of bare bread and wine if none other thing were made thereof As the ordinarie birth of man is no mere signe for Christ who is true God so the ordinarie eating of bread drinking of wine is no mete signe for
the remembrance of Christes death As the birth of Christ was a true birth but most miraculous withall so is the Sacrament of the altar a true signe and therefore his true body and blood by the great miracle of turning the substance of bread wine in to them This is yâ— signe that Christ made in his last supper This is such a signe as is withall a secret miracle For it is a miracle not shewed to 〈◊〉 but only to the faithfull For as the birth of Christ is a 〈◊〉 to the faithfull only who beleue Christ being God and man truly to haue bene borne of a virgin withouâ—… sede of man by the almighty power of the holy â—…host Right so the suppâ—… of Christ is a sigâ—…e of his body 〈◊〉 blood to the faithfull only who beleue the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine to be â—…urned into his body and blood without 〈◊〉 or corruption by yâ— only 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 oâ—… Chrisâ—… Who sayd after bread taken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the making of Christes body â—…nd blood â—…or yâ— remembrance of his death that is the signe we speake of This was the memorie or the remembrance whereof Dauid sayd Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator Dominus eseanâ—… dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull graciouse Lord hath made a remembrance of his maruelous works he hath geuen meate to them that feare him And think we that a remembrance of maruelous things is made of God without a miracle S. Cyprian saith the bread to be made slesh Omnipotentia verbi By the allmighty power of the word S. Augustine calleth it Mirabile sacrificium A maruelous sacrifice S. Chrysostom crieth out o miracle o the goodnesse of God he that sitteth aboue with the Father in the self same moment of tyme is touched with the hands of all men If thou ask how it is made saith Damascene it is enough for the to heare that it is made by the holy Ghost euen as our Lord made for him self and in him self a body out of the virgin Mother of God And we know no more but that the word of God is true strenghtfull allmighty Eusebius calleth it Admirabilem exitum oraculi a maruelous euent of the oracle S. Bede nameth it a sanctification of the holy Ghost that can not be vttered by speache The like words haue S. Baâ—…ile S. Gregorins Nyssenus S. â—…ieront Nicephorus This much I thought good briefly to say concerning yâ— manner how the blessed Sacrament of the altar is a signe token figure mysterie remembrance Euery word whereof expounded according to the Gospell and to the state of the new Testament doth proue the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— foormes of bread and wine It is a Sacrament which outwardly signiâ—… that which is inwardly wrought It is a figure coÌ„teyning the truth figured It is a signe mete for the institution of Christ whose signes are miraculous it is a secret token knowen only to them that beleue It is a remembrance of Christes death by the presence of the body which died What shall I say more It is the body and blood of Christ couered from our eyes reueled to our faith feeding presently our bodies and soules to life euerlasting ¶ That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood be figuratiue THere is a great difference betwen a figure of Rhetorike and a Sacramentall figure made by Christ. The Rhetoricall figures consist in words or sentences the mysticall figures of Christ consist in deeds secret workings Those sometymes sound one way and meane an other way These meane and sound always one thing but they shew it one way and doe it an other way Those chiefly serue the eares of mortall men These chiefly serue the harts of faithfull men Those were found by men these were instituted of God Christ sometime vsed figures of Rhetorike because in taking the nature of man he addicted him selfe to vse the kind of speakiÌ„g which men obserued But now Christians vse yâ— mystical signâ—…es of Christ because he that toke their nature left vnto them the vertue of his almightie Godhead Let noman therâ—…ore think when yâ— supper of our Lorde is called sometime a figure that a Rhetori cal figure is meant it is not so A mystical figure a secrete knowlege a priâ—…ie watch word is vnderstanded by the name of a figure as if Christ should say to his Apostles folowers Let this be a token betwen you and me betwene one of you toward yâ— other that when a faithfull man is washed with water and in the meane tyme it is said ouer him I Baptize the in the name of the Father and of the sonne and of the holy gost straight all synnes are forgeuen him And he is of my flock and receaued into my fold Lett it be again an other couenant or signe betwene vs. When my Apostles or those which are made Priests by them say ouer bread this is my body and ouer wine this is my blood hauing the intent to blesse and geue thanks and to make a remembrance of my death that my body and blood are really present vnder the formes of bread and wine accordingly as my words doe sound These are mystical signes priuie tokens and secret figures to be kept only among the faithfull and not to be published to infidels For as men by vse of speaking haue agreed to transferr certain words from their most proper signification to an other figuratiue custom euen so Christ hath transferred certain natural things to an other mystical vse which is now called in some Fathers by that name of holy signes or figures or tokens or which is most common of all by the name of sacraments or mysteries See good reader to what myserie we are growen He that commeth late from his grammar where he lerned certain figures of construction or he yâ— beginneth his Rhetorik where he more depely entreth into the treatise of tropes and shemes when he readeth in a two peÌ„ny booke the place alleged where it is said in Tertullian this is my body that is to saie the figure of my body he iudgeth owt of hand that Tertullian meaneth a figure of Rhetorik and Decolampadius Caluin or Peter Martir is a mete Scholemaster for him to expound what kind of Rhetorical figure it is verely saithei metonymia or synecdoche Again wheâ—… thei heare S. Augustine affirm that Christ gaue a'signe of his body thei think he meaneth such a signe as is set vp at an ale howse or wine tauern that Doctors meane a peculiar signe and token miraculously instituted by Christ which conteyneth geueth to the faithfull the truthe which it betokeneth This kind of signes and figures concerning the substance of
the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes Here is the Sacramentaries argument I eate bread and drinke wine in token of Christes death resurrection therefore he is dead and risen I pray you Syr how doth this argument hold What affinitie hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ But if bread and wine be turned into the same body blood of Christ which died and rose againe which wrought all the miracles done in this world Then is the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ in dede it selfe set before the eyes of our faith Because as Chrisostom teacheth Hoc idem corpus cruentatum caet This very same body bloudied perced with yâ— speare gaue as it were out of a spring fountaynes of blood healthfull to the whole world And the selfe body God aâ—…anced vnto the highest seate the which body also he gaue to vs both to th' intent we should haue it and to the intent we should eaâ—…e it But what speake I of S. Chrisostom This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you And againe the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world How ofte so euer sayeth S. Paul ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he comme So that the hauing of the death and resurrection and all yâ— miracles of Christ before our eyes at Masse tyme riseth chiefly of yâ— thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body The consecrating the offering the eating of the selfe same body which wrought these miracles which died and rose againe those facts I say in that thing shew his death and resurrection All other wayes of setting the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence of Christ is painting and shadowing in comparison of this liuely representation O how many sayeth S. Chrisostom say now adayes I wold see the soorm shape of Christ I would see his very garmentes and shoowes Ipsum igitur vides ipsum taÌ„gis ipsum comedis Lo thou seest him selfe thou touchest him selfe thou eatest him selfe Non quòd corpus illud sayeth Damascen è coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came downe from heauen but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader whether the Apologie say more truly that the signe or token of Christes body and blood the body it selfe not being made present vnder the soâ—…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth doe more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ or els whether the incarnation life death and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set soorth by the Catholikes who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th' end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembred So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words Prebet Christus nobis carnem suam tangendam c. Christ geueth vs his flesh to be tou ched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath in deed reised his temple For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certayn confession of the resurrection of Christ it is proued by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my body which shal be geuen for you for the remission of synnes Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of that mysterie is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath died and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessing Let vs therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ and let vs be found strong and stedfast being far from all doubtfulnesse Thus far S. Cyrillus Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle And as S. Thomas touching the syde of Christ cried out My Lord and my God euen so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touche the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion For as vnder the visible flesh of Christ his Godhead lay priuie but yet was truly present and had assumpted his flesh into one person euen so vnder the visible foorm of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries and therefore we touch that flesh when we touche the foorm of bread as S. Thomas did touche the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in eche place we touche not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly but by the meane of that thing wherein it is truly present That thing I say receaued of vs doth make his death and resurrection to be remembred Hath not he all that euer Christ did presently before his eyes who hath Christ him selfe present But take Christ awaye and afterward it is a foolish dreame to talke how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine The apparence of bread is the token that Christes body is here to be eaten And the similitude of wine doth shew that his blood is here to be drunken But the true shewing of his death life and resurrection ariseth of that truth which is vnder those foormes When I eate the body that died I shew the death of it because no sacrificed flesh was euer eaten before the host was offered But we eate really the body of Christ therefore our fact crieth that Christ is dead We eate his body aliue hauing the blood and soule in it therefore our fact crieth he is risen again Thus the Ca tholiks reason Let him that hath coÌ„mon sense iudge who goeth nere the truth of the Gospell the Sacramentarie or the Catholike ¶ Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body TO th' intent we should geue thanks for his death and our deliuerance and that by often resorting to the Sacramentes we should continually renew the remembrance thereof These men presuppose we haue a signe or token left vnto vs in bread and wine to geue thanks withall We haue in deed a token but this token though it were made of bread and wine is not bread and wine For Christ in his last supper tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the token wherein Christ both him selfe gaue thanks and would vs to geue thanks in the same The making of his body for vs is the thanksgeuing for his death and for our deliuerance Ipso genere sacrificij sayeth S.
Chrysostom ad iugem nos pro beneficijs suis inuitans gratiarum actionem Stirring vs to geue thanks perpetually for his benefites by the very kind of the sacrifice And shewing farther in an other place what kind of sacrifice it is God sayth Chrysostom did yerely by certain holydays set the remembrances of his benefites before the Iewes Tibi vero quotidiè ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur But he is set before thee daily him selfe lest thou shouldest bee vnmindfull See now by what meanes the death of Christ is renewed Not by tokens wherein he is doubtfully called to minde him selfe being absent for that were a feble token but by these tokens wherein him selfe is made present lest we should forgett his death The body of Christ must be made to th' intent we maye remember his death If you take from vs the making of his body which causeth the vehement remembrance of the death it is afterward a vaine thing to talke of the remembraunce of his death by eating bread and drinking wine For the necessarie meane of necessarie remembrance of his death consisteth in the reall presence of him that died For who can forget his death whose body is daily made worshipped and eaten to the end the death may be remembred But I may right well eate bread and drinke wine not yet remembring thereby that Christ is dead for me ¶ The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that body of Christ which is both true and is true in vs. TO th' intent we being fed with the body and blood of Christ may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of euerlasting life and may most assuredly beleue that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our soules as bread and wine doth feed our bodies I omit to say any thing vpon that ouersight wherein the English translation of a body hath left out the word Vero the true body which the Latine edition hath But here the Apologie presupposeth that Christes supper consisteth as wel of bread wine as of body and blood The first two they will haue geuen to the bodies The later twaine to the soules The bread wine they will haue present on the table whence they be deliuered The body and blood they will haue to be receaued from heauen by faith and vnderstanding Against this dreame thus I reason out of the word of God Christ made his whole supper vpon a visible table accordingly as it was prophecied by king Dauid Parasti in conspectu meo mensam Thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon Sapientia proposuit mensam suaÌ„ insipientibus locuta est venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis Wisedome hath set foorth her table and hath spoken to simple men come ye eate my bread and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you S. Paul sayth Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse mensae Daemoniorum Ye can not be partakers of our Lords table and of the table of deuils Put these three together and the sense will be the supper and table of our Lord was prepared and set foorth in the sight of the faithfull that they might thence cate and drinke such as the wisedome of God gaue them at his supper Therefore no meate no foode no banket is to be looked for at his supper but such as is prepared by Christ set foorth vpon his table Otherwise Christ had prepared no supper in the sight of that faithfull as Dauid foretold nor had not set foorth his table as Salomon prophecied nor we had not bene partakers of our Lords table as S. Paul writeth For bread and wine is not prepared of Christ But was before hand made ready by the baker and vintner or by the seruants yâ— brought them foorth The preparing which Christ made was by blessing and conseâ—…ng to make of earthly bread the bread of life euerlasting And hauing made it he deliuered the same to the Apostles and bad them both make and doe that thing If he deliuered not his owne body with his owne handes doubtles they did not eate his body For he sayd in respect only of that which he deliuered take and eate Wherevpon S. Chrysostom sayeth to him that cometh to our Lords table Cogita quid manu capias caet Bethink thy selfe what thou takest in thy hand and kepe it free from all couetousnes and violent robbery Consider againe that thou takest it not only in thy hande but also puttest it to the mouth and after thy hand and tonge the harte receaueth that dreadfull mysterie Thus much S. Chrysostom Let any reasonable man iudge whether he sayeth not that the hart receaueth the same which the hande doth and the hande the same which the hart doth For if the hart receaue it after that hand the hand receaued it before the hart It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries falsely teach bread only in hand and body only in harte But body as well in hand as in harte And none other true body in the harte then was first in the hand and mouth For this cause euer sith we receaued the faith we called this blessed supper The Sacrament of the altar As if we sayd the SacrameÌ„t which is made vpon the altar or vpon the table of Christ. for the table of Christ is an altar as in Malachie it may appere and in an other place by the fauour of God I will declare This name of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was deliuered to vs with our Christianitie and it is found very ofte in the olde writers namely in S. Augustine By which we are enformed that the consecration and oblation thereof is made not in the hartes of men by words of promising and preaching but vpon the visible altar in the sight of Christian people by yâ— visible Priest who as a publike minister ordeined by God consecrateth the body of Christ by the same power which Christ gaue when he sayd Hoc facite doe and make this thing This is 〈◊〉 table prepared in the sight of Dauid set foorth by the wisedome of God whereof we are partakers when we receaue the blessed Sacrament of the altar At this altar S. Augustines mother desired a memorie of her to be made vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis From which altar my mother knew sayeth S. Augustine the holy sacrifice to be distributed whereby the handwriting that was contrarie to vs is put out Behold the sacrificed body of Christ was dispeÌ„sed and geuen from the altar as both S. Augustine and his mother and all the faithfull then beleued Thus thou seest the dreame of the Apologie by the word of God to be blowen away like chaf dust dispersed with the wind The Apologie sayeth our bodies are
fed at Christes supper with bread and wine that is not in the word of God where it is sayd Eate This is my body The Apologie semeth to say that our bodies be not noâ—…rished with the body and blood of Christ for it assigneth body and blood to our soules as our bodies are fed with bread and wine But Christ gaue his body to noâ—…rish our bodies also And therefore sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you That is as Cyrillus expoundeth it In corpore vestro in your body And therefore on the other syde Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reyse him again in the last day Ego sayeth Cyrillus Id est corpus meum quod comedetur I will reyse him that is to say my body which shal be eaten Reysing belongeth to the body which falleth into putrefaction by death As therefore the body is reysed by Christes body so the body liueth in the state of grace by Christes body and such life is by spiritual nutriment which is receaued of the flesh of Christ really present in vs. For which cause Tertullian confessed that not only our soule but also our body seedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ to th' intent our soule may be made fat of God Likewise Ireneus writeth that our flesh is nourishâ—…d of the body and blood of our Lord. We may now see what errour they fall into who assigne the body and blood of Christ to our soules and bread wine to our bodies whereas there is no substance left of bread or wine but euen our bodies feede vpon Christes body as Ireneus Cyrillus and Tertullian haue sayd ¶ Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries AFter the Apologie had spoken of communion vnder both kinds and of transubstautiation of which points as yet I speake not it returneth again in a confuse manner to the matter of the reall presence and thus it sayeth And in speaking thus we meane not to abase the Lords supper or to teache that it is but a cold ceremonie only and nothing to be wrought therein as many falsely slaunder vs we teache If they that pluck down altars and other ornaments of Christes supper if they that call the blessed Sacrament of the altar by so vile names as you and your scholars haue done be not of your number if they be not your derelings if they lerned not that coÌ„tempt of holy things and the denyall of the vnbloody sacrifice of you if they first persuaded not the licenciouse youth and faithlesse companie of men and wâ—…men in EnglaÌ„d rather by blasphemous names geuen to the Eucharist then by any word of God which you stil pretend and neuer allege then let it be thought that you meane not to abase the Lords supper But if you did set all the players and minstrels in the realme a work with such scoffes as your brotherhead inuented against the blessed body and blood of Christ I feare me you be not slaundered when you are sayd to teach it to be but a cold ceremonie sith you doubt not to call euen in this Apologie yâ— honour done to it the worshipping of bread whereas it is in deed the worshipping of the true body and blood of Christ. Wel you teach not that nothing is wrought or made in the supper Then by like you teach that somewhat is wrought there I wold fain see what it is which you teach to be wrought in the sup per. For where you say that Christ geueth him self in his supper that we may eate him by faith You teach a work of Christ in geuing him self a work of ours in eating him but not any thing wrought or made in the supper it self For the supper is that meate which is prouided to be eaten at the table of Christ. There you confesse bread and wine to be taken But seing you teache the same things notwithstanding he speaketh otherwise of them yet to tarie bread and wine stil I can not perceaue what substanciall thing you teachâ—… to be wrought in the supper concerning the matter of the supper which is bread and wine Now concerning the body and blood of Christ which you graunt to be geuen by faith I trow you teache not any thing to be wrought a new and made therein sithens they be impassible and therefore can not haue any thing made in them what is it then which you teache to be made in the supper Either bread and wine is the supper or the body and blood of Christ or both together For nothing els is there mentioned Bread and wine you say remayne still as they were before concerning their substaÌ„ce Then I say nothing is wrought in them The body and blood of Christ can haue nothing wrought in their substance because that wherein somewhat shal be made must suffer of that which worketh it therefore glose the matter how ye will you teache not any substanciall thing to be wrought in the supper of Christ except you call the geastes them selues the supper And then I weâ—…e they must be eaten vp of some body in so much as euery supper is prouided to be eaten We teache the substance of bread and wine to be made the substance of Christes body and blood And that is yâ— true work made in the supper of Christ where the mutable creatures are turned into the immutable substance of Christ. which work sith you deny bable what you wil you teache nothing to be wrought in the supper of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature FOr we affirme that Christ doth truly and presently geue his owne self in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite and may haue euerlasting life by his crâ—…sse and blood Heare ye not how they affirme that Christ presently geueth his own self wold not a maÌ„ thinke they meant honestly and truly But sith they can make the words of Christ figuratiue when they lyst wonder not if they require their own words to be taken figuratiuely They meane not that Christ doth geue him self presently to our bodies and soules as is requisite to the presence of the flesh and blood of man why then vse they such words Uerily because they see the Scriptures so playne the Fathers and Councells so manifest the â—…aith and practise of the Church so euident for yâ— reall presence of Christ that in no wyse they may confesse any other thing then they doe And yet on the other side being fully determined to sticke to their desperate opinion that we really neither eate nor drinke vnder forme of bread and wine
touch it vnder the foorm of bread not hindering our touching by our belefe but rather furthering our belefe by our touching for so much as we touche that visibly wherein we beleue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly The Apologie supposeth holding by faith to be contrarie to touching with teeth But we think them bothe to agree right well and both to be true in their proper kind S. Ireneus writing against those heretiks who denied the resurrection of our flesh sayeth that S. Paule naming spirituall men doth call them so because they partake of the spirit Sed non secundum defraudationem interceptionem carnis but not as defrauding them or as taking their flesh from them Euen so it is true that we hold Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding in the holy mysteries but we thereby ought not to take away the truthe of his flesh which is in the same mysteries It is an old custome of heretiks by the assertioÌ„ of one truth to imbarr stop an other truth whereas yâ— Catholiks beleue as wel yâ— one as yâ— other ¶ The â—…acramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Chriâ—…t withall ANd this is no vaine faith which doth comprehend Christ and that is not receaued with cold deuotion which is receaued with vnderstanding with faith and with spirit The faiâ—…h of receauing Christ in spirit which you speake of is not vaine when it denieth not some veritie of the Gospell But seing you denie this to be the body of Christ which Christ visibly deliuered now it is a vaine faith to beleue that who so denieth parcell of his faith doth notwithstanding comprehend and receaue Christ by faith or spirit What vnderstanding haue you that say This is my body doth not meane This is my body What faith haue you that beleue not the working and effectual words of Christ which were spoken with blessing What spirit haue you when you know not yâ— words of Christ to be spirit life as yâ— which make all that which they sound in that consecration of his holy mysteries It is a warme deuotion that hearing the body of Christ by him self affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye Godly honour to it God kepe me and all others from such faith such vnderstanding such spirit and such deâ—…otion ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie FOr Christ him self altogether is so offered and geuen vs in these mysteries that we may certeinly know we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be geuen vs in these mysteries he is present in thâ—…m For a gift is not made of a thing absent But he is not any where to be shewed present but only vnder the forms of bread and wine yet Christ shewed his body blood saying This is my body this is my blood This and this be words that shew things which are spoken of therefore the presence of Christ which you confesse and which him self sheweth must nedes be meant of his presence vnder the formes of bread and wine Again if we may certainly know we are flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones if we may know it as your words import by his presence in these mysteries Seing our knowlege must nedes rise of a certaine truth otherwise it were an errour and not a knowlege it is certainly true that in theis mysterics we are by the presence of Christ in them flesh of his flesh bone of his bones But yâ— can not be except yâ— flesh bones of Christ be really present yea so really present as Christes mother was really present to hym he to her when he toke flesh of her flesh For a coniunctioÌ„ betwixt yâ— flesh of Christ yâ— flesh of men caÌ„ not de made by faith spirit vnderstanding For yâ— is a coniunctioÌ„ oâ—… mind but not of flesh bones Flesh and bones haue no faith or spirit whereby the coÌ„iunction betwene them and Christ may be receaued they haue a natural substance as wel in Christ as in vs. And as the man and wife can not be one flesh by the consent of mariage except in dede they come bodily together Euen so caÌ„ not the flesh of Christ be made one with our flesh except both his flesh he present in the Sacrament for vs and we come to the selfe Sacrament to be ioyned to it And this example of mariage is so good and true that S. Paul him self vseth it in talking of this verie coniunction of flesh and bones betwixt vs and Christ. which now the Apologie semeth to allude vnto But the flesh of Christ cometh not from his Fathers right hand corporally to be ioyned with our flesh Therefore it remaineth that the bread is by consecration turned into Christes 〈◊〉 to thintent it may â—…e receaued and made one with our flesh Other meanes how either Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh the Gospel neuer taught the Fathers neuer lerned yâ— Catholike Church neuer knew But by this meanes S. Irenens S. Hilarie S. Cyril S. Chrysostome and other Fathers coÌ„sesse our natural ioyning with Christes flesh as it shall appere in diuerse places of this booke ¶ The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harrs to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar ANd therefore in celebrating these mysteries the people are to good purpose exhorted before they come to receaue the holy communâ—…on to lift vp their harts and to direct their minds to heauenward because he is there by whom we must be full fed and liue Who euer had to doe with so forgetfull men A eâ—…ueller name I wil not vse For Gods sake good reader suffer not thy self to be lead of them as if thou haddest nor wit nor sense Be a child in anoiding malice but in vnderstanding shew thy self a man I assure thee he is not worthy to be called a man who perceauing their extreme foly as now he may yet wil addict him self to folow their doctrine See I besech you how this geare hangeth together Christ said the Apologie in the last sentence geueth him self present in these mysteries we know we are flesh of his flesh bone of his bones and therfore we are byd lift vp our harts to heauen becauâ—…e he is there by whom we must be ful fed and liue Mark how this therefore cometh in it agreeth together as if it were sayd in shorter words Christ geueth him self present in these mysteries and therefore he is not here but in heaueÌ„ seeding vs from thence You deceaued deceauers how feare you not to dally thus with the dreadfull mysteries of God Doth Christ offer
when it is sayd ouer the bread of Christ him self This is my body This grosse imagination maketh Christ a lyer as Cyrillus hath witnessed And now came our Apologists and bring those wordes against the Catholikes as though they had a grosse imagination who thinke and teach the wordes of Christ to be true to worke that they speake when soeuer they belong to any Sacrament And therefore the substance of bread and wine to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ the formes of the same bread and wine remaining as veyles and cortaines to couer the sayd flesh as well because our faith should haue merit as because our eyes be not able to see that gloriouse mysticall kind of presence The which consecrating of Christes body is an vnblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind of the death which redemed the world Euery part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ euery kind alone is sufficiēt to norish him to saluatiō who worthely eateth it And yet both kinds together must be cōsecrated to shew the death of Christ. This belefe hath no grosse imagination in it as shall appeare in all the worke folowing ¶ What the first Councel of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper ANd the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greek of some doth expresly forbid vs that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before vs. The words of the Nicen Councell whereof the Apologie spea keth are these Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa caet Again here also in the holy table let vs not basely attend the bread and cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind let vs vnderstand by faith That Lamb of God which taketh away the synnes of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitū esse to be put and laid on that holy table incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum to be vnbloodely sacrificed of the Priests and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verè Truly and in deed taking his own precious body and blood doe beleue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause we take not much but litle that we might know we take not to fill vs but for holynesse In these words many things are affirmed of the blessed Sacrament of the altar euery of the which doth proue or helpe to proue the real presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and wine First the Councell sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before vs vpon the holy table bidding vs not basely attend or consyder them What other thing can these words meane then to warne vs ▪ that we should not looke to the natural appearing or shew of the bread and of the cup but to a greater vertue which lieth priuie vnder their formes Therefore begin we to collect that the bread and the wine which stand vpon y◠holy table kepe not any more their old nature substance but contein vnder their old formes the new substance of Christ. For if they remained as before consecration they were materiall bread and wine then we nede no warning to put away base considerations of them sith by that opinion we are bound to beleue earthly bread and wine to be still bread and wine and to be nothing bettered in substance Then as concerning the vse of them so long as y◠blessed word of God which is the form of the Secrament is ioyned with any element which remaineth still in his old nature so long y◠word and the element make a mysterie But when the word or form is ended the Sacrament is ended as the which only worketh and hath grace annexed to it whiles it is in the vse whereunto Christ hath appointed it So long as the Priest whiles he washeth is saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost so long y◠baptim is a doing and working when the wordes be ended the Sacrament is ended For seing y◠promesse of forgeuenesse of synnes is geuen to the washing in y◠name of the Trinite when that is done the promesse is sinished for that course The councell of Nice speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration after that it was sayd ouer thē This is my body and this is my blood which wordes are the form of that Sacrament For the councell speaketh of the being and standing and of cōsyderig these things vpon the holy table not only whiles y◠wordes are spoken but still afterward vntill they be receaued If then both the wordes of the Sacrament be past and yet y◠councell say we must not basely attend the bread and the cup that are vpon the holy table It geueth vs to vnderstand that the wordes did not only come to the elements of bread and wine to make them a Sacrament after the commen sort of making which is in baptim in confirmation in holy orders and in penance but also that the wordes did worke some reall thing vnder y◠formes of bread wine which remaineth still as long as y◠sayd formes signes remain For this cause the councell sayd we ought not basely consyder the bread and cup for that more was vnder the shew and colour of them then our eyes could tell vs. What must we then doe We must resort to a higher master then our eyes are we must lift vp our mind we must vnderstand not by loking seing but by faith Whether must we lift our mind To heauen That is not euill but the councell sayth an other thing We lifting vp our mindes must vnderstand by faith Then the lifting vp of our mind is the renouncing of our senses the cleauing to our faith We must beleue that which we can not see What must we beliue That the Lamb of God is vpon the holy table Which Lamb He that taketh away the sinnes of the world On which table On the holy table whereon that standeth which semeth bread and wine How is y◠Lamb there He is put layed situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of an other thing For of such a situation the councell speaketh so we must beleue of it Now put this geare together and thus the councell sayth Consyder not basely that bread and cup which standeth before you For although it seme that which nature made yet we must lift vp our mind and vnderstand by faith that thing or substance which is standing on the holy table how so euer it appere bread and wine to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world Now we see what is base and what is high Bread and wine is base Body and blood is highe That must not be consydered because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be This must be beleued because it is made present in
substance And it is so truly made and the Lamb so truly prosenâ—… that he is offered not in hart alone but euen outwardly of the Priests not by shedding of blood as vpon the crosse but vnblodely as it becommeth the cleane oblation of the new Testament whereof Malachie did prophecie That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present for they offer with their hands moâ—…thes and other externall members of their body After that the sacrifice is made the faithfull people who stand by doe partake with the altar which could not be except a perma neâ—…t substance were made by consecration The Lamb is vpon the table He is offered there by yâ— Priests It foloweth in the Councell We take truly the precious body and blood We take it and truly take it That is to say in deed really and bodily For the truth of Christes body and blood is not an imaginarie or fained truth it is not a thing conceaued only as a man might conceaue in his mind men flying in the aier it is not only beleued or hoped but he in naturall existence and among external things hath as true a body and blood as any creature hath a substance of his owne The true taking of the which precious body and blood is the taking of it in suche a truth of subsâ—…ce as it self hath And because it is true in yâ— thing it selfe the taking of it is in the thing it self The taking of that which sâ—…andeth before vs on the table is by instrument of our bodyes therefore it is deliuered according to the same external truth by the corporall ministerie of yâ— Priests So that all is truly and externally done by the iudgement of this auncient councell Wel we truly taking them beleue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some bookes read of our resurrection For as our redemption was by the â—…ame body and the same blood really wrought vpon the crosse so hauing them selues present vpon yâ— holy table and truly taking them we take the sure witnesses and euident tokens of our redemption But if the things which stand vpon the holy table were in substance bread and wine how could they be the tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeme vs Or did they rise from death for vs It is the body and blood of Christ which redemed vs and which arose from death and the self same body and blood are now made present to vs offered vnbloodely for vs to shew in fact and dede our redemption already wrought by them and to distribute the fruits of yâ— Crosse by none other thing so much as by the same body and blood that redemed vs. For least we should assigne any part of our saluation to any other creature besydes to the only body and blood of Christ he made the selfsame body both the price wherewith he redemed vs and the token and dispensour of the redemption It was proued before that if these things be the tokens of our redemption instituted by the expresse words of Christ then they are the things them selues which they betoken because they are mysticall tokens of the new Testament But they are here not as redeming vs new and therefore as tokens of yâ— old redemption that no man should thinke Christ to die again or should doubt as S. Chrysostom hath noted of his death already past or of any maner prices of our redemptioÌ„ to be payed then one or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besydes it selfe For it was so worthy a truth and raâ—…som payed for vs vpon the Crosse which was able to be painted worthely or set foorth to the remembrances of the faithfull by none other image then such wherein yâ— truth might be set foorth after an other sort more mystical concerning the manner But no lesse true then the thing which died was concerning the substance Who so is faithfull and humble is now able to vnderstaÌ„d how the shew of bread and wine standeth with the truth of body and blood present on the holy table How the vnbloody sacrifice is made of the Priests whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turne the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christes body and blood how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ coÌ„cerning the substance of them vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet beleue them to be tokens instituted of Christ of our redemptioÌ„ betokening the price paid by making present the body and blood which payed it Was not this a worthy place for the Apologie to allege But I warrant you it alleged the weakest part therof leauing out the situatioÌ„ of the Lamb of God on the holy table The vnbloody sacrifice made of Priests the true taking and receauing of the pre cious body and blood Only bread and wine which are named to shew the formes within the which the body and blood are them they name as a great matter to further this new broched heresie But he is a faithfull trier and examiner of auncient Fathers who faithfully citeth the whole place neither adding nor diminishing which honest dealing we may not looke for at these defenders hands ¶ That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iaies ANd as Chrisostome writeth wel we say that the body of Christ is the carcas and we must be the Egles that we may know that we ought to flye highe if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes It is a weake stake that these meÌ„ wold not take hold of being now plunging for life vnder the water S. Chrysostome so plainly expoundeth his owne meaning immediatly where he speaketh of the carcas and of the Egles that I can not sufficiently wonder at the impudeÌ„cie of him who allegeth this place For the alleger wold haue the wordes taken as though the body of Christ were not vpon the altar But we only shold by faith ascend into heauen whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh of going in to heauen by good life also and not by faith only His words are these The body of our Lord is through death become the carcase for vnlesse he had fallen we had not risen Christ vseth the name of Egles to declare that it behoueth him who shall approchevnto his body to seeke for high things and not to medle with the earth nor to be draweÌ„ down or crepe vnto earthly matters which are a low but to flee allways vp to higher matters And to behold the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eye and the mind quick of sight for this is the table of Egles and not of Iaies Hetherto S. Chrysostome Who first sheweth why the body of Christ is called the carcase Not because it is without life but because it once hath died for
vs Secondly we must be like Egles in life and faith In life by forsaking earthly affectioÌ„s In faith by quicknesse of mind whiles we beleue that not withstanding bread and wine appeare to vs yet it is in deed an other 〈◊〉 The Egle hath many proprietes as to flee highe to looke â—…edfastly vpon the sun to see most clerely a farr of and to take his pray most swiftly To the flying high our good life must answer to yâ— quicknesse of sight our faith Not in suche sort to flee a highe as though the matter we seeke were not present but to â—…spie the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine For as S. Chrysostome saith This is the table of Egles He speaketh not now of heauen which is a boâ—…e the sun he speaketh of the table which standeth in the Church before vs wherupon the sonne of righteousnes is situated from which we take the foode of life the ioye of heauen yâ— earcase yâ— hath died for vs. The table is it whereof he speaketh What impudencie is this so to abuse the wordes of that blessed man as if he spake of going into heauen by faith whereas in dede he speaketh of them that liue like the saints of heauen and of theÌ„ that haue a quick sight to witt a faithfull vnderstanding yâ— they be able as it were to loke through the formes of bread and wine there to see vnder those formes the reall body and blood of Christ. For straight vpon the naming of a quick sight he inferreth yâ— this is the table of Egles not of Iaies As who shoâ—…ld say here is a meate that none can see but those who haue a most pure eye of faith Aquila sayth S. Augustine sublimiter volaÌ„s de tanto intervallo sub fluctibus natantem piscem dicitur ê‘â—…idere grauiter aquis illisa extertis pedibus atque vnguibus rapere The Egle flying a high is sayd most perfitly to see a great way of a fishe swiÌ„ming vnder the waues and vehemeÌ„tly beating her self against the water by stretching out her feet and clawes to snatch vp the fishe Behold an Egle seeth one thing vnder an other And so must we repute yâ— table of Christ to haue in it one thing vnder an other To haue vpon it the body of Christ vnder the form of bread And therefore noâ—…e but Egles can espie the said body As for the Sacramentaries Zuinglians they are like Iaies euer pratling of the body of Christ but neuer espying it or seing where it lieth they flee low as the Iaies doe as thinking that good works bring smal aide to â—…ife euerlasting They see weakely and coÌ„tent them selues with a base banket of bread and wine requiriÌ„g to theyr bodies none other food of life And whereas the sonne of reghteousnesse hath couered him self as it were with the cloudes of bread and wine to thintâ—…nt our eye might be able to beare more easily the brightâ—…esse of his shyning yet they are of so dull and of so dimme eye sight that thâ—…y say ther is nothing but 〈◊〉 vpon the table So that our table is the table of Eâ—…les where faithfull Egles may eâ—…pie the sonne of 〈◊〉 present vpon the altar and table and theyr table is the table of Iaies where nothing is 〈◊〉 besydes that which iufidell Iaies may find out by naturall eye sight bare naming without true being It foloweth in S. Chrysostm If noman wil rashly handle an other mans garment how dare we to our great shame and reproche receaue this pure and immaculate body â–ª which is Lord of al which is partaker of the diuine nature through which we haue our being and liuing by which yâ— gates of hel are broken downe and the gates of heauen set wide open Thus S. Chrysostome sheweth vs to receaue this body of Christ from yâ— holy table or altar as truly coÌ„cerning the substance thereof as we may truly touche an other mans garment Heauen is vsed both in holy Scriptures and in the Fathers for the heauenly life And so we must flee in to heauen not to receaue this body so it is not said but when we approche vnto this body The body is in earth with vs coÌ„cerning the nature and substaÌ„ce thereof vnder the formes of bread But as it is a body gloriâ—…ied and thereby made heauenly euen so we must clense and purge our selues from synne when we come to it and so be made heauenly or flee in to the state of them who liue in heauen And that state we professe who are called the kingdome of heaueÌ„ yâ— howse of God ¶ The bread that is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of lyfe which is the body of Christ. ANd Ciprian this bread sayith hee is meate of the mynd not meate of the belly The truth is so strong that yâ— more is brought agaynst it the better it is seene The sayng of S. Ciprian maketh so clearly for the contrarie of that wich the Apologi teacheth as it is possible to deuise If this bread be meate of the mind not meate of the belly out of questioÌ„ it is not material bread it is not the substaÌ„ce of coÌ„mon bread for though such materiall bread be neuer so much hallowed by prayer and thanksgeuing yet it still remayneth in substance bread of the belly But seing yâ— substance of yâ— common bread is changed into yâ— flesh of Christ as we catholikes beleue and teach now it can by no meanes be meate of the bellye for albeit wee receiue it really vnder the formes of bread into our bodyes and that also to feed them as wel as our sowles yet there ar two kinds of feedyng one wich is to liue in this world and in that case meate is for the belly and the belly for meate and God shall destroye both the one the other But an other feeding is to life euerlasting that is called by Christ cibus permanens meate which abideth which perisheth not Such a meate is the blessed body of Christ. It is a meat iÌ„ deed A meate wiche is truly eaten but is not digested into our corruptible flesh and voided as common meates are but a litle and a litle it feedeth and nourisheth vs to life euerlasting These defenders thought if it were â—…aten in deed that it could not be but meate of the belly As well they might blasphemously say that because Christ was man in deed he was born in synne And in that opinion they are like the Capharnaits who could imagine none other kinde of meate besides that which is diuided into peeces and consumed by eating The true Christians haue learned by the mercy of God with holy Cyrillus how the flesh of Christ because it is yâ— flesh of God may be eaten and yet quicken the eaters
shall differ any thing at all from the fathers gift must nedes be more then a spirituall eating of Christes flesh he shall perceane â—… this chapiter both a spirituall eating presently offred and a sacramentall eating promised hereafter â—… the naturall substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood which in this place thus breefly touched shall at large be handled in the treatise folowing At this tyme he that conferreth what was done and sayd both at the last supper of Christ and the yere before about the sea of Tyberias shall see concerning the doyngs bread taken in bothe places blessing and thanksgeuing in bothe eating in bothe And as concerning words let him deeply ponder and consider that as in S. Iohn he began his talke of coÌ„mon bread saying to the Iewes ye folow me because yehaue eaten of the loaues of bread but at the length he ended his talke with the eating of his fleshe and drynking his blood So in his last supper he tooke into his handes coÌ„mon bread but at the length he ended his banket in the eating his body and drinking his blood As in S. Iohn he speaketh distinctly of a meate which the soÌ„ne of man will geue So at his supper the soon of man did administer the whole gift of his heauenly meate in his owne person As in S. Iohn he saieth the bread which I will geue that is to say the meate of my last supper so in his last supper he takâ—…g bread after blessing breakyng dâ—…th geue a blessed food saying sumite take As in S. Iohn he sayd the bread whiche I will geue and not the bread whiche I will take so in his supper he tooke one kind of bread and gaue an other For as in S. Iohn he saieth the bread which I will geue is my flesh so at his last supper after he had taken coÌ„mon bread and blessed he sayed Take this is my body As in S. Ihon the bread to be geuen and the flesh of Christ is all oâ—…e so in his supper he geueth none other bread besides his owne body For the substance of the coÌ„mon bread was chaunged by blessing and speaking the wordes As his bread and flesh was sayd to be in S. Iohn for the lyfe of that world so in his supper he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you As in S. Iohn he saieth my flessh is meate in deed so in his supper he saieth take eate this is my body That whiche is eaten in deed is meate in deed As in S. Ihon there is mention oâ—… drinking the blood of Christ so in his supper he sayth drink ye al of this for this is my blood As in S. Ihon there is no mention of wine to be geuen or druÌ„ken so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine at the tyme of driÌ„king nor gaue any wine at all to be druÌ„ken because it was by his words changed into his blood As at Capharuaum certaine of his Disciples went away from him so at his last supper he did reiect and separate them from his table And as his twelue Apostles most faithfully taried with him at Capharnaum so they alone were in the night of his betraying admitted to his holy table As at Capharnaum when Christ had asked the twelue whether they also wold goe away S. Peter answered for them Lord to whom shall we goe meaning they were not offendedâ—… nor wold noÌ„t got from him euen so after his last supper S. Peter likewise all the rest sayd they wold not deâ—…ie him though all the world forsoke him or toke offence against him As at Capharnaum Christ sayd that one of the twelue was a deuill so at his last supper yâ— Bospel doth tell that Satan entred into Iudas one of the twelue If the tyme wordes dedes persons throughly agree it is vnsemely to make them diuerse kindes of eating and drinking whereof one man at one tyme of the yere speaketh and practiseth to the same Disciples so conformable a doctrine and doing ¶ It is proued out of the holy Fathers and generall Councels that Christ in S. Ihon spake of his last supper THat I may here omit S. Ignatius who defineth the bread of God of heauen and of life which is named in the sixth of S. Ihon to be the flesh of Christ and his cup or blood That I may let passe Clemens Alexandrinus who speaking of the nourishment which we that are baptized in Christ haue by him calleth it not only Christ the word milk bread and drink but also the flesh and blood and body of Christ and the mysterie of bread alleging diuerse places out of S. Ihon for that purpose Last of all that I may not stand vpon Origen who comparing the fulnes of Baptism to the red sea which was but a shadow and likewise the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper to Mauna declareth out of S. Ihon that now the flesh of Christ is meate in deed by that meanes witnessing that he toke the words of the sixth of S. Ihon to belong to the mysterie oâ—… Christes last banket Surely S. Cyprian doth not only by occasion of other talk but euen of set purpose teache that who so euer for some great fault is any long tyme kept from the body of Christ in the Sacrament he is in danger of euerlasting life And yâ— because Christ sayd except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood ye shal not haue life in you And yet he should wholy faile of his proofe if that place which he bringeth out of S. Ihon did not proue the necessitie of communicating Sacramentally S. Athanasius setting foorth a brief and compendiouse rehersal of the whole diuine Scripture witnesseth that Christ at his coming to Capharnaum reasoneth with the multitude concerning the mysteries Which saying of his can not be iustified according to the historicall sense which he professeth in that worke if Christ in S. Ihon spake principally of that spirituall eating which is besyde his holy mysteries S. Hilarie disputing of the naturall veritie of Christ which is in vs by the SacrameÌ„t of receauing his flesh doth not only bring for that intent these words My flesh is meate in deed But also concludeth that as well by the profession of our Lord as by our own faith Christes flesh is truly in vs. And certainly he meaneth it so to be in vs as we receaue it in his last supper But if the place by him alleged proue not so muche his reason lacketh a sufficient ground for so much as he citeth none other authoritie for that argument of his against the Arrians but only the words which are in S. Ihon. By those words he affirmeth Christ to be in vs after such sort that he is in vs naturally and we naturally in him S. Basile intituling his booke of Baptism and wholy bent to declare the Sacraments of
chalice of blessing to be the communicatiâ—…g of Christes blood according as Christ said He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. Leo the great sayth we ought so to communicate with our Lords table that we doubt nothing of the veritie of his body and blood seing he sayd Except ye eat the flesh c. Theodoritus speaking of the holy mysteries ioyneth with the words of the supper these also The bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Isychius shewing that the penitent person may eate the bread whereof Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh ioyneth there with all the words of S. Paul Let a man proue him self and so eate Declaring both sayings to belong to one mysterie Theophilact vpon these words The bread which I will geue witnesseth that Christ manifestly telleth vs in this place of the mysticall communion of his body Damascenus declaring that Christ sayd This is my body and not the figure of my body bringeth for the same purpose Except ye eate the flesh c. Prosper Aquitanicus ioyneth these words Except ye eate the flesh c. with these except a man be born again of water to shew that the Sacraments of Christ doe geue vs grace and not oâ—…r own works which goe before baptism As therefore S. Cyprian and S. Augustin applie those two sayings to two seuerall Sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist so must we think that Prosper doth who most diligently folowed S. Augustine Proco pius Gazeus writeth yâ— these words except ye eate my flesh c. Typum mysteriorum quae sub ipso latent continent conteine the foorm of the mysteries which lie priuie vnder it Eucherius teaching that Christ feedeth vs with the nourishmeÌ„ts of the healthiull mysterie saith that he distributeth to euery man a â—…ake of that bread which came down â—…rom heauen and geueth life to the world Cassiodorus saying that Christ did coâ—…secrate his body blood in geuing of bread and wine proueth it because him self sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Primatius shewing how the chalice of blessing is the communicating of the blood of Christ bringeth our Sauiour his words in S. Ihon saying he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him S. Bede folowed in all points S. Augustin whose words he reciteth both vpon S. Ihon vpon S. Paule And therefore we nede not doubt but he is wholy of yâ— same mind Angelomus vpon the first booke of the kings reciteth S. Ihon in the same sense Haimo vpon S. Paule intreating of the Sacrament conferreth S. Paules words with the sixth of S. Ihon. S. Bâ—…rnard although he say the eating of the flesh of Christ to be the folowing of his painful conuersation in suffering voluntarie 〈◊〉 for his sake yet well knowing that Christ spake literally also of an other kinde of eating he saieth that Christ did speake of penance in a figure that is to saie couertly as rather including penance vnder the wordes which he named then expressely naming it Vnde hoe designat illibatum illud altaris sacramentum vbi dominicum corpus accipimus wherefore that pure Sacrament of the altar where we take our Lords body betokeneth so much Behold the true and literall meaning of Christes wordes is to haue his flesh eaten in the sacrament of the altar But that eating importeth a folowing of Christ in his painful conuersation For as that forme of bread saieth S. Bernard is seene to enter into vs so let vs knowe that Christ thorough that conuersation which he had in earth eutreth into vs to dwell by faith in our hartes Whereby we maie perceaue that S. Bernard vnderstandeth the sixth chapter of S. Iohn so literally of the sacrament of the altar that thereupon he buildeth a couert and a figuratiue preaching of penance Euthymius noteth that Christ did not say I do geue my flesh but I wil geue because he minded to geue it in his last supper Nicolaus Methonensis hauing first rehersed the wordes of the Gospell this is my body straight expoundeth all the chapter of S. Iohn thereof shewing the profit which we take by this Sacrament Samonas after the wordes of the supper declared as not betokening a figure or image affirmeth Christ to haue said in other places the same thing and straight reciteth the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn I omitt here Petrus Cluniacensis Guimundus Algerus Lanfrancus S. Thomas de Aquino Albertus Magnus Dionysius the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra a great number of late writers which all agreed vpon the same vnderstanding of the sixth of S. Iohu But what speake I of these Fathers one by one not only the Councel of Trident hath taken witnesse for the Sacrament of the altar out of S. Iohn but also the seuenth kept at Nice and the first kept at Ephesus doth allege against Nestorius the heretike for the presence of Christes person in the SacrameÌ„t the wordes of S. Iohn his gospell Yea the whole west church readeth the same gospell of S. Iohn when it celebrateth the feast of corpus Christi daie And surely wheÌ„ the Church kepeth any feast whereof there is mention in the gospell according to the letter it alwaies chooseth to reade that part where the feast is literally mentioned It wold therefore be very absurd sith S. Mathew S. Marke and S. Luke haue written so distinctly the historie of Christes supper to leaue them all and to reade the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn if the same wordes had any other sense more literall then that which belongeth to the supper of Christ. So that I trust there is no possible cause of doubting to a sober man but that the wordes of Christ in this chapiter maie literally and according to the first and chief meaning of them be brought to declare what we ought to thinke of his bodily presence in the Sacrament of his last supper But if any man be not fully satisfied therein let him reade the processe folowing and he shal haue lesse cause to doubt any more in this matter ¶ Answer is made to their obiections who teache out of the holy fathers that the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating FOr their opinion who think the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn to speake only of the spiritual and not of the worthy sacramental eating of Christes body the authoritie of certaine fathers is alleged who are thought somtimes to expound the wordes of this chapiter partly of belefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth by the sacramentes of baptisme and of penance But it maie seme a sufficient answere to that obiection if we saie first that so many fathers do not expound the wordes of Christ in the sixth chapter of S. Iohn of any other one
last supper he sayd This is my body which is or shal be geuen for you thereby geuing vs in his supper a far better meale then he gaue to Moyses or Elias euen so in this place when he promiseth to geue vs the bread which is his flesh for y◠world he meaneth not that we shall haue no more then Iacob had but that our meate is such as also is the propitiation for the synnes of the whole world By which words it is shewed y◠our meat is also an externall sacrifice and not that it is only a spirituall food receaued by faith and charitie Concerning that daily we may eate y◠bread which Christ promiseth it is not against the Sacrament of his supper which is left to be our daily and supersubstantial bread Either because we may come daily to it or els because being receaued at certaine tymes it always tarieth with vs by some spirituall effect which the Sacramentall receauing worketh in vs. And as the absolutiō which we receaue of the Priest at certain tymes causeth a continual Penance in vs through all our life so a Sacramental receauing of Christes body causeth a cōtinuall eating of him by spirit Now Christ so meant to haue his flesh eaten spiritually that the ordinarie cause of that feeding should consist in the Sacrament of his last supper for that Sacrament mainteineth our spiritual life as S. Paule teacheth The last reason of the contrarie part is thus foormed Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tary in him and him to tary in vs. But that is not alwayes the effecte of the Sacramentall eating for as S. Paul sayeth a man maye eate Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar vnworthely and to his damnation Therefore say they Christ speaketh not in S. Ihon of sacramentall eating but only of that eating by faith and charitie whereby we maye liue for euer For answere to this argument thus I saye Sacramentall eating must be considered two waies as all the other workes of God towardes men maye be considered one waye is to consider it in that nature vertue and effect which God for his part putteth in the Sacrament An other is in that abuse and imperfection which man wickedly committeth about the holy workes of God Who can doubt but that Christ came into the world to saue men vt saluetur mundus per ipsum that the world maye be sayd by him as for condemnation it was not brought in by Christ but by Adam and Eue our first parents and by our owne wilful synnes ad misdoinges And yet the holy scriptures witnes that Christ is the sauour of death to many and the stone whereat they stomble not through any fault of his but because they vse their freewil to the worse part with whom he hath to do Euen so cometh it to passe in the blessed Sacrament of the altar Christ geueth it only to this end that we by eating thereof maye tarie in him and he in vs. For as Isychius hath well noted Sanctificationis causa non autem contaminationis proposuit suum mysterium Christ hath set foorth his mysterie to sanctifie and not to spott vs. As he geueth faith to th' end it should worke by charitie and not to th' end it should lye dead and vnfruitfull And in dede so should all men tary for euer in Christ if they did eate this Sacrament as they ought to do If nowe they will profanely come vnto it without contrition and confession of their synnes and absolution of the priest that is not the sault of the Sacrament which is geuen to make vs dwel for euer in Christ but it is their fault who abuse the gift of God to their owne hurte and losse This thing wel weighed I answere that alwaies the effect of Sacramentall eating on Christes behalfe is the tarying of vs in Christ and of Christ in vs. And S. Paul saying that some receyue it vnworthely and to their damnation speaketh not of any effect rising of the Sacrament it self but only of a negligence and impietie which standeth on their part who come to the rea◅ flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as if it were common bread and wine only halowed by the deuout praiers of man whereas in dede it is changed in substance by the mightie power of the word of God Let it therefore stand for a truth as it is a most vndoubted truth that Christ in the sixth chapiter of S. Ihon doth prophecie of his last supper promising to geue in it his own flesh to be eaten as the which is meate in dede and for his part he promiseth that it shall haue a perfit effect albeit we sometymes through ma lice withstand his goodnes This meaning is not only true in it self but it is confirmed also by S. Augustine who declaring that a thing good in it self may be vnpro◅itable to him y◠vseth it euill after he had shewed that to be so in light which hurteth sick eyes and delighteth the whole eyes and in the law in which although the Iewes were yet they abused the same at the length he cometh to our very purpose saying Quid de ipso corpore sanguine Domini vnico sacrificio pro salute nostra quamuis ipse Dominus dicat nisi manducaueritis caet What say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord the only sacrifice for our saluation Not withstanding that our Lord him self sayth Except a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him self doth not yet the same Apostle teache euen this thing to be made hurtfull to them y◠vse it euill For he sayth Whosoeuer eat eth the bread and drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. What cā be plainer then these words of S. Augustine Who thought that argument which I haue answered to be nothing worth at all affirming the Apostle S. Paule and Christ in S. Ihon to speake of one and the same body or flesh of Christ as it is geuen in the Sacrament of his last supper And truly they doe no small iniury to S. Augustine who by any meanes wold father vpon him this opinion as though he taught Christ in S. Ihon to speake only of a spirituall eating by faith and charitie whereas he neuer gaue any sufficient token of that meaning but expresly teacheth the contrarie as all the other Fathers doe The reason which moued some men to think that S. Augustine meant so was for that he speaketh much of spiritual eating and of the vnitie of Christes Church But that eating is also made and best of all made in the mysteries of Christes supper when they are worthely receaued as Christ wold allways haue them to be receaued If any other argument remain by this which is already said it may be easily sene
it was expedient for vs the flesh assumpted of Christe to tary flesh still in dede seing God is by all meanes immutable neither could the word be changed into flesh neither flesh into the word but sith the substance of common bread doth not helpe vs to life enerlasting and may be chaunged into the flesh of Christ it is by the power of Christ chaunged into his flesh when he taking bread and blessing saith this is my body Hereby we may see how the name of brâ—…ad and the figure of Manna is ioyned with the flesh of Christ as the processe of this chapiter teacheth Hereby we may vnderstand how the blessed seed of Abraham which is the body of Christ is ioyned with the apparent shewe that Melchisedech made of bread and wine how the vnleauened bread eaten with the old lambe is the couer of the trew paschall lambe Iesus Christ and to be short how the substance of the old figure is gone into the substance of Christes flesh and how the outwarde forme of the figure remayneth vntill we come to heauen where we shall see face to face without any vayle or shadow put betwene vs and the gloriouse flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that as S. Ireneus doth witnes the Eucharist consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and of wine of the other heauenly which is the substance of Christes body and blood But if Christes gift consisted of the substance of bread being only sanctified in quality and made a signe of Christes body as yâ— Sacramentaries teache it should neither be that true bread which his Father gaue him nor be in substance better then manna but rather worse for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels whereas at Christes supper common bread is taken nor it should not be disâ—…ncted from the gift made in the law for as much as there also while Manna was eaten the iust men had grace frome God geuen them because it was a Sacrament of the law It is not therefore grace and commoÌ„ bread which Christ geueth but the substance of his flesh made vnder the forme of common bread by his almighty word ¶ By the shadow of the law past and by the 〈◊〉 truthe to come in heaueÌ„ it is perceaued that yâ— midle state of the new Testament requireth the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of breaâ—… THe occasion of the thre tymes the past the present and the future and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. Iohn doth prouoke me to eÌ„tre into a farther discourse whereby it may appeare to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures what wonderfull witnesse euery part of them doth beare to that truthe which our forefathers beleued and we that are not bastarde children doe kepe and mayntaine The law saieth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of things whereby he meaneth that as the lawe had but a shadow so the ghospell hath the thing it self but yet not clere and playne for as the same Apostle sayeth we in this world walke by fayth and not by vision and clere sight If Christ gaue not vnto vs his reall and substanciall flesh vnder the forme of bread how gaue he vs the thing it self How were he by that gyfte proued greater then Moyses and equall with his Father If on the other side he gaue vs his flesh naked how were our state an image of the things them selues Christ is our mediatoure A mediatour is in the myddle to ioyne two partes that otherwise do not agree then if he will make man agree with God he must haue â—…oth the nature of God and of man ioyned in one person likewise if he wil make the state of the ghospell present agree with the law past and with the state of glorye to come he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glorye of heauen and ioyne these two into one mystery and so he hath done For as he is in one person very God and very man so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the lawe and the state of heauen in oâ—… Sacrament The nature of the law of Moyses was to shew Christ and to be a guyde vnto the schole of Christ which thing it did by diuerse figures The nature of glory is to see face to face to haue all truth with 〈◊〉 any figure Now the state of the new Testament being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaueÌ„ must haue the very truth that is in heauen which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angelles desyer to looke and the true Godhead which is the full blessednes of all sainctes and this thing it must haue vnder a figure Therefore the theâ—…e Sacrament thát Christ left vnto his Church which also he called the new Testament in his blood must by the same reason haue yâ— true flesh of Christ wherein the Godhead dwelleth corporally and yâ— vnder a very figure which is the forme of bread Aâ—…d truly this forme of bread and of wyne is only a true figure because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure Other figures of the olde lawe were set to signify being them selues 〈◊〉 other substance in nature as the arke the tabernacle the vayle the â—…hewebread and all the sacrifices but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signifie the bread of life really present vnder it that is the only true figure as the whiche hathe none other truthe in his own substance but only the truth of a figure because the substance thereof is turned into that flesh of Christ who vnder the figure of yâ— ordre of Melchisedech whereof he is priest fullfilleth all figures that euer haue bene of him in his real and substanciall flesh which real flesh yf we had not in our SacrameÌ„t of the altar Christ gaue no more in his outward mysteries then was geuen by Moyses he were not equal with his Father by his gyfte he were not yâ— corner stone ioyning the state of Moyses law which was only 〈◊〉 aâ—…d the veritie of glory together But if these are great â—…rrours let vs stedfastly beleue that Christ left vs his very crue rcall flesh in the blessed Sactament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wyne For as in other precepts we may vnderstand the old law not to be taken away concerâ—…ing the spirit which laie hid in it but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed yet the state of fulfilling them is suche that the new Testament is not it self without all figures but rather conteineth the truth couered with a conuenient figure Uerily Christ sayd so much in effect when he taught that he came not to putt away the law but to
Nyssa reasoneth our nature is not at any certain state but continueth in his substance by perpetuall motion drawing to it that which it lacketh and expelling superfluoâ—…se things As therefore our baptim is made by real washing with water real renewing of yâ— holy Ghost so nowe in the supper of Christ it behoueth we be really fed with the fruit of the 〈◊〉 of life which is â—…one other thing besyde the flesh of Christ. That flesh thâ—…n 〈◊〉 be really eaten of vs and not only eaten by spirit 〈◊〉 is conuenient for Angels but satisfieth not the necessitieâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature but eaten by mouth and body For of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ at this tyme neither is it worth while to say that the body shall eate bread while the soul feedeth vpon the flesh of Christ. For the bread and wine haue no promise made in this place of them For albeit bread and wine be necessarie to the consecrating of the Sacrament yet the substance of theÌ„ is not necessarie at yâ— tyme of receauing the Sacrament it is only the flesh which died for vs that Christ promiseth to geue to be eaten it is the flesh of the sonne of man which if we eate not we shall not haue life in vs. It is Christes flesh which if we eate he will reise vs vp at the last day That flesh of his must be eaten his only blood must be drunken This threatning which is made if we receaue not worthely the flesh of Christ must be vnderstanded in his kind like the other threatning precept made before concerninge baptism where it was sayd except a man be borne again of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen bothe are Sacraments both necessarie to faithful men and both profitable to life euerlasting that whiche water doth in wasshing vs the fleshe of Christ must do in feeding vs. for this cause the ancient Fathers haue alwais both ioyned these two Sacraments together and haue alleged these two places for them the one out of the third the other out of the sixth of S. Iohn and they haue named the one baptism of wasshing and the other is called Christes body and blood of that substance whiche is geuen in it What should I name here S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Augustine all the rest who reckon euery where the same truth of flesh to be in the 〈◊〉 which is concerning water in baptisme Therefore as the water which washeth vs is present really so must the fleshe of Christ which feedeth vs be made really present As baptisme can not be truely kept without naturall water so can not the supper of Christ be truely kept without his naturall flesh As if an euil maÌ„ come to baptism he is truly washed though not profitably to him self so if an euill man come to the supper of Christ he truly though not worthely receaueth his flesh As it is not enough for the Sracrament of baptism to haue water present in faith only and in spirite or vnderstanding so the presence of Christes flesh by faith spirite or vnderstanding only suffiseth not to make the Sacrament of his supper I pray you what vnderstanding had children wherewith they might receaue the body and blood of Christe and yet seing it is 〈◊〉 by the witnesse of S. Cyprian of S. â—…unocentius and of S. Augustin that children although without euident 〈◊〉 receaued the 〈◊〉 in many places of christendoÌ„ euen while the Churche was yet in his cheife floure it can not be denied but in that age all those Bishops Doctors and preachers which vsed to do so dyd well vnderstand that the receauing of the Eucharist consisted not in receauing Christ by actuall faith and meditation of his death and resurrection but in the vertue of those visible giftes which were sanctified by the Priestes vpon the holy altar of God and thence distributed to the faithfull people Tâ—…at custome of so auncient time vsed more for a securitie theÌ„ for necessitie yet was approued of God thus farre that we thereby might haue an 〈◊〉 witnesse of the learned farthers aucthority against them who doubt not to affirme all the writers and preachers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ to haue beleued of our Lords supper as the new preachers do now proâ—… in England But the new preachers make the substance of Christes supper to 〈◊〉 in faith in spirite and in vnderstanding And that not in 〈◊〉 saith whiche another man 〈◊〉 for me as it is dâ—…ne for 〈◊〉 antes at the 〈◊〉 bâ—…t teache tâ—…e â—…upper â—…o conâ—…ist in 〈◊〉 faith as euery man for him self bringeth and 〈◊〉 So that if a man thinke not of Christes death and lifting vp his hart doe not swetely feede vppon Christ sitting at the right hand of his Fa ther they say he doth not receaue our Lords body And they teach that he eateth nothing but breade and wine and toucheth nor the body and blood of Christ at all Of whoÌ„ I aske what S. 〈◊〉 what all the other Bishops of Aâ—…rica thought If they had thought so as these men doe they would not haue geueÌ„ the Eucharist to children and infants who could not â—…uminate Christes passion nor thinke vpon him sitting in heauen They doutlesse beleued farre otherwise of the Sacrament then so They beleued the body and blood of Christ to be really conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine and therefore that children might haue profite by receauing it into their verie bodies soules albeit they could not lift vp their mindes actually to heauen The matter in those daâ—…es dyd not stand vppon the faith of men but vpon the word of God who said this is my body This I say which I bid you take this whiche I geue this whiche I bid you eate What a toy is it nowe for our Sacramentaries to imagin an eating aboue the sky whereas the body is geuen to the Apostles hands mouthes by Christ himself and to the haÌ„ds or mouthes of other faithfull men by his ministers in earth ¶ That S. Augustine did not teach these words except ye eate the flesh c. to betoken the eating oâ—… Christ onâ—…y by faith and spirit nor yet the eating oâ—… materiall bread with 〈◊〉 remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to theâ—…d we may be the better wyned to the spirit of God IF any speache sayth S. Augustin seme to command a dishonorable acte or vncharitable deed or to forbyd a profitable or benesiciall thing that speache conteineth some figure Fxcept ye eate sayth our Lord the slesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you He semeth to command a dishonorable act or an euyll deed It is therefore a figure coÌ„manding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and yâ— we should swetely and profitably remember that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. This place of S. Augustine
because a certain vse or maner of a thing forbidden doth not infer that the substance of the thing it self is forbidden Yea contrariewise the forbidding of one maner semeth to licence the same thing in an other maner As if the law say let noman were a sword in the city it semeth to graunt that men may were a sword in the highe way And yet because S. Augustine sayth we ought to take Christes words figuratiuely in respect of such a foule maner of eating his flesh as the Iewes imagined the Sacramentarie will conclude that Christes flesh it self must not be eaten really and substancially at all See on the other syde why the Catholikes argument is good and laudable Euery maner and qualitie which is graunted coÌ„cerning the vse of any substance doth infer of necessitie the hauing of that substance But we may externally in a Sacrament by our fact and dede as wel as by faith eate Christes flesh Quomodo spiritu vegetatur after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit therefore we must haue it substancially and really present to the end we may so eate it in the sayd Sacrament The not eating it after a grosse maner doth not take away the eating of it in substance but the eating of it in a Sacrament whereof we now speake as it is dwâ—…t in of the 〈◊〉 which is a moâ—… pure maner of eating it doth include the eating of it in substaÌ„ce where dwelleth the Godhead but in the substance of Christes flesh Or how can I eate it as the spirit doth quicken it if I eat not the substance of it which only is quickened and vnited to the Godhead which thing sith it is so S. Augustine meaneth noâ—… by calling Christes words figuratiue to exclude the eating 〈◊〉 his flesh substancially but to exclude the eating of it by peece meale or els for the filling of the belly And therefore vppon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he writeth Quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam After such maner as they vnderstode flesh I do not so geue my flesh to eate What is this to say but I gâ—…ue my flesh to be eaten after an other sort but not in an other substance then the Iewes thought of The Iewes erred in the maner of eating as thinking they should eate it in that visible quantitie wherein Christ spake and so they erred in the maner but not in the substance of Christes flesh But the Sacramentaries erre in the substance it 〈◊〉 The Iewes thought Christes slesh should haue bene eaten properly and naturally as other meates are eaten which are diuided and perished in the eating The Sacramentaries think that Christes flesh must not be eaten substancially or in truth of his own nature but 〈◊〉 and by faith alone The truth receaued in the whole Catholike Church is that Christes flesh is eaten both substancially and figuratiuâ—… in such sort that the 〈◊〉 eating is referred to an eating by faith we eate Christes flesh substancially because his true substance was both shadowed in the law of nature and of Moyses to be eaten and prophecied of before as meate and drink and promised by Christ vnder those names And deliuered by his own hands with these words This is my body and this is my blood take and eate and beleued in the whole church and adored vnder the formes of bread and wine through all Christendome we beleue that same substance of Christes flesh to be also eaten figuratiuely because it is not remoued thereby from his place in heauen but is made present by wordes which signifie worke the presence of his flesh and blood It is not sene in his own shape not felt nor tasted in his own proprieties not cut into peeces although diuerse take it together it is not perished by eating it â—…deth not the belly or yâ— sensible but the reasonable spiritual life it is not eaten only to be eateÌ„ but to make vs remeÌ„bre effectually and to conforme our selues to the death and life of him whose flesh it is And thereby to make vs to loue him to beleue him to be the bread of life to all the faithsull and no lesse to gather diuerse men into one mysticall body of his church then diuerse bodies of wheat and of grapes are made into one artificiall body of bread and wine the which mysticall body he will no lesse change from mortalitie then he hath changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood Seing the flesh of Christ may signifie so many things vnto vs through the maner of the presence it were more then madnesse to say it is not a figure or is not eaten figuratiuely But because it signifieth so many things therefore to deny it to be present is to take away no lesse the figures whiche come by the presence of it then the thing it felfe Christ is the figure of his fathers substance the image of God who can not be sene he is 〈◊〉 in shape as a man But what is he not therefore the same substance with his father 〈◊〉 God with him and true man in dede who reason thus but 〈◊〉 who but ArriaÌ„s but Marcionits but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did S. 〈◊〉 gustine euer meane suche a figure of Christes 〈◊〉 whiche was voide of the truth sigured taught he not that we must adore the body and blood of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 it â–ª but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 doth not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 or twain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bread is there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lose is both bread 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 so is the 〈◊〉 of Chri. a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. It is the flesh it self and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 owne substance without any 〈◊〉 or lacke and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of death whiche the same 〈◊〉 hauing 〈◊〉 once 〈◊〉 not now suffer but would by his own 〈◊〉 make it 〈◊〉 to vs in suche sort that we should 〈◊〉 the death of 〈◊〉 and partake the fruites of the death as oft as we came to receaue that 〈◊〉 worthely what nede more wordes To geue a brief resolution of S. 〈◊〉 mynd it is to be noted that both by his iudgemeÌ„t and by the 〈◊〉 of the Sa cramentaries these words except ye eate the flesh c. belong to the mysterie of Christes supper therefore if they be figuratiue they must shewe some figure in one parte or other of the supper The supper coÌ„sisteth of bread wine as of material parts â—…of it must be made and of pronouncing vpoÌ„ or ouer them as S. Iustinus the martyr speaketh the wordes instituted by Christ this is my body and this is my blood the which words wheÌ„ they come to
the elements of bread and wine the SacrameÌ„t is made what is that Sacramente we say it is the making present in a miraculouse sorte the true body and blood of Christ. Our aduersaries say it is the appointing of bread and wine to be a figure of Christes body and blood through the remembrance of his death For our belefe I bring S. Augustines authoritie who saith except ye eate my flesh are words figuratiue and out of it thus I reason The â—…ating of Christes fleshe and the 〈◊〉 of his blood being reall 〈◊〉 which must be performed in Christes supper yet being called 〈◊〉 good 〈◊〉 siguratiue 〈◊〉 must nedes 〈◊〉 the sigures of somwhat the 〈◊〉 dedes words being referred to the supper os Christ 〈◊〉 nedes betoken somewhat as they are there 〈◊〉 But the eating of flesh in Christes supper can betoken nothing at all 〈◊〉 his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof may be the 〈◊〉 of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of 〈◊〉 that in Christes supper the 〈◊〉 of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drunken It is not sayd of Christ except ye eate bread drinke wine Of those elemeÌ„ts he in the promyse of his supper made at Capharâ—… speakethnot one syllable for which cause we must not aske at this time what they figure signisy in Christes supper because nowe there is no mentioÌ„ of theÌ„ except any man be so frontike as to say that yâ— flesh of Christ is here made yâ— figure of bakers bread his blood yâ— figure of wine whereupon it would folow that y◠〈◊〉 blood as being 〈◊〉 of these dead 〈◊〉 were worse and baser then the elements theÌ„ selues for euery figure is some way or other behind the truth which it figureth If then we must leaue of the consyderation of bread and wine if likewise no respect must now be had of the words of consecration which are not yet spoken os what other thing can these 〈◊〉 ratiue words except ye eate my flesh signifie in Christes supper but this except ye eate my flesh in that mysticall and wonderfull maner which I will geue it in and to that 〈◊〉 end for the which I being true God wil geue it you that is to say except ye do both take it in the Sacrament and spiritually remember my death 〈◊〉 me thanks for it and conforming your selues to it ye shall not haue 〈◊〉 in you By whiche interpretation Christes 〈◊〉 are figuratiue in so much as they meane neither that maner of â—…ating pâ—…ces of fleshe whiche the Iewes vnderstode noâ—… that end of eating it which they thought vpon mynding altoge ther as S. Cyrillus and S. Chrysostom note the feding of their bellies But if Christes flesh be not present at all whereof is it a figure when it is eaten can that which is not signifie or figure anie thing caÌ„ the flesh which is only figured at the tyme of our eating bread as the Sacramentaries teache be made a signe and figure by eating it if the eating of Christes fleshe be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue For if eating â—…e throughly taken for beleuing and for no eating at all theÌ„ these wordes do not apperteine to the SacrameÌ„tall eating of Christes supper But seing the Sacramentaries teache them to speake of the supper as in truth they doe the eating must so be figuratiue one way that yet it be true another way For if there be no true eating there lacketh a grouÌ„d which may be the figure of another eating that is to say of spirituall communicating with Christes passion If some reall eating must be had to warn vs of that spirituall eating surely that real eating can not in S. Iohn be meante of bread and wine sith Christ neuer named them therefore it is imployed that Christ meaneth except ye eate my flesh so as it is a figure both of my death and may be a cause of your spiritual life ye shal not liue euerlastiÌ„gly Thus doubtelesse did Christ meane thus dyd S. Augustine expound his wordes The Sacramentaries doc erre in making Christes words to be figuratiâ—… only passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely That is to say the Sacramentaries so take this matter as if it were only said the fleshe and blood of Christ be figured signiâ—…ed in his supper as to be spiriâ—…ually fed on But it is not so said only but also the actuall eating of Christes flesh is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating Therefore we eate really flesh one way to signifie another way the â—…ating and beleuing in flesh spiritually And that is proued out S. Ambrose most maniâ—…estly where he saith In edendo potando 〈◊〉 sanguinem for there is the point albeit the Sacramentaries go about to corrupt his wordes by euil distincting of them quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In eating and drinking the 〈◊〉 and blood we signifie those things whiche were offered â—…or vs. Behold the â—…ating 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—…ie and make a figure of the self same flesh as it was offered for vs. And so doth both Christ S. Augustine â—…ane at this tyme. our Lord coÌ„maunding vs to eatâ—… his flesh doth command vs to coÌ„municate with his passion saith S. Augustine and profitably to remember his death that is to wit he commaâ—…deth both to eate the body which died to eate it worthely to eate it in hart as wel as in mouth to eate it in remembraunce of his loue toward vs as wel as in the SacrameÌ„t to eate it as the Godhead doth quicken it and as it figureth the entring and tarying in his mysticall body the Church This eating of Christes â—…eshe is swete is profitable is not hard not carnall not without a figure or mysterie For to eate without any mystical meaning is only to fill the belly whereof Christ spake not he commanded a figuratiue eating of his fleshe the which figuratiue â—…ating should not take away the real eating of his flesh for that eating whiche is not reall can not be actiuely figuratiue sith euerie figure is made vpon a true ground of one thing done really of another thing meant mystically But the figuratiâ—…e eating importeth a farther thing then to rest in the eating it selfe It is therefore insensibly said of the SacrameÌ„taries that those wordes which naming a certain actuall and real dede as the eating of mans flesh is be â—…iguratiue because the flesh is not really â—…ten But they be in dede figuratiue because the fleshe of that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 also and vnderstanded to be more then â—…ally eaten for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritâ—…lly eaten also The Sacrameâ—…taries comâ—…ted an otâ—…er foule error in these wordes 〈◊〉 whiles they wil draw this place of S. Iohn to their purpose they are constrained to expound the wordes of Christ iâ—… this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye eate tâ—…e 〈◊〉 of the sonne of man that is to say
meate vnto the body for how saith he can a ' thing whiche lacketh a body be made meat vnto the body as who should say there is no doubt but the flesh of Christ is made meate vnto one body because Christ sayd my flesh is meate in dede and meate is ordinarilie promised to nourish the body although it being the meate of God helpeth the soule also If the bread that came downe from heauen whiche is the flesh of Christ be true meate it is a bodily thing for els how could a thinge that hath no body be made meate for the body if that can not be so truly the flesh geuen at the supper of Christ whiche is meate in dede and drinke in dede can not be only receaued in spirit but it must be so reall that it may fede our bodies also to thinteÌ„t they may be reised in the later day therefore that whiche our body receaueth when Christ saith take and eate is the same flesh of Christ which is meate in dede and seing it is proued to be a body because it is made meate vnto the body it must be meate in dede vnto vs and must be really taken into our bodies by our mouthes or els Nyssenus â—…ayleth in his whole discourse for he proueth it a body because it is meate vnto the body then certainlie it is not meate only to the soule nor it is not only receaued by faith but trulie and in dede And seing al wise men reason vpon a sure ground we may not doubt but all the Catholike Church twelue hundred yeres past and so vpward toke it for an euident truthe that Christes body was meate vnto our bodies ¶ By the maner of our tarying in Christ it is proued that we receaue his reall flesh into our bodies WHereas hitherto the necessitie the profite and the truth of eating Chrisies flesh hath bene shewed and confirmed Now the proper effect of that banket is also declared because he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his blood tarieth in Christ and Christ in him In respect whereof the same thing was before named Cibus permanens the meate which tarieth Whereby we may perceaue that in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper we doe not beginue to liue as in baptism but we maintein kepe nourish increase the sede of life which we toke in our spirituall birth Neither only doe we preserue life during the tyme of our feeding but also when the banket is ended some effect remaineth in vs through the which we are sayd to tary in Christ and he in vs. Let vs then trye out what effect that is for by the maner kind of the effect we may gather somewhat of the cause What meaueth it that Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Chryâ—…ostom answereth In me manet dicit vt cum ipso se admisceri ostendat Christ sayth He tarieth in me to shew that him self is mingled with him S. Chrysostom meaneth that whiles we receaue worthely the substance of Christes flesh into our bodies we are so intierly ioyned to him that we may be sayd to be mingled with him And how that is done S. Cyrillus declareth by this similitude As if a man poure wax vppon melted wax he wholy must nedes mingle the one with the other so it must nedes be if any man receaue the flesh and blood of our Lord that he be so ioyned with him that Christ may be found in him and he in Christ. And again Sicut parum fermenti caet As a litle leauen tempereth the whole lump of dow so a litle benedictioÌ„ whereby he meaneth a peece of the consecrated host be it neuer so smal draweth the whole man vnto it and filleth him with his grace and by this meanes Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Cyrillus calleth the things which are consecrated at Christes supper Benedictio a blessing because they are consecrated by the words of blessing the which Christ left vnto vs. Now a litle of that blessed food being receaued worthely of vs is not so properly sayd to tary in vs as we to tary in it for that though it be small in forme yet in vertue it is great And therefore it draweth vs vnto it as leauen turneth the dow to his nature It can not be auoided by these interpretations but that the heauenly food which we receaue into our mouthes is the reall substance of Christes flesh For it is here called Benedictio the blessing that word is not meant of an inward vertue coming srom heauen but of that which semeth bread and is visibly receaued at our Lords table For euen in the same Chapiter S. Cyrillus exhorteth men ad recipiendam benedictionem to receaue the Sacrament of Christes supper The which SacrameÌ„t if it were wheaten bread how could it be true that a litle thereof should draw the whole man vnto it Doth wheaten bread make vs like it are we then made vnreasonable vnsensible and a corruptible creature as wheateÌ„ bread is Christ sayth his meat tarieth to life euerlasting so doth not wheateÌ„ bread Christ sayth by eating his flesh we tary in him But we tary in him whiles the gift which at his supper he deliuereth is mingled with vs and conuerteth vs vnto it as S. Chrysostom and S. â—…yrillus teache And yet we be not conuerted or drawen to the nature of materiall bread or wine therefore it appeareth the gift which Christ deliuered not to haue bene bread and wine but his own body and blood vnder those formes S. Hilarie bringeth the very same word of tarying to proue that as Christ is in his Father by the nature of Godhead we in him by his corporall birth so he is in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments and tarieth in vs naturally The like witnesse Theophilact geueth saying Contemperatio fit noua super rationem ita vt sit Deus in nobis nos in ipso There is made by eating Christes flesh a new mingling together so that God is in vs and we in him Briefly thus Christ meaneth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood receaueth me as meate into his body and soule But because I come not to nourish carnall life but spiritual in him he doth not digest and turn my body into his as it happeneth in other meates but he is turned to be like me For the real ioyning and knitting of my flesh to his maketh a maruelouse mixture as if melted wax were poured to other wax so that a great grace and vertue is left of me in him whereby he may tary still in me and increase the fountain of life which is in him This kind of our tarying in Christ and of his with vs could not be true if we â—…ed spiritually only vpoÌ„ Christ absent in body For how can the body which is only in heauen be so teÌ„pered tâ—… our bodies soules in earth as one melted wax being powred
him self to be almyghty God He said also that it was profytable because he that dyd eate his flesh and drinke his blood should be raised againe to life euerlasting If they had beleued him in these pointes they might haue asked yea without asking they had knowen at or not long after his last supper the maner how it should haue bene coÌ„ueniently done as those Apostles did know who continued in their belefe And the way of knowledge was at his last supper where taking breade with speaking of these wordes this is my body he changed the substance of the breade into his body and wylled his disciples to take and eate his body This much those could not fre because thei would not beleue but to say that Christ hyndred their belefe by words more hard then neded that is more cruelly sayd thê it neded Oportebat c. they ought saith S. Cyril first of al to cast the rootes of faith in their mind and then to aske the thinges that were to be asked but the Iewes asked importunely before they beleued for this cause our Lord shewed them not how it might be brought to passe aâ—…terward S. Cyrill declareth how Christ in his last supper shewed yâ— maner also to theÌ„ who dyd beleue although they asked not for it ¶ The right vnderstanding of those words It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing I May be the shorter in this point because none of those who are meanely conuersant in the bookes of auncient writers though otherwyse they beleue not well haue applied these words against the reall presence of Christes body in his last supper for how can it be that Christes fleshe which is geuen for the life of the world should profite nothing Therefore S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh after one sort for the fleshly and carnall vnderstanding of the Iewes who thought they should haue eaten Christ as men eat mutton and beefe whereas Christ meant to geue his flesh in a secret maner as the faithful know which notwithstaÌ„ding the Luciferian spirit of Caluin reproueth this first vnderstanding in his comments vppon this place But it is sufficient to say that he difsented from those three notable pillers of Gods Church before named The second vnderstanding is on Christes behalf whose flesh should not profit any thing if the spirit that is to say the Godhead did not make it able to geue vs euerlasting life The which sense is chiefly followed by S. Augustin also and by S. Cyrillus Now seing the flesh of Christ is geuen so to vs vnder the foorm of bread that the Godhead is present with it we are sure to haue much profit by it What nede moe words If this saying appertem not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our belefe If it doe appertein to it the words are Propheticall because they speake before hand of a thing which most certeinly shall come to passe in the last supper and then the fulfilling of them will make them plaine For as Procopius saith A prophecie at the first sight is not clere but when it is come to the euent which was forespoken and is coÌ„ferred with the thing it self then draweth it to a perfit clerenes If now the sayd words were fulsilled at the supper and take a clere vnderstaÌ„ding thereof what meaning can they haue but that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spiritual sort not after a fleshely maner He gaue not a shoulder to one Apostle and a legg to an other a brest to the third and a ribbe to the fourth but the whole body to euery 〈◊〉 not visible in the forme of flesh but inuisible in the forme of bread so making plaine why he had so often called him selfe bread and said that the bread which he would geue is his flesh He gaue not his body without his soule and Godhead neither his blood without his bones and flesh but the spirite quickened al things eche kinde had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by geuing of it but by his words which are spirit and life turned bread and wine into his body and blood shewing yâ— as he was at the table in his whole body notwithstanding they did eate the same body so he might be in heauen although the sub stance of his true body and blood were geuen in his Sacrament in earth What shall I say more If the vnderstanding of these words depend vpon the last supper they must not geue vs a rule how to vnderstand the last supper but they must take their vnderstanding of it Who dare say that bread was crucified for vs because Ieremie sayd Mittamus lignum in panem eius let vs put wood into his bread Do we not rather say that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified therefore in Ieremie bread is taken for flesh Who dare say that Christ had hornes in his hands because Habacuk said Cornua in manibus eius Do we not rather say that by hornes he meante the corners of the crosse because we are sure that Christ had vpon the crosse no materiall hornes in his hands If then these words the spirit quickeneth be referred to the supper and there we finde bread wine taken and after blessing body and blood geuen we may be well assured that one truth doth not take away the other Spirit doth not take away flesh but spirit must be taken for the Godhead which maketh the flesh both to be present and profitable to all such as receaue it worthely ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life shew that his reall flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of nature and reason VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt The words which I haue spoken or as the greke text readeth which I doe speake to you are spirit and life The Capharnaits hearing Christ say he wold geue his flesh to be eaten partly thought it not possible for him to geue partly not semely for them selues to take They imagined a diuisioÌ„ of yâ— flesh which should be deliuered and consequently the person whose flesh were cut in such peeces must die but how could a dead man geue his own flesh to be eaten Again though he could doe it what a cruel thing were it for them to eate mans flesh Christ knowing this theyr grosse concept sayth that the sonne of man wil ascend into heauen where he was before Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead Next that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lacke of life either in yâ— geuer or in the thing geueÌ„ For theÌ„ in dede the gift should be litle worth because it is the spirit life which quickeneth dead flesh profiteth nothing to euerlasting life My words sayth Christ be spirit and life that is to say they
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
was healed Her body also touched his manhod and her body was likewise cured Seing then it is writen This is my body and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith Seing that beâ—…eif is so honorable vnto God so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs and so profitable vnto vs that the contrarie assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures and the like belefe of the Church the like honour of God the like loue of Christ and the like profite of our soules There can be no reason alleged hereafter why we should oâ—…ce geue audieÌ„ce to him that pretendeth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine For what thing possibly can excede these causes before alleged Moreouer all â—…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper words partly for the pleasantnes of speaking Christ surely lacked not words to shew that he gaue bread for a signe of his body if in dede he had done so For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity our new brethern must proue that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure but how can they know that S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue then that we take not a figuratiue speache for a proper The rule to know the one from the other is this Vt quicquid in sermone diuino c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the honestie of manners nor to yâ— truthe of faith thou maist know to be figuratiue Yf nowe these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood may be referred to the truthe of faith in so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen in the Sacrament of the altar not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners as good men vnderstand Christes presence vnder the form of bread but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries therefore it followeth yâ— they be not of necessitie figuratiue of necessitie I say because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners why they may not be proper whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte when he neded not â–ª but who so affirmeth so muche beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing yâ— whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure What argument haue our new brethern to proue that it pleased Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue how can they be sure that they erre not in their indgement when we reade that God is angry or sory or that Iohn Baptist is Elias or that the rocke is Christ we say they are siguratiue speaches because they can not be proper Anger falleth not in God nor sorrow the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature because it is a rocke for by nature they are seueral thinges and suche as do not stand together the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament if Christ had sayd this bread is my body and this wine is my blood but he foresaw greate cause why he wold not say so For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine that when the substance of his body and blood should be present the substances of bread and wine should not remain of this we are sure because besyde the faith of the whole Churche the proper signification of the words inforceth so much as now it shal be declared ¶ That as all other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare WHat meaning words ought to haue we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them For if the contrary do not appeare al words must be taken in that meaning aâ—…d sense which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them Otherwise all things are confounded and the profite which cometh of words is lost Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth neither how to make his own bargaine or last will and Testament Certè peruersissimum est sayth Tertullian vt carnem nominantes animam intelligamus animam significantes carnem interpretemur Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quà msunt amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur si aliter quà m sunt cognoninantur Fides nominum salus est proprietatum Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing that naming the â—…esh we should vnderstand the soule and signifying the soule we should expound it the flesh all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are and whiles they are otherwise takeÌ„ to loose that they are if they be named otherwise then they are The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge how foule a thing it is that hearing the body of Christ named we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body And hearing the blood of Christ named we should expound it the signe of his blood As well when he is named the Sonne of God we may expound it the image of the Sonne of God And so we open a gate to all heresie we take away all certeintie of speache and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust pleasure We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much Sayth not Marcellus the same being taught only by coÌ„mon wisedom and iudgement Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quà m cum manifestuÌ„ est aliud sensisse testatorem We must not otherwise depart from the significatioÌ„ of the words but when it is manifest yâ— the testatour thought an other thing In which rule if we rest all the world well knoweth that when Christ said This is my body and This is my blood the words both by theire propre signisication and by the present vse of all speakers and writers do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood For neither the pronoun This pointeth to a thing absent neither the verb is can be said of that which presently hath no true being neither the noun body vseth to be verisied of a shadow figure or token of a body neither when Christ sayeth
This is my body any faithfull man doubteth but that both Christ had a true naturall body which he might geue and is able to make his word true vseth to vtter no falshood And whereas Christ sayd after bread taken This is my body it is geuen vs to vnderstand that by his word he maketh that particular substaunce of bread which was taken into his hands to be his own body what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these knowen significations and seeke out other more strange The law of nature wold vs to rest in the names which we find Iradition also maketh for the same interpretation And surely these are that chief rules to know that meanig which any words may haue Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule saying Omnia diuina verba non habent opus allegoria sed prout se habent accipienda sunt Speculatione autem indigent sensu ad cognoscendam vniuscuiusque argumeÌ„ti vim facultatem Oportet autem traditione vti non enim omnia a diuina Scriptura accipi possunt All the words of God nede not an allegorie or a figuratiue meaning but they are to be taken as they be They require in dede a diligent obseruation and vnderstanding that the strength and power of euery matter proponed may be knowen wherein it behooueth to vse tradition For all things caÌ„ not be gathered out of the diuine writing Here is the first place geuen by Epiphanius to the naturall takiÌ„g of words for al things be not figuratiue though many be To know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consyderation and auncient tradition helpeth much Well of other helpes hereafter Now let this be graunted that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholikes Which is that euery word and speache as long as the contrary is not manifestly proued is to be taken as it commonly doth signifie According to the which rule these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood affirme the reall presence of Christes body and blood as now it shal be shewed ¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body and This is my blood is that the substance of Christes body and blood is couteyned vnder the visible formes of bread and wine WHen the Paschall Lamb was eaten and the Disciples feete washed Christ by taking bread into his hands declared him self to be disposed to vse it for some one purpose or other by blessing and thanksgeuing ouer it we are informed he wold make some diuine mysterie of that bread And when he began to make the mysterie saying this is and ended it adding thereto my body we lern by the two first words this is that his mysterie consisteth not of bread and of his body but of one substance only which was declared to be so really intended as well in his mind as at his tongs end that hauing once named what it was to wit my body no maÌ„ aliue might doubt but either he both in word and dede made a false signification which is with all true Catholikes a thing without al possibilitie or els that it was in dede so as his words of blessing and of saying This is my body witnessed And for asmuch as his word affirmed this to be his body and his dede of taking bread and of blessing shewed his words to be directed vnto yâ— which was in his hand or lay before him which was bread before it must nedes be that the pronoun this so shewed to his Apostles the thing already subiect vnto their eyes that much more it serued to teache their vnderstanding verily this which appeared to them bread to be in substance at the ending of the words his own body Therefore we teache the pronoun this to serue both to the eyes and to the vnderstanding of the Apostles to their eyes in pointing to the foorm of bread which they saw to their vnderstanding in teaching that substance which was present vnder that they saw to be his own body streight when it was so named And in so much as the same forme of bread tarieth after coÌ„secration which was there before the pronoun this doth allwayes direct their eyes to one and the same forme of wheaten bread which was there when Christ tooke it first and also it insinuateth to their vnderstanding that they must looke by the nonn that foloweth the verb to know what proprietie or substance that visible thing hath And seing the noun which cometh after is not the name of a qâ—…alitie or proprietie but the name of a substance and of such a substance as before was not present Without all question these words This is my body haue according to the proper custom of speache this meaning The substance which is conteyned vnder this forme of bread and vnder the accidents the which I shew you is the substance of my body Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is no longer the substance of bread and consequently therevnto that the substance of the bread is by the word of Christ changed into the substance of his body And likewise when Christ sayd This is my blood the sense is The substance which is conteined vnter the forme of wine which you sensibly perceaue to be in this cuppe is my blood or is the substance of my blood Which interpretation is so true that Christ hath forced vs to seeke it out in causing S. Luke and S. Paule to write This chalice is the new Testament in my blood For of necessitie we must interpret these words This chalice that is to say the thing conteined inthis chalice is my blood As therefore This in na ming the chalice doth serue to shew the place compasse within which I must looke for that substance which afterward is defined to be the blood of Christ euen so this being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christes hands doth first point vnto the eye within what circuit or quantitie the mind shal seke for that substance or proprietie which afterward the mouth of Christ wil declare and when the name is once heard it sheweth it to be that substance of Christes body Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions The one that this beginneth most naturally with the sense of man The other that it with the rest of that speache informeth the vnderstanding of more then the eye saw To the sense it sheweth yâ— outward formes to the vnderstaÌ„diÌ„g it sheweth prâ—…cipally the inward substaÌ„ce vnder those formes Now looke by how many degrees the inward substance doth passe the outward formes and the end of the talk doth passe the beginning thereof by so many the pronoun this rather apperteyneth to the substantiue body wherein it endeth then to the formes within the which it goeth about to shew an invisible substance Which being so Hoc this is in Latin of the neuter gender because the noune
substantiue corpus body wherevnto it hasteneth is of the neuter gender And in the consecration of the blood Hic this of certeintie is the masculine gender because sanguis blood whereto it belongeth is of the masculine gender Thus the literall sense of Christes words is declared which ought to be taken for true vntill the contrarie be proued But this propriety of words standing as it ought to stand marke that whensoeuer any Catholike sayth The substance of Christes body and blood to be vnder the formes of bread and wine he speaketh not any other thing then the natural and proper signification of Christes words doth geue For as he that pointing to that kind of beast which an other cometh to learne sayeth This is an Oelephant in effect sayth The substance of an Oelephant is contemed vnder this visible forme So Christ hauing taken bread and saying This is my body sayeth in effect the substance of my body is conteined vnder the forme of this bread Only this oddes is betwene Christes naming and ours that we either must name the thing by his former substance or proprietie or els we make a lye But Christ by 〈◊〉 one thing the name of an other geueth it also the substance thereof whensoeuer he speaketh not in parables but in the way of doing some good turn for he being God as easily calleth things which are not as those which are and by his calling he maketh them to be as he nameth them and not as them selues were ¶ That the pronoun this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine SEing Christ in his last supper assigneth none other substaÌ„ce to this and this besyde the substance of body and blood and yet the Sacramentaries will not graunt so muche I ask them for as muche as although it were so that his words did mean an accidentall token of his body and blood that token must be grounded in some substance or other I ask them what substance is pointed vnto as wherein the figure of Christes body and blood may by their iudgement consist when Christ saith this is my body and this is my blood is any substance included in those words or none at all yf none this may not be sayd to be any particular nature at all for yf it be any certain thing consisting by it self it is a substance if it be in any other thing it may be an accident and qualitie but Christ saith not this is in my body but this is my body Admit now that he meant this doth signifie my body yet this that doth so signifie must be sumwhat or other I aske what this thing is which you say doth signifie or shadow Christes body you must nedes say it is bread and wine and therefore you must expound it this bread signifieth my body this wine signifieth my blood This interpretation of yours can not be true For this wil not agree with bread or wine neither in greeke nor in latin For hoc in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek is of the neuter gender but panis in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke is of the masculine gender therefore hoc this doth neither in greeke nor in latin agree with bread likewise hic in latin is of the masculine gender vinum wine is of the newter and contrarie wise in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the newter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the masculine gender therefore this nother in greeke nor in latine can be referred to wine Now to say hoc this thing vnderstanding which is bread is to correct the words of Christ as though he had sayd hoc quod est panis est corpus meum this which is bread is my body yet if it had bene so sayd the sense must haue bene thus the substance of bread doth signifie the body of Christ. for that thing which is bread is to say the substance of bread which if it were so euery substance of bread should be the signe of Christes body because that which the substance of one loafe is the substance of an other loaf is also in the same kind consequently whensoeuer any man eateth any substaÌ„ce of bread without examining himself he is giltie of the body of Christ. Again when it were sayd hic est sanguis meus hic being of the masculine gender could not be expounded by hoc quod est vinuÌ„ this thing which is wine for it standeth not neutrally to signifie this thing but only agreeth with the noune blood which foloweth after when it is sayd this is my blood The pronoun is put in the same case gender and number whereof the substance is wherevnto it pointeth as when Christ sayd hic est haeres this is the heire hic this is of the masculine gender aswell as the noune substaÌ„tiue hâ—…res an heire hâ—…c est hora vestra this is your hower As hower is of the femine gender so is the pronoun haec this hoc est opus Dei this is the worke of God as opus worke is of the neuter gender so is the pronoune hoc that But when Christ tooke bread blessed he pointed not to bread by the pronoune this as to the substance which should remaine at the end of his whole talke for bread is of the masculine gender both in greke and latine Again let vs consyder that it is all one to say hoc est corpus meum and haec est caro mea in so much that S. Cyprian rehearseth the words of Christes supper by these words haec est caro mea where haec being the feminine gender doth only agree with caro flesh and not with panis bread which is neither of the neuter gender that hoc may agree with nor of the feminine thaâ—… haec may be referred to it but only of yâ— masculine gender Therefore if Christ had pointed finally to bread he must hane sayd neither hoc est corpus nor haec est caro but hic est corpus meum vnderstanding to hic the substantiue panis and in Greke it should haue bene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English this is of all geÌ„ders and therefore it can not be exemplified in our barbarous tong which thereby appereth not so mete to haue the word of God handled literally in it as the lerned tongs are although it is able enoughe to receaue an interpretation of Gods word But it is much like as if one pointing to a man called Laurence should say she is Laurence or her is Laurence which is as good english among the Brytons as hoc panis and hic vinuÌ„ is good latine among the Sacramentaries Thus make they the wisedome of God to speake at this time who say that the pro noune this determineth and pointeth to bread as to a thing that still remaineth in his old substance whereas bread is of
the masculine gender and the pronowne hoc this of the newter gender and God prouided of purpose that the article this should neither agree with bread nor with wine but only with body and blood or with the chalice wherein the blood is conteined ¶ That the pronoun this can not point to any certain acte which is a doing about the bread and wine LEast any man should thinke that in these wordes this is my body the prononuâ—… this doth stand to signifie neither bread nor body but only this thing which is a doing whereby a certaine taking and breaking and eating of bread in the remembrance of Christ should be meante he must vnderstand that euery thing which is so distinctly shewed is a particular thing and it is but one thing otherwise it should haue bene sayd in the plurall number these things are the tokens of my body of my blood But now sith it is sayd in the singular number this it must nedes be only one singular thing which is spoken of Therefore if you will haue hoc this thing to appointe to a doing name which doing it is For Christ did many thinges in his supper He took bread he blessed he brake he gaue To which doth hoc this thing pointe To all it can not sor they all be not only this one thing in the singular number but many thinges If any one be named I aske which of them If breaking which is one of the most like of all owtward actions to signifie the death of Christ I aske how you are able to proue that breaking is pointed vnto surely S. Paule saith the bread which we break is the communicating of our lords body which could not be so if the words of Christ which make it the signe of his body had not bene first spoken ouer the bread For as Iustinus Martyr Gregorius Nyssenus S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine and briefly all the Fathers teache the bread is consecrated by these words of Christ This is my body And surely before it be consecrated there vnto bread can not signifie Christes body nor it can not be to vs the communicating of Christes body Therefore seing the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body as S. Paule sayeth the words which were spoken ouer yâ— bread before the breaking of it can not presently point to that which is not yet done And consequently this doth not point vnto the acte of breaking nor vnto the act either of geuing or of eating which folowed after the breaking If any man say that Christ whiles he spake these wordes dyd breake the bread or eate it him felf or make his Apostles eate it the vuiuersall custome of the Churche in all ages doth shewe the contrarie Whiche all euen from the Apoâ—…les tyme haue vsed to consecrate aud to say these wordes this is my body aud this is my blood ouer bread and wine at the holy altar and table a good tyme before the breaking or eating and drinking of them as the auncient Liturgies manifestly declare Besydes if the act of breaking whiles it is adding dyd only betoken to vs his body when that act were past the signe of his body were ended and so we should not eate the signe of Christes body Moreouer seing neither the chalice nor the wine is broken therein should be no signe of Christes blood at all On the other syde if eating or drinking only were the signe pointed vnto it should be no signe before the eating and therevpon it would follow that the bread which we breake is not the coÌ„municating of Christes body sith no signe at all is made therein if the whole signe depend vpoÌ„ the eating alone For if the signe depended of both together it could not be said this iâ—… the singular number as I sayd before but it must haue bene sayd these actes and these doings about these creatures do signifie the body of Christ. But seing it is sayd this is my body whiche this can point but to one thing and seing that one thing can be neither breade wherewith it agreeth not in gender nor any one acte or doing which alone doth not signify the body of Christ doubtlesse this can by no meanes be referred to any other word or deede then to the true substance of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and vnto the true substance of his blood vnder the forme of wine The whiche thing once graunted after that Christ hath taken bread and blessed and sayd this is my body whatsoeuer is done either in breaking or in eating or in geuing and taking doth siguifie the body of Christe because it is done to that thing and about it which is the true substance of his body the breaking of the forme of bread vnder whiche the body is doth signifie the body of Christe once to haue ben broken with scourging and nailing to the Crosse and now also to be impassible The taking and touching signifieth the visible and palpable body which walked vpon the earth preaching visibly to his disciples The eating signifieth it to be the true bread of life whiche who so eateth worthely he shall liue for euer and shal eate it in heauen after a new maner The geuing of it doth signifie how Christ gaue it â—…or vs to death To be short whatsoeuer is done about yâ— which is the body oâ—… Christ doth signify somwhat either past or to come in that same body it doth signifie it so muche the more because the presence of Christes glorious substance is such that nothing done to it can hurt it or bring any detriment thereunto For the breaking taking geuing and eating is done in a figure and mysterie the which figure is grounded in the reall presence of Christes body which if it were not vnder the formes of bread wine the things sayd done about the SacrameÌ„t should not be so mysticall and miraculouse as they are ¶ That the pronoune this pointeth finally to the body and blood and particularly sigâ—…fieth in Christes supper one certein kinde of foâ—…e SEing it is declared that yâ— pronoun this pointeth neither to bread wine nor to any act done about them it remaineth yâ— it pointeth only to the body and blood of Christ and so long as the words of Christ are a speaking which in so few words is not long the pronoune sâ—…pendeth his last determination And when al the words are ended his pointing is also ended Theresore 〈◊〉 expounding what hoc this doth finally meane writeth â—…us Dicens hoc est corpus meum ostendit quod ipsum corpus domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altario non respondens figura Christ saying this is my body sheweth that the bread which is consecrated on the altar is the self body of Christ not a figure which answereth thereunto And again in an other place he saith hoc est corpus meum hoc inquam
〈◊〉 of Godhed dwellech corporally in Christes flesh so his flesh râ—…ally eaten of vs with due faith charitie is a maruelouse instrument to geue vs the euerlasting meate and to ioyne vs most 〈◊〉 to the spirit of God Marke well that concerninge the eating God by saith and minde we approue it as a speciall good thinge but we say farther that God came in flesh to be eaten in flesh of them that consist of flesh And therefore hauing sayd my Father geueth you the true bread from heauen and I am the bread of life which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith he also goeth forward promising an eating to come herafter that is to say in his last supper and thereof saith the bread which I will geue is my flesh and he that eateth me tarieth in me The same Christ commeth in his owne person to performe yâ— former promise not saying only beleue ye in God and in me as I teache you but saying and doing that is to wit taking blessing geuing and saying take eate this is my body which is geuen for you 〈◊〉 this only pointe were depelie pondered it semeth to me that the almightie speaker so sent so promising and so doing ought to be of suche aucthoritie that nothing should staye vs to beleue that externall thing to be his body whereof he sayd this is my body Let vs now adde hereunto the wisedome the prouidence the truthe and the goodues of yâ— speaker who wold not of purpose blind his owne spouse with siguratiue wordes both of promise and of performance and yet the one ioyned with the other and the person who both speaketh and doth well considered make to men of reason suche persuasion of a proper speache that no sufficient cause is lefte why to presume those wordes to be figuratiue Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth Ad cognoscendum percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee to know to perceaue the sacrifice of the true body Again recedat omne 〈◊〉 ambiguum qui auctor est muneris ipse etiam testis est veritatis Let al doutfulnes of insidelity depart he that is the authour of the gift is him self also the witnes of the truthe ¶ The second circumstance may be to consyder the tyme when the supper was made THe tyme of speaking was the nyght before Christ departed out of this world at what tyme men are wonte to speake most plainly And S. Paule himself noted that circumstance saying our lord in the night that he was betrayed toke bread c. For when the howre of death draweth nere men vse manifestly to shew their last wil without al figures tropes as nighe as the matter will suffer And how much more wold the wisedom of God vse wordes warily in this case specially seing S. Augustin witnesseth that he gaue this Sacrament after supper when his passion was at hand to thintent the highnes of the mysterie might the better sticke in the hartes and memorie of the disciples whereas otherwise the Churche is taught by the holy ghost to receaue this Sacrament fasting for the honour saith S. Augustine of so great a Sacrament Let vs now a litle weigh with our selues whether any good and discrete man knowing his parting hower out of this world to be at hand will speake of purpose such words of ordeining matters to be done after his death the which words he foreseeth wil cause his heyres either to synne greuously if they obserue theÌ„ plainly as they should or els to haue an inward dissensioÌ„ if some affirme them to be plaine others denying and 〈◊〉 them â—…o be figuratiue for if Christes words be in dedt figuratiue the Catholiks synne both in teaching the contrarie and in adoring Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and 〈◊〉 which thing they are constrained to doe by the force of the words and then they are giltie of 〈◊〉 who possiblie can find no cause why they should not beleue their master so speakig and doing as he spake and did and thus lieth the â—…ander vpon Christ himself but if the words be in dede plain then Christ is purged and the only sault is in them who will not beleue I think it far the better to beleue the wonderfull discretioÌ„ of Christ â—… so 〈◊〉 him to mistrust the infidelite of wicked men ¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons who were at the last supper THe hearers were his twelue Apostles who should instructe yâ— who le world of that which they lerned of Christ in this very busines whereof we talke and so they did neuer leauing in any peece of all their writinges or preachinges that Christ leste a figure of his body without the very truthe thereof conteined in the Sacrament of the altar To the same Apostles it was geuen to know and vnderstand the mysteries of the kingdom of heauen whereâ—…ore it is very iueredible that the greatest mysterie of the whole Church was either hidden from them by Christ or by them hidden from vs. Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden if that words which report it be figuratiue and parabolicall for parables are spoken as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet so that men hearing doe not vnderstaÌ„d in hart the things which are spoken Thyrdly the Apostles were those who taried with Christ at Capharnaum where he promised his flesh and blood therefore if Christ had then spoken figuratiuely to the people yet now at the least he should and wold haue declared the matter more plainly and so he did in dede not verilie adding any word which might shew his former talke to haue beue figuratiue conceruing the substance of flesh to be eaten the substance of wine to be drunken but only teaching the maner of geuing them his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be figuratiue and mystical because they are not geuen to fill the bellie but to fede the soule not so much for the fleshes sake which we 〈◊〉 as for yâ— spirit Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ. ¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer and the making of a new THe occasion mouing Christ at his last supper rather then at any other tyme to say ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my blood was the setting and placing of the new Paschal Lamb in stede of yâ— old For least his Churche should be without a mysticall sacrifice called according to the law of Moyses a passouer that is to say a sacrifice betokening our passing ouer the sea of synne and our 〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we looke for as sone as the old Lamb was eateÌ„ and the tyme come that shadowes and figures should be fultilled by
dyd rather geue his reall body vnder that blessed signe of bread then that he would say he gaue vs his body yet in dede gaue vs wheaten bread whiche were lesse then his body Howsoeuer shamefast men are wont to speake modestly to them whom they loue best surely they wil not blush to do most boâ—…tifully for them much lesse may we thinke that Christ louing vs so well spake more then he dyd performe ¶ The vij circumstance of washing the Apostles feete THe Paschal lambe being eaten Christ sate down at the table with his disciples He arose again laid his garments down girded himself with a towel poured water into the basin and began to washe his Apostles fete and to wipe them shewing thereby both his own humilitie also of what a great mystery they should be made partakers For the worthy coming whereunto not only their mind should be tried and purified but also their bodies yea euen the the vttermost parts of their affections should be purged and cleansed For which cause euer sins the Apostles 〈◊〉 as it may appere by the practise of the Churche and by S. â—…ionysius the Areopagite the Catholike Bishops and Priestes haue vsed before they come to coÌ„secrate yâ— dreadfull mysteries to wash the very toppes of their handes What to doe I pray you wâ—…ether because they should come to handle bread and wine then might Christe haue washed his disciples hands as he dyd their fete before they had eaten the Paschal lambe for it was not eaten without bread neither without a cup of wine also if we shal beleue S. Hierom S. Bede and Theophilact who thinke suche a cuppe of wine as the Iewes dranke of after the Paschall lambe to be mentioned in S. Luke And why is not the bread wine which was ioyned with the fleshe of the Paschall lambe it being set also to signifie the same Christ for which the bread and wine of the new testament is appointed as the Protestants teach why is not I say that bread wine as good as this whiche we haue one God made both and both be assigned to shâ—…ow one Christ both oblations both SacrameÌ„ts both be 〈◊〉 of the same men in the same night and place And yet so much 〈◊〉 is betwene the bread and wine of the old 〈◊〉 and that of the new that it was sufficient for the one to be eaten with 〈◊〉 not vncleane but the other 〈◊〉 haue 〈◊〉 the bodies purified for the more worthy receauig thereof 〈◊〉 not because it is bread and wine still but because it is made the 〈◊〉 of life the food of Aungels the body and blood of 〈◊〉 Hence cometh al this preparation hence cometh the difference betwene the old new 〈◊〉 For although they meete inone signification yet in substance the one was earthly the other in substance is heauenly the one published by Moyses the other of Christes own insâ—…utioÌ„ and for that cause yâ— one a bare shadow of the truth the other a truth of yâ— shadow and also couering the â—…me truth in a mysterie ¶ The 〈◊〉 Circumstance concerning the place of the last supper THe place where Christ kept his supper was chosâ—…n appointed not without a miracle by geuing his disciples a strange signe howe to go to an vnknowen house by folowing him that should cary a pot of water into it That house Nicephorus and Damascene write to haue bene about the mount Siou whiche standeth in holy scripture eueÌ„ by the inrerpretation of S. Paule to signify the City and Churche oâ—… God all which things doe portend that some great and vnaccustomed matter shal be done in suche a place so assigned In the house a faier parler was decked and adorned and therem a table at the which Christ sitting downe made thereupon his maundy Of which table for the meats sake whiche should be geuen at it the holy Ghost had before prophecied by king Dauid saying thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon wisedom hath set forth his table Likewise yâ— table whereuppon the twelue loaues of the shew bread stoode in the tabernacle of the law before the face of God shadowed this table of Christes supper whereat the twelue Apostles sate before the face of Christ our Lord he being the bread of life and geuing to euery of them a loaf vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteyned Christ then making his supper vppon this table and thence distributing his meate vnto the Apostles doth vs to vnderstand that whatsoeuer he feedeth vs withall either in spirit or in body at his supper is reallâ—… present vppon the very boord wherevppon he did eate For Christ at this tyme is not talking in parables not disputing in the synagoge not preaching in the teÌ„ple â–ª he is in a house in a parler at a boord shewing thereby where his banket is exhibibed where it is serued and whence it is receaued We are not now occupied in spirituall praicr alone but also in corporal eating and drinking If the euerlasting meate of Christes supper be only spiritual and only receaued in mind by faith let the howse be thought only to be spirituall the parler to be spiritual and the boord to be spiritual Let vs deny that any of these things were natural and real but if all the rest be confessed real seing al they are prouided for the meates sake which shal be eaten from the table what an impudent folly is it to say the body and blood of Christ whiche only is the euerlasting meate of this banket are taken neither in hand nor in mouth nor be not at all vppon the material boord whence Christ visibly deliuered them to his Apostles own handes bidding them take and eate ¶ The nyntenth circumstance of the taking bread and wine OUr sauiour sitting doun at the table toke bread and the cup of wine and he tooke it who neuer touched the thig which he did not sanctifie because vertue went forth of him euen by touching his garments Moreouer it is to be thought he toke such bread as the presâ—… feast of Caster which was beguÌ„ne might suffer Unleauened I meane and such as presently was vpon the table at the eating of yâ— Paschal Lamb. The which surely was already figuratiue bread it was already a token of Christ and already was partakeÌ„ of the disciples Shall we think then that Christ goeth about to do that which was already done No no this 〈◊〉 of his goeth to an other end as we shall perceaue anon Thirdly by taking bread and wine into his hands Christ meaneth vs to looke for the mystery that shal be made within the forms of those cratures which he toucheth He now pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would only consecrate somewhat in theyr breasts as Caluin dreameth he taketh bread and wine there we must seeke the first work of his supper Last of al by this kind of
taking bread wine he putteth vs in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech who brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham As therefore Melchisedech toke bread and wine to offer them first vnto God next to communicate AbrahaÌ„ with them so doth our true king of rightuousues intend to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed one way or other euen in substance from the former nature which it had as being sometymes killed sometymes burnt and sometymes eaten when Christ as the high Priest of God for so it appeareth in the end toke bread wine he toke them to offer coÌ„sequently to thange them in the most perfit maner that euer could be deuised as who is the most perfit Priest And into what substance shall he chaÌ„ge them but into the sede of Abraham his own body who came to fulfil the law and gather all things into him selfe and so to bring them again vnto his Father For which cause S CypriaÌ„ sheweth that as Melchisedech first brought foorth bread wine that so the blessing might duely be celebrated about Abraham so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread wine suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say offered his own body blood This great mystery could not be throughly haÌ„dled in a whole booke much lesse I am able to coÌ„clude it within the cumpasse of a circumstance it is now sâ—…icient to touch the chefe points of so long a matter ¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing OUr chefe Bisshop did not only take bread and wine but he blessed also Benedictio blessing is as it were a blessed saying and because God sayth and it is done in him blessing is doing and in Christ who is both God man blessing is most properly of all a doing by the meane of saying or signifiyng for not alwayes when he blesseth he nedeth to speake but if he blesse as man he maketh at the least some outward token of the good dede which he is about either by lifting vp his eyes or hands to heauen or by making the signe of the crosse or by speaking certeine words Howsoeuer it be it caÌ„ not be well imagined that blessing should be in God or in Christe without a doing otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying yea it should be the saying of mâ—…n rather then of God But now it is called the blessing as if we should say a beneficiall saying which in God always importeth a doing In this place it sheweth also what intent and purpose Christ had For whereas Christ might haue spoken in the way of exhorting or of prophecying or of threatening or of comforting when it is writeÌ„ he blessed and sayd we may learne that he speake in the way of doing of working of bestowing some real benefit and of geuing vertue and strength vnto his word for that effecte which being so we can not now with any pretense of honestie imagine that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉 at the prononcing whereof the Gospell hath rehearsed the word and vertue of blessing For as a figuratiue saying is an imperfect speache and therefore lesse then a common kind of speaking so is blessing farre more theÌ„ any speaking and therefore a true doing What repugnance then were it to say that Christ blessed at such tyme as he not only did no great miracle but also did lesse then the ordinary nature of speaking requireth For ordinarily men vse proper words Well that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words This is my body and this is my blood it is the doctrin of the most auncient fathers For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedictionem verborum coelestium the blessing of the heaueÌ„ly words and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist benedictionem Christi or mysticam benedictionem the blessing of Christ or the mysticall blessing The like doth S. Chrysostome writing vpon S. Paule Now for so much as blessing standeth here beâ—…wene taking of bread and saying this is my body the which bread and body caÌ„ not be truely verified of the same thing at once the blessing so declareth the working and making present of Christes body that it doth intimate withal the bread to be changed into his body For as all blessing doth geue some benefit so when a creature taketh a benefit it is châ—…ged into a better state For which cause both S. Gregorie of Nyssa and S. Ambrose atâ—…ribute the chaunging of the nature of bread and wine into Christes body and blood to the vertue of his blessing It would paâ—…e yâ— describing of a circumstaÌ„ce and become a whole booke if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would beare which at this tyme I may not doe ¶ The eleuenth circumstance of gening thankes GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite vpon them and the creatures blesse God by praising and rendring 〈◊〉 vnto 〈◊〉 Blessing thereâ—…ore in a diuerse sâ—…se is coÌ„mon to God and man but thanksgeuing is the proper duety whiche man oweth to God As Christ by blessing at his supper shewed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature then they before had so by geuing thanks he declarerh his change to appertein to the honoure of God and that after such speciall sort in this Sacrament that the whole mysterie taking thereof his name is called as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse Eucharistia that is to say the geuing of thanks Whereas thanks be geuen by words alone or dedes alone or in both together it can not be denied but those are best thanks wherein most excellent dedes are ioyned with most true and reall words And who can dout but it is a more worthy dede to make present the body of Christ vnder the form of bread yâ— God may thence be glorified thanked then to make bread stil taryiÌ„g bread to be an effectuall signe of Chistes body Who can dout but the words of thanking are more true which say this is my body and meane the same then those which name yâ— body of Christ meane the figure of his body The Chatholiks beleue that Christ gaue thanks to his Father with moste true words and with most perfit dedes in so much that we deny any perfiter worke to be any where done vpon any creature in the whole world then that was wherein Christ wrought his body present vnder the form of bread to thend it should be a sacrifice of thanksgeuing to God And consequently we confesse with S. Ireneus eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse domini that bread wherein thanks were geuen to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia it is not now common
true bread not because it was not a signe of true bread neither because who so deuoutly receaued it should not be deliuered froÌ„ euerlasting death of God but because it selfe had not in it any thing which being corâ—…ally taken â—…ight saue a man otherwise good from euerlasting dâ—…ath whereas the true bread which the Apostles toke into theyr hands through Christes gift was that very â—…esh which by the power of the Godhead whereunto it is annexed kepeth our soules that they dye not by synne and râ—…eth out bodies to liue for euer S. Augustine sayth Dominus sinit Iudam accipere inter innocentes disipulos quod fideles nouerunt preciuÌ„ nostrum Our Lord suffereth Iudas to take among the innocent disciples our price which the faithful know See what kind of taking S. Augustine speaketh of surely of that which was common to Iudas and which was made with hands See what Iudas toke precium nostrum our price Is bread and wine our price We are then derely bought in dede But if the reall substaÌ„ce of Christes body and blood be only our price when Christ sayth take he meaneth take yâ— real substance of my flesh into your haÌ„ds that thence it may come afterward vnder your harâ—…s ¶ The sixtenth circumstance of eating CHrist sayd eate ye once only and he sayd it of that one thing only which he deliuered to his Apostles corporally and they so toke it but Christ meant they should eate it as wel in soule as in body as wel by faith as by mouth For he had sayd before worke ye the euerlasting meat which the sonne of maÌ„ wil geue you and he declared the worke of God to be this that they should beleue in Christ who is the bread of life and who said his flesh to be meat in dede â–ª therefore when Christ sayd eate this is my body he meant eate bodily that I geue you and eate it also spiritually because it is a heaueÌ„ly kind of bread and a meate which neuer perisheth Neither doth the verbe eate by this meane stand vnproperly because â—…ating belongeth naturally both to the soule and to the body but yet concerning the cause of eating principally to the soule as the which alone geueth power to the body to eate and concerning the meane of eating principally to the body as the which only hath conuenient instruments to receaue corporall meat For neither a dead body can eate at al neither a soule which lacketh a body can eate properly Now when the soule and body may both not only eate but also be nourished by the eating that is the truest eating which can be deuised Christ then in saying eate meaneth eate ye as ye are men who consist of soules and of bodies eate in both and feede them both together For this is my body which hath in it the Godhead corporally dwelling Eating this you eate a food both spirituall and corporall This feedeth the whole man this is it which TertulliaÌ„ saith Caro c. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made fat of God Note the perfit eating the flesh is fed and yâ— soule is made fat The Catholiks vpon this ground beleue the flesh which must be eaten spiritually to be vnder the form of bread which is eaten really and that Christ saying to a reasoable man eate this is my body saith by the reason of that kind of meat which he nameth eate in body and soule my body The SacrameÌ„taries teache a dubble substance to be eaten in a dubble maner of which yâ— one is present corporally yâ— other absent they teach bread wine to be eaten drunken corporally as things present but the flesh of Christ only to be eaten spiritually as a thing absent in his own substance they diuide the work of our bodies from the worke of our soules But the word eate ye can not be so meant sith it only pointeth to yâ— which the disciples had taken into theyr hands none other literal meaning can be of this word eate eating by faith hath no part in Christes supper neither is at al commanded if the thing eaten be not in the haÌ„ds of the Apostles ¶ The 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words this is my body I Wil speake of these wordes not al that may be sayd but rather no more then the nature of one circumstance among so many as Christ vsed in his supper will conueniently beare who taking bread after blessing and thaÌ„ks geuing sayd this is my body If yâ— meaning be this bread is yâ— signe of my body he gaue thaÌ„ks for the institution of a bare signe for so I must needs call it seing bread remaining still in his owne nature can neuer be any more then a bare signe so long as it is not the body it self which it doth signifie For euery figure image token whiche differeth in substance from his originall is always bare and naked in respect of that truth which it 〈◊〉 hath not the same in it selfe So was Christ a bare maÌ„to the Ebionits because they denied yâ— substaÌ„ce of God to be in him howsoeuer they extolled him otherwise 〈◊〉 Christ come theÌ„ to leaue naked bare signes to his Church and is he so glad of that promotion that he thanketh his father for it was this the ioy he had of eating the new passouer wherein he would geue vs only bread and wine mixed with water in â—…ede of bread wine herbs and flesh which were geuen vnder the law of Mâ—…yses is not his outward gift at the least desaced by this doctrine Uerily seing with thanks geuing Christ ioyned this is my body presenting in effectuall words that whiche his hart intended before to consecrate vnto God we must no more say that he instituted a bare figure of his body in these wordes then that he presented a bare signe in his hart when he gauc thanks For who can think that Christ who had said by God and by his Prophet Dâ—…uid Sacrifice and offring thou wouldest not but thou hast framed me a body meanig that none other sacrifice pleased God beside his vnspotted fleshe who can thinke that he now expresly naming that his body yet presenteth to his father bread wine only as figures signes of his body and blood and that he gaue thanks for them â–ª Melchisedech ended the mysterie of his bread and wine in the blessing of Abraham him self and doth Christ after bread wine taken end his blessing only in a figure of the sede of AbrahaÌ„ that whereof Moyses said this is the bread which our Lord hath geueÌ„ you to eate was in dede a more excelleÌ„t bread then he could name and â—…oth Christ name more then is really present Surely the signe of Christes supper is so bare if that which he pointeth vnto be not in dede his body yâ— in words he geueth greater 〈◊〉 to God his Father then in his dedes For
noun body rather then in the verb est is for which cause Oecolampadiâ—…s admitted aswell the one as the other making no difference whether est is stand for significat to signifie or corpus body for signum corporis the signe and figure of yâ— body so that the reall presence might be taken away But as I haue now proued out of the word of God seing yâ— body is pointed vnto which died the true substance it self died for vs the true substaÌ„ce is pointed vnto vnder the form of bread and so pointed vnto that none other coÌ„struction of those words can be made for if corpus body doth not stand properly when it is ioyned with the verb est is it is not possible that it standeth properly as it is the noun substaÌ„tiue to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or as it is antecedent to the relatiue quod which In dede if Christ had sayd expresâ—…ie this is the figure of my body it might wel haue folowed the which body is truly geuen for you for of the two antecedents the relatiue might haue bene referred to the next But now there is but one antecedent in all and it is taken vnproperlie as the Sacramentaries say therefore in that vnproper signification it must be antecedent to the relatiue folowing all the grammarians in Christendom can find none other construction of these words If the Sacramentaries can excuse the matter let them bring it to light ¶ The xix Circumstance of the verb facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice ALthough the verb facere doth signifie most generally all making and doing yet because the most excellent dede that can be made is to offer a true internal and external sacrifice vnto God therefore it is come to passe that facere in his most principall signification is vsed somtimes to signifie the offering of a sacrifice neither doth it skill whether it stand alone or be ioyned with an other word in the accusatiue or in the ablatiue case for it is the circumstance of dedes and words which principallie make it so to signifie That facere in this place doth betoken the offering of a sacrifice it appereth by al the circumstances of the supper first in that Christ hath now in the fourtenth day of the first moue at euening tyde begonthe blessed sacrifice of his passion next he hath offered the old â—…aschal Lamb the cheef sacrifice of the law thirdly he hath taken bread and wine the materiall parte of the sacrifice of Melchisedech fourthly he blesseth geueth thaÌ„ks externally to God in a fact wherein he consecrateth his own body the only sacrifice of mankind yea farther he so consecrateth it yâ— he douted not to say ouer yâ— bread this is my body which is geuen for you straight vpon which words he addeth hoc facite doe ye or makâ—… ye this thing Whâ—…t other sense now can this verb haue but doe that I haue done who now haue exercised my priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech So did S. Cyprian take this verb facere when he said of this verie matter Iesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster Ipse est sum mus sacerdos Dei patris sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit Iesus Christ our Lord and our God him self is the highhest preist of God yâ— Father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the Father and hath commaÌ„ded the same to be done for the remembrance of him If Christ offered sacriâ—…ice and commaÌ„ded the same to be done he commanded sacrifice to be offered of his Apostles and therefore it foloweth in S. Cyprian coâ—…cerning a priest of the new Testament sacrificium verum plenum tunc oâ—…ert in ecclesia Deo patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse he then offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ him self to haue offered If now Christ hath willed his Apostles to offer that which he hath offered it is most certain that Christ offered none other thing in the whole earth besyde his own body the which he toke to offer to God in stede of al other oblations as Dauid S. Paule say therefore that body of his he both offered himself and willed his Apostles to offer it but what soeuer he offered in his last supper he had it in his hands or vpon the table before him and gaue it vnder the forme of bread and wine to his Apostles therefore the reall substance of Christes body and blood was vnder the sayd formes that it might so be offered vnto God according as Melchisedech had before signified This argument were able to receaâ—…e a great deale of matter but it wold be aboue the cumpasse of a circumstance ¶ The xx Circumstance of the pronoun hoc this thing CHrist sayd not only facite doe ye or make ye but hoc facite doe ye make ye this thing The which words as they coÌ„maund bread to be takeÌ„ blessing breaking geuing taking and eating to be vsed and the words of Christ to be duely pronounced so beyond all these things they commaund one speciall thing to be made which is the body of Christ. for none other thing in all the supper can particularly discharge and fulfill those words besyde the body of Christ. As for bread wine they be not commaunded to be made â—…ith they were made before the supper began taking blessing breaking eating partly are not this one thing but manie things partly they be not such as may be in all degrees repeted done so as the precept of doing or making this thing requireth For the taking and breaking of other bread is yâ— doing of a like thing to this whiche Christ hath done not the doing or making this thing But Christ said not sic facite doe so as I haue done but hoc facite do or make this thing If we shal kepe the propriety of Christes words the meaning must nedes be make this body of mine For he sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing which this thing but that only thing whiche was named for none other special thing or substance was named besyde the body of Christ. Hoc is the neuter gender and either it must be referred to the noune cor pus body as to his substantiue which went before and the sense is facite corpus meum make my body and so doth Haimo construe it or els it must stand substantiuely and so it meaneth this thing that is to say the thing which is the body of Christ. I doe not without great cause stand so long about euery litle word I know the tergiuersation of them that missexpound the word of God who altâ—…ough they will soâ—…er be confounded then amended yet
arise the third day And straight he sang an hymne and with his Apostles went forth of the parler where they had supped Although the hymne or song of praise whereof S. Mathew speaketh doe not alone proue the real presence of Christâ—…s body and blood yet it helpeth thus far toward it as to shew and expresse a singular banket to haue bene made after which so rare and solemne a praise was geueÌ„ to God as again is no where els mentioned For albeit no man may doubt but Chist did always geue thanks vnto God after his meate receaued yet we neuer reade of an hymâ—…e sayd or song after any other Feast besyde this And yet I doubt nothing atall but that Christ gaue him self by faith and spirit euen at the supper tyme to some of his Disciples before this night and namely to the blessed Mary which at Bethaâ—…y oynted his feete at supper tyme. but that geuing of him self to Sainâ—…t Mâ—…ry or any other to be eaten of by faith was not this dreâ—…ful giâ—…t of Christs supper The hymne which was externally song or said was â—…ue to this externall worke of God wherein he witâ—… 〈◊〉 own hands gaue his own body and blood to his disciples To conclude at the length coÌ„cerning all these circumstances of this heauenly supper I besech the Reader to accompt weighe them all together and not only to consyder them a part albeit many of them alone are not able to be answered but a circumstance is not a perfit thing of it self but is a part of that whole thing about the which it hath his being and place If all these circumstances ioyned together doe proue the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— formes of that bread and wine which Christ toke and sayd thereof this is my body and this is my blood I haue my purpose and intent but he dealeth vnhonestly who diuiding them a part cauilleth at one or two and wil not looke to al at once If al these ioyned together proue not my purpose let him who thinketh so either shew me so many so strong for his contrary assertion or let him yeld to yâ— Catholiâ—… faith ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken ouâ—… of the new Testament and speaking of our â—…ords supper EUery place in holy scripture hath not another place like or in apparance coÌ„trarie to it whereby the more light may be taken for the vnderstanding thereof but when there are any such places they helpe marueilously toward the vnderstanding of holy scripture Christ one yere before his last supper said at Capharnaâ—… The bread whiche I will geue is my flesh my flâ—…sh is meat in dede At his supper he toke bread and hauing blessed said Take eate this is my body and this cup is the new Testament in my blood S. 〈◊〉 speaking of the self same mysterie wryteth thus The chalice of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of Christes blood And the bread which we breake is it not the com municating of the body of our Lord Let vs now conferre euery word together That whiche was promised in S. Iohn by these wordes The bread whiche I will geue is discribed in the supper presently by these words Take eate this and this cup. not that I make this the accusatiue case to the verbe eate but only to shew that these three wordes agree with the first words in S. Ihon. And afterward in S. Paule it is called The bread which we breake so that these foure particles belong in effect to one thing The bread whiche I will geue The bread whiche we breake and take eate this or drinke ye this cup. By which conference we learne how the pronoune this may be particularly expounded in Christes supper for of his generall signification whiche is to shew vnder a visible form an inuisible substance I haue spoken before sufficiently This then is as much to say as this meat drink or food which is now broken and geueÌ„ and willed to be taken and eaten or drunken is my body or blood It hath bene euidently proued vppon the sixt of S. Ihon that yâ— bread which he promised was not meant of wheateÌ„ bread whereof Christ spake not in yâ— place but of the meate and foode of euerlasting life Therefore when Christ sayth this in his last supper he meaneth none otherwise then this eatable thing or this which is to be drunken this kind of meate or drinke and food which I nâ—…w geue is my body or bloâ—…d otherwise iâ—… it were not his flesh and blood but material bread and wine it were not the euerlasting meate which Christ at Caphaâ—…namn promised to geue and now at his supper doth geue So that whereas Christ both brake and gaue after blessing said take eate this therewith beginning to consecrate the Sacrament of his last supper we haue it expounded what this doth 〈◊〉 by three 〈◊〉 ways by the tyme to come when it is sayd the breaâ—… that I wil geue â—…hich out of question is vnderstanded the food 〈◊〉 Christ wil geue For Christ him self called it before the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting Agayne the pronoune this may be wel expounded by the dede exercysed about the Sacrament after cousâ—…ration when it is sayd of S. Paule The bread which we breake for the breaking is vsed after consecration in the signe and form of bread to shew the death of Christ wherein his flesh was in dede broken and to distribute the mâ—…rites thereof by the holy communion The third way is by conferring together the very words of the consecrating the two kinds For as he said of the bread this alone so he sayd of the wine this cup. geuing vs to vnderstand that as this cup must of necessity be resolued into yâ— thing within the cup so in the other kind we should resolue the pronoune this into that which is within this visible form Thereby declaring that this generally meaneth the substance vnder this and particularly meaneth the food vnder this All is in effecte to say The meate that I will geue the eatable thing that we breake at Masse that whereof Christ sayd take and eate that which is conteyned vnder the apparant formes that is it which in the supper is termed by the pronounâ—… â—…his The next word is the verbe is which can very hardly be expounded by any other word in any tonge because it being the verbe substaâ—… is in all tonges set alone to signifie yâ— being or substaÌ„ce that euery thing hath and no other one word is equal to it which may expound it Yet I may boldly say the holy Ghost hath done so much to expound this verbe as may suffise to any reasonable creature For Christ sayd before any signe of his body was 〈◊〉 The bread
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meam commemorationem in the accusatiue case the true English whereof must be for the remembrance of me Christ sayd make this thing for the remembrance of me that is make my body which is geuen for you to thend my geuiug of it for you vpon yâ— crosse may through that your fact and doing be remembred This is the true meaning of Christes words For so doth S. Paule expoimd them to the Corinthians where after he had declared the history of Christes supper of purpose teachig vs what is meant by the remembrance of him thus he writeth As ofte as ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice ye shall shew our Lordes death vntill he come Lo the shewing of our Lordes death is the kind of remembrance for which Christ willeth his body to be made eaten his blood to be made and â—…runken Wherefore saying make or doe this for the remembrance of me he sayth this much Take bread blesse saying this is my body breake geue eate and all to this ende that my death may be remembred vntill my second coming Here we learne that the remembrance whereof Christ speaketh is the shewing of his death and that not by word only but by dede and facte and by making and doing For the making of Christes body by chaunging the substance of the bread into the substance of his flesh is a marâ—…ilouse shewing of his death For as his death was the dissolution of the soule from the body so his soule which as S. Ambrose noteth is vnderstanded by the blood is shewed vnder the form of wine his body is shewed a part from it vnder an other form of bread I doe not say that either the body is without soule and blood or the blood without flesh and soule but I say the shewing of the body vnder form of bread and of the blood vnder yâ— forme of wine in â—…che of which whole Christ is conteyned is the shewing of his death and also of his resurrection For at the death in dede the soule and body were a sonder and at the resurrection they came againe together Euen as now in figure and shew they are a sonder not withstaÌ„ding that in truth they are together But if the bread and wine remayned in their old nature still taking only the name and signe of Christes body blood Then should nothing be made for the remembrance or to shew our Lords death whereas he sayd Make this thing for the remembrance of me That is sayeth S. Paule for the shewing of my death the which death is yet fâ—…rther shewed when the same body in a signe is broken and geuen to be eaten the blood drunken For then as Christes flesh was in dede broken vppon the Crosse so it is in shew signe broken first in the Priests hands vnder forme of bread and next in his or their mouths who communicate with him by eating and chewing of it And likewise yâ— blood is powred or shedde into his or their mouthes vnder the forme of wine as it was in dede shed vppon the Crosse and as in dede Christ there deliuered his ghost into his Fathers hands But if the breade and wine were not changed into the body blood of Christ then that body which at all were not so much as in signe and shew broken because it were not present and that blood whiche were not so muche as in apparence apart from the fleshe or shed into the mouthes of the receauers could not shew our Lords death at all whereas Christ would his own death to be shewed by the making of his own body and blood with the signes of breaking shedding parting and dissoluing Thou seeâ—… now good Reader how the kind of remembrance which Christ required to he had of him is not only nothing at all against the reall presence of his body and blood yea rather it is so singularly set forth thereby that without the presence of the body blooâ—… it shal be somewhat hard to deuise what memorie at all here can be of Christes death Most sure it is that though mans wit may deuyse much yet can it neuer inuent so perfect a meane to make the death of Christ be remembred as if his own self be present to warne vs thereof If it hath chaunted to any man whiles by manly fighting he hath delyuered his frind from perill of death to take some great wound in his owne face tell me on thy conscience is there any way more effectual for that wounded man to put his frind in remembraunce of that fighting then if him self come with the skar in his face to his frinâ—…s presence and sight Is it not more then if he sent an hundred letters an hundred tokens and messengers to warne his frinde thereof Euen so fareth it with Christ at this tyme who fighting for vs vppon the Crosse whiles he delyuered mankind from the bonde of death toke a wound which made him geue vp his ghost Can therefore a more vehement remembrance be stirred vp in our harts then if the same Christ offer him self present to vs with â—…he skar vpon his face Thou wilt I think graunt that nothing would moue vs or make vs more vehemently remembre the death which he tooke for vs. But thou wilt say that Christ now coÌ„meth not before vs that we see him not Well Sir First you graunt that the remembrance of Christes death is nothing at all hiudered by the presence of his body why then sayd you before if the Sacrament of the altar be a remembrance of Christ it is not Christ him self Why sayd you that the remembrance of a thing must uedes differ from the thing it self And now you see and confesse that Christ present with the resemblance of his woundes should make you best remember his death Beware hereafter of this kind of reasoning Christ made a resemblance of his death at his supper therefore it is not his own body That argument is not good yea rather this is good Christ made a perfecte remembrance of his death therefore his own body is geuen to put vs in mind that he died for vs. Now let vs returne to that you said Christ was not seene of vs. If he were seene your faith should be of small merite besyde that you could not receaue him into your body after that visible quantitie wherein he walked vppon the earth He therefore that died for you hath now geuen you the substance of his naturall flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Where he is as verily present as if you saw him or touched him For I trow you vnderstand that eye sight is not necessary to make a thing present Otherwise blinde men were in euill case and to them nothing should be present Which seing it is not so the body of Christ is not therefore the lesse present because you see it not But if it may please
you to beleue Christ that sayd This is my body and this is my blood the remembrance of Christes death shall no lesse worke in your mind by reason of your faith theÌ„ if you sawe with your bodily eyes yâ— self same body of Christ which is vnder the forme of bread For faith is that to ChristiaÌ„s which eye sight is to infidels You must consyder that Christ geueth this Sacrament only to them that being already Christened professe to beleue him in all things He now telleth yâ— this is his body and this is his blood If you beleue him not you haue denyed your faith and are become an infidell But yet ye may repent recouer your old faith againe If then you beleue him now tell me what his bodily presence doth hurte the remembrance of his death or contrarywise what hinderance cometh to the memory of his death by the bodily presence Doth not one helpe the other and so helpe that no lyke helpe can be deuised by all the world Doth not his blessed body as it were crye vnto thy hart Behold here it is that suffred al the scorues scourges nayles thornes speare and death for thee And yet come our new preachers and crye O good people Christ called bread his body by a figuratiue speache and that appereth because he sayd doe this in my remembrance In my remembrance I say It is therefore no body but a remembrance of his body Is not this gaye diuinitie Is not this trew dealing 〈◊〉 Gods people Are not these preachers worthy of Bishopriks and the contrary teachers worthy of chaynes Haue they not found a fresh remembrance to put the fruyt of Christes death out of all remembrance Whiles the faithfull people beleued the body of Christ to be present they came with that preparation with that circumspection with that humble and contrite hart vnto this blessed Sacrament that in all their lyfe after they were the better They died vnto sinne and mortyfied them selues to comme worthely to this high banket and by those meanes they so wel remembred Christes death that they practised it in their owne flesh and printed it in their hartes And this was a great cause why Christ himself wold put the nature and substance of his body vnder the forme of bread to the intent he might so be remembred of vs that for feare of comming to this dreadfull Sacrament vnworthely we might conforme our selues to his death by contrition confession and satisfaction For besides the pauges of bodily death none other thing in the world maketh vs so fruitfully mindefull of Christes death as the Sacrament of the altar And this to be one peece of the remembrance which Christ wold haue to be made in our hartes S. Basile doth witnesse Oportet igitur accedentem ad corpus sanguinem Christi in commemorationem ipsius c. He that cometh to the body and blood of Christ must not onely be cleane from all filthy spot of flesh and sowle that he eate and drinke not to his damnation but also he must euidently shew the remembrance of him who died for vs and rose again in mortifying himself to synne and to the world and to himself so that he may liue to God in Christ Iesu our Lord. This great lerned and vertuouse man putteth our mortification for a peece of the remembrance which is made of Christes death and resurrection And in dede the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament the belefe thereof in vs causeth vs to mortifie our selues lest we come vnworthely to such high mysteries But now Christ is so well remembred in bread and wyne that neither synnes be confessed neither amendment mynded neither faith exercised neither charitie vsed Is this the remembrance which Christ wold haue of his death Men of woorship and honor when they see death at hand prouide to haue a goodly tumbe built Whereby their memories may be preserued as long as it is possible And the Egyptians wisely considering how the life is very short and the tyme of being in the graue exâ—…eding long did bestowe much more cost vppon their tumbs then vppon their houses Thinking it best there to buyld most surely where they should dwell longest Christ for his part refused not an honorable burying and a gloriouse sepulcher Which to this day standeth at Dierusalem But yet sith he tooke his body for mens sake only he chose his longer memorie and perpetuall sepulcher to be rather in the body hart of man then in the bowels of the earth Rising therefore the third day from death he left no more his body in the earthly sepulcher But the night before he died he had instituted such a memorie of his death as became the sonne of God For such a one in dede no man were able to make His memorie is to haue bread turned into the substaÌ„ce of his body and wine turned into the substance of his blood and the same to be receaued of vs To th' intent we might be turned into Christ dwelling in him for euer Hereby his death is shewed vntill he come to iudgement at the end of the world As the noble Actes which other men haue done be writeÌ„ vpoÌ„ their sepulchers so in this memorie of Christ his acts are daily shewed and rehersed Then his incarnation is betokened most mystically when bread is made flesh as the worde was before made flesh and that incarnatioÌ„ is represented in outward shew also by singing of the Angels Hymne Glory be to God in the highest Then the going before of Ihoâ—… Baptist is expressed by reading of the Epistle Then Christes preaching is represented by singing of the Gospell Then the faith of his Apostles and Disciples is betokened in pronouncing the Crâ—…de or articles of the faith Then the supper of Christ is made with no lesse authoritie then himself instituted it Then his Crosse is shewed by making the signe thereof vppon the holy mysteries Then his death is inuisiblie wrought vnder the formes of bread wine by turning their substances into him self and shewing them as if the body were diuided from the blood Then the fruit thereof is sowen in the hartes of the faithfull people by geuing them the grace to feare him to loue him to come penitentlie vnto him and to be made one with him Then the resurrection is outwardlie shewed because the seuerall formes of bread and wine eche of them conteine whole Christ vnder them Then the body is adored which suffred for vs. Then Christ is glorified for the redemption of all mankinde Then thankes be geuen to God blessing to the people and prayer is made for all the world This is the memorie of Christ whereby his name is greate among the Gentils as Malachias did prophecie And this is the gloriouse sepulchre which Esay spake of this is the memory whereof Dauid saith Our Lord hath made a memory of his maruailons doings Now is it likely that al
this cost is bestowed vppon a peece of bread and wine Two kindes of sepulchers we reade to haue bene alwaies this day to be in vse the one is where the body lieth present and that is properly the place of buriall the other when the body is absent and only a token of it is erected and this later kinde is called Caenotaphium a voyd monument without hauing the body in it Iudge good Reader whether it be more semelie sith Christ wold this Sacrament to be made for his remembrance that it be a void monument without hauing the body in it or els a sepulcher truly conteining his body within it whose name it beareth specially seing himself sayd of this tumb and sepulcher This is my body and this is my blood The body is named of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say of yâ— buriall or sepulcher as though the soule were buried therein as the carkase is put in the sepulcher And yet it is much more apt to call the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar the sepulcher of his passion because in it is buried yâ— who le vertue of that gloriouse sacrifice and thence it is applied and dispensed to the faithfull S. Chrysostom also called the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carkase because it is present after the same rate as it was dead in the sepulcher not in dede without soule and life but yet without sensible mouinge as Epiphanius also hath noted The holy Martyrs whose death was of great price in yâ— sight of God haue leaft their bodies behinde them to our comfort neither haue they yet receaâ—…d the second robe of their flesh Deo pro nobis melius aliquid prouidente vt non sine nobis consummarentur God prouiding some â—…etter thinge for vs to the intent they should not be made throughly perfect without vs. euen as the Fathers of yâ— old Testament of whome S. Paule speaketh had not the reward of their faith vntill some of the new Testament were ioyned to them S. John the Eâ—…angelist although his carkase appered not yet he was not vnremembred because manna flowed out of his monument abundantly as Abdias hath witnessed And now shall Christ leaue a void memorie without his body or without Manna in it Are the reliques of the blessed Martyrs profitable vnto vs and is not the flesh of Christ who is Lord of all Martyrs more then necessary for vs It was mete that Christ should arise with body and soule because he is the first fruites of all them that arise from death But he now sitting at the right hand of his Father had before instituted a memorie wherein bread and wine should be conuerted into the substance of his body and blood that thereby we might both haue his body him selfe not lack it For so it becommed all iustice to be perfectly fulfilled in his person I trust by this tyme it appeareth that the remembrance of Christes death is maruelously set foorth by the reall presence of his body and blood Seing then the sayd remembrance is yâ— end why the Sacrament is made it is a better kind of reasoning to affirme that so profitable a meane as the body blood of Christ is for the remembrance of his death was not omitted by Christ then to teache that because it is a remembrance therefore it is not the body of Christ. Specially sith Christ sayd This is my body For when the thing which is intended is the more furthered by taking the words properly then figuratinely as wel the proper nature of the words as the scope of the whole matter compelleth vs to take them as they naturally and vsually sounde without any â—…arther circuition or seking of figures Si resâ—… icias sayth Origenes ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit Dominus Hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemoratio nem Inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lord sayd Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Thou shalt find that this is the only remembrance which may make God mercifull to men Mark this propitiatorie kind of remembrance S. Augustine also declareth by conferring the Sacrament of the altar with the facrifices of the law how it is the remembrance of Christ saying In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this sacrifice a thanksgeuing and a remembrance is of the flesh of Christ which he offered for vs and of the blood which the same God did shed for vs. Therefore in those olde sacrifices it was figuratiuely signi fied what should be geuen vs But in this sacrifice it is euidently shewed what hath now bene geuen vs. In those sacrifices it was before hand shewed that the sonne of God should be afterward kylled for wicked men But in this he is shewed to haue bene allready kylled for wicked men By this writer whether it were S. Augustine or as others think Fulgentius the whole nature of the remembrance which we kepe of Christes death is shewed wherein the death is in dede past and absent but the body of him that died is present But in the old sacrifices neither the death neither the body was preâ—…ent but only a shadow of both Therefore those sacrifices are a figuratiue signification as Fulgentius sayeth But the Sacrament of the altar is an euident shewing Marke the wordes of Fulgentius and you shall see two words of the old law answer vnto other two of the new law By the old sacrifices he sayeth siguratè significabatur it was figuratiuely signified By the new sacrifice euidenter ostenditur it is euideÌ„tly shewed Looke how much difference is betwene shewing signifiyng betwene euidence and figures so much is betwene the old sacrifices and the new Yet if vnder forme of bread the body were not and the blood vnder the forme of wine surely the olde did better shew Christes death then this for there was flesh to shew flesh and blood to shew blood The blood was both in dede and in shew also shed and in dede separated from the flesh and poured vpon the altar and the flesh in dede eaten by them that made the offering Therefore our sacrifice doth not passe that in shewing outwardly the maner of Christes death but in euideÌ„t shewing that which died In euident shewing I say vnder the forme of bread and wine which shewing is called euident not for the seing but for the certeyntie of the place and circiut within the which we know by Gods word yâ— flesh and blood of Christ to be vnder the same forme because Christ him self shewing to vs the foorm of bread sayd This is my body What nede I to bring the Fathers one by one sith the whole
second Councell of Nice doubted not to say Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti aut gloriosorum Patrum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri totius suae dispensationis factum imaginem corporis illius dixerit None of the holy Apostles who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious Fathers hath sayd our vnbloody sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be aâ—… ymage of that body No Apostle no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so as it should be denied to be yâ— body it self An unage of the death it might haue bene called but an image of Christes body no Doctor euer called it because it is yâ— truth it self It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death accordingly as Christ said This is my body which is geuen for you make this for the remeÌ„brance of me Shewing my death vntyll I come ¶ Answere is made to the chalenge of M. Nowell concerâ—…ng the difference betwene I am the true vine and This is my body MAster Nowell iu his reproufe of M. 〈◊〉 proufe hauing occasion ministred to speake of these words This is my body about the whiche M. Dorman had sayd that Luther and Caluin did not agree he answereth first they agree both in this that the Papists exâ—…ound them â—…alsely Next he affirmeth that M. Dorman nor all Papists with him shall neuer be able to shew cause why these words Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine doe not proue as wel a transubstantiaton as hoc est corpus meum this is my body I am M. Nowell one of those Catholiks whom you cal Papists who by Gods grace will shewe sufficient cause why these words I am the true vine doe not proue as well a transubstatiation as This is my body In these words I am the true vine I say not only that there is no transubstantiation but I affirine also that in them there can be no transubstantion at all Whereas in the words This is my body a transubstantiation both may be and is To make the proufe where of plaine it is to be knowen that by the word transubstantiatioÌ„ the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant To haue one substance goe and passe into an other it requireth that two seuâ—…rall substances be first or last really found of which two yâ— one must be extant before it be changed the other must at the least be extant when the change is made though it were not extant before As for example The bread which at his supper Christ toke into his hands was one certaine substance the other was his owne body which he had taken of the virgin Mary Now when Christ sayd ouer the bread which he had taken This is my body we beleue that he changed the bread into his body and we call the passing of the substance of bread into yâ— substance of Christes body transubstantiation This 〈◊〉 we build vppon the deedes and words of Christ. Uppon his dedes that he toke bread and blessed or gaue thanks Uppon his words in that he sayd This is my body we beleue his words to be proper because beside that he spake them in the way of blessing of 〈◊〉 a Sacrament and of commanding his Apostles to make this thâ—…g he also expoâ—…ded them him self as not being only contented to say This is my body but adding thereunto which is geuen for you Uppon these vnfallible grounds we say that the thing pointed vnto is Christes owne substance really present at yâ— speaking of the wordes And seing we know the same to haue bene bread before and that it can not be at once both materiall bread and withal Christes body for that the substance of bread is not vnited to the person of Christ we are constrained to beleue that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉 into Christes body Such a change is not only possible became bread is a creatâ—… able to be changed into Christes owne body but it is also most conuenieâ—…t as well to make the external sacrifice of the new testament for no externall sacrifice is made without a change as 〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch whose oblation began in bread and wine but was ended in blessing Abraham and in pronouncing him blessed to the high Godâ—… the which propheticall figure the true Melchisedech Iesus Christ fulfilling toke bread and wine to begiune his new sacrifice withall but by blessing pronouÌ„cing this is my body he 〈◊〉 his â—…nblody sacrifice in that blessed sede of Abrahams owu body and blood Thus we 〈◊〉 touching these words this is my body both a sufficient cause why transubstantiation may be in them beleued and an vndoubted possibility of the same But concerning the other words I am the true wine alleged by M. Nowel the very first ground of al transubstantiation lacketh in them For whereas in euery transubstantiation two particular and seueral substances are to be graunted one which may be chaÌ„ged an other into which the change may be made in these wordes I am the true vine here is but one particular substance which is Christ him selfe As for the true vine â—…ither it is Christ him selfe and so it is no seueral substance from him whereunto he may be changed or els it is no particular substance at all but only a general â—…ame of a kind of substance which hath in it self no dotermined and proper being For as before Christ spake there was no such vine extant which might be pointed vnto so 〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where he brought foorth no such materiall thing nay he ment not of any vine or of any other creature vnder the sonne but only ment him self to be that in his own person towards vs his members which the natural vine is towards his branches And therein him selfe to be so much the â—…uer kind of vine theÌ„ yâ— natural vine is because the iuyce which vniteth his members to him the head of his mysticall body is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God which is the truth â—…t self then any material vine can be nigh to his own braunches Seing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise then by turning oâ—…e materiall substance into an other where one material substance only was found there possibly could no transubstantiation be made Christ in dede is one substance but the vine he spake of was no one particular substance at all It was therefore a great ouersyght to compare these wordes I am the true vine to these This is my body which words were so spoken that by the circumstance of the supper they are vnderstanded to pertein after a sort to two substances to the one
similitude which fully doth open his minde S. Cyrillus expresly affirmeth Christ to be in vs and vs to be in him by the communicating of his body and blood euen after that sort as if a man taking wax which is melted by the fier do so mingle it with other melted wax that one maner of thing semeth to be made of both How think you M. Nowell Is one wax mingled with an other by faith and spirit alone or is it mingled by signes and tokens 〈◊〉 the one part without the reall presence of both waxes What wicked men are ye who will make vs beleue yâ— S. Cyrill did not meane the reall substance of Christes fleshe to be reallie and corporallie in vs by communicating his bodie blood If you beleue him not why do ye not deny his aucthoritie If ye beleue his doctrine why teache you not the same These be the points M. Nowell which you must aâ—…swer vnto For euery word that foloweth is in S. Cyrill euen in that place where he disputeth of the true vine though not in such order as I now put them Which thing I doe to make his whole mind appeare at once Thus he sayth * 1. The mysticall blessing or the communicating of Christes body and blood â–ª * 2. maketh * 3. Christ or the life or the flesh of life * 4. to be or to be made or to be ioyned or to dwell * 5. in vs or with vs and vs to haue it in our selues or in our bodies * 6. according to the flesh or corporally * 7. and not only by habit or power or by â—…aith or charitie or spiritually * 8. but also by naturall partaking * 9. euen so as one melted wax is mingled to an other melted wax and in maner made one therewith * 10. By this meanes we are both corporally and spiritually braunches of Christes flesh which is also the true vine See now M. Nowell how yâ— parable of the true vine rightly expounded maketh altogether for our purpose As Christ is the true vine according to his flesh so are we the braunches according to his flesh He is the vine by hauing his flesh really present and vnited to himself therefore we be the braunches by hauing the same flesh really present in vs and by being really vnited vnto it as the braunche is vnited to his roote As Christ is the true vine two ways by his Godhead and by his manhod so a maÌ„ may two ways liue by Christ by partaking of his Godhead and manhod by habit only if he haue a good faith and by partaking his manhod corporally also if he receaue worthily the Sacrament of the altar But that Sacrament could no more make vs be braunches according to the flesh of Christ then our faith and charitie doth make vs to be braunches thereof except it had his flesh really present For otherwise our faith it self is a better meane to graâ—… vs into Christ then bread and wine is because it is a ioyning of vs to God in a higher degree But the mystical blessing in S. Cyril is made the meane to ioyne vs to God in a higher degree then faith or charitie Therefore S. Cyrill and all the Fathers before him whose minde he professeth himself to folow beleued the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And that by the way of turning the bread into his flesh For the flesh of Christ could not be really present to dwell corporally with vs and in our bodies except it were corporally receaued of vs. And other way how to receaue it corporally I see not except the bread be changed into it Thus you see what aduantage I am the true vine doth bring to the Catholike faith but no hinderance in the world can be thence deduced against the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar M. Nowell ¶ Nay if Christ had sayd likewise this is my true very body as he sayd I am a true or very vine what a rule had we then had I Marueile if M. Nowell think more strength to be in these words my true or very body theÌ„ in these My body which is geuen for you as though yâ— true very body were not geuen for vs. But if the true body were geuen for vs Christ saying This is my body which is geuen for you sayd also This is my true and very body And therein M. Nowell shal haue a rule to know that Christ spake not metaphorically for the relatiue quod which can not agree with any other word then with the noune substantiue corpus body which noune corpus body if it stand vnproperlie the relatiue must nedes repete it so as it standeth and then if this be the sigure of Christes body which is geuen at his supper the figure of his body is geuen for vs vpon the crosse I confesse M. Nowell I could be content to goe to schole to â—…rne of so auncieÌ„t a scholemaster as you are how a word which is but once named as yâ— noune corpus body in Christes supper may be antecedent to the relatiue quod which as the Latins reade or noune substantiue to the participle datum geuen as the Greeks reade and yet be otherwise ment in his relatiue and participle then it was being the antecedent or the noune substantiue Christ sayd This is my body geuen for you wil you diuide the participle geuen from his noune substantiue body If you will not as the body geuen for vs was the substance of Christes body so this is the self same substaÌ„ce of Christes body which the Apostles are commanded to take to eate and to make In that you turne the words vitis vera not only a true but also a verie vine you are much deceaued The word vera is not now to be pressed as if it were set to signifie a naturall vine where vnto your words run but to signifie a perfect vine in respect of an imperfit for so we say he is a true man meaning a truth in his words and dedes but not in nature for a lier and falsifier is also a true man in nature Euen so Christ meaneth himself to be a moste true and perfect vine concerning the swete frute which a vine ought to bring foorth and to communicate vnto his branches For the Iewes being a vine well planted by God became through synne a â—…oure vine and brought foorth none other but wilde grapes but Christ is a true a perfit a moste excellent vine which bringeth foorth swete grapes in his faithfull members of yâ— Church Thus doth S. Augustine expound yâ— word vera true saying that when Christ calleth him self a true vine he maketh a difference betwene him self and that vine to which it is sayd How art thou turned into the bitternes of a strange vine Euthymius declareth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie either an excellent an incorruptible a spirituall
participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuen froÌ„ the signification of his noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body You supply in S. Luks Greeke words the verbe est is by common vse when you haue it present you cast it out again or expound it not according to yâ— common vse of speaking which forced you to supply it but according to an vnproper meaning very sildom vsed not vnderstanded of any meane lerned man You teache by necessarie ineuitable sequele of your doctrine a figure of Christes body that is to say material bread to be sacri ficed for vs. You teache the wine to be in the cup and yet Christ saith the cup to wit that which is in the cup to be shed for vs. You diuide the noune substautine from his genitine case sanguis from testamenti vitae from panis you cut of the article you mysseÌ„glish many things as I haue noted before These be faults into which a Grammarian should not fal yet you are so blind that you see them not For so I rather think of you theÌ„ that you of purpose chose to be Heretiks and to be damned persons What might a man doe to bring you home You wrote not passing twenty lines together of this blessed Sacrament in this place and yet sâ—… into what grosse 〈◊〉 you be fallen If your whole booke were so particularly skanned euery leafe is full of such like faults But because it wold passe all measure of writing if in a great volume euery line should be thus staid vpon therefore al things euery where be not nor can not be so particularly examined but surely all be as fond as vayne as false To returne to my chefe purpose Christ is yâ— bread of life according to his Godhead and manhod and is to be eaten of by faith as it is often times said in S. 〈◊〉 But he is also to be eaten iâ—… his humane fleshe and to be drunken in the substance of his naturall blood not onlie by faith but verè trulie â–ª that is to saie he is to be taken at the mouth and so cometh to oure hartes and mindes which is the waâ—… of eating him at his last supper The which way by that meane of eating fulfilleth the figure MaÌ„na In respect whereof Christ calleth him self not dead food as yâ— was but the liuing bread not without power to quicken as that was 〈◊〉 the bread of life which can geue life to him that worthily 〈◊〉 it Not a 〈◊〉 breade as Manna was but the true bread â–ª not geuen from the 〈◊〉 as Manna but from heauen and the bread sayth Christ which I wil geue is my flesh This bread of life M. Nowel is the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man promised to geue and at his supper he doth geue it euen as he is the sonne of man to wit by the instrument of his manhod verily by his own handes and by his corporall deliuery made to the twelue at his last supper The preface of the fift Booke ALmighty God knowing the reall presence of his Sonnes flesh vnder the forme of bread to be a thing so farre aboue the whole course of nature that no vnderstanding of man was able to atteine vnto it did at the least so fortifie the same by his holy wordes put in writing and by the continuall practise of the Church that who so listeth to beleue may haue more then sufficient grâ—…nd to bâ—…ld his faith vpon That I may now omitte other proâ—…es how plainly doth S. Paul speake in this matter whose words are the more earnestly to be weighed for so much as S. Augustine a man much â—…nuersant in the Epistles of this chosen 〈◊〉 affirmeth him to dispute according to the Apostolike maner more plainly Et magis proprie quam figurate 〈◊〉 qui and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely Which thing I wish the Reader to haue always in his minde depely consydering that if Chrâ—…s body 〈◊〉 not really present â—…o 〈◊〉 hath spoâ—… more â—…ely 〈◊〉 S. Paul be â–ª cause he alone hath writen more of the last 〈◊〉 it selfe then any other holy writer But 〈◊〉 he vseth for the most part to speake properly we must not in this myâ—…y alone take his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chapiters of the fyfth Booke 1. The reall presence of Christe is proued by the blessing of the cup of his blood 2. Item by the name of breaking and communicating 3. Item by the one bread which maketh vs all one body 4. Item by the conference of al those wordes together 5. It is shewed how vve are one body in Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the like example vvhiche S. Paule vsed concerning the Ievves and Gentils 7. Item by the kind of shewing Christes death 8. Item because euill men eate this bread vnvvorthelie 9. Item because euill men are gilty of Christes body and blood by eating and drinking it 10. Item because they discerne it not in their doings from other meates 11. Item because no figure can make a man gilty of Christes body vvithout speciall conempt except it be the truth and the figure together 12. Last of al the real presence is confirmed by the frequent repetition of the body and blood of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christes blood where of S. Paule speaketh S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians of the Sacrament of the altar in this manner The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of the blood of Christ as though he sayd there is no doubt but that the chalice which we blesse maketh vs partake the blood of Christ. This aduantage we haue by conference of those holy scriptures whiche speake of one matter that one place geueth light to the other S. Mathewe reherseth how Christ taking the chalice said This is my blood of the new testament S. Luke sheweth that he said This chalice is the new testament in my blood S. Paule addeth thereunto The chalice of blessing which we blesse is the communicating of Christes blood A blessing in holy scripture is either a praising of a thing or it is the geuing of a benefite thereunto It is certaine that the chalice as long as it hath nothing but wine in it can not deserue any praise because a thig without life is not apt to receaue praise It remaineth then to 〈◊〉 what benefite is bestowed vppon the liquour in the chalice The Sacramentaries wil say that it is made holy wine of coÌ„mon wine and sanctified bread of common bread which sanctisying is a blessed action and by that holy signification wherevnto it is apointed a certaine holines is geuen to it which may be called a blessing This were very wel said if it had bene only said generally of yâ— chalice that it is the chalice of blessing which we blesse but the blessing that S.
Paule speaketh of is named specially also the communicating of Christes blood A generall blessing geueth a general benefite as when we say our Lord blesse you God send you good speede the right hand of God blesse this meate the holy Ghost sanctifie this wine and make it to be a remembrance of Christes bloodsheading These like wordes be blessings hallow or sanctifie the thing blessed as S. Paule saith the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and praier But when a speciall blessing is geuen a speciall sanctifiyng must folow As when God blessed the 〈◊〉 Benedixitque eis dicens Crescite multiplicamini replete aquas maris and God blessed them saying Increase and multiplie and fyll the waters of the sea this special kinde of blessing worketh a speciall benefite vnto the creature which is blessed â–ª and it worketh euen that which the word signifieth â–ª who doubteth but by these words of Gods blessing increase and multiplie the fisshes toke the vertue of increasing and multiplying which before these words they had not for this kind of blessing gaue them this kind of benefite Seing then Christ blessed the chalice saying This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gaue it really this vertue to be the blood of the new testament Tell me no more that Christ willed it to signifie his blood for I tel you out of yâ— word of God what soeuer words haue bâ—… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing they haue wrought that which they did signifie But Christ said in the way of blessing â–ª This chalice is the new testament in my blood Therefore he made by that blessing his blood within the chalice Bring me no more of those paltry examples I am a dore I am a vine the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias the holy Ghost is a doue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort I 〈◊〉 in one word to al that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing The 〈◊〉 saieth not that Christ blessed any certaine vine saying this is Christ or This is my body â–ª He sayd many thinges without blessing and he blâ—…ed sometymes without speaking But when blessing words are â—…oyned we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens and bare sigâ—…s but working and making that which is said For if they promise a thing to come they worke by the way of causing the promyse in due tyme to be fulfilled as when a soâ—…e was promysed to Abraham by the Aungell of God If they be spoken as betokening a present verbe they presently worke the thing betokened Let no 〈◊〉 deceaue thee good Reader There is a dubble blessing spoken of in S. Paule there is the chalice of blessing and the chalice which we blesse The chalice of blessing as S. Chrysostom saieth is that which wheÌ„ we haue before vs we prayse God with admiration and horrour of the vnspeakeable gift but it is not the chalice of blessing vntill we haue blessed it The blessing whiche maketh it the chalice of blessing is that we speake of and that is the blessing whiche is made by the wordes of consecration as I haue said before Therefore S. Chrysostom wryteth thus vpon this place of S. Paule Cùm benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico dicendo Eucharistiam omnem benignitatis Dei thesaurum aperio magna illa munera commemoro When I say blessing I say the Eucharist and in saying the Eucharist I open all the treasour of the goodnes of God and I make rehearsall of those great gifts But least any cauill should be made as though the wordes of 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing heare what S. Ambrose aâ—…th of this Sacrament Quantis vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit How many 〈◊〉 vse we to proue that it is not yâ— thing whiche nature made but that which blessing consecrated Lo that which conâ—…eth is blessing But what blessing After yâ— S. Ambrose had bronghâ—… many examples to shew what strength blessing had at the last he concludeth Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur If the blessing of man was of that power that it changed nature what say we of Gods own consecrating where the self words of our Lord Saniouâ—… do worke Marke good Read er blessing consecrating and the words of our Sauiour working is all one matter And yet againe to make it playner S. Ambrose saieth Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis Christi sermone conficitur for this Sacrament which thou receauest is made with the wordes of Christ what the words be he telleth him self Vide omnia illa verba Euangelistae sunt vsque ad accipite siue corpus siue sanguinem inde verba sunt Christi Behold al those are the words of the Enâ—…ngelist vntill we come to this word take either body or blood from thense they are the wordes of Christ. Yf blessing be that which consecrateth both blessing consecration be made with the words oâ—… Christ his words he those which folow the word take yâ— words which folow be these This is my bodie and This is my blood who perceyueth not yâ— these only are the words of blessing Then we blesse the chalice when we consecrate when we say This is my blood of the new testament when we blesse saying the wordes of blessing in Christes mysteries then we make so much as our words do signifie For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth that yâ— chaâ—…ce which we blesse is the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ. In saying which we blesse he sheweth the cause why it is Christes blood In saying it is the communicating of Christes blood he sheweth both yâ— effect wrought by blessing which is yâ— presence of the blood of Christ and the cause finall why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the sayd blood was shed for the remission of synnes If the â—…halice after blessing had no blood in it how did it communicate to vs the blood of Christ S. Chrysostom geuing the literall sense of these woordes writeth thus EoruÌ„ auteÌ„ huiusmodi est sententia Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit et illius sumus participes of these wordes this is yâ— meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side aâ—…d thereof we are pà rtakers He affirmeth S. Paul to say that both yâ— blood which flowed from Christes side is in the chalice also that we are thereof partakers But yâ— blood whereof we are partakers by the confession of yâ— Sacramentaries is yâ— naturall blood of Christ therefore the natural blood of Christ is coÌ„teined within yâ— chalice And consequeÌ„tlie
then the image and figure of it When we will shew how far a thing is from that which it is called doe we not say Hoc nomine tenus tale est noÌ„ re ipsa This is such a thing in name and not in dede So that the naming of a thing without being the true thing it self is the nakedest and barest thing that can be â–ª Our aduersaries wold the bread after consecration to be the body and blood of Christ in name only not in truthe which being so the chalice of blessing bread which is broken should rather be called partaking because a sinal part of yâ— truth is taken then communicating where all is made common But S. Paule sayd it is a communicating and S. Chrysostom sayeth he did it to shew that it was more than partaking therefore it is a false doctrine to say that yâ— true body and blood of Christ is not really vnder the forme of bread which is broken and within the chalice which we blesse Let vs conferre the scriptures and seke the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicare in other places of the new Testament we shall find that it standeth to geue and make common the thing it self rather then the shadow or name thereof S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles sayeth Multitudinis cre dentium erat corvnum animavna nec quisquà m eorum quae possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat sed erant illis omnia communia Of the multitude of beleuers there was one hart and one soule neither any man sayd any thing of that he possessed to be his own but all things were common to them In which place we haue it defined what communicating is truly it is such a geuing that all is made common and nothing chalenged as his own If then the chalice of blessing which we blesse be the communicating of Christes blood and the bread which we breake the communicating of his body all the blood and all the body is made common to them that receaâ—…e that chalice and that bread If all be common then we doe not receaue only a spirituall remembrance of Christes body or a figure and signe of his blood For in so doing we had not all but rather the smallest part In so doing Christ kept the best back and chalenged somewhat yea far the best part to his owne self and we should not haue it Likewise when S. Paul sayeth that the Gentils did communicate with the spirituall goods of the Iewes for his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth not a ioyning in name in shewe in figure in signes but in the truth of faith and in the grace of God and in the redemption of Iesus Christ Last of al S. Paul shewing Christ to call the faithfull people of God his brethren and children reasoneth thus Quia ergo pueri communicaueruÌ„t earni sanguini ipse similiter participauit ijsdem Because therefore the children did communicate â—…lesh and blood him self likewise tooke parte with them In which place communicating is the naturall knitting and vniting which men haue to flesh and blood so that whether communicating be spoken by flesh and blood or by the goods of the world the communicating of them is the hauing of them common or making them common Euery where communicating importeth a great and liberall geuing or taking which can not be fulfilled with the only figure and bare name of body and blood but requireth the things them selues in truth of nature as holy Ireneus a disciple of the Apostles scholers writeth against those that taught that our flesh could not aryse againe to glory Vani sunt omnes c. They are all vayne that denyd the saluation of the flesh and despyse the regeneration of it saying that it is not able to receaue the state of incorruptibilitie So in dede to wyt according to those sayinges neither our Lorde hath redemed vs with his blood neither the chalice of thankes geuing is the coÌ„municating of his blood neither the bread which we breake is the communicating of his body For blood is not but from the vaynes and flesh and from the other substaÌ„ce which is belonging to man in the which substance yâ— worde of God truly made redemed vs with his blood S. Ireneus accomptâ—…th it a great absurditie that the bread which we breake should not be the communicating of Christ his true body the chalice of the Encharist the communicating of his blood Of what blood of the same which 〈◊〉 from vaynes from flesh and from the rest of our substance And S â–ª Ireneus bringeth this interpretation to proue that we that receyue the sayd body and blood receyue therein a gyft sufficient to raise our flesh at the later daye But surely fignes and figures of Christ wil not raise our flesh for so much as they are perceaued only by vnderstanding and be not of the same nature and kinde whereof our flesh is And S. Ireneus neuer dreamed of blood that should be receaued from heauen but only of that blood which is in the chalice and cup of Christes supper ¶ The presence of Christ in his supper is proued by the one bread which being receaued of vs maketh all vs one body VNuspanis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes qui de vno pane participamus we being many are one bread and one body all we that partake of the one bread He that listeth only to mark the order of S. Paules words may quickly perceaue what his meaning is concerning the true doctrine of the Sacrament of the altar First he described our Lordes supper by the name of the chalice of blessing which we blesse and of the bread which we breake Secondly he saith that eche of them is the communicating the one of Christ his body the other of his blood Last of all he feareth not to say that the partakers of that bread all are one bread and one body Who seeth not that he is come from blessing and breaking to communicating and from communicating to vniting making one so that vse we what wordes we please in vttering the matter call we it partaking eating drinking or communicating certainly it is so nigh a ioyning that a very vnion which is to say one thing is made of that which is receaued in this blessed Sacrament and of those that receaue the same one thing I say is made of both yea one of al not only he that receaueth this one bread is made one with the bread but he is one also with al them that any where within the Churche worthely receaue of the same bread for when two things meâ—…e in a thirde they mete also betwene them selues The reason of this great ioyning is the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament for seing the bread receaued is Christ he is so strong a bread and foode that he can be ouercomed of
that it so feedeth vs as the water in baptism doth wash vs and that as water toucheth our body so it entreth into our body Which thing is so true that Christ hauing taken bread blessed stretching forth his hand said Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you Where not without a great mysterie Christe gaue his body vnder the forme of bread not only to feede vs presently through yâ— grace which procedeth froÌ„ his flesh by touching eating yâ— same but also to shew vs that this is the same bodie which before had incorporated vs into it self For as of manie graines of wheate one loaf of manie persons one Mysticall body of Christe was made so when Christ turneâ—…h the substance of bread into his own substaÌ„ce and so maketh him self present vnder yâ— form of bread he both feedeth many persons who partake of that one bread and by the form of bread sheweth how they being neuer so many are yet one in him because they are all incorporated into him Of this Sacrament S. Paule intreating sayd The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because through it we both partake of the one bread which is Christ and are our selues shewed to be one bread and one body What are we in mystery but only members of Christ And for as much as Christ is him self present vnder the forme of this bread and is the very substaÌ„ce which is receaued there we are no lesse named one mystical bread of this one bread then we are named one mystical body of Christes true body out of which discourse it is vndoutedly proued that the bread which we breake is the body of Christ. How could we otherwise be called thereof one bread How could one bread and one body be put to signifie one thing but that in dede bread and body are here in substance the same selfe thing we are named the mysticall body in respect of yâ— vnion which we haue with the natural body of Christ and amoÌ„g our selues But we are also called one bread in S. Paule Therefore out of dout S. Paul meaneth that one bread which is Christ in respect whereof we are named to be yâ— mystical body of Christ. The Church taketh her names froÌ„ Christ that which Christ is in truth the Church is in mystery so that nothing can be verified of the Church which was not true before in Christ for the members folow the state of theyr head But the meÌ„bers are called one bread one body for mysteries sake therefore the head is in truth one bodie he is the one bread whereof we partake and we partake of that which is broken by meanâ—… of yâ— forme of bread therefore Christ is really present vnder that forme of bread whiche at his supper we breake and partake We are members of this bread before we take it in the Sacrament of the altar because this bread is that substance of Christe vnder the form of bread to whose mystical body we were ioyned in baptisâ—…e whereof S. Augustine writeth thus Nulli est aliquâ—…tenus ambigendâ—… cae No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body blood of our Lord when he is made a member of Christ in baptim neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cup although before he eate that bread and drinke that cup being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benefite of that Sacrament for so much as him self hath found that thing which that Sacrament doth signify Whereas Christ sayd Except ye eate my flesh and drink my blood ye shal not haue life in you a man wold haue thought that euery person were bound to receaue actually the Sacrament of Christes body and blood but S. Augustine sheweth that thing not to be after that sorce necessarie to all men For he that is made a member of Christ in Baptism is therein made partaker of yâ— body blood of Christ. How so Because he receaueth that thing which the Sacrament of Christes body and blood signifieth What doth it signifie The mysticall body of Christ. By what meanes S. Augustine expounded yâ— meane a litle before saying Bread is not made of one grayne but of many likewise one liquour is made of many grapes Thus our Lord Iesus signified vs. he wold vs to apperteine to himself Mysterium panis vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecrauit he hath consecrated the mysterie of our peace and vnitie in his table Note that our mysterie was not made by the baker but consecrated by Christ the consecration was to turne the substance of the bread into his owne flesh keping still the olde forme of the same bread But if the body of Christ were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptized be partaker of the benefite of this Sacrament Was he made partaker of bread and wine No verily but of the mysticall body What hath the mystical body to doe in this Sacrament For â—…oth so much that here is both the thing which maketh vs all one which is Christ and he is so present that he sheweth him self to haue ioyned all vs to him as he hath ioyned the graines of wheat vnto his flesh For as the bread which we breake hath none other substance besyde the substance of Christ and yet it hath an outward appareuce of an other thing so the mysticall body of Christ hath none other substance through which it is one body besydes yâ— body of Christ although it haue an oâ—…tward appareÌ„ce of an other thing For be we neuer so many in number persons we are one body in Christ. How so euer we appere mortal men as we once were yet in truth we are ioyned to the body of Christ and are members of him our only head Take away that body of Christ from the forme of bread and here is no signe of vnitie in Christ. A signe of vnitie here is but not in Christ. Euery loaf 〈◊〉 vnitie but none other betokeneth our vnitie in Christ but that bread the substance whereof is Christ yâ— forme whereof is the forme of common bread If the naturall substance of Christ be absent from the bread which we consecrate and so be signified without the reall presence thereof if again the natural substance of bread remaine and signific the mysticall body of Christ who is absent him self in substance no signe is by that meane more effectually made then that Christ and his members are as far a sunder as heauen is distant from the earth and that as Christ is signified present being in dede not present so his members be signified to be ioyned to him and in truth be not ioyned to him These are the mystical signes which do folow necessarily vpon the
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
ioyned together in the top it self which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mysticall howse by faith and charitie alone they are one in the fundation through the spirit of God but not yet one in the top And the vnitie of that fundation wold not cause them to be a perfite howse if some stones being reised thereon did not at the length mete really together in the top of the building which is the flesh of Christ through the connexion of which stones those also which laie in the lowest place may be sayd to mete in the top for that they are necessary and substancial parts of that howse which is builded from the lowest parte of the ground vp to the very highest top Faith is the fundation and ground of the things which are hoped for Baptisme goeth nerer the top because beside the grace of faith it partaketh some other grace proceding not only from the spirit of Christe but also from his flesh in that the water according to the minde of S. Chrysostom of Leo is as it were the wombe wherein and the worde is the sede wherewith man is regenerated as wel in body as in soule Confirmation geueth strength to the new building wherein the stones are as it were with strong barres of iron holden together But when Christe geueth him selfe to vs vnder the forme of bread then are we come to the top of the building and are ioyned really to him that is yâ— end of the law For which cause this Sacrament of Christes body blood is called of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio the end or perfitenes of our heauenly building This flesh is also in the fundation but by spiritual efficacie not by reall vnion It is in Baptisme by the vse of corporall instruments of water and the word and so by spirituall efficacie and also by meane of bodily instruments proceding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptisme which he constituted in his body and sanctified the element thereof with his body In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh it self is present to make a moste perfite end of the whole spirituall building Thus are the baptized Christians built vpon yâ— faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets and the faithfull who receaue Christes body in his last supper are built in a higher degree aboue the faith of the Fathers and aboue the Baptisme of those who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christes flesh And seing all these concurre to make vp one howse the top whereof may touche Christes naturall body which he toke to make the reall coniâ—…nction with vs who consist of bodies all the mysticall body of Christ is perfitly one through them who being one with the rest in faith spirit and baptisme be also one with Christes flesh in truth of naturall and corporall vnion to Christes flesh really partaken at his holy table Let vs once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar and here is no perfite building toward the flesh of Christ and consequently no reason why we should be called his mysticall body or flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones For as if Eue had not bene taken really out of the naturall body of Adam she should not haue bene in truth bone of his bones so we are not flesh of Christes flesh in truth it self except the flesh of Christ in the naturall substance thereof be the meane by our natural coâ—…ction to it that we are framed wrought into a spirituall man These last wordes of S. Paule where he toucheth how we are â—…esh of Christes flesh doe also leade vs to an other notable example of our natural vnion which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S Paule had said that the husband is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church he prouoketh the husbands to loue their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche Who haue loued it so intierly that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word to th end he might make him self a gloriouse Church without spot or wrinkle Behold baptisme is a token of Christes loue but to what end That he might haue a cleane spouse To what purpose Will he then come nere to his wife and as it were be cloupled with her Yea verily not for any fleshly pleasure but to nourish her by his reall flesh And therefore S. Paul goeth forward saying Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their own bodies He that loueth his wife loueth him self And surely noman euer hated his own flesh but he nourisheth and cherisheth it as Christ doth his Church What meane you S. Paule Is then the Church the flesh of Christ For your words import so much He answereth it is so For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother and shal be ioyned to his own wife and they shal be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament or mysterie but I meane in Christ and the Church Hitherto S. Paul hath prouoked the husbands to loue and to cherish their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche in cleansing it through baptisme and as he cherisheth it as being members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Note that as the loue of husbands toward their wiues is coÌ„pared to baptisâ—… so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing nourishing which Christ vseth toward his Churâ—… â–ª whiche is knowe to be done after baptisme for no man cherisheth that which is not yet borne When we are borne again in Christ we are made members of Christes body and therefore those words Membra sumus corporis eius we are members of his body may be ment of baptisme â–ª where we are made members of his my stical body according as S. Paule had said before Sumus inu icem membra we are members one of an other But when he addeth de carne eius de ossibus eius of his flesh and of his bones he then speaketh not of any mysticall flesh and blood but euen of the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereof we are made members not by faith and mystery alone as in baptisme but by naturall participation of them in the last supper So doth S. Ireneus take these words For S. Paule spake not saith he of any spirituall or inuisible man sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh but of that disposition which is agreable to man the which consisteth of flesh of sinewes of bones the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood and is increased of the bread which is his body So doth S. Chrysostome also take these words saying we are members of his flesh and bones And again he hath mingled him selfe with vs and brought him selfe into
voice and commandâ—…meÌ„t of Christ and to be subiect to him as the wife is to her husband As therefore the parties maried come to the third vnitie of being made both one fleshe is no lawfull impâ—…diment stay them so doth Christ present him self in the Sacrament of his body and blood to make perfite and to coÌ„sâ—…ate his mariage in the last degree And as in adultery S. Paul graunteth a place of reconciliation beâ—…wene the man and wife so if any maÌ„ after he is maried to Christ folow the world the fleshe or the deuill he may be absolued by the Priests and so come to be ioyned with the body and blood of Christ in vnion of true flesh If now the naturall and the whole mysticall body of Christe haue so great affinitie with the state of mariage that in all degrees they be described by like termes in the worde of God seing the last and chefe coniunction whiche is in mariage can not be made without the real presence of the two bodies which are ioyned no more can the last vnion of Christ and of his Churche be made in his last supper vnlesse both his and our bodies come really together If Christ sit only in heauen not hauing his body made present at his holy table and our bodies be yet still in the earth what coniunction of bodies is made betwene Christ vs If the vnitie which is betwene two persons in mariage be a signe of the vnitie whiche is betwene Christ and the Church as S. Paul proâ—…eth it is not possible that the vnity can be lesse real in the truth then it is in the signe But in mariage whiche is the signe the persons maried are one flesh during the tymâ—… of their being together and they are both present bodily Thersore Christ is present in his own substance to be ioyned in that most chaâ—…e and vnspotted bed of matrimony with his own spouse whiche ioyuing is made in a Sacrament the which SacrameÌ„t is ministred in those knoweÌ„ forms of bread wine Therfore vnderthose forms the substance of Christes body and blood is really present This is that which S. Hilarie saith Verè verbum carneÌ„ cibo dominico sumimus We take truly the word made flesh in the meat of our â—…ord â–ª we take yâ— word made flesh yâ— is to say yâ— who le substance of Christ we take it truly that in the meate whiche our Lord geueth It is writen that he gaue saying Take eate Therefore in that meate we take truly the word made flesh but seing that meat semeth bread vnder that which semeth bread we take the whole substance of Christ. Again he saith Naturam carnis suae sub sactamento nobis admiscuit he hath mixed the nature of his flesh to vs vnder a sacrament That same word sub vnder sheweth what he meaneth for the form of bread is called a signe or sacrament alone as the body vnder it is called a sacrament or signe and also the thing or substance of the Sacrament S. Chriostom saith vt non solum per dilectionem sed reipsa in illam carnem conuertamur per cibum id efficitur quem nobis largitus est It is brought to passe by yâ— meate which Christ hath geuen vs that we may be coÌ„uerted into that flesh not only by loue but in the thing it self If bread and wine be not the thing it selfe but only Christes owne flesh and yet we are connerted in very dede into yâ—â—…lesh of Christ through the meat which he gaue seing he gaue al that he gaue vnder the form of bread and wine vnder those formes we receaue in dede and truth that flesh according to which we are reformed Which place of many shall I bring out of S. Cyrill He sayth one where Cûm mystica benedictio in nobis fiat nónne corporaliter quoque facit coÌ„municatione carnis Christi For as much as the mysticall blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christe to â—…wel in vs corporally also through the coÌ„municating of Christes flesh Can the mysticall blessing make Christ dwell corporally in vs if it self haue not Christes flesh corporally in it Cur membra fidelium membra Christi sunt Nescitis inquit quia membra vestra membra sunt Christi Membra igitur Christi meretricis faciam membra Absit Why are the meÌ„bers of yâ— faithfull the members of Christ Know ye not saith S. Paule that your members are the members of Christ Shall I then make yâ— members of Christ the members of a harlot God forbid Here S. Cyril doth manifestly allude to the kind of vnitie which is betwen man and wife in lawfull mariage and betwene foruicatours in vnlawful coniunction In eâ—…he place two are made one but in mariage lawfully in whoredom vnlawfully The SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is like to lawful mariage And therefore S. Cyrill concludeth Non habitudine solum quae per charitateÌ„ intelligitur Christum in nobis habâ—…are sed participatione naturali That Christ dwelleth in vs not only by affection or deuotion or efficacy which is vnderstanded by charitie but by natural partaking It is therefore an heresy to defend as the Sacramentaries do that we are ioyned to Christes flesh in his supper by faith and spirite only as though Christ being so long maried neuer came bodily to make vp that most chast knot of vnion betwene him and his Church But if the Sacramentarie doctrine were true it should haue lesse for asmuch as it should not be present really with vs it should not be offered externally vnto God by the Priâ—…ts of the new lawe it should not be vppon the table it should not be in the mouthes of them who receaue yâ— same it should not be made naturally one with our bodies nor we one with it S. Paule by the reall vnitie which is made betwene the meat of Christ and of his faithfull people doth proue an vnitie in lesse degree but yet an vnitie betwene those who did eate together of meates offered to ydoles But yâ— meat of Christes supper whereby we should be ioyned as well to it as among our selues our new brethern take cleane away from the visible table and altar S. Paule sayeth Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord and of the deuils table Our new brethern graunting the deuils a reall table will not allow any such to Christ. They must conâ—…esse a table as well inuisible as corporall of the Iewes and Gentils for eche of them had their faith and their God albeit not good and true but to Christes body and blood which is the altar and table of the new Testament they will not allow any externall or visible altar or table I neede not insult at them for it â—…â—…ithens the day will come when Christ will not allow them any table to eate or drink with him in the kingdom of heauen They that haue brought all
his mysteries to naked names shall enioye his glorie no more really then they allow him a reall truth in his blessed Sacraments ¶ The reall presence is proued by the example which S. Paule vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentils SAint Paule intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentils at their false and vaine sacrifices vseth in that behalf this kind of argument Whosoeuer doth eate or drink that which is offered vp in sacrifice he is made one with the oblation it self and with it to whome the things eaten and drunken are offered This proposition he proueth by example of the ChristiaÌ„s who by partaking of the bread which we breake and of the chalice which we blesse which are the communicating of Christes body and blood are made one bread one body because they partake all of the one bread The like is sene also in the carnall Iewes among whom they that eate the oblations or things offered thereby were partakers of the altar to wit of the sacrifice and of the worshipping of God to whom it was offered Therefore if the Corinthians wold also partake of the meate offered to ydols it must follow that they should be partakers of the ydolatrie For although the dead ydoll be no true God nor any thing at all wherewith they may communicate yet a societie is ioyned thereby with the deuils who reigne in those ydols Therefore as ydolatry it self so the eating of the meates offered to ydols is to be auoided Out of this discourse it is proued that the Christians Iewes Gentils eche of them haue a God true or false eche of them offereth an externall sacrifice to him eche of them vse to partake of the things offered and eche of them communicated among them selues The meat offered and eaten of the Iewes was the flesh of such cleane beasts or such other oblations as were allowed by yâ— lawe of Moyses The meate offered and eaten of the Gentils was such as their superstition had receaued To one ydol a shepe was offered to another an oxe The meate offered and eaten of the Christians is described of S. Paule to be the bread which we breake which is the communicating of Christes body and the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the communicating â—…f Christes blood The vnitie rising thereof is to be one bread one body because all partake of the one bread Uppon which ground it may be wel built that the meate partaken at Christes supper is the body and blood of Christ wherein we passe and ouercome the Iewes Gentils who had other earthly oblations but none of them had this foode which came down from heauen For as S. Paul sayeth We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle But surely they might eate bread and wine who serued the tabernacle therefore the meate of Christes supper is not bread and wine but the bread of life and the blood of Christ. And whereas the Iewes had certeyn obseruancies of eating this and of leauing that meate or that the Leuits should eate this and the Priest that and the laye people an other meate S. Paule counselleth them to stablish their hart with grace and not so carefully to obserue the old law which commaunded so many differences of meate How beit if it be a good thing to haue some meates reserued for the Priests which the common people may not eate as the Iewes think then sayeth S. Paule we Christians also haue an altar to wit a thing offered vnto God and that so preciouse that the very Priests and Bisshops who serue in the tabernacle may not eate thereof That meate is as Theodorite sayth Hostia rationalis diuina A reasonable and diuine sacrifice as Sedulius writeth yâ— altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ as Theophtlact witnesseth the vnbloody sacrifice of the body which quickeneth This then being the meate of our altar it foloweth that this meate is no lesse present vppon his holy table then that which the Iewes or ydolatours did eate was present at their sacrifices But that which they did partake was really present anâ—… receaued into their mouthes therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present and is receaued into our mouthes The meate of the Iewes and of the Gentils was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof therefore we likewise are made one naturall flesh with the meate of Christes tabâ—…e But herein is the oddes that their meat was turned into their flesh because it was weaker then their own nature but our flesh is turned without losse of his owne substance or proprietie into the nature of Christes flesh because it being the flesh which is dwelt in by the Godhead is stronger then our nature Again as the Iewes and Gentils by eating meates offered vp are made one body among them selues by coÌ„formitie of wil and mind alone because the meate was not able to tary in his own nature and to draw them vnto it so contrariwise we that eate Christes body are made really one flesh with Christ amoÌ„g our selues because as S. Cyrill declareth Christ suffereth him self to be no more diuided but kâ—…ping his owne flesh whole he gathereth all vs into it And seing we all that eate Christ are made naturally one with Christ we are also one among our selues For they who are one in any third are withall one among them selues Thus the meate of Christes table hath more truth in it then the meate of the Iewes or Gentils had according to the Catholike doctrine ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kind of shewing Christes death QVotiescunque manducabitis paneÌ„ hunc calicem hunc bibetis mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat How often so euer ye shall eate this bread and shall drinke this chalice ye shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Shewing may be either in word alone or in dede alone or in both together S. Paul speaketh in this place of that shewing which is by dede alone for eating and drinking is a kind of doing But not the eating of euery bread and the drinking of tuery chalice doth shew Christes death except it be this bread eaten that chalice drunken whereof S. Paule had sayd in Christes person a litle before This is my body which is broken for you and this cup is the new Testament in my blood The eating and drinking of â—… sacriâ—…iced body and blood doth euidently shew the death thereof as the which should not be eaten and drunken if it were not already consecrated by death vnto God For who doth eate the flâ—…sh of any creature whiles it yet liueth and hath blood in it Or how can blood be drunken in a cup if it be yet in the veines of the body The nature of the fact is such that it presupposeth the immolation and sacrifice and
the faith of that eater neuer so great did not shew Christes death past but only to come so this eating of common bread in our Lords supper doth not by the eating inferre the death of Christe to be past but rather as being to come For euery shadow belongeth to a truth whereof it is the shadow and is 〈◊〉 vntil the truth it self come but when the truth is ones present the shadow is no more a bare shadow but a shadow fylled with the truth But by the Zwiâ—…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christes supper is common bread without any reall truth made or wrought abowt it therefore it is a figure a shadow and an imperfyt worke whereas if yâ— truth of it were come it should not be only a shadow but should haue a truth vnder the shadow Thus we may perceyue that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christes death with neuer so greate a faith doth not so much by the eating shew his death past as to come hereaâ—…ter Agayne were it graunted that by reason of the faith of the eater it shewed the death past yet because it sheweth it in a simple figure it may seme that it is past in a simple figure whereby this Sacrament aâ—…ter the interpretation of our new preachers is no sufficieÌ„t meane by the dede it selfe to shew that true death which Christe suffred for vs vppon the crosse and yet S. Paule saith that by eating this bread we shew the death of Christe that is to say we shew him to haue died by eating it I say For now we speake not of preaching the Ghospell not of remembring the articles of our crede nor of other vndoubted wytnesses whereby it is proued that Christe hath died for vs. We speake of S Paules argument who â—…aith by eating this bread we shew Christe to haue dyed for vs. which argument is none is vayne is rather agaynst the faith then with it if the bread that we eate be not the reall flesh of Christe But if we once confesse that we eate the subsâ—…aÌ„ce of Christes natural body drinke the substance of his naturall blood then doth it follow inuincibly that Christe is dead for vs. It followeth I say by the order of Gods words for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liueth whose â—…lesh it is as it is written Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis ye shal not eate the flesh with the blood in it or any member cut from the liue beast whiles the blood yet remayueth in it Agayne the order of religion as wel vnder the Patriarkes as vnder the law of Moyses sheweth that no beast was eaten Sacramentally before it was kylled and offred From the sacrifice of Abâ—…lto to the comming of Christ certeinly Christ is really dead for vs and being his true fleshe that we eate we shew his true death â–ª and we shew it past and not to come Neither let any man say that Christ in his last supper gaue his fleshe before he died for he dyd not that before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled The Iewes began their feastes on the euening tyde couÌ„ting the day from Son set to the next Son set according as it is writen A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra from euening to euening ye shall kepe your holy days Christe therefore kept his supper the mauÌ„dy thursday at night after Son set when yâ— goodfryday whereon he dyed was now begon when he was already solde vnto the Iewes and all things prepared for his death so that he came to the geuing of his flesh as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shal be done after their death willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him And as it may appere in the actes of the Apostles after the 〈◊〉 of Christ and comming down of the holy Ghost the ChristeÌ„ mâ—…n begaÌ„first to kepe coÌ„tinue this at which time they shâ—…wed him both dead rysen sitting at his Fathers right haÌ„d in heauen And surely as well S. Iames in his liturgie as Damascen expounding these wordes of S. Paule whereof we speke â—…aieth Mortem filii hominis annunciatis resurrectionem eius conâ—…itemini â—…onec veniat ye shew the death of the son of man and coÌ„fâ—…sse his resurrection vntil he come Thus by eating this body we shew Christes true death by eating it being in it self aliue we shew also yâ— which folowed his death which was his resurrection and ascension Bâ—…t by a figuratiue eating we should not shew his true death and much lesse his true resurrectioÌ„ for as the death is shewed by eating the body which died so the resurrection of the said body is shewed by eating the body which died now is a liue the death is shewed whiles the body is vnder the forme of bread and the blood a part vnder the forme of wyne as though they were styll a sunder The resurrection is shewed whiles vnder eche forme whole Christ is conteyned Therefore we eate Christ more then in a figure and more then by faith and spirit we eate him in dede whereby it followeth that he is dead for vs in dede we eate him aliue without impairing or diminishing any part of him whereby it foloweth he is rysen from death and remaineth immortall Now let vs heare how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason who speaking os Christes last supper writeth in this maner Quando id proposituÌ„ videris dic tecum Hoc corpus cae When thow seest that body set before thee say with thy self This body nailed and beaten was not ouercommed with death This body the â—…onne seing crucified turned away his beames Through it also the vele of the temple was torne and the rocks and the whole earth shaken The self same body made bloody wouÌ„ded with a speare gusshed out in founteines of blood water healthsome to the whole world Seest thou after what sorte Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar â–ª Seest thou by what means he there sheweth the death of Christ This body saith he was nailed wounded perced with a spere It is then the reall body that sheweth the reall death of Christe and that sheweth it not only when we remember that Christ dyed when we thinke of his resâ—…rrection and ascension but though no man think of his death yet the very eating of this very reall body sheweth his death to men to Aungels to God The dede I say and fact of eating sheweth him to be dead whose fleshe is eaten euen as the blood of Abel cried to God from the earth where it lay and as the body of Christ in heauen by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for vs alwaies putting God in minde of his death and of our saluation ¶ The real presence is proued by the illation which S. Paule maketh concerning the
vnworthy eating and drinking of euill men WHen S. Paule had said As oft as ye shall eate this bread and drink the cup of our Lord ye shall shewe our Lordes death vntill he come he goeth forward saying Therefore who so eateth this bread drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our Lordes body and blood How doth this senteÌ„ce hang vpoÌ„ yâ— former how coÌ„meth it in with â—… Therefore but because in the former sentence S. Paul said by eating this bread we shew Christes death And for as much as we shew it in that self thing which dyed for vs therefore he that eateth vnworthely such a meate wherein by the substance which died he sheweth Christes death he is gilty of our Lordes body none otherwyse then if he had betraied it as Iudas did For the same body that Iudas did by a false kisse geue to death we eate vnder the forme of bread to shew the same death If then Iudas were gilty of Christes natural body for geuing it vnworthely to death we are gilty of the same naturall body when by eating it we shew vnworthely the same death But if we had not present the same real flesh which Iudas hetraied our vnworthy shewing could not be like his vnworthy doing al the strength of S. Paules reasoning is only grounded vpon the real presence of Christes body the vnworthy shewing whereof he now speaketh is the vnworthy â—…ating And for so much as eating is a corporall action which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth S. Paule doth vs to vnderstand that euil men might touch and haue in their mouthes yâ— bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of him â—…elfe affirmed to be his body and blood therefore S. Paule confesseth that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ in theyr mouthes But that they could not doe except the body and blood were vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore he teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine Saith not S. Paule whosoeuer eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord vnworthely Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken vnworthely But what Speaketh he of eating by faith or of drinking by spirit No verily for such eating and drinking can not be vnworthely made You wil say it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh If it were so why doth S. Paule name it this bread â–ª For 〈◊〉 the pronoune this doth shew a thing present to some sense or other and seing when S. Paule wrote these wordes he being absent in body from the Corinthians could not shew them any thing by any corporal actioÌ„ of his it remaineth that yâ— thing whereunto this doth point was named in the epistle of S. Paule which he worte to those faithfull men and also that it went not long before as the which otherwese might be of vncertaine vnderstaÌ„ding What is it then which went before Christ toke bread and after thanks geuen said Take eate this is my body whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point vnto that whereof Christ said This is my body S. Paule meaneth to shew his faut whosoeuer eateth the body of our Lord vnworthely and thereby he grauÌ„teth euil men to eate Christes body which they can doe by no meanes except that be Christes body which they take into theyr â—…outhes The Sacramentaries will obiect againste me that Christ ment the signe of his body which truly can not be so For seing S. Paule named no signe as this can not point to that which was not named so it must point only to the thing named before But the thing before named was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance ¶ The reall presence is proued because vnworthy receauers are gilty of Christes body and blood WHo soeâ—…er eateth this bread or drinketh the cup of our Lord vnwortehly he shal be gily of yâ— body blood of our Lord. A man may be gilty either for doing an euil deede or for leauing a good deede cleane vndon or els for doing a good dede in an euil manner Here S. Paule maketh the vnworthy receauer gilty for eating this bread and drinking the cup of our Lord vnworthely which is to say for doing a good deede after an euil manner his dede is eating which thing he so reaâ—…ly doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drink damnation to himself But no man is gilty of doing more theÌ„ he actually doth therefore the vnworthy receauer who for eating and drinking is gilty of the body and blood of Christ doth eate and drink in deede the same body and blood of Christ whereof he is gilty The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paule to haue said He that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christes supper refuseth to eate by faith the body of Christ sitting in heauen is gilty of not eating Christes body Who euer heard of such a toy what iote of all the scriptures which appertein to Christes supper haue they left vnwrested vntorne or vndefiled what sentence clause or word haue they left in his naturall meaning If S. Paule and the foure Euangelists were not theÌ„ selues men of sufficient discretion who might consider how nedefull it were to vnderstand wel the mysteries of Christ yet surely in repeting one matter oft it would at the least chance vnto them that they should haue told vs some one syllable which might haue made for the Sacramentary doctâ—…ine if it had bene true But now whatsoeuer they speake doth destroie vtterly and ouerthrow theyr fond assertion And that I may for this tyme go no farther what caÌ„ be answered to this place of S. Paul he that eateth a very good thing vnworthely is pronounced gilty therefore his present fault consisteth in the euill manner of his eating For to eate vnworthely is to eate in deede but not to eate after a good manner No man by eating in an euill manner can be gilty of that which he doth not eate in that euill manner and yet the vnworthy receauer of this bread is pronounced gilty of Christes body and it is ment of his naturall body Therefore this bread which he doth eate vnworthely is the reall and naturall body of Christ. If a man had done neuer so heinouse a robbery yet thereby to condemne him of adulterie it were an euideÌ„t 〈◊〉 although the paine due to adultery be lesse then that which is due to robberie But now to condemne a man for eating the body of Christ who did eate only the figure of it that were much more vniust for that his paine increased aboue the measure of his fault Let it be neuer so great a fault to eate the holy bread vnworthely yet if that holy bread be
not in dede a man it shall neuer be the fault of eating mans flesh to eate that bread vnworthely S. Paule saith not only he is gilty who eateth this bread but he is gilty of the body of Christe Howe can that be except this bread which he eateth be the body of Christ â–ª If this bread be his body seing it stâ—…ll appereth bread we must confesse that the body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of bread And truly that is the cause why S. Paule nameth it this bread for yâ— word sheweth him to meane the bread coÌ„secrated at yâ— altar that bread which that Priest froÌ„ thence deliuereth yâ— bread which that people receaueth at the Priests haÌ„d Whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of Christes body because that substance of this bread is that substaÌ„ce of Christes natural body made geueÌ„ vnder that forme of bread If it were not so the eater of this bread could not by his eating be gilty of Christe s body Otherwise the talke of S. Paule would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthely the kings garment is gilty of murdering his person I am loth to heape vp in this place yâ— manifold witnesses of the auncient Fathers whose wordes I haue partly touched also before concerning that euill men eate Christes body Now it shall suffise to shew that they make the same sequele of S. Paules wordes whiche I do for they shew the vnworthy receauer to be gilty of Christes body because he inuadeth the body of Christ and not because he eateth wheaten bread Theodoritus expoundeth these words whereuppon we dispute after this sort Illud autem caeâ—… These words he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord signifie this much That as Iudas betrayd him and the Iewes theÌ„ selfes insulted and rayled shamfully and sclanderously at him so these shame defile him who take his most holy body with vncleane hands put it into a polluted and vnchaste mouth Lo the taking touching and eating vnworthely Christes body maketh them gilty as Iudas and the Iewes were gilty of Christes death Yea Haymo saieth It were better for him who cometh with mortall sinnes to this Sacramente neuer to haue knowen the way of truth then to goe backward and to do worse then an infidell Primasius faith He despiseth Christ and his body as the Iewes dyd who cometâ—… to it without trying of his own conscience Sedulius besides that common similitude of Iudas and the Iewes vseth another saying If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel how much more ought he not to put it into an vncleane harte Note good Reader that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel which is put in the harte It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries blaspheme breade and wine that is put into a cloth and vessell after consecration and body and blood that whiles the body eateth breade and wine is in hart receaued The same thing is in the harte which is put in the vessell wherein the Sacra ment is kept S. Hierome vsing the same similitude of a cloth or vncleane vessell declareth farther that as Ioseph did folde the body oâ—… our Lord in a cleane sheete so must we receaue him with a cleane coÌ„science Dâ—…u menius declareth the fault of the euill men to be in that they touche the body of Christ with vncleane mouth and impure hands saying that as Iudas betrayed Christ and the Iewes did violently runne vppon him euen so they do shame to him Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt veluti tunc eum Iudaei tenuerunt execrando admouent ori Who doe take with impure hands his most holy body none otherwise then the Iewes at that tyme helde him and doe put it to theyr cursed mouth Theophylact sayth of the blood of Christ Qui indignè hunc hauserit nulluÌ„ ex eo fructuÌ„ adeptus frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit He that drinketh the blood vnworthely he hath shed in vayne rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit And again The cause why euil men take no fruit saith Theophylact is not through the nature of that mysteries as the which both haue life in them and geue life but it chauÌ„ceth through the vnworthines of them that come to them who take hurte by them nonc other wise theÌ„ as the sonne is wont to hurte them who haue sore eyes Theophylacte meaneth that as it is oue sonne which shineth to whole aud to sore eyes but yet the sore eyes through their owne defecte take hurt thereof and the whole eyes take good so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their owne nature being as he saith always of that nature both to conteyne life and to gene life But the fault why life is not takeÌ„ cometh of the vnworthy receauer We haue now harde that euill men receaue the same true body of Christ which the good men do receaue but not to yâ— same profit because they haue not wel prepared them selues We must not then thinke that euer any auncient Father was of this mind to say that euill men haue in their mouthes only bread and wine and the good men eate only the true body of Christ. That heresiâ—… is as farre from the opinion of the Fathers as it is farre from the truth of the Scriptures S. Chrysostom saith he will suffer his own blood to be shed rather then he will graunt the moste holy blood of our Lord to an vnworthy man Doth not he meane that he hath our Lords blood in his own hand at the tyme of celebrating the mysteries and that he will not deliuer the same to a knowen euill man S. Cyrill noteth that it is not sayd in vaine of Iudas Exiuit continuò he went foorth by and by Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit The deuill feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kendled a spark of grace or of repentance in his minde S. Augustine hauing spoken of Iudas who gaue him self to the deuill Non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo not by taking an euill thing but by taking it in an euill maner concludeth generally of all euill men Corpus enim sanguis domini erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit for it was the body and blood of our Lord euen to those to whom S. Paule sayd â–ª he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self It were easy after this sorte to allege a very greate number of yâ— olde Fathers but our aduersaries well knowing that we our selues beleue that the euill men albeit they receaue the substance of Christes body yet they doe not receaue the grace and vnitie
for which it is geuen abuse maliciously the words which S. Augustine speaketh of the effect of Christes body against the reall substance thereof But what speake I of the iniury done to S. Augustine sith they haue done so great and manifold iniuries to the word of God it self ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kynde of discerning our Lords body LEt a man examine him self and so eate of that bread and drink of the chalice for he that eateth and â—…nketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body That is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates The not making of this difference may rise vpon mysbeleâ—…e as when a man thinketh that Christ was not able to make the bread his body or that his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread apart from his blood An other sorte of men may so contenme Christes body that he will not worship it although he beleue it to be present But S. Paule speakâ—…th not of those desperate men who through their special malice be gilty of Christes body before they come vnto it 〈◊〉 they are the more gilty for touching it really He speaketh of them who oâ—…it to examine them selues in so much that S. Augustine writeth thus of this very mater De his erat sermo caet â–ª when the Apostle sayd this thing the talk was of them who did receaue the body of our Lord indiscretely and negligeÌ„tly as if it were any other meate And againe If the negligeÌ„ce of the guest be touched with reprofe with what punishment is he vexed who sold the maker of the feast Here S. Augustine doth witnes that S. Paul speaking of vnworthy receauers did meane them who for negligence omitted to proue and examine them selues comming to the supper of our Lord as if they came to a prophane supper S. Chrysostom and after him Decumenius accompt the fault of the Corinthians to haue beue the dispising of the poore men because S. Paul sayd in the same Chapiter Ye put those to shame who haue not goodes of their own Theodoretus sayeth besydes that some of them were ambitious others also did eate the things offered vp to Ydols one had maried his own mother in law these were the faultes of the Corinthians and not any speciall contempt of hart namely against these holy mysteries According to which sense the Prophet Malachie doth say that the offering of polluted bread vppon the altar of God was the despising of him and S. Hiâ—…rome there sayeth Opera peccatorum despiciunt mensam Dei the workes of synners despise the table of God Seing then S. Paule speaketh of such fault and contempt of the Corinthians as riseth of their negligence and for the lacke of discretion this kind of giltines can not come only of the mind it self whose iudgement is rather vpright but it cometh for so much as the fault is committed about that thing wherein the body and blood of Christ is really conteyned For whereas an iniury done may either touch our body or estimation and when we will persecute the same reason and law wold we should specially describe the kind of iniury least we doe wrong to him whome we burden falsly with a more greuouse kind of fault then he hath done seing S. Paule doth by name burden the vnworthy recâ—…auer of this Sacrament with being gilty not only of Christes worship or name wherewith in other places he burdeneth other great synners but with being gilty of his own body and blood with which fault he neuer 〈◊〉 any other then the vnworthy receauers of this blessed Sacrament or yâ— Iewes who layed 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christ at his death it must nedes be yâ— such a coÌ„municant receaâ—…eth Christes owne naturall body so offendeth Christ not only in his name or in his estimation but also in his naturall flesh blood Moreouer seing when he warneth him to beware of doing this euil dede he biddeth him only put a 〈◊〉 betwene Christes body and all other meates it is euident that none other meate is here present besyde the body of Christ. Otherwise he should haue sayd Non dijudicans panem vinum figuram corporis Domini Not discerning bread and wine the signe of Christes body But now he only sayeth not discerning the body of our Lord. And yet it is much more to be noted that S. Paule nameth not any other meates but only he nameth the body of our Lord shewing thereby yâ— we must discerne it not only from other meates but from al other creatures in the world As if he sayd he that eateth vnworthely considereth not whose body he cometh vnto For as S. Chrysostome sayeth The receauer nedeth to consider nothing els but only qui sit propositus who is set foorth Et magnitudinem propositorum and the greatnes of the things set â—…oorth If the body were not present we ought rather to consider who is in heauen and where the truth of this image is then who and what is set before vs. Which as the Sacramentaries falsely teache is bread and wine but as the holy Scriptures and Fathers affirme it is the substance of Christes body ¶ No â—…igure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently gilty of Christes naturall body IN all this question of vnworthy receaâ—…ing the holy mysteries the chief refuge of the Sacramentaries is to say that seing the bread eaten and the wine drunken are the figures of Christes body and blood who so taketh them vnworthely he is gilty of the body and blood them selues which those figures doe signifie This pretensed excuse of theirs I will now consâ—…te God willing When a man by wilful contempt doth breake or defile yâ— image of a great Prince it is reputed all one as if he had stryken the Prince himself not because the dede is one but for that his will is thought to be no lesse vttered against the Prince by his demeanure toward the signe then if he had 〈◊〉 touched the Prince him self But S. Paule speaketh not of any such matter in this place as who maketh his argument rather vppon yâ— reall fact it self â—…hen vppon the wil or mind of the doer Neither doth he reason vppon presumption surmise or any like far fet interpretation but absolutely pronounceth him to be gilty of Christes body who eateth this bread vnworthely Therefore he ment not that the image or figure of Christes body was eaten but the true substance thereof He spake not now only of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing of not examining a mans self â–ª and of despising the poore Secondarily they that say the signe image or figure of Christes body is abused must shew wherein that figure doth consist Figures and images be either externall or internall Those be iudged by the eye these by the vnderstanding Those are
most commonly made by act these by nature or grace No manifest externall signe is made in Christes supper sufficient to shew or to expresse his body and blood outwardly vnto our eyes albeit some likenes and similitude be kept outwardly betwene the figures and the things figured otherwise as S. Augustine reasoneth they should not be Sacraments or holy signes But as Epiphanius well noteth of this Sacrament Videmus quòd non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non inuisibli deitati non lineamientis membrorum hoc enim est rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam We see that this thing he meaneth the Sacrament of Christes supper is not equall nor like either to the shape in flesh or to the inuisible Godhead or to the proportion of his members for this thing is of a round forme and vnsensible concerning the power of feling or mouing Seing then the things consecrated vppon the 〈◊〉 be not so like Christes nature person that thereby they may be in dede his image in any parte of their outward shape it appereth that the figure made in them is not so much seene in the outward forme as it is to be sought for in some inward vertue of them Internall figures be either naturall or typicall The Sonne is a naturall image or figure of his Father and the serpent lifted vp in the desert was a mysticall image of Christ. There is likewise no mere natural image of Christ in his last supper because there is nothing which procedeth from him by the way of birth or of generation and yet a certein proportion is kept in the Sacrament of Christes supper with this kinde of figure also Typicall signes be dubble some of the olde lawe which did signify as it were in a shadow yâ— truth absent in substaÌ„ce which was to come in Christ others of the new Testament which doe euidently geue vs the truth it self which they by visible â—…ormes both signify and conteine Those of the olde law are called in S. Paule vmbra futurorum bonorum the shadow of the good things to come these of the new lawe are named ipsa imago reruÌ„ the self image of the things of which matter I haue spoken before at large The supper of Christe belongeth to the new Testament the chalice whereof is the new Testament in his blood Therefore the figure which is made in Christes supper is ipsa imago reruÌ„ The self image of the things as also Baptisme conteyneth really the grace of regeneration which it geueth to him that is worthely baptized There is an image and a self image The image may be of a thing whose substance is absent as it chaunceth in all artificiall images The self image is it which hath the truth ioyned with yâ— image or els which is an image rather through that self substaÌ„ce which it hath common with the truth then in his outward resemblance Such an image is Christ of his Father and Christes supper of him self Hauing after the rate of artificiall and external figures by breaking of the bread a resemblance of the naturall flesh broken with nailes and scourges but much more hauing the proprietie of a naturall image in being that substance whereof it is the figure And whereas it hath the properties of â—…the kind of images or figures yet it is neither of both but farre passeth both therefore is called not only a typicall figure such as those of the old law were nor only a mystical figure of yâ— new Testament as other Sacraments of Christes Church are but it is called singularly the Sacrament of Sacraments the perfection and the vnbloody sacrifice which who so receaueth vnworthely he is worthy to be gilty of no lesse punishment then the thing is great which he 〈◊〉 He is gilty of the sacriâ—…iced body of Christ because he really eateth it But if it were the image of a truth absent in substance as the figures of the old Testament were the negligent eating thereof could by no meanes make a man gilty of violating Christes body partly because no image of the old law did by eating it make any man gilty of laying 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christes body and yet they were all figures of his body partly because any other Satrament of the new law should likewise make vs gilty of missordering his body For as bread and wine doe signify the spirituall nourishment which Christ geueth to our soules right so Baptisme doth signifie the spirituall birth which we receaue of Christ in our soules But seing it is a thing neuer heard of that either Manna or the shew bread vnworthely eaten or baptisme vnworthely taken made any man gilty of Christes own body and blood certeinly there is some other heauenly substance vnder the forme of bread and wine then either Manna or the shew bread had or baptisme now hath He that did eate Manna vnworthely might be gilty of contempt disdaine lothsomnes or negligence according as his fault was wherewith he did eate it but the thing eaten made him not gilty of Christes body and blood Otherwise the Iewes must haue prepared and examined them selues euery day least they should haue committed a new synne against the body of our Sauiour which as it is a thing not readen of so it had required more perfection in the law then now is vsed for so much as we receaue our maker perhaps but once a yere surely at the most but once a day whereas they did fede vppon Manna so oft as hunger or custome prouoked them by the space of forty yeres What shal I say more As the Sacrament of Christes body blood is really and in dede it self the bread which through the substance thereof vnited to God is able to make the worthy eaters liue for euer so it is the body whiche through the substance thereof whereunto power of iudging and coÌ„demning is geuen doth make the vnworthy receauers thereof to be damned euen for the only negligence vsed in eating it Death and life comme from the substance of that which is eaten and therein it differeth froÌ„ Manna exceding it so far as the body it selfe is more worth then the shadow thereof whereas otherwise one slesh and blood of Christ were signified by both but not really present in both ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is confirmed by the oft repâ—…rting of the name of flesh body blood eating drinking and such like wordes THat which Ioseph said vnto Pharao concerning that his dreame seene yâ— second tyme was an assured token of Gods will in bringing the matter to passe I may much more â—…ustly allege at this tyme sith touching the real presâ—…ce of his body blood Christe was not content to say it the second or third tyme but he hath by him self or his Apostles and Euangelists repeted it aboue
twentie tymes to the intent it might at the least wise sinke at the lengthe into some of his disciples minde And how much lesse should I either thinke it long to dilate this argument either the Reader be wery thereof S. Paule sayth eadeÌ„ vobis scribere mihi quidem non pigruÌ„ vobis autem necessarium To write the same thinges vnto you it is not lothsom vnto me but truly necessarie vnto you Euen so Christe for our greate profite always repeted that he would geue meate whiche should not perish a bread which was his flesh And that we should eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood that who so did eate his flesh and drink his blood should haue life euerlasting for his flesh is meate in deede and his blood is drinke in deede who so doth eate his flesh and drinke his blood doth tarie in Christ and Christ in him and he that doth eate him should liue for him and that this is the bread which came doune from heauen an other manner of bread then MaÌ„na was He that doth eate this bread shal liue for euer Thus about tenne tymes we finde that in S. Ihon he said one thing though not in one words Sometyme calling it flesh sometyme blood sometyme him self sometyme this bread sometyme meat Put now here vnto that he toke bread and wine blessed gaue thankes brake and gaue and said take and eate this is my body and drinke ye al of this for this is my blood and make or doe this thing for the remembrance of me Remember farther that three Euangelists wrote the history of the supper in diuerse yeres all after one sort that S. Paule wrote the same adding more terrour to it by shewing that some died at Corinth for the vnworthy receauing the body and blood of Christ with all the rest which the Apostle sayth in that epistle and we shall find that the holy ghost hath confirmed and verified the knowen and litterall vnderstaÌ„ding of the words flesh blood body meat without any figuratiue speache or meaning Albeit God meant not his body and blood to be eaten and drunken after the common vsual manner of eating rosted flesh or drinking raw blood but that we should eate it drinke it vnder the forms of bread wine For which cause he also vsed yâ— name of a certaine kinde of bread A bread I say which came donne from heauen because it is vnited vnto yâ— sonne of God who was for euer equal with his Father in glory nature honour This repeting of one thing so many tymes is a great argumeÌ„t of speaking plainly without all figures or parables This argument to begin wth the weaker the greke author Euthymius maketh who vpon those wordes my flesh is truly meate saieth hoc dixit confirmans quòd non aenigmaticè neque parabolicâ—… loqueretur This he hath said coÌ„firming that he spake not 〈◊〉 either els in the manner of a parable Which obseruation Euthymius borowed of S. Chrysostom who saith that Christ affirmed his fleshe to be meate in dede to confirme his disciples least they should thinke him to haue spoken obscurely in parables But the ofte repeting is of it selfe the confirming and assuring vs that he spake not so Oecumenius also vse th the same reason in a like matter Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quòd non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec iplos exterreat in that he many tymes nameth the body and blood of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man as the Nestorians did falsely teache but the Lord him self and maker of all things to th end he might verily put them in a terrour by these wordes if the ofte naming of Lord did shew it to be the body not of a bare man but also of God how much more doth it shew that it is not the bare substance of bread but the body it selfe of Christ who is our maker S. Basile noteth in the Apostle S. Paule coÌ„cerning this very matter VehemeÌ„tius simulque horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemeÌ„tly to the more terrour of the vnworthy receauers the condemnation by repeting it S. Augustine in his booke which he made concerning the working of muncks perceauing that some thought yâ— Apostle to speake figuratinely wheÌ„ he requireth that all men should labour and worke who would eate among other arguments wherewith he disproueth these figurantiue workers vseth this also Neque enim aut vno loco aut breuiter dictuÌ„ est vt possit cuiusuis astutissimi tergiuersatione in aliam traduci peruertique sententiam â—…t is not said in one place or in shorte wordes so that it may be 〈◊〉 and peruerted into an other meaning by yâ— ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist Thus reasoneth S. Augustine vpoÌ„ the ost repeting of worke of labour of miniâ—…ring with handes prouing thereby that the Apostle meant in dede bodily worke and not only working with mind or tonge But I am assured there is not more in the new testameÌ„t concerning the precept of working with handes then is of the body and blood of Christ of his flesh of the meat which perisheth not of such substanciall bread of taking eating drinking communicating partaking the body and blood of Christ of making the same of geuing breaking and distributing of not discerning it of being gilty for vnworthy eating of true meate true drink oâ—… reising vp him that eateth it of his abyding in Christ and liuing for Christ of the Church and Christ being twain in one flesh of being one bread one body all that partake of the one bread of liuing for euer if any man worthely eate this bread which is the flesh of Christ which he wil geue for yâ— life of that world it is not said in one place neither in short or few words therefore it ought not be drawen into an other meaning then the words do sound â—…y the ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist To conclude S. Cyrillus writeth in the same sense Non obdurescamus toties a Christo veritatem audientes non est enim ambigenduÌ„ quin summa supplicia subituri sunt qui saepius haec a Chisto iterata non capiunt Let vs not harden our selues hearing the truth so oft of Christ. for it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most â—…reme paines who receaue not these thinges whiche are so many tymes repeted of Christ. The preface of the sixth booke BEcause the adoration of the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the Altar is a matter whiche moste manifestly conuinceth the reall presence of Christ vnder the forme of bread I thought it best to handle it a part
by it selfe aâ—… also being one of those things which doth principally declare the saith of the whole Churche in this behalfe For no man would adore the body of Christ in the Priestes hands or vpon the altar if it were not really present there The Chapiters of the sixth Booke 1. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophet Dauid in the Psalm 21. 2. Item of the Psalme 98. 3. It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatry to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 4. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the new Testament 5. That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ dyd honour the body blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 6. The adoration of the body blood of Christ is proued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first six hundred yeres 7. The reall presence is proued by the doctrine consent of the auncient Fathers 8. Item by the faith of the people 9. That no man can be coÌ„demned for beleuing the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophete Dauid OF this adoration due to the body of Christ the holy ghost forewarned vs by the Prophete Dauid in that psalme which Christ him selfe hanging vpon the Crosse declared to be literally ment of him selfe and that as well concerning his death whch he suffered for vs as also concerning the memory of the same death which he instituted in the night wherein he was betraied Christ therefore hauing she wed in that psalme the cruelty of Iewes in killing him most humbly asketh of his Father through his manhod that his soule may be deliuered by resurrection from the mouth of yâ— lion promising or vowing therewithal that he will open the name of God vnto his brethren and praise him in the middest of the congregation And when I cried vnto him he heard me If God hath fauorably heard Christ as there can be no doubt but he hath Christ is bouÌ„d by his own promise to praise his Father in a greate Church therefore saith he will doe so adding thereunto I will render or performe my vowes in the sight of them that feare him By what meane wil he performe them It foloweth immediatly Edent pauperes caet The poore shal eate be silled and they that seeke him shal praise the Lord theyr hartes shall liue for euer all the endes of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord. All the families of the Gentils shall adore in his sight Because the kingdome is the Lords and him selfe shall beare rule among the nations All that be fat on the earth haue eaten and adored al they that goe doune into the earth shall fall doune before him 1. Christ then â—…or his resurrections sake 2. made a vow to praise God 3. in the great Church of all nations 4. the performance whereof should be stablished by the meanes of eating filling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worshiping â—…ose that after baptism by yâ— grace of God are preserued froÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar 〈◊〉 be filled 〈◊〉 praise God for euer Eating is the acte of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirituall 〈◊〉 is the heauenly effect thereof the praising of God is the fruit of the 〈◊〉 For we 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 are filled to the end we should praise God for euer 〈◊〉 that after 〈◊〉 fall into greate 〈◊〉 partly they so fal that they rise 〈◊〉 and then they remember in yâ— memory of Christes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his last supper is that Christe died for them and so the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 forceth presseth them by penance to returne Partly they so fall that they care not to returne to God but lye wallowing still in their synnes yet they departe not by 〈◊〉 or infidelity out of the Church but kepe stil the bare belefe of Gods truth without performing his â—…dementes Such men eate worship but because they wil not remeÌ„ber be 〈◊〉 to God but come to the table of Christ vnworthely they are not filled by their eating But there are two other kinds of men who sometime haue bene of Christes church but now are not of it of which two the one doth eat and not worship because it beleuâ—…th not the thing eaten to be the flesh of God such are the Zinglians the other doth neither worship nor eate which are the vnfaithfull Iewes who are not only departed from the Catholike Church but also froÌ„ yâ— coÌ„fession of Christ our true Messias of whom S. Pâ—…ule saith we haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle Christ being absent in the visible forme of his body sitting therein at the right hand of his father ruleth his Church reigâ—…eth in it not as the vnfaithfull Iewes thought he would haue done by exâ—…ising violent inâ—…isdiction and subduing the bodies of men by force but he reigneth in yâ— hartes through faith charitie which he geueth vs. This inuisible reigning among visible men requireth for conuenient maâ—…tenance thereof an inuisible kinde of presence concerning the person of the king bâ—…t yet visible concerning the forâ—…ies of bread and wine to theâ—…d his members may know where to worship him For as his Church is visible through the bodies of them whose soules do inuisibly serue him so his body is visible through the formes of bread wine vnder the which it lieth inuisibly distributing the frutes of his death and resurrection All this eating adoring filling raigning and praysing doth chieâ—…ly belong in this place to the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Through those mysteries Christe the bread of life is really eaten wee are filled with grace God is praised in good works reigneth in our hartes we bowe downe to his body and worship him for our maker our King and our Lord. And that this interpretation is not of mine owne making it shall nowe appere S. Hierome vpon those wordes vota mea reddam I wil render my vowes which I promised saith Vota Christi natiuitas vel passio vota Ecclesiae opera bona vel mysterium corporis sanguinis mei offeram cum his qui in eius timore haec celebrant The vowes of Christ are his birth or passion the vowes of the Church are good workes or els I will offer saith Christe the mystery of my body and blood with them who celebrate these thinges in his feare First S. Hierome taketh the vowes of Christ to haue bene the promises that he made to be borne or to die but afterward he geueth an other sense which is more agreable to the letter For Christe had spoken before of his passion
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin
speaketh in an other place of the same matter Suprà dictum est edent pauperes saturabuÌ„tur hîc verò manducauerunt adorauerunt caet It was sayd before the poore shal eate and shal be filled But here it is sayd all the riche of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body and blood But they adore only and be not filled also because they folow not For although they eate Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe quia Deus excitauit eum a mortuis c. Because God hath raised him from the dead and hath geuen him a name the which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euery knee should be bowed of heauenly earthly and of things vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes and with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come them selues to the table they eate and adore but yet they are not filled because they doe not hunger and thyrst righteousnes Hitherto S. Augustine who speaketh of eating the body of Christ from the table The riche men come to the table of Christ thence to eate his body There also they adore that which they take from the table and that which they eate And how is it possible but that this worshipping and adoring whereof S. Augustine speaketh must belong to the table of Christ that is to say to his body aud blood which is eaten from his table when the Priest geueth it to vs And yet it might not there be rightly adored if it were not reaâ—…ly present vppon the table And there it can not be present vnlesse it ve vnder the formes of bread and wine which only stand vppon the table Therefore this prophecie as wel proueth the adoration as the real presence of Christes body and blood Is it not a great blindnes in our new preachers that whereas the word of God sayeth euen the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue adored or shal eate and shall adore for so one tense doth stand for an other in the holy Scripture yet they wil haue ye eate and not adore to th' intent ye should be more vnkind thâ—…n those earthly riche men were ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued again out of the Prophet Dauid THe Prophet Dauid speaking of the Kingdome of Christ which he exercised vpon the crosse by conquering the deuil and synne requireth vs to gene praise to him for it and not only to him but euen to his footestole writing thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est Exalte the Lord our God and worship his footestole because it is holy The Hebrew readeth because he is holy It is to be vnderstanded that Christ in one person hath two natures to wit the nature of God and yâ— nature of man Dauid willeth both to be adored and first he speaketh of the Godhead saying Exalte the Lord our God Next after of his humane nature in those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship his footestole for Godly honour is due to his flesh also because he is holy That is to say because his person is the second person in the Trinitie where vnto the manhod is vnited And through that vnion the nature of man is worthy of Godly honour The Iewes accompted the footestole of God to be the Arke and temple of Hierusalem toward which they bowed and adored God in their tyme of prayers But aswell the Arke as the Temple were the shadowes of Christes flesh and that not only as he was in the visible forme of man but euen as he is mystically vnder the forme of bread For the Arke did foreshadow the Sacrament of Christes body blood as Angelomus hath noted Sacerdos qui Arcam caet The Priest Oza who touched that Arke with vnaduised rashnes purged the fault of his bolde enterprise with death before his tyme wherein we must nedes consider how much he synneth who cometh gilty to the body of our Lord seing that deuout Priest is punished with death who with lesse reuerence then he ought hastely handled that Arke which was the figure of our Lords body Againe the Arke coÌ„teined Manna in it which was an expresse figure of the flesh of Christ in that respect as it is to be eaten of vs as both Christ him self hath declared in S. Ihon and S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Likewise the Temple was a figure of Christes body according as him self sayd Dissolue ye this Temple of my body and and in three days I wil raise it vp againe The Arke therefore and the Temple being the footestole of God toward which yâ— Iewes prayed did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen whether Christ is entred as into the euerlasting 〈◊〉 and most holy of holies but also in the Sacrament of the altar which is the Arke Temple and â—…essell conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father The holy Prophet Dauid requiring vs to adore the footestole of God requireth vs to adore the flesh of Christ as well in the Arke of the new Testament which is the Sacrament of Christes body as in heauen it self because he that hath ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father sayd also in his last supper Take and eate this is my body Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Neither doe I make or first inuent such interpretation but the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres left it vnto me sauing that they expound yâ— footestole to be not only the Arke and Temple of â—…ierusalem but also the whole â—…arth in respect of the Godhead because Esate sayeth Heauen is my seate the â—…arth is the settle of my feete But herein wee may rest in S. Hieromes aucthoritie who vpon this place writeth thus Multae de scabello opiniones sunt caet There are many opinions concerning the â—…orestole what it should be But here the Prophete meaneth our Lords body wherein the maiestie of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a 〈◊〉 How so euer then wee interpret the fotestole concerning the literall and firsâ—… meaning yet the naturall flesh of Christe which he assumpted of the virgin is the spiritual truth wherevnto the Prophete directed his wordes That flesh where so euer it be is the fotestole of God and therefore it is euery where to be adored But as the Arcke deserued a speciall reuerence amonge the Iewes although it was the bare figure of Christes flesh in so much that Oza who touched it rashly died for it euen so the Sacrament of the altar which
is both the truth aâ—…d the figure of Christes visible body must by the force of this Propheâ—…y be adored among all faithfull Christians Therefore S. Ambrose disputing of this fotestole saith Per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodieque in mysterijs adoramus By the fotestole the earth is fotestole by the earth the flesh of Christ which this day also wee adore in the mysteries When he saith wee adore the flesh of Christ euen at his day in the mysteries what other thing saith he then we adore the flesh of Christe at masse or in the supper of Christe or vpon the altar or vpon the holy table For all these names meanâ—… that the flesh of Christe is worshipped after consecration vnder the formes of bread and wine S. Augustine likewise coÌ„sidering that Dauid willeth vs to adore the footestole of our Lord and that 〈◊〉 saith in the person of God heaueÌ„ is to me a seate the earth is my footestole doubting how we that professe to adore one God may worship earth findeth at the last that Christ tooke earth of earth to wit flesh of the virgins flesh and because Christ walked in the very same flesh here and gaue vs the very same flesh to be eaten to saluation and no man eateth that fleshe except he first hath adored it is found how such a footestole of our Lords may be adored and how we may not only not synne by adoring but how we may synne by not adoring Behold the flesh which Christ tooke of yâ— virgin in the same he walked and the same he gaue to be eaten He toke true flesh and reall flesh he walked in the substance of natural flesh therefore he gaue vs the substance of the same flesh to be first adored and then to be eaten If you say he gaue it in a figure then he walked in flesh in a figure he tooke flesh in a figure For the same substance which he toke and walked in he gaue vs albeit he gaue it so as it might be most conueniently eaten vnder the form of breade whereunto all men are most vsed S. Augustine considering the foolish vnderstanding of the Capharnaits worthely saith as it were to them in Christes person ye shall not eate this body whiche you see nor drinke that blood which they shal shed who shal crucifie me SacramentuÌ„ aliquod coÌ„mendaui vobis I haue coÌ„mended a certaine Sacrament to you â–ª spiritualiter intellectuÌ„ viuificabit vos being spiritually vnderstaÌ„ded it wil make you liue Et si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportettameÌ„ inuisibiliter intelligi Although it must nedes be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstanded inuisibly The last wordes of S. Augustine must agree with the first and then it shalâ—…e true both that we must eate the self same flesh which Christ toke of the virgin and yet not that body which the Capharnaits saw why Did not the 〈◊〉 see the body which Christ tooke of the virgin How then must we eate the flesh which he tooke and not that body which they saw If men will not affect blindnesse it is easy to vnderstand that all corporall natures consist of an inuisible substance and of a visible forme The forme of Christes body was that which the Capharnaites saw but the substance oâ—… Christes body is that which we must eate Christe tooke not that greatnes and quantitie of flesh of his mother wherein he walked for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant to the state of a perâ—…ite man That increased quantitie the Capharnaites saw but the substance of his fleshe was neither increased nor diminished That same standing substance Christ tooke of his mother in that he walked and that he gaue vs to eate vnto saluation That substance we how vnto before we eate it But the forme shape of that substance we eate not for Christ hath geuen it vs vnder the forme of bread his blood vnder the form of wine Now this gift wherein yâ— truth of substaÌ„ce is really geuen without the visible form of flesh and blood is the gift of he Sacrament that is it which being spiritually vnderstand ed wil quicken vs to life enerlasting That was the vnderstanding which being denied to the proud stubborn Chapharnaits who would not beleue was reueled to the humble Apostles who taried with him vntill his last supper There they lerned how the same body was geuen them to be eaten which was taken of the virgin and which was betraied for vs And yet not that which the Capharnites saw the same in substance but not the same in apparence For Christ taking bread sayd This is my body which is geueÌ„ for you take eate There the Apostoles saw that which semed stil bread but vnder the form of the bread Christ gaue the selfe same flesh wherein he walked in this life and he so gaue it that it might be adored not only whiles it was eaten but before for no man eateth it nisi prius adorauerit except he adore it before That word before sheweth that it is the flesh of Christ before we eate it and consequently yâ— it is consecrated by the Priest speaking the words of Christ ouer the bread and wine S. Augustine was so fully persuaded that the flesh of Christe was to be adored vnder the forme of breade after consecration that he teacheth the Christian people to adore it not as common flesh but as the flesh of God for whose sake we adore it â–ª therefore he saith Cùm ad terram quamlibet c. When thou bowest thy self or fallest down before any earth looke not vpon it as earth but looke vpon that holy one whose fotestoole it is whiche thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake S. Augustin calleth the flesh of Christ earth because flesh was made of earth And Christ toke flesh of our Ladies flesh This flesh he calleth earth And for asmuch as he had said that no maÌ„ did eate that flesh except he had adored before he sheweth how we must adore verily not resting vpon the earth to wit vppon the flesh of Christ but looking to his person in whom that earth resteth as if he said the footestole is to be adored for his sake that sitteth on that stoole But now good Reader I besech thee as thou hast care of thy saluation and doest desire to be enformed of the truth concerning the adoration of this Sacrament to ponder well these words Ad terram quaÌ„libet cuÌ„ te inclinas atque prosternis when thou bowest or laiest thy selfe prostrate before any earth What meane these words Ad terram quaÌ„libet before any earth Hath Christ moe fleshes then one For by earth thou knowest he meaneth Christes fleshe What is it then to say before any earth Doubtlesse before any hoste consecrated Doubtlesse before any flesh
of Christ made vnder the forme of bread and wine that is called any earth not because Christ hath any moe then only one body and one blood and one earth which is to be adored but because that one earth is in many places after the sorte I said before to wit vnder many formes of bread That is it which S. Augustine saith when thou bowest thee or doest cast thy selfe prostrate before any flesh of Christ in what soeuer Church house or place in what soeuer altar pix or table where soeuer thou fallest doune prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar adore it so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake whose flesh it is By this place it is inuincibly proued that it was the custome of all Catholike people in S. Augustines tyme to be prostrate to bow doune and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar But that should neuer haue bene suffered in Afrike no more then now it is suffered in England except the real substaÌ„ce of Christes flesh had bene certainly beleued of all men to be present vnder the formes of bread and wine Therefore be thou assured as those yâ— now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christes supper doe not beleue the flesh of Christ to be really present vnder the form of bread wine so they who willed all Christians vnder paine of syn to adore the earth flesh whiche they receaued before that they recâ—…aued it did vndoubtedly beleue the reall presence of Christes â—…lesh vnder the visible formes of bread and wine This was the faith of the first six hundred yeres which dured from the Apostles tyme till this our daies and yet dureth in all Catholike countries ¶ It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatrie to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar MAny things are to be abhorred which are in these our daies taught againste the truth of the Gospell yet neuer was any thing so maliciously inuented so blasphemously vttered so foolishly mainteined as to say that it is idolatrie to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar For that saying presupposeth externall idols not to haue bene taken away by the comming of Christ whiche is against the expresse word of God It presupposeth also that idolatry should be mainteined among Christians them selues not only in groâ—…es hilles and corners but euen openly in the middest of the whole Church by publike doctrine and vniuersall practise which neuer chaunced no not among the Iewes And which is most abominable of all it presupposeth that Christ who came to end and ouerthrow all idols and specially those which were made by hand of man now him selfe should geue occasion why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape and that this idolatry should be committed by pretense of his owne word yea that it should be done vnto him selfe in his owne mysteries falsely and wickedly if by any meanes Christ may be falsely adored Can there yet a more lewd and foolish pointe be added to this opinion Yea verily They that teache the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist whiche Antichrist is well knowen to impugne by al meanes the honour of Christ. And yet they confesse that both only Christe made and instituted the same Sacrament and that the Bishop of Rome him selfe worshippeth the same Thus at the length it commeth about that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ setteth it vp to be worshipped of others and him selfe worshippeth the same all together pretending the honour of Christ and yet intending thereby as they say to debate his honour Who euer saw a doctrine so euill hanging together Antichrist as S. Paul saieth aduersatur is an aduersarie that is to say he is one that setteth him selfe against Christ and aduaÌ„ceth him selfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he doth sitte in the temple of God shewing or boasting him selfe as if he were God Behold Antichrist setteth him selfe against Christ and much lesse would he be content as the Pope is to call him self the vicar of Christ or seruant of his sernants Againe Antichrist is aduanced aboue all that eyther by nature or by deceite of the Deuill is worshipped His pride is so great that he wil not only disoaine to bow to any externall ydoll for that coÌ„meth of a superstitious feare and pusillanimity but also he will not yeld to God him selfe When S. Paul saieth he is aduanced aboue all that is called God He meaneth aboue all false Gods who are Gods by name and not in truth As Iuppiter Mars Uenns Minerua were So that we are assured by the expresse worde of God that Antichrist shall set vp no ydoll besydes his own selfe He shall say him selfe to be God and shall shew false signes miracles able to deceiue those wicked meâ—… who disdayning the felowship of the knowen Church and the saith of their fathers thinke them selues able to plant a new faith according to the vnderstanding whiche they conceaue of Gods worde That is the chefe way for Antichrist to preuaâ—…le if the preaching of nine hundred yeres and the saith of so many Christian countries may be dispised and consequently a new religion sought out at the deuising whereof ye may be sure yâ— deuil is president of the couÌ„sel To come to our purpose Antichrist is aduanced by him selfe aboue all idols therefore he shall set vp no idoll besides him self And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist he setteth not vp any idoll besides him selfe But our aduersaries confesse the Pope to set vp the body and blood of Christe to be adored of all men and him selfe to adore the same herefore the Pope is not Antichrist You will say he may be a limme of Antichrist although he be not Antichrist him selfe I answere euery lymme of Antichrist is like his head and the rest of the body whereof he is a lymme Antichrist is he that professeth him selfe an aduersary to Christ and goeth about to diminish his honour But the Pope professeth him selfe to haue all his whole honour of Christ and geueth all the whole honour he can deuise to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar because it is the body of Christ. He reuerenceth the signe of the Crosse because it is signe of Christ. He praieth to the Saints which are now in heauen because they are members of Christ being assined they heare his praier in Christ theyr head with whome they make one body Those are the lymmes of Antichrist who can abyde neither the godly worshipping of Christes body nor the reuerent vsing of his holy Crosse nor
the inuocation of his dere frindes and members For if that which is done to the lest of Christes â—…ocke be done to him selfe how much more is that honour which is done to the Sacrament of his own body and blood most directly done to him selfe wherefore it is out of all peraduenture that to honour the Sacrament of the altar it can be no idolatry except Christ him selfe be an idoll But if Christ be God as S. Paule saieth blessed for euer aboue all thigs then surely the honouring of his dody is the worshipping of God to whoÌ„ that body is ioyned in oâ—…e person And vnreasonable is it to thinke that whereas Christ hath by the taking of his body deliuered the earth from idols now the Sacrament of the same body should becomme it selfe the greateste idoll that euer was The kingdom of God for the comming of the which we daily make petition in our Lordes praier is perfitely come when it is euident to all men that there is but one God who both made and ruleth all thinges and who by the incarnation and passion of his only begotten sonne redeined and saued al the elect which shall be most perfitely seen at the day of general iudgement And therefore Esaias speaking of that day sayth Eleuabitur dominus solus in die illa idola penitus conterentur The Lorde alone shal be aduanced in that day and idols shal be vtterly destroyed In the meane time they are so in parte destroied as the kingdome of God is begonne in parte For Iohn Baptist sayd the Kingdome of heauen is drawen nere and Christe expressely telleth the phariseis Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est For behold the Kingdome of God is within you And in S. Mathew in maine parables he sheweth the present Church gathered in his name to be the Kingdome of heauen Contrariâ—…wise Babylon Samaria Aegypt Edom Tyrus and Sydon stand in holy scripture to betoken the Kingdome of the deuil of the world of Darknesse of heresie Now when the Prophetes will shew that the idols and false religion which the Deuill hath procured to be set vp shal be destroied by Christe they vse to say the idols of Babylon or of Aegypt shal be ouerthrowen In which forte Ieremie saith Tell tidinges among the Gentils and make your voice heard lift vp a signe crye out cease not but say Babylon is taken Bell is confounded Merodach is ouercome His grauen Gods are confounded their iâ—…ls are ouercome Ezechiell writeth in the person of God I will destroie yâ— counterfait images and make the idols of Memphis to cease Micheas vseth the same phrase concerning Samaria All the grauen images thereof shal be broken And all the rewardes of it shal be burned with fyer And I will bring destruction to all the idols thereof In Sophonias it is written that God shal bring doune all the Gods of the earth Zacharie also witnesseth that when the fonte of Baptisme shal be open to wash away the synnes of Iuda and Hierusalem it shall come to passe in that daie saith the Lorde of hostes I will destroie the names of idols from the earth and they shall â—…omore be had in remembrance and I will take awaie from the earth false Prophetes and the vncleane spirite Last of all Dauid saith to Christ thou haste sitten vpon the throne who iudgest righteousnes thou haste reproued the Gentils and the wicked is perished thou haste blotted out their names for euer and euer the swordes of the enemy haue failed thou hast destroied theire Cities the memory of them is lost with the sownde and our Lorde tarieth for euer Thus much may 〈◊〉 for shewing the destruction of idols and of the power of the Deuill howbeit a greate booke might be made out of the holy scripture of that argument S. Augustine confesseth praedictum esse a Prophetis quòd vnuÌ„ Deum essent culturae gentes exterminatis dijs falsis quos anteà colebant That it was forspoken of the Prophetes that the natioÌ„s should worship one God the false Gods whom they worshipped before being cast out Athanasius writeth thus Vbi nominatur vel Christus vel fides eius inde omnis idololatria depellitur daemonum insidiae patefiunt Where either Christ or his faith is named thence all idolatrie is driuen and the deceitfull guiles of the deuils are detected and made open Lo the name of Christ putteth away all idolatry I am sure it can not be denied but the name of Christ is and euer hath bene among the Papistes how then are they burdened with so foule a kind of idolatrie as to worship bread wine in stede of our makers body and blood S. Hierome affirmeth Post aduentum Christi omnia idola conticuisse all idols to haue holden their peace after the coming of Christ. It is therefore so true that all idolatrie hath by the coming of Christ bene remoued from his Church that lightly not so much as any heretike how so euer he deuised new spirituall fornicatioÌ„s and idolatry yet hath professed to worship any artificiall idoll made with the hands of man The Manichees in dede adored the visible Sonne which wee see shine as a part of the light wherein God dwelt but yet it were more grosse to adore bread sithens the Sonne is at the least a heauenly creature aboue the reache of men and in great admiration But the husband man first soweth the corne and repeth putteth it in his 〈◊〉 the â—…llet grindeth it the baker maketh it into a loaf And is this at the length our God Are we become so insensible after the light of the Gospell as to adore the worke of bakers hands Did not S. Augustine see at yâ— least the daunger of this idolatrie when vnder paine of synning he pronounced that enâ—…ry man ought to adore any earth or flesh of Chrâ—… before he did eate Did not S. Ambrose vnderstand this idolatrie when he sayd to this day we adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries But we so many hundred yeres brought vp in the faith of Christ are so foolish as to adore a dead peece of bread as our aduersaries belie vs. S. Chrysostome writeth that in his tyme very few Cities were left where idolatrie was vsed And yet doe all the Cities not only of Mahomete of the Tartarians of the â—…ores but doe all the Cities of Christendome stil commit open idolatrie For I am sure no Protestant aliue caÌ„ deuise any Citie of the Christians vnder the Sonne where Christes body blood was not worshipped as it shall appeare also hereafter vnder the formes of bread wine openly as well in the Greke as in the Latine Churches these many hundred yeres together Where was then yâ— Church of Christ Was our Sauiour who was promised to inherite al nations brought to that straightes
〈◊〉 tasted to euery man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to be iudged conceâ—…ing the receauing that Sacrament of the altar into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honours sake dareth not take it euery day an other for honours sake dareth not once to take it in any day As Manna would no lothsomnes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue bene vnworthely receaued of them Qui hoc non discernebaÌ„t a caeteris cibis vendratione singulariter debita Who did not discerne this thing or make a difference of this thing from other meates by a worshipping singularly 〈◊〉 For straight when he had said he eateth and drinketh damnation to him selfe he said moreouer Non diiudicans corpus domini not discerning our Lords body the which appereth sufâ—…iently in all that place in the first epistle to the Coriâ—…thians if it be diligently marked Thus far S. Augustine whose wordes I haue rehersed the more fully to thintent by the whole argument the Reader might the better iudge his minde His answer in effect is the honour of the Sacrament is the thing chefely to be attended which sith it is honoured both of him that for honours sake doth receaue and of him who for honours sake doth not receaue eche of theÌ„ auoideth the contempt thereof and sufficiently putteth a difference betwene it and other meats which difference being not put was the cause that some Corinthians did eate this meat vnworthely Note well good Reader what I shall say for this place is marueilouse notable First S. Augustine speaketh euidently of the Sacrament of Christes supper and of Sacramentall receauing 2. He signifieth that this Sacrament must not be dishonoured by any meanes nor despised in minde or fact 3. By dishonouring or despising he meaneth the omitting to geue it due honour in thought or deede so that by all meanes the honour thereof must not be neglected or left vndone 4. We must striue to honour this Sacrament but whether it be done by this or by that meane it skilleth not so it be honoured 5. It is a kind of honour done to it sometyme to receaue it into our mouthes for honours sake sometyme for yâ— same honours sake not to receaue it Put these two notes together and it must nedes be that he meaneth the honouring of that thing which is receaued into our mouthes Then the honouring of yâ— SacrameÌ„t is the honouring of that which semeth bread and wine but if it were in dede the substance of bread and wine he would ueuer exhorte vs to be so carefull how to honour a mere creature were it neuer so greate a signe But let vs yet goe forward 6. The Sacrament which is taken into our mouthes is also called a kind of meate cibus ille that meate 7. It is that kind of meate which the Apostle would to be separated for honours sake from other meates 8. What call ye separating for honours sake He answereth it was a fault not to seperate it veneratione singulariter debita with a worship singularly due 9. what is a worshipping singularly due but such a worshipping of which sorte there is but one For that is singular which is alone and which hath no fellow 10. Such a worshipping that only is which is due to God for as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honour and worship Therefore the SacrameÌ„t or that meat which sometimes for honours sake we receaue into our mouthes and sometymes for honours sake we absteine from that selfe same substaÌ„ce is to be honoured of vs with a singular duety of worshipping or with a worshipping due in a singular manner that is to say with godly honour I seke not hereby to declare only that S. Augustine is of the mind to haue the Sacrament and the meate receaued into our mouthes to be worshipped with a singular duety but much more to shew that he affirmeth S. Paule to meane so For the fault of the Corinthians was not to discerne this meat with a worshipping singularly due For if they had worshipped it as it ought to be worshipped they would not haue taken it in their mouthes without they had first prepared them selues for the receauing of such a meate so singularly to be worshipped What figuratiue interpretation wil now serue Is not Sacramentum honorare good latine Is not the English of it to honour the Sacrament Is it not plainly said cibum illum discernere à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita to discerne that meate from other meates by a worshipping singularly due Is that a worship which may be geuen to any creature which is not vnited to God The meat in yâ— mouth must be so honoured therefore that in the mouth is yâ— real substaÌ„cial natural body of Christ. The Sacrament must be honoured therefore the substance therein conteined is the body of Christ. Otherwise shall we think that S. Augustine who so diligently always disceâ—…eth yâ— kind of worshipping God shal we think that he wil haue material bread to be discerned and separated froÌ„ meates by a worshipping singularly due Did that greate Clerk so litle vnderstaÌ„d what singular worship was that he gaue that name not only to holy men or to the iust Angels but euen to the vnsensible creatures of bread and wine No no. S. Augustin neuer doubted nor none of all the faithfull but that the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar was to be adored with godly honour euen by the doctrine of S. Paule because it conteineth vnder the formes of bread and wine the natural substance of Christes body and blood It is worthy to be remembred that S. Augustine vseth in this place the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes flesh 〈◊〉 vnder the signe of bread otherwyse he would neuer haue taught that eyther the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honoured For honour can be geuen to no vnreasonable creatures If this kind of vnderstanding the word Sacrament be wel consydered many places in S Augustine otherwise very hard wil be much the easier to perceaue Last of al what should it meane yâ— S. Augustine saith yâ— Sacrament may be honoured by our absteining sometimes from receauing it into our mouthes It Were surely no honor done to God if we should at any moment absteine to fede vpoÌ„ him in faith or spirit Why is it then some honour to his SacrameÌ„t not to be receiued in certaine cases Was it not counted a vertue in yâ— CenturioÌ„ wheÌ„ he said him self to be vnworthy that Christ should enter vnder the roof of his house And yet the same Centurion did not refuse to receaue yâ— effect grace of Christes word into his house There is therefore a difference betwene the corporall coming of Christe into our house or body and betwene the
to be worshipped with Godly honour Seing therefore thou seest yâ— priest present who is wont to handle Godly things it were a farre more impiety for thee not to adore Christes body at the time of masse when thou art assured by the worde of God who sayd to his Apostles in them to al priests doe and make this thing that the holy Ghoost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christe really present All this consydered it is not possible for any man that lyeth not wittingly and willingly to say but that S. Chrysostome â—…aught and beleued the body of Christe to be really present and that it ought to be really adored vpon the altar it self or in the priests hands And therefore he saith afterward Quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendam I wil shew thee that in the earth which is worthy of the highest honour How can S. Chrysostome shew any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour besyde the body and blood of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine For by that which is worthy of highest honour he meaâ—…eth expresly Christes body because it is the body of the SoÌ„ne of God And in saying he will shew it thee he can possibly meane none other thing but that shewing which is by the formes of bread and wine For if any man should require him to shew that most high thing which he promised to shew questionlesse he would lead him to yâ— altar there would shew him that which had bene consecrated by the Priest and he would say vnto him pointing to the mysteries this is the body of Christe and this is his blood For by that meanes only were he able to performe his promise of shewing that thing which is worthy of the highest honour It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostome by an other similitude As in the palacies of kings saith he not the walles not the golden roof but the kings body sitting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christe the worthiest thing in heauen quod nunc in terra videÌ„dum tibi proponitur the which body of Christe is now set foorth to thee in earth to be seen Good Lord what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe then S. Chrysostome saith Againe yet it followeth I shew thee not Angels not Archangels not the heauens not the heauens of the heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these things S. Chrysostom saith he sheweth yâ— Lord that in earth vpoÌ„ yâ— altar yet is there a figure to escape his most euident words In faith truth by such figures they may defende yâ— I also am of their opinioÌ„ but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts wil not preuaile There is noman aliue but 〈◊〉 he wil coÌ„â—…ue yâ— words of S. Chrysostome as they stand in order he must coâ—…se yâ— both he speaketh of yâ— body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar and also teacheth yâ— vpon yâ— very alâ—…ar it ought to be adored much more iustly of vs Christians then it was once adored in the manger or stable of the three kings Here wil I detect an other shift of our Aduersaries who perceauing S. Dionysius S. Ambrose S. Augustme and S. Chrysostome with diuerse other auncient Fathers to be so plaine in the matter of adoration haue deuised to say that those Fathers attribute that vnto the signes of Christes body which is proper to the body it self and therefore when they speake of adoring that vpon the altar they meane that we should adore yâ— truth of that thing the signe whereof standeth vpon the altar This interpretation is in dede necessarily to be made of them who haue determined not to beleue the word of God where in it is sayd â—…his is my body But I say that interpretation is foolish and should make all the Fathers gilty of idolatry for they preaching to the common peple teache them expresly that which standeth after consecration vpon the altar to be the true body blood of Christ and therefore that it must be adored much more of vs then the visible body was adored of the wise men If the interpretation of the Heretikes should be admitted they might say the very same of Christes incarnation and so expound what so euer is sayd in yâ— Bible or in yâ— Fathers touching his flesh to be meant of a phantasticall appering of flesh but not of true flesh But now let vs bring against these Signifiers an other plaine authoritie which was by the prouidence of God written as it were of purpose to destroy this imagined and figuratiue adoration of the Sacrament whereof they speake Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christe now to consist of the only nature of his deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he toke of the virgin doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes supper in the which Sacrament two things are found one which is seen and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seen but vnderstanded and beleued and that is the true body and blood of Christe That which is seen is sayd to remaine in his former substance nature and figure and kind In his substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being nowe by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine in their former nature because they norish no lesse then the substance of the bread it self would haue done if it had remained They remaine in their former shape and kind as being thinges that may be seen and touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing sayd thus much for the one parte of the Sacrament cometh also to shew the other parte thereof For his minde is to declare yâ— as there be two kindes of things in one Encharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christe Therefore the other nature besyde the formes of bread wine is the reall substance of Christes body blood of which parte thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelliguntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur The mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleued and they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be Note good Reader that the mystical signes which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be 〈◊〉 that they were made But what are they 〈◊〉 â—…o be that which they are not Nay Syâ—… yâ— were false vnderstanding which falshod caÌ„ not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in dede that which they are vnderstanded to be What is that Theodoreâ—…us
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
is suche as betokeneth shewing and lifting vp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly betoken suche a shewing as is made by listing vp It is much to be noted yâ— S. Basil asketh what Saint to wit what Apostle or Euangelist hath left in writing to vs the order of saying Masse and the praiers which therein we vse Non enim iis contenti sumus quorum caet For we are not content with those things whereof the Apostle or Gospel hath made mention but both before and after we say certeine other things as hauing great strength about the mysteries which are taken out of the doctrine which is deliuered without writing The Apostle and Gospel hath only told the substanciall points of the Masse but the rest hath bene left vnto vs as S. Basil saith by secret doctrine yet by the same auctority which gaue vs the substanciall points Well seing that S. Basill speaking of the whole Masse yet nameth it ostentionem Eucharistiae the eleuation and sheing of the 〈◊〉 he geueth vs to vnderstand the eleuation to be next vnto the consecration a most principall parte of the Masse in so much as the whole may be named by it While the bread of yâ— Eucharist was shewed these were and among the Breeks are the words of inuocation Vnus sanctus c. one holy one Lord in the glory of God the Father Amen These words if they did not belong to the holy things which are shewed why are they spoken at that tyme why are they called the wordes of inuocation the words that acknowlege so holy thinges to be shewed and holden vp that they are the only holy and one Lord Iesus who is in equall deitie and glorie with his Father Maximus in his notes vpon S. Dionysius after some other interpretations made vpon the shewing of the diuine mysteries resteth in this that Dionysius meaneth the lifting vp and eleuation of the one blessing which is yâ— of the diuine bread which the Priest lifteth vp saying Holy things for holy men And as it may appeare by Maximus in the primatiue Church the mysteries were twise shewed at the first tyme the diuine bread alone was listed vp and before the communion as wel that diuine bread as also therewithall the chalice Germanus writeth thus Elatio autem in altum diuini corporis repraesentatcrucis elationem mortem in ea ipsam resurrectionem The lifting vp a high of the diuine body doth represent the lifting vâ—… on the crosse and the death in it and the very resurrection After the lifting vp of Christes body and the adoration thereof the holy communion folowed of the which Eusebius Emissenus writeth in this maner Cum ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potuque reficiendus accedis sacrum Dei tui corpus sanguinem fide respice honora mirare mente continge cordis manu suscipe maximè haustu interiore assume when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be refresshed with the healthfull meate and drink looke with faith vpon the holy body and blood of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde receaue it with an inward swalowing The first thing to be noted in these words is that he which is desirous to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes body must know where to haue it The second how to take it and last of al how to vse it profitably Concerning the place Eusebius sayth when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be fed with yâ— healthful meate and drink Doing vs to vnderstand that the body blood of Christ which only is our healthful meate and drink standeth vpon the altar thence to be distributed to the faithfull people Concerning the maner of taking the sayd body Eusebius biddeth vs honour it and wonder at it Concerning the profitable vse thereof he biddeth vs take it with our hart and minde for if we toke it with our bodies alone we should rather take it to our damnation then to our profite The English homilies rehersing this place in the secoÌ„d tome haue translated altare the communion and salutari cibo potuque spirituall meates whereas altare is an altar and salutare is healthful But the brethern who 〈◊〉 ouerthrowen altars were loth by naming them to recite their own damnation Eusebius beginneth with the altar as the which is the grouÌ„d of all the rest Upon the altar the healthful meate is consecrated made ready for the faithfull people There it is looked on not by the bodily eye which seeth nothing besyde the outward formes but by faith which is taught the body and blood of Christ to be present vpon the altar vnder those formes There that meate is honoured thence that is taken which refresheth vs. To that meate the receauer sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof For he that seeth the diuine food lifted vp vnto him and afterward speaketh these words seing he taketh corporally that bread into his mouth and only in respect of that corporall receauing sayth I am not worthy that thou should est enter Doubtlesse he speaketh to the bread it self calleth it his Lord. For none other Lord entreth vnder the roof of his mouth besyde that bread It is lifted vp to receaue it he cometh to it he speaketh it entreth vnder his roof It is therefore a fond preteÌ„se to say those words were spoken to God in heauen not vnto yâ— holy Sacrament Cyrillus of Hâ—…erusalem describing yet more particularly the gesiures of them who receaue the holy coÌ„munion biddeth them to take the King and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand saing Amen And to sanctifie their eyes withall vsing all diligence that no crum thereof perish or fal away But what neded that precept if it were the substance of commoÌ„ bread Surely seing no such diligence was vsed in Baptisme we may well perceaue that as because that substance of water doth still remaine it skilleth not where it fall so for so much as no crum of bread must be lost it is not the substance of wheaten bread which is so carefully kept After the communion of the body Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes blood bowing down saying in the maner of adoring and worshipping Amen Here the right hand receaueth the King surely not by faith which yâ— hand hath not therefore the King of glory was meant to be taken in the hand by meane of the forme of bread vnder which our King Iesus Christ is really present Here is bowing down and adoring at the very instant when the holy communion is receaued As therefore when we reade that the Disciples went back from the place of Christes ascension adorantes adoring we may wel conclude that they adored Christ him self and not only God yâ— Father in him or by him As againe when the Centurion sayd
of Christ who was coming to his house Lorde I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof we thereby know that he spake to Christ and called Christ his Lord and not only God in heauen so when we reade that the receauers of the holy communion did say at the tyme of receauing the Sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof and that they did bow downe adore worship at the same tyme we must vndoubtedly conclude that both the Sacrament was spoken vnto and called Lord and also bowed to and adored Thus I haue proued the adoration of Christes body blood euen as it is a Sacrament out of the Prophetes out of S. Paul out of the anncient Fathers out of the publike seruire of the primitine Church and out of the custome of the faithfull people Al which proufes I haue applied to this end that the body blood of Christ should be knowen thereby to be really present in that self Sacrament which we take into our mouthes And for so much as that is so euery faithful man ought to beleue most constantly the sayd reall presence and to detest the contrary doctrine as a most perniciouse heresy ¶ The reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers IF euery man is to be credited and ought to haue authoritie in his owne arte facultie if when we build we call a Carpenter to counsell and when we make gardens a gardener how much more must we esteme the holy Doctors of the Churche who are not only cunning by long labour bestowed â—…pon the science of diuinitie but also haue so vertuously vsed them selues that they haue bene abundantly instructed in all knowlege by marnailons inspirations of the holy Ghoste whose names are so greate that the very Heretiks can not deny them to be holy Sainctes in heauen and therefore they pretend to haue the first syx hundred yeres on their side It is then a good sure way to worke with the aduise of those auncient Fathers whose sayings because I haue particularly alleged and examined in euery article and chapiter of my former bookes as occasion suffered I thought good not to prosecâ—… them now again at large but rather to shew briefly by what generall chapiters a man may be vndoutedly assured of their belefe and doctrine First very many Fathers speaking of Christes words or dedes when aâ—…ter bread taken and thankes geuen he sayd this is my body allege the almighty power of God to defend the veritie of those dedes and wordes Therefore the same Fathers beleued those words this is my body to be true in so wonderfull a maner as they sound at the first sight And seing they meane according to their moste vsuall sound that this which is pointed vnto though it seme still bread is notwithstanding yâ— substance of Christes body we ought to think that those Fathers beleued the reall presence of Christes body Otherwise they wold neuer haue alleged his Godhead or almightie power and omnipotencie for the instituting of a figure and signe of his owne body sith for the institution of signes and figures such an authoritie might haue serued as God gaue to Moyses who yet was but the feruant of Iesus Christe and not almighty God S. Ireneus How can they be sure the bread whereon thankes are geuen to be the body of their Lord the chalice of his blood if they say not him to be the Sonne of the maker of the world S. Ireneus was so sure that Christ through his diuine power made the bread wherein thankes were geuen his owne body that if the Godhead were denied which should work that presence no man could be sure of the presence of Christes body and yet he might haue bene sure of a figuratiue presence though Moyses had bene the minister of the SacrameÌ„t and not Christe S. Cyprian That bread which our Lorde gaue to the Disciples by the omnipotencie of the word was made flesh What neded omnipotencie be alleged for a fact that were not supernaturall S. Hilary speaking of the Sacrament saith By the profession of our Lorde it is truely flesh and truely blood Is not this thinge the truth â–ª It may in dede chance not to be true to them who deny Icsus Christe to be true God As who should say if his Godhead may stand his flesh must nedes be truly present S. Basilius to shew yâ— these wordes This is my body make full persuation allegeth out of S. Iohn the glory or Godhead and also the incarnation of Christe because except he were both true God and true man this is my body should not make full persuasion sith if he were not man he should not haue a body whereof those words might be verified If he were not God we might dout how he were able to make his word true but seing he is God and man and sayd this is my body there is no dout of the presence of his body S. Ambrosius Our Lorde Iesus him self crieth This is my body he hath sayd and it is made S. Chrysostome O miracle He hath sitteth aboue caet And againe Let vs euery where geue credit vnto his wordes specially in the mysteries Eusebius Emissenus Let the very power of him that consecrateth strengthen thee S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Seing God worketh let vs not aske how Damascene We know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull almighty but the maner is inscrutable No wise man requireth vs earnestly to beleue the words which himself doth think to be figuratiue and parabolicall but he rather should bid vs beware that we mistake them not as S. Chrysostome vpon those words God repented crieth out See a grosse word not that God repented God forbid but God speaketh to vs according to the custome of man Likewise S. Augustine saith in respect of those words Iohn Baptist is Elias Our Lord spake figuratiuely but S. Ihon saying I am not Elias answered properly If now these words This is my body were figuratiue we should haue ben'e warned by the watchmen of God to beware of them and not require d to beleue them as now we are required yea we are so required to beleue them that it is wonderfull to see and to consyd er how earnestly the Doctours speake in that behalf S Basilius The certeintie of our Lords words who sayd This is my body which is geu en for yow make this thing for the remembrance of me ingender full persuasion Surely figuratiue words can not make ful persuasion because theÌ„ selues are imperfite as lackin g their proper signification which is the chiefe vertue of words whereby they should fully informe vs. for no figuratiue speache is so plaine as a proper speache is
bread and wine but to be that substaÌ„ce which Christe toke of his mother when the worde was made flesh S. Cyprian sheweth the bread which our Lord gaue to the Disciples to be changed not in shape but in nature Therefore as the forme remayneth so the substance is changed S. Ambrose It is not that which nature formed but that which the blessing hath consecrated If nature formed the substance of common bread and the words of blessing pronounced This is my body It is not afterward any more the substance of bread but of Christes body Grace is affirmed with the deniall of nature This argument is in maner as large as that of the reall presence but who so listeth to see more therein let him reade Gregorius Nyssenus in Oratione Catechetica Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in Catechesi mystagogica 4. Eusebius Emissenus in Oratione 5. in Pascha Isychius in ca. 6. Leuitici Theophylact Euthymius in Euangelia Damascene li. 4. cap. 14. All that affirme the external sacrifice of Christes body blood must nedes teache the real presence thereof sith that thing which is absent can not be externally sacrificed S. Dionysius Areopagita sayth The Bishop excuseth him self for that he offereth a sacrifice aboue his worthynesse or power crying out decently Thou o Lord sayedst Make this thing for the remembrance of me Heretikes admit no Eucharists or offerings saith S. Ignatius in Theodorete because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Sauiour A man would haue thought this had bene made in our tyme against the Sacramentaries It agreeth to them so well or rather they agree with the old Heretikes so much Eusebius Pamphili We offer a sacrifice full of God and dreadsull and most holy We sacrifice after a new maner according to the new Testament a cleane sacrifice or hoste Concilium Nicaenum Let vs vnderstand by faith that Lamb of God who taketh away the synnes of the world being situated in that holy table to be offered vnbloodely of the Priests and that we take in dede his preciouse body and blood And againe Neither rule nor custome hath deliuered that they who haue no power to offer sacrifice should deliuer the body of Christ to them who offer Hereof S. Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Augustine and al the reste may be readen for it is a knowen matter handled of the Fathers moste frequently What shall I say that the Fathers teache that the Sacrament ought to be adored with Godly honour as I shewed before That they teache euill men to receaue and to touche the body blood of Christe thereby to be gylty of theÌ„ as Iudas was That they teache our bodies to be nourished with Christes flesh and blood which can not be nourished with a thing absent That they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christe whiles he dwelleth corporally in vs That they affirme Christes body to be vpoÌ„ the altar vpon the holy table in the hands in the mouthes and the bloode to be in the Cup That they geue it such names as only may agree o the substance of Christe calling it saluation light life Lorde Christe an offering wholy burnt a Sacrament which quiâ—…keneth and maketh vs liue for euer That they teache euery man to receaue the same substance one measure equall portion which is true neither of spirituall nor of corporall gifts but only of yâ— flesh of Christe really present vnder the forme of bread That they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs creating making working consecrating representing or making present and such like which are not verified of a matter onlie spiritual or absent in substance That they speake of it couertly saying Norunt fideles the saithfull know because if they should plainely declare the truth thereof the infidels wold mocke at it as now the heretikes doc For it is a mystery aboue all reason of man which scoffing were not to be feared if it were a mere figure for all kindes of religioÌ„ haue ceremonies and figures That they haue applied it to the helping of sowles departed as being the very self substance which ransacked hell That they haue taught it to be the truth which hath succeded in place of the old figures That they haue vsed by the knowen truth thereof to proue that Christe had true flesh and true blood in a visible manner two natures in one person against all the olde Heretiks That they haue so far preferred it before Baptisme and the other Socraments that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe or to be lost which was not so in the water of Baptisme for men were baptized in the running water of the flood That the Catechumeni who were admitted to the preaching of the Ghospel which is an excellent signe of Christes flesh and blood yet might not see the Eucharist because it was also the truth it sel. vnder a signe that no man might eate it except he were first baptized and kept the commandements and yet the Cathechumeni had a sanctified bread also geuen to them which was a signe of Christ as S. Augustine doth witnesse Let now the discrete Reader weigh vprightly this doctrine so grounded in holy scriptures and auncient Fathers and he shal perceaue that what soeuer our aduersaries bring for the other syde it may proue the Sacrament to be a figure which we denye not but it can not disproue the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder that figure which is the thing that we stand in against them ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all tymes and ages S. Paule disputing against them who saied that our bodies should not arise againe hath these wordes Si Christus non resurrexit inanis est praedicatio nostra inanis est fides vestra If Christ be not risen our preaching is voyd and your faith is in vaine The like may be saied concerning the Sacrament of the altar in whiche if the true substance of Christes body be not conteined the Apostles preaching is in vaine and our faith is nothing worth But S. Paule acccompteth it a great absurditie that either of them both should be voyd or in vaine and yet prosecuting farther that argument he addeth that if Christ be not risen Qui domierunt in Christo perierunt those that haue slepte in Christ are perished Those I say that haue slept in Christ that haue beleued in him loued him suffred martyrdom for him those are perished Right so it is if Christes body be not vnder the form of bread all our forefathers that haue slept in Christ are perished All theyr faith watching praier almose dedes all
theyr charitie and theyr coÌ„slict against the deuill the world and the flesh is lost They were more miserable then any men For they liued more hardly in this life then any of our age doth and yet all is loste They were idolatours they worshipped a false God they are condeâ—…ned for euer This could not S. Paule abyde this he accoÌ„pted for wonderfull absurd that a man who is called to the faith and baptized in Christe who doth his best to serue God with all his hart and thought that he should be condemned for beleuing that which al men preached all taught all professed For surely the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine was beleued through out al the Church in so much that Caluin Decolampadius Zuinglius Luther Wyelefe yea Berengarius did once euery of them with al theyr scholars beleue the said reall presence For they were baptized and christened al to be made members of that member of faithfull men all which did beleue that Christ in the Sacrament of his last supper had lefte to them vnder the formes of bread and wine his owne body and blood Whiles theÌ„ they were made by baptisme of that Catholike company them selues also had the same Catholike belefe and no marnayle sith all they being baptized when they were infantes and therefore hauing no actuall fayth of theyr owne must nedes haue only that faith which the Church had whereof by baptisme they were made members but the whole Church East and West belened the reall presence of Christes body so that when Beringarius began to say otherwise he was reproued of al the Preachers of yâ— age he was condemned by three Councels of Bishops kept at Rome and Uercels in Italy and at Tours in France He was impugned by Algerus LaufraÌ„cus Guiâ—…undus and afterward by Rupertus Petrus Cluniacensis and other excellent Clerks of that tyme. The faithful Princes and people abhorred him and to be short no man beleued his doctrine except that he changed his old faith to take a new of Berengarius For if any other man in the whole Church before Berengarius had openly taught or beleued that Christ was â—…ly by a figure in the Sacrament then could not he only haue bene made râ—…cant nor had not bene accompted the father and first open preacher of that faith Againe if the Princes and people had bene of his belefe they had surely done as the princes and people of our tyme who beleue the doctrine of Berengarius dayly do They had throwen doune altars ouerthrowen Churches denyed all outward Priesthod changed Bishops into superintendents Priests into ministers altars into tables yâ— chaste clergy into the vnlauâ—…ul mariage of â—…otaries they had not preserued the Sacrament of the altar for soden necessities they had not adored the flesh of God and man vnder the form of bread and wine they had not bene content with one kind at the holy coÌ„munion one 〈◊〉 should not haue said Masse without an other to receaue the communion with him the sacrifice of the Masse had not bene applied to the liue and dead monasteries chantries chappels had not bene so fast erected and to speake breifly al that now is mislyked had bene then misliked if the princes and people of that age had thought as Princes and people such as nowe folow 〈◊〉 his doctrine doe thinke For it can not be otherwise but that the same fayth will bring forth the same workes as one manner of tree bringeth forth alwaise the same manner of fruit But if it be euid ent to all men that fyue hundred yers past and vpward euen to yâ— daies of Constantine the great vnder whom Christ was openly worshipped Churches monasteries altars chappâ—…lles were built if Priests were estemed the body of Christ reserued and adored it Masses were in vse and in price euery where and said for the liuing and the dead out of all controuersie neither Bishops who kepte Councels against Berengarius neither preachers and doctours who taught and wrote against him neither princes and people who did and folowed the contrary effect to his doctrine none â–ª I say of al the Christian men aâ—…â—…ublikely professed Bâ—…rengarius opion which was to deny the reall â—…ce of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar So that only those whome Berengarius seduced began then first to thinke as he did wherâ—…by two things are manifest the one that Beringariâ—…s went from the doctrine of all the Church and from that fayth wherein he was baptized An other that for so doing he was a seducer and false teacher to whome none of the Apostles successours who for that tyme ruled the Church gaue any commission to preache such doctrine And yet how could he preache if he were not sent or how could he be sent sith no man would authorise him to preache that doctrine yâ— conâ—…rary wherof him selfe beleued Therefore of such false preachers as Berengarius was God said by the Prophete Ieremie I sent them not and they ranne For if God seâ—…t him he can shew his commission he can name yâ— meane wherby he was sent he caÌ„ bring forth what successour of the Apostles willed him to preache that doctrine But if he can not doe so he cometh of him self he preacheth without authority and consequently he is a thefe a robber a murdrer and so are all those that folow him â—…owbeit for so much as he recanted it may be well thought that by penance he was reconciled to God again And so may his folowers be reconciled if according to the example of theyr master they will repent It was then the vniâ—…ersall faith of the Church before the tiâ—…e of Berengariâ—…s that Christes body and blood waspresent really vnder the formes of bread and wine which being so if that faith came not to them from the Apostles who taught it them â–ª If faith â—…ome of hearing the word of God preached the whole Church could not beleue that which was not preached If it were so preached either that preaching came by lawfull coâ—…ission and then it was of God and the doctrine good or els it came of priuate 〈◊〉 and it must be shewed who were those vsâ—…pers that preached otherwise tâ—…â—…ey had receaued Or how is it possible tâ—…t it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a priuate vsurping which was generally receaued euery where Or if those that preached the reall presence were men that went by schisme or hereseie out of yâ— Church let yâ— Church and faithfull cumpanie be named whence they went Let vs goe from step to step First six hundred yeres past al the knoweÌ„ faithful on the â—…arth beleued the reall presence as it appered euidently when Berengarius afterward began to teache otherwise For then all preachers prelates and people resisted him both in word and dede as I shewed before Wel then those docâ—…ours and preachers of six hundred yeres old how
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
it yet the godhed remayned corporally dwelt in it and the soule returned to it agayne the third day Therefore when Christ saith This is my body which is geuen for you I am bound to beleue that his body is neither without soule nor godhead for ells it were not truly said it is geuen for vs yf it were not profitable to vs. Thus you se that I beleue al that words of Christ together and that you not doing so are without ye do repeut certeine to be condemned for not beleuing these words take eate This is my body You wyll say ye beleue these words yet not carnally but spiritually as it is mete for Christes wordes to be beleued O syr he that assigneth a meane howe he will beleue Christes wordes in that very faut sheweth hym selfe not to beleue them for belefe inuenteth nothing of his owne but followeth the autoritie of God that speaketh I beleue in deed that Christes words can not be carnal as you take carnal words for foule and grosse meaninges But I see it to be a very cleane and pure meaning that the moste pure substance of the flesh of Christ should he geuen vnder the form of bread to thend it may be eaten of vs and the chiefe and cleanest thing that we vse to eate is bread To geue therefore the chiefe and most healthfull flesh in the world to be eaten vnder the form of the purest eatable thing is a very pure and cleane work far from all carnality You will say it is more pure if it be rather beleued to be eaten only of yâ— harte of man by faith spirit then by mouth and body I answere that is no pure eating of a corporall thing which taketh away the truth of corporall eating Againe both ways of eating are better then one of them alone I beleue his real flesh to be eaten with hart and mouth to be eaten with body minde to be eaten in deede and in faith Here faileth your belefe because of two true thinges you beleue but one the other you discredit To be short let vs imagine him that beleueth the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to stand before the seate of Christes iudgement and that Christe asketh him why he did beleue and worship his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine May he not wel answere in this wise I beleued so and did so because your maiestie taking bread and hauing blessed douted not so say This is my body which words al my forefathers vnderstode to be spoken properly and to be true as they sounded therefore at the commandement of my prelats I adored your body vnder the form of bread If Christ reply that he had preachers who tought him otherwise and cryed to him to beware least he committed idolatrie first that obiectiâ—… might not be made to any man that died aboue fiftie yeres past because no preacher taught publikely any such doctrine Secondly if so much were said to one of our time he might answere that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers and moe preachers and those much more anncient and more honest men who required him to beleue Christes wordes and to worship the body of his maker Well now we are come to the point all the Catholikes haue preaâ—…hed with one accorde that it is the true body of Christ and the Gospell witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉 This is my body Here is the word of God and the tradition and preaching of man ioyned together I aske whether it be possible for Christ who requireth nothing so earnestly of vs as briefâ—… to 〈◊〉 that simple man who being otherwise of good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word and his forefaâ—… and the preachers agreable with both or not Answere me for what fault shall this poore man be condemned First to beleue Christ it is no fault Secondly Christ faid this is my body Thirdly he being yet an infant was of his parentes taught that to be the body of Christ which was holden ouer the Priests head Fourthly as many and moe preache vnto him when he cometh to laufull age and say this is the body of Christ as there are that aâ—…terward preache the contrary Tell me then what was his fault for which he may be coÌ„demned If you say his eyes told him it was not yâ— body of Christ he will answere that for the reuerence he bare to the word of God he denied the fensible instruction of his eyes as geuing more credit to Christ then to him selfe Is that a fault If you reply that by that meaâ—…es he might haue worshipped the roâ—… in steâ—…de of Christ he wil answere he knoweth not what you meane he neuer had any rok shewed him by most graue authority which was said to be Christ. If any suche thing had bene taught him he for his parte was so obedient to beleue so willing to adore Christ that he would haue done any thing which had bene commanded to him vnder the name of Christ or of his religion Is this a fault why the poore man should be condemned No surely seing the Prophet Dauid saieth Vt iumentum factus sum apud te I am become as it were a beast before thee It is â—…andable saith Euthymius that in the sight of God we take our selues as beastes which being so I can deuise no fault in this poore and simple man who if he be deceaued he is deceaued by Christ by his forefathers by diuerse Catholike and vertuous Preachers by yâ— vertue of humility of obedience of pure loue towards God But on the other side if Christ call one of them before him who denieth his reall presence aske him why he did not beleue the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christe what will he answer for himselfe â–ª Will he say Syr I beleâ—…ed your body to sit at the right hand of God the Father and therefore that your body was not in the Priestes hand Why then thinkest thou that I am not able to make the same which is at the right hand of my father to be alsâ—… present vnder the form of bread Sir whether you be able or no I can not say but I haue hard many preachers tel that one body caÌ„ not be at one time in diuerse places O howe dreadfully would Christ answere in this case Did not those preachers whom thou preteÌ„dest to folow say alwaies they preached to thee the sincere word of God Did they not by that colour ouerthrow monasteries Churches altars images of Saintes and mine owne image and crosâ—…e Did they not denie the sacrifice of the Masse praing for the dead and such like auncient vsages only for pretence of the word of God And now see how inexcusable they thou art I said Take eate this is my body I said this to twelue men I gaue eche of them my body â—…ad
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
but the 〈◊〉 is the word comming to the 〈◊〉 Those â—…wo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figure and 〈◊〉 no words 〈◊〉 spoken whereby the 〈◊〉 should câ—…ase to be that it was yea because it is saied I baptise or washe thee whiche is not done without water we are forced to beleue that the substance of water remaineth But it is saied ouer the bread This is my body And after that words spoken fully past that which semeth bread is yet stil a mystical figure as it may wel appere in that a good tyme after consecration yâ— holy figure of Christes body being reserued vpon the altar hath bene receaued of the Christian people alwaies in the Church of God at yâ— end of the seruice Therefore the figure which is made in the supper must be so made that it must remaine when the wordes are past Nowe that remanent substance is the body of Christe vnder the form of 〈◊〉 But if the earthly substance of bread did â—…ill remaine as M. Iuel saâ—…eth there is nothing at all whiche maie be a figure For as the water is no figure when the wordes are absent so the breade could not be a figure any longer when the words were fully past Iu. The body of Christ is the thing it selfe and no figure San. You know not what you say The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it selfe both the thing and also a figure of the mystical vnitie of the Church SoS. Hilarie teacheth saying Naturalis per SacramentuÌ„ proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The naturall proprietie or which is al one the personal substance or the proper nature of Christ by the Sacrament or signe of bread is the Sacrament of a perfite vnitie The body of Christ it selfe is a signe as well as the truth but yet a signe not only by it self but by yâ— signe vnder which it is Hereof I beseche thee good Reader to see my fiâ—…t booke the fift chapter The thing it selfe which is no figure is the grace of corporall vnion whiche is wrought in this Sacrament with Christ him selfe Iu. In respect of the body we haue no regard to the figure â–ª wherâ—…nto S. Bernard alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for San. What a desperate custome is it for you to 〈◊〉 alwaies the Fathers of these last nine hundred yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned If they be idolatours or false preachers why bring you their witnesses as to build any thing vpon theÌ„ either you wil â—…and to S. Bernard or els you in vaine allege him If you stand to him euen in those words which you take out of him you are vtterly ouerthrowen He saith Manie things be done for them selues only as if I geue a ring to a maÌ„ only to geue it without any farther meaning other things be done to signifie those are called signes and be so As when a ring is geuen to put a man in possessioÌ„ of an heritage in this case the ring is not respected for it 〈◊〉 but for the heritages sake So saieth S. Bernard our Lord drawing nere to his passioÌ„ prouided to adorne his disciples with grace Thus by him grace is the end or effect of the signe but what is the signe it selfe M. Iuel saieth bread But I praie you saith S. Beruard so No verily what saith he theÌ„ Vt securi sitis SacrameÌ„ti dominici corporis sanguinis pretiosi inuestituraÌ„ habetis That ye may be without feare ye haue the inuestiture of our Lords Sacrament his preciouse body and blood Behold the body and blood of Christ is the signe it self wherewith we are inuested or put in possession of grace As therefore the ring or the booke is present whereby we are put in possession of the heritage or of the prebâ—…ed so the body of Christ is really present wherwith we are put in possession of grace It is not bread that is the signe of grace it is the substance of Chistes body aud blood whiche is the holy signe whereof S. Bernard speaketh and therefore he maketh not the body of Christ the thing it selfe as M. Iuel corruptly allegeth The thing is the grace of God the substance of Christ vnder yâ— form of bread is yâ— signe For Christ coÌ„meth in his own corporall presence to sease to indue vs with grace Hence it commeth M. Iuel that S. Augustine so oft calleth this Sacrament a figure because the body it selfe is here not for it selfe but to put vs in possession of so great a grace as the vnion with God is ¶ That Christes body is receaued by mouth and not by faith only IVel. We put a difference betwene the signe and the thing it self that is signified Sander In the consideration of a resonable vnderstanding there is alwaies a differnce betwen the signe and the thing but not alwaies in substance For Christ is the figure of his Fathers substaÌ„ce and withal the same substance but not called a figure in the same respect or consideration For as he is the figure so he differeth in person from his Father but in truthe of nature he is also one substance with him Euen so the body of Christ as it is vnder the forme of bread differeth in the manner of being from the body of Christ which died for vs in form of man But in substance it is all one Euen as Christ being transfigurated had an other manner of being then he had before his owne substance tarying still one and the same Iu. We seeke Christ in heauen San. So doe we to and yet beleue him also to be with vs vntil the worlds end Iuel And imagine not him to be present bodily vppon the earthe San. Neither doe we imagine him present in his bodily shape but wee beleue and by assured faith knowe him to be present in bodily substance whent the bread and wine are consecrated Our affirmatiue beleefe is grounded vpon the expresse word of God and vppon the continuall practise of the Church Your negatiue â—…gination is an â—…ool â—…ormed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 idolatours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin 〈◊〉 Martyr 〈◊〉 Iu. The body of Christe is to be eaten by faith only and none other wise San. In so saying if you will also defeâ—…d it you are the mainteiner of a blasphemouse heresie and 〈◊〉 otherwise and that I wil proue because your words are directly against the Gospell the auncient fathers and affirme the same which the Arrians did affirme beinge condemned for it of old tyme. Christe after bread taken and thankes geuen said take eate this is my body But Christe spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and he saith the thing eaten to be his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also I goe farther with you Al that was eateÌ„ by mouth or by
is the Godhead to be eaten of man really whiles man eateth that flesh wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth You teache the Godhead to be eaten by faith alone as it was eaten before the incarnation of Christ and none otherwise Iuel Christes body is meate of the mind not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyprian San. I find no such wordes in S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it who soeuer doth speake these wordes of the Sacrament it will folowe that the meate he speaketh of is not materiall bread for then it should be meate of the belly but it is only the bread of God and flesh of Christ. Which in 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 to fill the bellie but rather to tame it and to make vs more temperate and chaste Iu. Beleue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body San. Thou hast eaten by faith but not yet in SacrameÌ„t Those words were spoken of spiritual and nor of Sacramentall eating Therefore do you 〈◊〉 to apply them to yâ— Sacrament albeit faith is necessarie also to receaue the Sacrament worthely Iuel It is better to vse the word figure then the wordes really corporally San. It is better to vse the word body flesh blood whiche are the words of scripture then the word figure which is vsed of the fathers only to shew in what sort the body and blood of Christe is present vnder the formes of bread and wine bâ—…t not to change yâ— words of scripture flesh body blood into other words figure signe tokeÌ„ God forebid yâ— men should vnplace Gods words but they added vnto the words of scripture other words to expouÌ„d that this is not Christes visible body but the 〈◊〉 thereof because it is the substance thereof vnder an other form â–ª but you M. Iuel are coâ—…tent to forget the word of God at this tyme and to name the Fathers Are they then aboue the word of God How long wil you halt Come home to the word of God to yâ— Gospel to the holy scripture which M. Harding alleged out of the EuaÌ„gelistes and out of S. Paule and you wandering in 〈◊〉 and seeking phrases of speache haue not alleged out of the worde of God 〈◊〉 that effect of the Sacramentall presence not so much as one syllable So well you loue the Gospell whereof you talke so much Iu. The old Fathers vsed not these words corporally substancially in case of being really in the Sacrament San. It is an impudent mouth which so speaketh I will construe the Fathers words to you in due place ¶ M. Iuell hath not replied wel touching the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn but hath abused as well the Ghospel as diuerse authorities of the Fathers HArding The promise of geuing the flesh vvhiche Christ vvould geue for the life of the vvorld being only performed in the supper proueth the same very substance to be in the Sacramente of the supper vvhiche vvas offered vppon the Crosse for the life of the vvorlde Iuel This principle is false in it selfe San. It is a true principle as it shall appere afterward Iuel It is full of daungerous doctrine and may lead to despeâ—…tion Sander It is daungerous to you because it sheweth that you must either subâ—…cribe or despeire but otherwyse it is not daungerous Iuel M. Harding supposeth no man may eate the flesh of Christ but only in the Sacrament San. You misrâ—…port the meaning of D. Harding who denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eateÌ„ spiritually both by faith as the iust Patriarches and Prophâ—…s had already eaten it and also by baptisme according to the whiche way those had eaten it whom Christ before this talke made at Capharnaum had baptized by the meane of his disciples Which two wayâ—…s notwithsâ—…anding for so muche as Christe promâ—…h at Capharâ—…m to gâ—…ne his â—…she afterward to be eaten that giste must differ both from eating by faith and by baptisme And therefore D. Harding worthely saith it was only performed in yâ— last supper the which way of geuing his flesh was only to come and it is not only spirituall but also reall Iuel The words be plaine and general Vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man ye shall haue no life in you San. It is not saied in S. Iohn habebitis nullam vitam ye shall haue no life but non habebitis vitam ye shall not haue life in you I thinke it escaped you without malice but yet it chanced not wel to put the negatiue to the noune which should haue bene ioyned to the verbe Christ meaneth that no man shal haue life who being of discretion to proue him selfe refuseth to 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of Christes supper Iu. Seing Christian children receaue not the Sacrament by M. Harding it wil follow they haue no life San. It wil folow that they haue not in them selues the fleshe of life as S. Cyrillus expoundeth these words non â—…bitis vitam id est carnem vitae ye shall not haue life that is to say the flesh of life in vobis id est in corpore vestro in you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in your body But you make an vntrue sequele thereof to say they shall haue no life at all For he that is borne againe in baptisme hath the life of spirituall birth whiche suffiseth him if he die before the yeres of discretion but afterward he is â—…und to comâ—… for the maintenaunce of his spiritual liâ—…e to the SacrameÌ„t of life which is the supper of Christ. Iuel Christ geueth his bodie not only in the Sacrament as M. Harding imagineth but at al tymes to the faithfull San. You 〈◊〉 a pleasure to 〈◊〉 vpon D. Harding without a plaine song D. Harding granteth that Christ gâ—…th him self by faith and 〈◊〉 but geueth not his fleshe by sacramâ—…nt and naturall participation which as S. Cyrill saieth is obteined by partaking the mysticall blessing but only in the supper Iuel S. Ambrose saieth Christ geueth this brâ—…ade to all men daily and at all times San. S. Ambrose may well meane either of the gift whiche is made in spirite to them that beleue loue god or in sacrament to them that come to the holy table which is alwaies 〈◊〉 for good men For he teacheth the Sacrament of Christes supper to be our supersubstancial and daily bread And wold men daily to come vnto it Iuel Then it is false that Christe perforâ—… 〈◊〉 promise and geueth his bodie only at the ministratâ—… of the Sacrament Sander It is an vnhonest thing thus to misreporte D. Hardings meaning You mingle the performing of one certain promise of Christ made in S. Ihon with geâ—…g his bodie any way at al. D. Harding spake not of euerie geuing his body but of yâ— geuing wherein he performed only that promise made in S. Ihon. Whereafter yâ— promise of geuing he saith his flesh is verely meat his blood verely drinke
eate the same spirituall meate but an other corporall meate they did eate manna we â—…ate an other thing What is that other thing where might we learne the name or nature of it let vs not goâ—… to any other man but to the same blessed S. Augustine who neuer had any fellow in the Church of God for his 〈◊〉 knowledge in holy scripture but the more profound he is the lesse he is able to be vnderstanded at the first sight of those who reade him not â—…o great diligeÌ„â—…e Thus he writeth Quid est manna c. what is manna I am saith Christ the liuing bread which came down from heauen and again It is knoweÌ„ what God had rayrayâ—…ed from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what the Christians take let them blush then because they know it not let them passe ouer by the read sea Let them eate manna that euen as they haue beleued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himself to them Thus S. Augustine doth teache that Iesus himself is our corporall meate in the manna of the new TestameÌ„t For of corporal meate â–ª now he speaketh of that I say wherein we differ from the old fathers and not of that wherein we communicate with them Christ eaten by faith is their and our meate al in coÌ„mon yea the Catechumeni may so eate of him But Christ neither being receaued into the bodies of the old Fa thers nor now of that Catechumeni who lern their faith is only yâ— corporall meate or true manna of the faithfull baptized which is no lesse really taken into our mouthes vnder the forme of bread then the Iewes did really eate manna fortie yeres together in the desert Iuel Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in Baptism whiles he findeth that vnity which is signified by the Sacrament therefore the faithfull eate Christes body otherwise then in the Sacrament Sand. Who denieth but that Christes body may be otherwise â—…aten then in the Sacrament But it is not therfore eaten there really That only D. Harding affirmed you proue that he is otherwise eaten but yet that other eating whereof S. Augustine Beda spake proueth the real eating which D. Harding defendeth For if the body of Christ it self were not vnder yâ— form of bread he that is baptized should not partake at all of the Sacrament of Christes supper â–ª because he neither partaketh in Baptism of bread nor of wine but is only made a member of that mysticall body which in the Sacrament is signified And how is it signified let vs heare S. Augustine expounding that vnto vs who speaking of heretiks and schismatiks which are out of the Church saith Non sunt in eo vinculo pacis quod in illo exprimitur Sacramento they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that Sacrament The bond of peace expressed in the Sacrament is not only the wheaten cornes molded into one loaf for that bond is in euery loaf and not only in that of Christes supper but the bond of peace is the body of Christ present vnder the formes of bread and wine whereof I haue spoken at large in my v. booke in the v. chapiter ¶ M. Iuel hath not replied wel touching the Capharnaites HArding If Christ in S. Ihon had spoken tropically the Ievves and disciples vvho vvere vsed to figures vvold not haue sayd this is a hard saying Iuel His reason hangeth thus The Capharnaites vnderstode not Christ ergo his body is really in the Sacrament Sander No syr but thus They vnderstode Christ to speake without parables and Christes words appertin to the Sacrament as it was sayd before therefore his body is really in the Sacrament â—…ark the words of the Capharnaites and you shal finde by their answers and by their demands that they vnderstood what Christ promised but beleued it to be a thing either not possible or not conuenient Therefore Christ sayd there be some of you who beleue not He sayd not saith S. Augustine there be some among you who vnderstand not but he told the cause why they vnderstood not there be some among you who beleue not therefore they vnderstand not because they beleue not Iuel He sayd â–ª The bread which I will geue caet of spirituall eating It is the spirit that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith S. Augustine San. There is a spirituall eating without the Sacrament of Christes supper either by faith or by Baptism Of that Christ spake not now because it was not to come but was already geuen at the least concerning faith to all the iust men from the beginning of the world There is an other both spirituall or worthy and also reall eating of the Sacrament of Christes supper it self Thereof he now speaketh promising to geâ—…e it and at his supper he gaue it both really and spiritually that is to say not in a grosse maner but diuinely and miraculously whereof ye may see in my third booke the. xix and. xx Chapiter Iuel Ye shall not eate sayeth S. Augustine with your bodily mouth this body that you see caet I geue you a certeyn Sacrament San. Of this place I haue spoken at large in my vi b. the. iâ—… Chapiter and in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter I will now briefly note the chief points First M. Iuel doth abuse this place because S. Augustine had sayd before that Christ gaue that same flesh to be eaten wherein he walked and which he toke of the virgin Wherevnto M. Iuel hath no regard at all Secondly he taught that it ought to be adored before it was eaten Thirdly he nameth it the Sacrament willing vs to consyder it spiritually Fourthly he nameth it quamlibet terram any earth calling â–ª the â—…sh of Christ earth now in saying that we adore any earth he manisesily declareth that he speaketh of the adoration which is made in diuerse places or altars Whereas otherwise the flesh oâ—… Christ in heaueÌ„ is but one earth in one place These things presupposed all which are in the place of S. Augustine which M. Iuel now allegeth it will â—…olow that S. Augustine meant both that Christes flesh is eaten with our bodily mouth in the Sacra ment and also adored Therefore when he sayth ye shall not eate this body that you see he meaneth ye shall not eate it in suche forme as you see it in such mortall quantitie or in such a corruptible sort But if it should be meant ye shall not eate the substance of my body as M. Iuel taketh it S. Augustines owne words were clean contrarie to them selues for the causes alleged before Besyde this great dissembling of M. Iuel who knew the other words of S. Augustine and yet only wold haue these to be consydered he hath also misordered and misenglished diuerse words 1. He hath translated commendaui I
Augustine when he sayeth He will not geue his body in that maner as you thinke As who should say he will geue it one way but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine He will not geue a shoulder to one and a leg to an other But the supper sheweth the maner of the geuing Where bread was taken and after blessing and the words pronounced Christes body was geuen to the mouthes of the Apostles Iuel This is the table for Egles and not for Iayes sayth Chrysostom San. I haue answered your iangling talk of Iayes in my iâ—… booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter And haue turâ—…ed it vppon your own head Iuel S. 〈◊〉 let vs goe vp with the Lord into heauen into that greatparlar and receaue of him aboue the cup of the new â—…estament â–ª San. Certein men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand yeres together drinke a new kind of wine who grounded their heresie vpon these words of Christ I say vnto you I will not drinke from hencefoorth of this frute of the vine vntill the day when I will drink it new with you in the Kingdome of my Father S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 Iudaicas fabulas Iewish tales therwith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdome of God which is the Church saying Si ergo panis qui de coelo caet If then the bread which came down from heauen be the body of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of synnes let vs repell Iewish fables let vs ascend with our Lord vnto yâ— great parlar spread and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cup of the new Testament Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authâ—… ritie M. Iuel hath abused diuerse ways First you adde to S. Hierom these two words into heauen without cause For it folowed in S. Hierom whither we should ascend coenaculum magnum vnto the great parlar there to take of Christ the blooâ—… of the new Testament aboue that is to say not in the stalenes of the letter but in the newnes of the spirit as it foloweth afterward And yet againe more plainly in regno Ecclesiae in the Kingdome of the Church And last of all Impleamus opus eius Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum Let vs fulfill his work and Christ will drinke with vs in the Kingdome of the Church his blood Thus it is plaiue that S. Hierome spake not of going into heauen by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament but oâ—… going vp into the great parlar which is the Church and Kingdome of God S. Hierom alluded to the Historie of Christes last supper which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed as it is thought in the mount Syon Let vs goe thither sayth S. Hierom there let vs receane the new wine whereof Christ spake S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying yâ— Christ maketh this supper which now his Priests doe consecrate as well as he made that wherein he deliuered his owne banket Hoc est illud coenaculum caet This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples Hence he went to yâ— mount of Oliues â–ª which sith it is so it was very euill done of M. Iuel to diuide the verb from his accusatiue case and to put an other â—…oun betwene against all reason grammar and honestie S. Hierom sayd ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum 〈◊〉 vs goe vp with our Lord to the parlar M. Iuel putteth the noun in coelum into heauen betwene As if when a man sayd let vs goe vp to the chamber he wold put an other word beâ—… and say let vs goe vp into the sliple into that chamber For after he had conueyed into S. Hierom his words into heâ—… uen he secondly turned coenaculum that parlar where is that in S. Hierom M. Iuel That was of your putting in to make vs beleue that heauen is the parlar whereof S. Hierom spake Thirdly M. Iuel left out these â–ª words which went immediatly before and shew in what respect S. Hierom spake of going vp Iudaicas fabulas repellamus Let vs put away Iewish fables and so let vs goc vp with our Lord to the great parlar by keping that which Christ instituted and by leauing other fables Fourthly whereas in the same very question it foloweth that not Moyses but our Lord Iesus gaue vs the true bread himself eating and being he that is eaten How can M. Iuel find in his hart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the reall presence For how is our bread more true then the bread of Moyses if at Christes supper we must goe vp into heauen to eate it Might not Moyses eating Manna doe the same How is Christ the maker of the feast and the meate it selfe if common bread be eaten and not his flesh Is common bread the maker of the feast If not the maker of the seast neither is it the meate for al is one saith S. Hierom. Iuel Cyrillus saith our Sacrament anoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the minds of the vnfaithfull in vngodly maner to grosse or flesh cogitations Sand. A man would scant beleue how wickedly this place is abused First these are not the words of S. Cyrill â–ª next he neuer meaÌ„t not so much as by dreame any such thing as M. Iuel doth father vppon him His own words are spoken vpon such occasion Nestorius the Heretike sayd that Christ had two persons and that his â—…hod was not â—…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the sonne of God Against whom S. Cyrill saith in that place proprium â—…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi non hominis alicuius seorsum separatim we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word that is to say to be the words own body and not to be the body of any man apart or separated Nestorius replied out of Christes words He that eateth my flesh tarieth in me what eate we sayd the heretike the Godhead or the flesh meaning therby to conclude that seing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth yet the flesh was really eaten that there was one person of the Godhead an other of the flesh Cyrillus answereth Doest thou then affirm that there is an other sonne and Christ besyde the word coming from God the which hath appered to whoÌ„ alone the matter of Apostleship may be coÌ„mitted Now follow yâ— words corrupted by M. Iuel Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man M. Iuel turneth these words as though S. Cyrillus had set foorth a doctrine of his own without any respect to the heresie of Nestorius but the
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
true in shape in form in quantitie and qualitie Christ was made man in dede borne in dede he grew and walked vpon the earth in dede according to the true and visible nature and forme of man He suffered death in the same forme and did shed his blood apart from his fleshe Now marke when it pleased him to depart out of this world he woulde haue all these thinges beleued of vs remembred of vs and folowed as our weakenes through his grace might suffer In cōsideration whereof he iustituted a Sacramēt of his own body and blood Of which body Of that which he had taken which was but one The first point of this Sacrament must be saith S. Augustine that it haue a certaine likenes or similitude with Christes own body and blood and consequently that likenes shall make it to haue the name it selfe What is the likenes in the sacrament of Christes supper betwene it and the naturall body of Christ Seeke as long as you are able M. Iuel prie and serche neuer so intierly you shall find the likenes to be in this point specially that the substance of Christes body blood not hauīg any outward image made of them are made presēt vnder the forme of an other thing are so made present that thereby all the highe mysteries of Christes visible body are mystically set before the faith of the true beleuer Christ being the sonne of God was made man by turninge some of the purest blood of the virgin Marie into his own flesh and blood and that was done without the sede of man by the vertue of the worde and power of the whole Trinitie through the ministery of the Archangel Gabriell euen so the purest creatures of bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ and turned into the substance of them not by generation corruption but by the vertue of these wordes This is my body Which thing y◠who le Trinitie worketh by the ministerie of the Priest who is the Angel of Christ. Christ thus borne and hauing walked in his flesh came to die vpon the crosse where his blood was diuided from his flesh the soule from the body but the Godhead taried stil with both right so this sacrament hath the body consecrated vnder one kind the blood vnder an other kind and they are adored of the saithfull a part yet the person which is one whereunto they are vnited and the Godhead in that person causeth the two partes to make but one Sacrament and the whole to be vnder eche kind Thus the likenes whiche is not in form but in substance and in the consecration of true faith betwene Christ him self and this sacrament maketh this sacrament to be called his body blood although in al respectes it be not so Upon whiche ground S. Hierom saith Dupliciter sanguis Christi caro intelligitur c. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two waies either that spiritual and diuine whereof him self said my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drinke and except ye eate my fleshe and drinke my blood ye shall not haue euerlasting life or els the fleshe which was cru cified and the blood which was shed with the speare of the soldiour Thus haue we one fleshe and blood in substance consydered vnderstanded two waies and that not falsely vnderstanded as the Sacramentaries imagine but truely and in dede For a false vnderstanding is hated of God This difference and this likenes is also noted in the present words of S. Augustin when he saith Christ was once offered in him self Note the worde in him selfe to wit in his visible shape form and truth as wel of substance as of quātity the same Christ is dayly offered in a sacramēt Are not these S. Augustines words ▪ Christ is offered in him self Christ is offered in a Sacrament is it not all one Christ or is Christe diuided No no al is one substāce but the m◅ner is not al one And farther note very dyligently good Reader that of the two immolations or offeringes the one is referred to the other The one is the signe token figure Sacrament of the other And therfore the one is but once done because it was y◠great immolation which absolutely fulfilled al the law prophets and it was made vppon the Crosse. The other being made in the Sacramēt sheweth kepeth preserueth and applieth daily the fruits of that one oblation but Christ is alwaies one in bothe Now this likenes of the Incarnation and passion of Christ made and represented to the faithfull by the Sacrament of the altar causeth it to be called the body blood of Christ. And therefore S. Augustine concludeth The Sacrament of Christes body according to a certain maner is the body of Christ. M. Iuel englisheth these wordes according to his maner falsely corruptly and ignorantly he turneth Secundum quendam modum after a certaine Phrase or maner or trope or figure of speache True it is that modus doth signifie a maner or meane Again it may be sometime y◠the maner is tropicall or figuratiue but now it is not so meant And that is proued two waies First because S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of the body of Christ according to a certein manner est is the body of Christ. he saith not only it is called the body after a certain manner but it is the body Therefore the manner that that he speaketh of is in the Sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof and not only in the phrase or trope or figure of speache as M. Iuel would haue it Againe the name whiche the Sacrament taketh is geuen as S. Augustine saith according to a likenes which is betwene the Sacrament and the thing it selfe That likenes then must be first in the Sacrament really and afterward in respect of priority of nature though not in respect of tyme the name is geuen Seing then the likenes of things goeth before the likenes of names When S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christ according to a certain manner that manner must respect the likenes of the thinges before it respecte the likenes of names Therefore M. Iuel hath erred altogether in translating modum a phrase or manner of speache But first he should haue sought wherein the things were like for in dede the likenes in dinerse things is diuerse In one thing it is in substance as God the Father and his sonne are like equall and one in substance Yet because there is some difference in that they are diuerse persons the sonne is the figure of his Fathers substance according to a certaine manner to wit as he is a diuerse person but not as a diuerse substance In other things the substāce may differ also as the rock and Christe and
mortal only and crucified vppon the crosse but for that it was spiritual and diuine â—…hat is to say the flesh of the Sonne of God San. Your glose M. Iuel is stark naught For whereas S. Hierom rekoneth vp two wayes of vnderstanding one and the same flesh you make such an interpretation which doth coÌ„found those 〈◊〉 vnderstandings For if Christes flesh be called of S. Hieroâ—… diâ—…ine and spirituall because it is the flesh of the Sonne of God theâ—… his flesh was diuine and spirituall vppon the crosse also For euen there it was the flesh of the Sonne of God But he calleth it spirituall one way and crucified an other way therefore his meaning is that it is spirituall and diuine flesh not only for respect of the vnion but vnder the forme of bread where it is present to be eaten in a diuine maner and as if it were a spirit vtterly inuisible and able to be perceaued by no 〈◊〉 aâ—…d yet for all tâ—…at true and reall flesh euen the same substance which was crucified Any other sense you can not applie to the distinction of S. Hierom and whatsoeuer els you bring out of S. Augustine or Angelomus it is not to the purpoâ—… Iuel S. Hieroms meaning is that the same flesh being thus diuine and spirituall must also spiritually be receaued and not fleshly as M. Harding imagineth San. As though D. Harding brought not the distinction of S. Hierom to proue that his assertion is not carnal and fleshly but spirituall and diuine And yet you still call it as you list and huddle vp places of the Manichees and Messalians nothing to the purpose Iuel S. Hierom him self sayth Of this oblation which is marueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawfull to eate but of that oblation which Christ offered vppon the altar of the crosse according to it self it is lawfull â—…or noman to eate That is to say in grosse and fleshly maner San. Who could speake more against your self then you doe now The fleshly maner of eating is to eate flesh visible palpable and corruptible and in that maner as it was vpon yâ— crosse This place brought by you although it be thought to be the saying of Origenes and not of S. Hierom yet confirmeth excedingly the former distinction For the same substance is eaten which was crucified euen as the Hoste or thing offered is one in both oblations but the maner is diuerse Both these places are in dede very like Both name the crosse both name eating Both make a difference betwene the thing crucified and eaten but yet not in substance but in the maner of the presence thereof Iuel By these words S. Hierom â—…weth a great difference betwene the sacrifice that is made in the remembrance of Christ and the very sacrifice in dede that Christ made vppon the crosse San. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one in substance but vppon the crosse it is offered as an oblation wholy burnt and therefore not eaten In the supper it is offered as an oblation to kepe the redemption of the crosse in continuall remembrance and to thank God for the redemption purchased and to make vs partake the fruits of Christes death by eating worthely the body which died But if the thing or substance offered be not one the same what oblatioÌ„ is that M. Iuell which is marueilously made in the supper What is that wherein we remember and shew Christes death Is bread and wine yâ— marueilouse oblation 〈◊〉 they made 〈◊〉 in the remembrance of Christ What marueilouse making can you find in them Except which is the very truth they be made the body blood of Christ That is in dede a marueilouse making a marueilouse sacrifice a marueilouse shewing of Christes death You had lost your wits when you brought foorth this place which maketh so fore all against you Iuel If a man take it fleshly saith S. Chrysostom he gaineth nothing San. It foloweth in S. Chrysostom immediatly what say we then is not flesh flesh yes doutlesse And again these words the flesh profiteth nothing were not spoken of the flesh it self but of fleshly vnderstanding Whereby it is clere that he vnderstandeth fleshly who deuiseth a grosse fleshly maner of eating Christes flesh but not he who saith the flesh it self must be eaten in his true substance if the maner be diuine and spiritual as in our Sacrament it is Iuel It is a figure or foorm of speache saith S. Augustine â—…illing vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. You are taken M. Iuel If you had not brought this place I wold haue brought it for if Christ in S. Ihon willeth 〈◊〉 to be partakers of Christes passion seing that partaking muâ—… be at the lest by faith for it may also be in a more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by faith and Sacrament but seing we must partake of the passion at the least by faith and you say we eate Christes body none otherwise in the supper but only by faith how then can you auoide the place brought by yourâ—…lf ouâ—… of S. Hierom where it was sayd it is not lawful to eate of that oblation according to it self which Christ offered vpon yâ— altar of the crosse Is it not lawful to eate of Christ by faith euen as he hung crucified â–ª will you not then beleue vpon him as he hangeth in that base humble condition I know you will but your eating is beleuing therefore you eate that oblation according to it selfe euen according as it is there spread coÌ„tumeliously handled But S â–ª Hierom saith noman may eate it so therefore he meaneth eating by mouth and not by faith goe on with me M. Iuel but of that oblation which is made maruelously in the remembrance of Christ it is lawfull to eate â–ª and how to eate but by mouth for as lawfull eating standeth against vnlawfull eating so in the one place it is vnlawfull to eate by moâ—…th in the other it is lawful to eate by mouth Therefore S. Hierom speaketh not only of eating Christes diuine and spiritual flesh by faith but euen by mouth also in the Sacrament Iuel S. Hierom calleth the eating of the diuine and spirituall flesh of Christ the remembring that he died for vs. Sand. If that be so then the oblation it self is eaten of which Christ offered vpon the crosse that secundum se that is to say according to it self How is it possible swetely to remember that Christ died for vs and not to eate by faith his very death and the sensible maner thereof but his â—…esh offered ou the crosse though it may be eateÌ„ by faith yet according to it self it may not be eaten in that corruptible foorm and shape And contrarie wise the diuine spirituall flesh is so 〈◊〉 appointed to be 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 Christ sayd my flesh is verily meate therefore S. Hierom speaketh of eating the diuine
yâ— water otherwise theÌ„ as it is present in all places but only as working by his power For in the name of the father is to saie in yâ— power strength of yâ— father Thus the power vertue of god is really preseÌ„t 〈◊〉 or renewig is really made But if it were sayd at the tyme of washing by the institution of Christ This is Christ who baptiseth or washeth thee theâ—… doubtlesse Christ should be beleued really present Albeit therefore some Fathers say God holdeth thy head at the fonte and other say the water is full of heauenly fier and so foorth yet these are maners of speache without reall or naturall operation according to the letter because they be not words instituted of purpose by Christ to work a speciall effect in the Sacraments Although they shew by similitudes that a reall working of diuerse graces is made in the Sacraments But Christ sayâ—… in his supper this is my body In which words the body is affirmed present vnder that signe of bread wherevnto Christ pointeth If M. Iuel knew not this ods he may be ashamed to teache that he knoweth not If he knew it why doth he lead men to hell willingly But because this man goeth about euery where to abuse the holy communion by shewing like phrases vsed sometymes of Baptism as are vsed of Christes supper I will geue him a copie of certeyn phrases which either he must find in the holy Scriâ—…tures and in the holy Fathers or els he shal be coâ—…rayned to confesse a more corporall and reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar then in Baptism First the name of Baptism differeth from the name of Christes body and blood Baptism signifieth an action of a washing and therefore it is no work tarying or during in his owne substance but only the effect thereof remaineth But the name of Christes body blood is the name not only of making a work but euen of a substanciall work it self as when we say a house a pillar a tree Whereof it followeth that when Christ hath done washing baptism is past But when Christ pointing to a visible thing hath said this is my body The body tarieth still after the speaking is done so long as the visible form dureth which is to vs the signe of the body present Nowe as S. Paule noteth that Christ so far passâ—…th the Angels by how much his name is more excellent then theirs right so the Sacrament of the altar so farre passeth baptism as Christes own body is a name of more excellency then the name of washing or cleansing 2. Baptism must goe before the Eucharist as Iustinus yâ— marâ—…yr saith which thing is done to th end we may come cleane and pure to the blessed bodie of Christ. Therfore the Eucharist passeth it as farre as baptism passeth the vertue of penance which prepa reth mâ—…n of discretion to be baptized 3. Baptism maie be ministred of dâ—…oÌ„s of lay men yea of women in the time of necessity The Eucharist is consecrated only of priests who haue special power geuen them to make Christes body accordingly as him self said make this thing for the remem braunce of me And S. Hierome excludeth Deacons â—…rom this highe office 4. Baptism may be â—…inistred at any time of the day but S. Augustine sheweth that the holy Ghost hath taught the whoâ—… Church for the honour of so great a Sacrament to receaue it only fasting without a case of necessitie 5. In Baptism the water must be of necessitie beleued to remaine because washing is not made without water nor it shall neuer be found that it was taught to be changed but in the Euchariste no breade or wine remaineth because no such thing is signified at the time of consecration and the Fathers teache them to be changed into Christes body and blood 6. Baptism was administred in the running water and no regard had of the material water when the act of washing was done But the Eucharist was euer so warily administred that no crum thereof was suffered to fall as Optatus Cyrillus of Hicrusalem S. Bede and others do witnesse 7. Baptism was neuer adored though it were reuerenced the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was alwayes adored with the highest honour due to God alone as I haue shewed at large in my sixth booke 8. As Baptisme is the first Sacrament and most necessarie so the Eucharist is the last and most honorable That to cleuse vs this to feed vs. That to marie vs by consent of mindes to Christ this to ioyne vs to his flesh and blood by reall copulaâ—…ioÌ„ of bodies That prepareth to this this maketh that in al degrees perfit That without this is a true mariage but yet it is without the last end of mariage which is carual copulation This coÌ„ming to that and to all the other Sacramentes maketh vs to be most perfitly vâ—…ted with Christ. For this cause S. Dionysius Areopagita sayeth Dicimus ergo caet We say therefore other Sacraments or signes of holy things whose communion is graunted to vs to be finished â—…y the diuine and perfiting giftes of the Eucharist And holy Ephren also writeth thus of the most perâ—…ite and consummated vnion which is made in the same Eucharist saying Anima nostra sponsa estimmortalis sponsi copula autem nuptiarum coelestia Sa cramenta sunt quia cum manducamus corpus eius sanguinem bibimus ipse in nobis est nos in ipso Our soule is the spouse of the immortall Bridegrome that which coupleth them in mariage are the celeâ—…iall Sacraments for that when we eate his body and drink his blood he is in vs and we in him 9. Moreouer we are by Baptism vnited to Christ and not at all to Baptism But by the Eucharist we are sayd to be vnited to the very body which is in the Sacrament becausâ—… it is all one with Christ himself Of which difference I will speake more hereafter 10. Last of all the perpetuall custome of the people of God and the vniuersall tradition hath always obserued great difference betwene these two Sacraments And thereby any wise man may know what belongeth to the one and what to the other If now M. Iuel will proue Baptism and the Eucharist to be of like force concerning the meane of vniting vs to Christ he must bring foorth such phrases where Baptism may be called of Christ him self the body of Christ. Where the Eucharist may be sayd to prepare vs to Baptism as well as Baptism to it Where Baptism is sayd to be worthy the highest honour as it is sayed of Christes body in the Sacrament Where the last and highest copâ—…latioÌ„ is assigned to Baptism as it is to yâ— Eucharist Where speciall consecration of Priests speciall prerogatiue of tyme speciall warmesse in vsing the matter
bone but not thereby really dwelling in our bodies which belong to our persons Iuel In that sense S. Ihon saith the word was made flesh and dwelt in vs. San. In what sense Whether that Christes bodie by his natiuitie dwelleth substantially in our bodies for so you said but S. Ihon said not so God gaue men power to be made the sonnes of God to such as beleue in his name to such as are borne of God and when S. Iohn had said we had power to be the sonnes of God if we were borne of God he consirmeth that power geuen to vs saying And yâ— word is made flesh hath dwelt 〈◊〉 vs. Therfore saith S. ChrysostoÌ„ he hath dwelt in vs that it might be lauful to come to him selfe to speake to be câ—…uersant boldly with him He was not in our bodies really straight vppon the incarnation but when he dwelt 〈◊〉 our nature wheÌ„ he was a trúe man as we are then might we come to him Priusipsu verbum voluit nasci ex homine vt tu securius nascereris ex deo The word wold first be born of a woman to thâ—…d 〈◊〉 mightest be born of God without feare Iuel Therefore Christ calleth himself the vine and vs the braunches San. It is vntruly sayd 〈◊〉 Iuel For albeit Christ by his humane birth be as it were the 〈◊〉 of the vine for his owne part yet he is not to vs the vine nor we be not the braunches 〈◊〉 we are graffed into Christ which is don by saith and Baptism S. Augustine saith he is made maÌ„ that the nature of man should be a vine in him whereof we that are men might be also the braunches If his only birth had made vs braunches what neded a new birth in Baptism When S. â—…yrill wold shew that Christ according to his humane nature was the vine which thing the Arrians denied he went not for the matter to Christes birth only for then Iudas and â—…ain had bene braunches but he went to the Sacrament of Christes supper to proue that we depend of Christes flesh as braunches doe of the vine Iuel S. Paul calleth Christ the head and vs the body San. S. Paule speaketh of Christes mysticall body and you should proue that his natural body is really in our bodies Now if to make his body to dwell really in our bodies more then his birth be necessary it is not true that M. Iuel with such vain brags hath hitherto sayd that his body by â—…is natiuity dwelleth really or substancially or naturally in our bodies But only that he dwelleth in vs to wit in our nature being made Emanuell nobiscum Deus God with men But thereby Christ dwelleth but in one body really to wit in that which he made to himself out of the virgins most pure blood Wherefore S. Cyrillus saith Habitauit in nobis Dei verbum in templo vno quod propter nos de nobis sibi condidit vt omnes in seipso habeÌ„s in vno corpore patri reconciliaret The word of God hath dwelt in vs or among vs in one teÌ„ple yâ— which he made to himself for our sakes and out of vs that hauing al in himself he might reconcile them to the Fathâ—… in one body One thing M. Iuel I must put you in mind of You 〈◊〉 that Christes body may not be in many places at once which doutlesse you meane of his naturall body and his body is by no meanes more natural then by the natiuity thereof But you say now that Christes body by his natiuity dwelleth really substan cially and fleshly in our bodies and certeinly our bodies dwell in many places therefore you are against your own doctrine as who confesse Christes body by his natiuity to dwell naturally in all our bodies which are not only in many places of yâ— earth but a great number also are vnder the earth in al which Christes body according to your doctrine must dwell corporally and therefore it must be in many places together ¶ Whether Christes body dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. IVel. Towching faith S. Paul saith Christ by faith dwelleth in our harts San. The word hart in holy scripture doth not alwayes signifie that fleshly part of a mans body commonly so called but S. Paule meaneth that Christ dwelleth in our minds and wills by faith and charitie which is made very plaine by the words going before secundum interiorem hominem according to the inner man Therefore no dwelling of Christes body really or substancially in our bodies is proued by this place of S. Paule except we shall say that Christ hath no real and substanciall body of his own For if is be a reall substance what meaneth M. Iuel to affirm it dwelleth really and substancially where the real substance thereof it not if it be a reall dwelling of Christes body in our bodies in that we beleue in Christ and yet Christ haue but one reall and substanciall body by M. Iuels phrase of speache that body may be sayd to haue dwelt really in yâ— virgins â—…omb in that she only beleued in Christ. and by such worthy interpretation the truthe of the incarnation is vtterly taken away Iuel S. Peter saith Hereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature San. Those wordes generally pertein to all the giftes of God and specially to yâ— incarnation of Christ whereby we communicate most perfitly if yet we be faithsull with the nature of God For when we beleue in Christe who is man with vs and God with his Father then wee communicating with his manhood coÌ„municate also with the Godhead whiche dwelleth corporally in Christ. But that coÌ„municating may be made either by faith or baptism and other Sacraments And as the Godhead dwelâ—…eth incomparably more excellently in Christes own body â—…then it doth in any other thing which dependeth thereof so the vnion with his nature is made far better by the meane of the Eucharist with faith and Baptism ioyned together then by one or two of them alone And that this place of S. Peter doth pertein to the communicating of Christes flesh in the Sacrament also Cyrillus of â—…ierusalem doth witnesse writing thus Under the forme of bread the body is geuen and vnder the forme of wine the blood is geuen c. And so we shal be made partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter sayth Now M. Iuel hath most improperly placed this Testimonie in the second kind of Christes dwelling in vs sith it apperteyneth to all foure ways generally but most especially to that coÌ„munion or ioyning which is made by the holy Eucharist Iuel So sayth Ignatius By his passion and resurrection that is by our faith in the same we are made the members of his body San. S. Ignatius in two places oâ—… that Epistle speaketh of such a matter as M. Iuel wold
and specially of al Christ hath appointed baptism to be after his coming so necessary a meane for our incorporatioÌ„ to his mystical body whereof he is the Sauior yâ— except a man be born again of the water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kyngdome of heauen Again some Sacraments are appointed to reconcile vs to god if we synne after baptism For except we doe penance we shall perish all together Iuel Thei that are baptized are planted into Christ. San. You should shew that Christes body is plaÌ„ted into their bodies and that really and substantially 〈◊〉 Haue you forgotten your promise Iuel Thei haue put Christ vpon them San. You should shew that Christes body is put within their bodies euen fleshely Iuel By one spirite thei are baptized into one body San. You should shew that the naturall body of Christe is by baptising really in their bodies For the body whereof S. Paule speaketh is the mysticall body Iu. S. Augustine saith This is the vse of baptising that thei that be baptised may be incorporate into Christ. San. It would haue bene englished hereunto baptising is available that is to say this is the strength and the force of baptism But you beleue baptisme to be only a seale of an incorporation alredie made and not in dede to incorporate vs into Christ and therfore you falsified S. Augustine according to your shamâ—…ul custome Well we are incorporated by baptisme yet the body of Christ is not thereby shewed to dwell really in our bodies A man may be incorporated to the cumpanie of Marchants in the citie of London yet the cuÌ„panie of Marchantes shall not dwell really in his body All this doth not proue your principall proposition that by baptism the body of Christ dwelleth really in our bodies Iuel Being baptised we are turned into God saith Dionysius Sander The word that he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a participatioÌ„ of diuine nature howsoeuer it be brought to passe insomuch that the Angels may so be made as it were gods or be made like to his nature Therfore it is not proued by yâ— words of Dionysius that Christs body dwelleth in our bodies really or substancially by baptism nor he nameth not turning but rather a deification or a comming to be like vnto god Iu. Pachimeres saith we are graft into Christ and made one nature with him by holy baptism Sander You haue turned him falsely For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie one nature but diuerse men of one nature kinsmen as it were and men of the same stock or of the same route or graffinge It is not al one to be made one flesh of one flesh In baptism we are al made of one flesh and we al are graft into one mystical flesh of Christ but by yâ— Sacrament of the altar we are during yâ— time of the coÌ„iunction one self flesh with Christes natural flesh There we are two in one fleshe as I haue shewed in my 〈◊〉 boke yâ— v. Chapter But seing you crane ayde of Pachimeres you shal heare his mind coÌ„cernig yâ— blessed sacrameÌ„t of the altar theÌ„ iudge you whether he say or meane the like of baptism The bishop saith he beleueth that euen the things which are set forth he meaneth the bread and wine were changed into the preciouse body blood of Christ by the holy goost who worketh all If then the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ yea and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the first paterns sor so he called them before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh relation to al that went before if then the bread and wine be chaÌ„ged into those first examples of flesh and blood which were taken by Christ of his mother seing we partake those holy mysteries aster the chaÌ„ge it is easy io iudge that Pachymeres taught otherwise of one vnion to god concerning the meane of Christes supper then euer he taught concerning baptism ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. IVel. Thus much may sufsice to discry M. Hardings slender argument San. Not so M. Iuell you must expound the fourth member of your diuision You haue told that Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies by his natiuitie our faith and by baptisme come now and shew how it dwelleth in our bodies really by the Sacrament of the altar Was not al the other talke made for that end why flie you when you are come to the very point but who would not laugh to see this mans doing He saith Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies and that four waies And when he hath endeuored to shew that it is so in three of the first in the whiche in dede it is not so then cometh he to declare in the fourth way by which only Christes body dwelleth really in vs when we receauâ—… the Sacrament of his body there he spendeth al his strength to declare that Christes body is not really dwelling in our bodies Why Sir Did you so forget your selfe that you haue â—…mitted your principal part You wil say perhaps that D. Harding hath done that for you and that the places whiche he bringeth do shew so much be it so At the lest then you should not impugne D. Harding as you doe If his places proue not yâ— Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies as you say thei doe not proue it then it is your part to proue so much for you aâ—…cmed it before Iuel Notwithstanding by the Sacrament of baptisme Christ be naturally in vs yet M. Harding may not therefore conclude that Christ is naturally in the Sacrament of baptisme San. It is false that Christ by the Sacrament of baptisme is naturally in vs. For as the father who begetteth a childe is not thereby naturally dwelling in the childe albeit an effect of his nature was one of the causes of the childes nature so Christe by regenerating vs in baptisme by his worde whiche is in place of the seede and by water whiche is as it were the wombe of the mother doth not thereby dwell naturally in vs albeit we haâ—…e an effect of spiritual grace whiche came to vs by meanes of his fleshe Iuel Bonauentuâ—…a saith wel we maie not in any wise saie that the grace of god is conteined in the Sacraments as water in a vessel For so to say it were an errour But thâ—… are said to 〈◊〉 gods grace because thei signifie gods grace SaÌ„ BonaueÌ„tnâ—…a was a Cardinal of Rome a scholastical writer a man lesse then three hundred yeres old one that said masse and yet with M. Iuel now he is a good author saith well But yet what 〈◊〉 you in englishing his words to leaue yâ— aduerb essentialiter essentiallie vnenglished
marke yâ— point consider the whole discourse of S. Chrysoâ—… who writeth thus Because Christ hath said this is 〈◊〉 bodie let vs be â—…gled with no dout Thou saieth Chrysostome desirest to see his garments but he deliuereth him selfe to thee Vt tangas in te habeas so that thou maiest touch him and haue him in thee Beware therefore lest after so great benefites thou begiltie of his bodie and blood by receauing with an vncleane soule For it suâ—…ed him not to be made man to be scourged crucified but he mingleth him selfe with vs or bringeth vs into one lump with him and â—…hat not by faith alone but he maketh vs his own bodie by the thing it selfe This is the true discourse of S. Chrysostom in that place as it may appere to any maÌ„ who shall reade it We are theÌ„ made one with Christ to worke the whiche thing it is common to faith and to baptisme or to the Sacrament of â—…ance But S. Chrysostome saith farther that the meane of this making vs one is in that Christe deliâ—…eth him selfe to vs. Ipse se ipsum tibi tradidit he deliuereth his owne selfe to thee And by that meanes he is mingled with thee not by faith alone but by the thing it selfe By which thing By him selfe or by his own body so that the excellency of Christes loue consisteth as much in the 〈◊〉 of the vnioâ—… â–ª â—…s in the vnion it selfe God might haue saued vs without sending his sonne to take flesh but when he sent his only begotten and made him in his own humane nature which he assumpted the meane to saue vs then his loue appered most singularly Euen so at this tyme the meane of the vnion is that whereof S. Carysostome speaketh For whereas there is a meane by faith to vnite vs to God he saith Christ was not content to be made man neither to die for vs by whiche points the faith of the old Fathers was fulfilled and therefore it might haue suffised for Christ to haue rested in his naâ—…tie and in his death letting our faith through his grace to make vp the knot of vnion without going any farther but that meane suffised not He hath brought vs into one lump with him not by faith alone to wit not by the meane of faith alone after his natiuitie Crosse he was not conteÌ„t with the meane of his birth death faith but he mingleth him selfe with vs by the thing it selfe Faith is one word yâ— thing is an other Fide is the same case yâ— re ipsa is one verb doth serue both As therefore it must of necessitie beenglished efficit he maketh nos vs suum corpus his own bodie non solum not only fide by saith so must it be englished sed but re ipsa by the thing it selfe The vnion therefore is made by faith and by the thing it selfe I come nere you M. Iuel I saie the thing it selfe is neither water nor bread and wine nor â—…th nor anie other creature but only the real substance of Christes bodie blood The which â—…bstance is yâ— meane whereby we are vnited yet yâ— same snbstaÌ„ce is not the meane exept 〈◊〉 be deliuered in the Sacrament of the altar for of that Sacrament and of the worthie coÌ„municating and of the 〈◊〉 thereof S. Chrysostom now speaketh it is called not only the bodie of Christ but Christ him selfe and therefore Christe is said not only to be seen but to be touched eaten and to be within vs. That bodie and blood of Chriâ—… being consecrated 〈◊〉 the holy table and so seen vnder the forme of bread being deliuered by the priests hand to vs and so touched eaten and being within vs that is the thing it selfe whereby we are nowe made the mystical body of Christ. That hody and blood was made present by changing the bread and wine into theÌ„ And therefore S. Chrysostom saith in yâ— same homilie Qui haec sanctificat transmutat ipse est It is Christe him selfe who maketh holie and changeth these things That bodie and blood is offered and partaken and therefore it foloweth immediatly after the wordes whereof we now chefely dispute that he ought to be cleaner then anie thing Qui hoc sacrificio participaturus est who wil partake this sacrifice That hand which breaketh in peeces this fleshe the mouthe which is filled with spirituall fier the tong whiche is made red with this wonderful blood ought to excede the sonne beames â–ª What can be deuised of man more plaine then to name changing sacrifice hand mouth tong seing touching eating hauing within vs Al these words are affirmed of these marueilouse gifts of Christes supper It is not therefore bread and wine which is res ipsa the thing it selfe but it is the body of Christ and that body being made in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is the meane to make vs one mystical body therefore that bodie is really present in the Sacrament of the supper How could it otherwise be seen touched taken into the hand into the mouth be receaued with the tong and be in vs and whiche is the chefe of al howe could it be the meane to make vs one bodie For as when by faith or Baptism we are incorporated faith is present really with vs and Baptism is really present so when we are vnited by the bodie of Christ it must nedes be really present And how present If thou wert without a body saith S. Chrysostome God had geuen thee his giftes naked and without bodies But because the soule is knit vnto the bo dy In sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi praebet In things yâ— are sâ—…sible he geueth thee things which are intelligible or such as may be atteined only by vnderstanding The bodie of Christe therefore as it is the thing it selfe which vniteth vs in his Sacrament so is it geuen vs in sensibilibus in things which maie be seen felt and touched And to speake all in one the real bodie is geuen really to vs vnder the formes of bread and wine Moreouer when we are vnited by faith Baptism we are not vnited vnto faith or vnto Baptisme but by them vnto the flesh of Christe But of this Sacrament it is said not only that we are vnited by it but also vnto it in so much that S. Chrysostom saith That thing at the sight whereof the Angels quake neither dare boldely behold it for the brightnes whiche shineth out of it therewith we are fed thereunto we are vnited Lo we are vnited to the thing wherewith we are fed â–ª and straight S. Chrysostom sheweth that whereas no shepherd fedeth his shepe with his own blood yea whereas some mothers geue out their childern to be nourished Christ doth not so but he fedeth vs with his owne blood and by all meanes he ioyneth vs to him selfe If by faith
doe you 〈◊〉 his wordes Iuel So this article is concluded with an Ignoramus San. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christes presence but of his real presence though the maner be vnknoweÌ„ But did you call that an â—…gnoramus if we know not how Christ is vnder the foorm of bread I am sure you know not howe the vnion was made in the virgins womb are you therefore reproued as ignorante In dede if ye belâ—…ue not Christes presence ye haue concluded this article with a Non credimus whiche is a worse fault then Ignoramus For he that beleueth not shal be con demmed Iuel The old lerned Fathers neuer left vs in suche doutes San. S. Cyrillus in this very matter willeth vs to geue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way and knowlege of his worke vnto god the first part you haue broken The first and last D. Harding hath obserued and you shal be concluded with a dam naberis if ye repent not S. Chrisostom saith it is the part of a scholar not to serch out curioufly the things which the master affirmeth but to here and to beleue and to looke for a conuenient time of soyling the question Iuel Emissenus saith Christ is present by his grace San. You haue put a false nominatiue case 〈◊〉 doth say that Christ consecrated the Sacrament of his bodie and blâ—…od to thend Perennis illa victima viueret in memoria et semper praesens esset in gratia that euerlastig sacrifice should liue in remembraÌ„ce and be alwaies present in his grace It is victima the oblatioâ—… or sacrificed hoste which is present in grace for in dede the act of crucifying is vtterlie past but the sacrifice is present in his grace for so muche as it is present in that flesh whiche suffered death Againe he saith not yâ— it is present bi his grace as you haue turned it but in his grace You wold haue grace to be the meane of presence but it is not so Grace is the effect of presence But the meane of the grace in this Sacrament is the presence of Christes own body Iuel S. Augustine saith Christ in vs by his spirit San. That is true also when he is in vs by his flesh for in that flesh his spirit dwelleth And he that denieth Christ to be in vs by his owne flesh taketh away the chefe way by whiche the spirit of God may be in vs. Iuel Ye shall not eate this body that ye see it is a certain Sacrament that I deliuer you San. The words of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set foorth a certain Sacrament to you and not I deliuer you a câ—…rtain Sacrament For this was spoken of S. Augustine in Christes person in respect of the talke had aâ—… CapharnauÌ„ Where the Sacrament was commended before it was deliuered But that which was commended at Capâ—…naum was only the same flesh which 〈◊〉 for vs Therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible and sensible maner but yet in truth of geuing by body and of taking by body For of such geuing and taking Christ spake as by the last supper it may appere where he perâ—…oormed his promise But M. Iuel was lothe that relation should be made to the talke had at Capharnanm For then he saw that the very reall flesh must be the thing which should be deliuered again he wold not haue either the commendatioÌ„ past or the gift to come and thereforâ—… he turned commendaui into trado I haue coÌ„mended into I deliuer Indede M. Iueâ—… Christ deliuered his flesh as well at Capharnaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Ghospell Where the promise is shewed to be made at Capharnaum and the perfoormance at the last â—…upper In which supper neither the body which the Iew s saw was deliuered and much lesse bread or wine which was not promised but vnder the forme of bread wine that flesh and blood was deliuered which at 〈◊〉 was promised Iuel Thus the holy Fathers say Christ is present not corporally San. Both S. â—…yril and S. Hilarie haue the word corporally as I haue shewed concerning the Sacrament Iuel Not carnally San. S. Hilarie hath the word carnally in the 23. chapit the number 37. of this booke Iuel Not naturally San. S. Hilarie hath the term naturally diuerse times S. Lyrill calleth it naturall partaking and naturall vnion Iuel But as in a Sacrament by his spirite and by his grace Saâ—… Here appereth what stuff you haue fed the reader with all in your whole booke For partly you deny a truthe which is that Christ is not corporally present and that you doe against the expresse word of God and the Fathers as I haue shewed partly you proue that your heresy by an other truthe which rather stablisheth then hindereth the real presence For Christ can not be better present in spirit and grace theÌ„ if he be present in his flesh therein to conuerte to vs his spirit and grace for the cause of his taking flesh was to make his flesh an instrument to deliuer his spirit and grace to our flesh to thend no meane of prouiding for our saluation might be omitted by so louing a Father In consideration whereof S. Ambrose saith Thou that takest his flesh art made partaker of his diuine substance in that food Note that the spirit substance of God cometh to vs by taking Christes flesh ¶ The Conclusion COnsider first good Reader that of moe then twenty articles there is but one answered yâ— not the longest wherein if aboue two 〈◊〉 faultes and vntrutâ—…es without curiouse searching be 〈◊〉 what may a man thinke of the wholâ—… booke of M. Iuell how many hundred yea 〈◊〉 thousand vntruthes may you think to be conteined therein who when he proueth his matter bâ—…t and least of all abuseth himselfe his proufe is none other then to say one thing is not true because another is true Thus he teacâ—…th Christ to be eaten by faith and spirite and thinketh that thereof he may conclude Christ is not eaten in the sacrament by moâ—…th Christ is corporally in heauen therefore his bodie is not vnder the forme of bread The Sacrament is a figure therefore by his iudgemeÌ„t it is not the truth As well he might say a man hath a soule and therefore no bodie or Christ is man and therefore not God In Disputinge of the holie scriptures he neuer answereth to these words which is geuen for you beyng the most principall poynt of D. Hardings answere he neuer considereth the promise made by Christ in yâ— tyme to come Dabo I wil geue but talketh of it as if it were past and present He hath Englished non habebitis vitam Ye shall haue no life He expoundeth that we are
flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones by his natiuitie whereas thereby Christ is of vs because he toke our nature rather then we of him except by faith we begin to depeâ—…d of him Moreouer he thereby makethe Christe the vine and vs the branches after which râ—…te 〈◊〉 Iudas are braunches of the true vine which is Christe For Christes natiuitie perteineth to their nature also He tâ—…neth out of Priâ—…asius in stede of the breade whiche we breake the breaking of the bread attributing that to the actioÌ„ of breakinge which S Paule did attribute to the substaunce of the bread which we breake He bryngeth late writers to buyld his doctrine vppon their words such as he hath refused to admyt agaynst himselfe as S. Bernard Scotus Nicolaus de Lyra BonaueÌ„ture D. Fisher B. Tunstall D. Smith and the gloses of the Cannon lawe and yet he leaâ—…eth so to their authoritie that in the matter of churche â—…eruice he hathe no higher doctors to proue that in the primitiue church yâ— praiers were in a knoweÌ„ tonge besyde S Thomas and Lyra whose resolution notwithstanding he wil not followe therein He setteth all diuinitie vppon phrases of speache thinking he hath aunswered sufficiently if he can shewe a speach any thing like vsed in an vnlike matter by yâ— which order he may disproue the diuine nature of Christ because men are also called Gods c. And the vnitie of substance in the Trinitie because the faithfull are called one as Christ and his Father are one He may defend yâ— word to be none otherwise made flesh then he graunteth bread to be made Christes bodie And yâ— water at Cana of Galile none otherwise to be made wine then he graunteth the wine of Christes supper to be made blood To be short he hath begunne the high way to set all the mysteries of Christ only vppon phrases And consequently to bring the most helthfull knowledge of diuine matters to a talke and maner of speach But in handling his phrases he neuer maketh any discourse out of yâ— Scriptures to shew like reason betwene diuerse places by him selfe alleged but as children in grammar scholes picke Latin phrases out of Plautus Terence or Salust not being able to iudge how yâ— one phrase differreth from the other so hath he most ignorantly done in the Scriptures and in the Fathers He compareth the Eucharist to Baptisme both for like presence of Christ in both and for like adoration of both and would haue most things like betwene them Whereas though in somewhat they agree yet in most things they diâ—…fer excedig much as I haue declared He allegeth phrases coÌ„cerning the holy Chrism and yet he beleueth not the phrase which himself bringeth He missexpoundeth yâ— sayings of the Fathers interpreting spirituall flesh whereof S. Hierom intreateth to be so named because it is the flesh of the Sonne of God thereby denying if that interpretation be true the flesh of Christ as it was crucified to be the flesh of God For it is sayd of S. Hierom to differ after that maner from the spirituall flesh He taketh yâ— word flesh in Leo and the word bodie in S. Augustine and the same word bodie in Gregorie Nyssen for Christes naturall flesh and naturall bodie which were spoken of his mysticall flesh and his body the Church He missenglisheth many words Atteri at one tyme to be grinded at another to be touched Which is properly neither of both Accedere he calleth to reache And in the same senteÌ„ce he turneth hoc corpus yâ— body because he wold haue it thought absent whereas it ought to be englished this body which pronoune this doth declare that S. Chrysostom spake of the body which was present vppon the altar Valet he turneth this is the vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature whereas it is of one planting or perteyning to one nature De meo est it is of my body SecunduÌ„ quendam modum after a certain phrase and maner of speach He repor teth of S. Hilarie who sayd sub mysterio as if he had sayd in a mysterie Whereas it is to be englished vnder a mistery but that sub vnder greaueth him to the hart because it betokeneth the presence of Christ so real that it is vnder the mysterie which we take into our hands and mouthes at the holy communion He slaundereth vs in saying we expound est for erit and erit for transubstantiabitur and datur for dabitur benedixit for he blessed it away in place of it he putteth another substance For we teach the chaunging and not the putting away of a substaÌ„ce He burdeneth D. Harding with contradiction which is none With Eutiches heresie which heresie is directly against yâ— which D. Harding defendeth He sayth D. Harding will haue children condemned who receaue not the Sacrament which he neuer meant nor sayd He calleth for Doctors before the time and place and when they are come he heapeth them altogether and disputeth coÌ„fusely of their sayings so that any man may perceaue his euill conscience vaine bragging For where the points are most easy there the staieth longest where they are moâ—…t hard there he iuggleth and runneth in and out hoping to cast a myste before the Readers eyes He denieth adverbs taken of nounes to signifie the substance of any thing which is a childish ignorance as likewise in the words of Gregorie Nyssen to beginne the construction with corpus and to make humana natura to followe the verbe est whereas he should haue done the contrarie in his construction though the words there be placed out of order He addeth words of his owne betwene the Doctors words not only such as may expound things otherwise hard but euen such as weigh downe the question betwene vs and him which thing is so common with him that almost no longe senteÌ„ce escapeth a parenthesis of his owne patchinge in He missapplieth things attributing that to the Sacramentall eating which S. Augustine spake to an vnfaithfull Iew. not regarding how he mingleth vnlike things that which Cyrillus spake against the heresie of Nestorius concerning that we eate the flesh of no bare man but of God he reporteth as if it had bene a Catholike doctrine taught without disputation and as if the sense were we eate not by mouth at al the flesh of Christ. And that which S. Augustine speaketh either of the figures of the old law or generally of all signes he maketh serue against the holy mysteries of Christes supper which do farre excede other sigâ—…es figures It were to much to reckoÌ„ vp how oft he erreth in this behals yet this may not be omitted yâ—
Two natures in one perâ—…on of Christ. Ioan. 3. Christ him self be names of his person Ioan. 14. Math. 28 S. Germanus in rer Ecc. Theoria Math. 26 Math. 8. Cyrillus in 11. AnathematismuÌ„ Christ vsed the names of his humane nature in his supper It is real flesh and blood which saueth vs. Ioan. 6. Rom. 4. Ephe. 5. Lucae 24. Ioan. 6. We ought to beleue as yâ— word of God speaketh The. xx Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Why 〈◊〉 Sacramentaries make the 〈◊〉 of Christ a cold supper Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Hebr. 5. The. xxi Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Math. 26 Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10 Hom. 24 in Math. 83 Cyrillus in loan li. 12. c. 〈◊〉 Ioan. 20. Colos. 2. Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉 li. 5. The. 〈◊〉 Chapiter The 〈◊〉 logie The aunswere Math. 26 Marc. 14. Ioan. 6. Psal. 21. The. xxiii Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere A gift is of a thing present That is not know 〈◊〉 â—…hich 〈◊〉 not true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with flesh can not be made by 〈◊〉 only The. 〈◊〉 Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere 1. Cor. 14 The contrâ—…tie of the Apo logie Rom. 1. Ioan. 6. Ephes. 5. Tit. 3. Math. 26 Chry so de Dei natura Hom. 4. Lucae 17. Chryso Hom. de Eucharistia The. xxv Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere The argu ment of yâ— Apologie Cyrilluâ—… in Epist. ad Calosyr * 1. * 2. * 3. Nestorius his hearesie In. 11. Anathematismo Ad Successum Episcop Isauriae Cyrillus â–ª in Anathem 11. ad Enoptium The Eucharist is called bles sing Cyrillus natura di uinitatis minime comeditur * 4 The. â—…grosse 〈◊〉 gination * 5. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. c. 22. 〈◊〉 6. August in Psal. 98. * 7. Ioan. 6. * 8. * 9. â—… Ioan. 2. * 10 â–ª Why the formes of bread and wine remain The. xxvi Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere The wordes of the first Nicene Con cell * 1 Some vertue lyeth priuie vnder the formes of bread and wine * 2 How long a Sacrament may be so called Ioan. 3. Marc. 16. The wordes of the supper diâ—… work soâ—… permaneÌ„â—… thing * 〈◊〉 What lifeing vp of the mind is * 4. Ioan. 1. * 5. The meaning of the Nicen Councell * 6. The sacrifice of yâ— Masse Malach. 1 câ—…p * 7. * 8. True body Trne taking * 9. * 10. The tokens of our redemption Bread wine be not 〈◊〉 of our redemption Why Chri stes body is the tokeÌ„ of our redemption Chrysos Hom. 83 in Math. The some of all that was sayd How much of this testimonie the Apologâ—… left out The. 〈◊〉 Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryso in â—… cor Hom. 24 * 1 The carcase * 2 Like Egles The propriâ—…es of the Egle. This is the table oâ—… Egles The quic â—…ight of Egles is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August in lib. de diumat DaemonuÌ„ An Egle seeth one thing vnder an other The heretâ—…s are Iayes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sight of â—…tiks Chryso Hom. 24 in 1. cor Heauen Lucae 10. 12. c Lucae 10. 1. Tim. 3. The. 28. Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere That the substance of bread râ—… mameth not in Christes supper Two kinds of feeding 1. Cor. 6. Ioan. 6. The body of Christ is not the meate of yâ— belly The errour of yâ— Apologie Ioan. 6. Cyrillus lib. 4. in IoaÌ„ c. 14. Tertull. de resur carnis The kind of bread whereof S. Cyprian spea keth Cypria de coena Domini Cypria de coena Domini The. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apo logie The â—…sivere August tract 50. in Ioan. The argâ—… ment of the Apologie August tract 50. in Ioan. Infidels were kept from Masse ReceauiÌ„g by faith Act. 10. SacrameÌ„ tall receaning Iustinus in Apol. 2. Why infiâ—… might not come to Masse Math. 26 Gen. 14. Leuiti 2. Prou. 9. Psal. 22. Math. 14 Marci 7. Ioan. 6. Two things are to be proued in this booke August de vtil creden ad Hon. cap. 2. 1. Cor. 2. Of the 〈◊〉 Councell The wise dome of the whole Churche The iudges of reli gioÌ„ in our tyme. â–ª Genes 3. The first Chapiter Christ may be receaued thre ways Christ speaketh not in S. Ihon of vnworthy eating Worthy SacrameÌ„tal eating is spo ken of to ward the end of yâ— Chapiter Ioan. 6. The miracle of multiplying bread was a pre paratorie to the talk of Chrystes supper Chryso in ca. 6. Ioan. Ho mi. 45. Math. 14. The gift of Christ which is to come is meant of his supper 〈◊〉 Christ doth expound the spirituall eating before the Sacrametall â—…ating Ioan. 6. Spiritual â—…ating was present Sacramental eating was to come The secoÌ„d Chapiter 1. The tyme of Easter 1. The miracle made â—…n bread 3. The Pro pheticall promise 4 â–ª The conference of things done and sayd 5. The present eating of Gods gift 6. The eating of Christes gift to come Ioan. 6. Math. 26 Marc. 14. 1. Bread taken 2. Blessing 3. Thanksgeuing 4. Eating 5. From bread to flesh Math 26 6. The soÌ„ne of man is the geuer 7. Meare is geuen â–ª Mar. â—…4 Mat. 26. 8. That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ toke first 〈◊〉 6. 9. Flesh and body is geuen Ioan. 6. 10. No common bread is geuen Ioan. 6. 11. The flesh that died is geuen 12. The gift is eaten in deed Ioan. 6. 13. The blood is drunkeÌ„ Ioan. 6. 14. No wine was â—…run ken Ioan. 6. 15. The. xij only taried 〈◊〉 both places 16. The. xij protested in bothe places not to â—…orsake Christ. Ioan. 6. 17. Iudas was reproued in both places Ioan. 13. The third Chapiter Ignatius â—… epist. ad Roman Clemens AlexaÌ„d De Paeda gogo li. 1. ca. 6. Ioan. 6. Origen Hom. 7. sup num Ioan. 6. Cypria in oratio nem Do mini Athanasius in Synopsi no. testa lib. 4. Ioan. 6. Hilarius libr. 8. de Trinit Ioan. 6. Basilius de bapt li. 1. ca. 3. Ioan. 6. Gregorius Nys senus in vita Moy sis Ioan. 6. Cyrillus Catech. mystagogi 4. Ambros. de Sacra men li. 6 cap. 1. Euseb. Emissen Hom. 5. â—… Paâ—…cha Chryso Hom. 44 in Ioan. August in Ioan. cap. 6. tract 26. There is a dubble spiritual eating of Christ. August â–ª in Ioan. cap. 6. As the greatest signe there of so the highest 〈◊〉 is in this Sa crament August de â—…uit Dei li. 27 cap. 5. Ioan. 6. August Epist. 95 August de conse Euange li. 3. ca. 1. de ciuit li. 17. c 5. de verb. Apostol Serm. 2. de pecca â–ª mer. li. 1. ca. 20. 24. in Psal. 33. 98. coÌ„ tra CrescoÌ„ GraÌ„ li. 1. c. 25. de verb. Do. Ser. 11. 46. q. iÌ„ Leui. ca. 57. Hieron in 1. ca. Epist. ad Ephes. Ioan. 6. Cyrillus Alexandrinus li. 4. c. 14. 16. Cyrillus in 〈◊〉 li. 4. ca. 15. Sedulius in 1. Cor. 10. Leo in serm 6. de Ieiun mens 7. Theodo ritus in Dâ—…alo â–ª 1.
per vnproper meaning The rela tiue must repete hiâ—… whole 〈◊〉 By the Sacramentarie doctrine bread is sacrificed for vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but one verb in the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 The aunswer To signifie and to be a signe â—…o all one Significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Reg. 18 Leuit. 15 Exod. 12 Gen. 14. Cypria lib 2. Epist. 3. The 〈◊〉 were com 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 sacrifice Psal. 39. Heb. 10. The body oâ—…red was at Christes â—…ble ThisthiÌ„g is more then such an other thing Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. Iustin. iâ—… Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 27. Hoc est 1. Cor. 11 A thing is the remeÌ„braunce of it self Exo. 16. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. Marc. 14 De eccl Hierar cap. 3. In Ioan. li. 4. c. 14 why althe Apostles dranke of one cup. Theaâ—…use 〈◊〉 the English ministers Ignat. in epist. ad Phi. Matt. 10. Iudas drank The graÌ„maticall sense of Christes words Est 〈◊〉 not stand for significat Heretiks build with out a foun dation Hieron in Amos proh c. 4 Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of hoâ—… scriptuâ—…e The literall sense â—…s the fon dâ—…tion Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea A testament Hebr. 9. Gene. 31 Galat. 4. Ierem. 31 Hebr. 9. Exo. 24. Three things in a solemne TestameÌ„t Ierem. 31 Hebr. 8. Math. 26 Ierem. 31 Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. Li. 4. coÌ„t Marci Sedulius in 1. Co. 11. The chalice beareth witnesse 1. 〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. coÌ„ Marci 3. in Lucae 22. The same blood which con firmeth doth also witnesse y◠〈◊〉 Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 13. The blood is not meant the figure of blood Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9. Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Why the cup is named Exod. 24 Chryso Hom. 27 in 1. Co. Oecum in 1. Co. cap. 11. Christes blood real ly in the chalice The verb substaÌ„tiue left out The verb significat can not be vnderstan ded The verb est must nedes be supplied The necessitie of the verb est in Christes words Math. 5. Qui calix The which cup In Amos cap. 4. A demonstratioÌ„ out of Gods worde Hebr. 9. Euthy in c. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. An hymne said only at Christes supper Ioan. 12. The x. Chapiter Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 The places which are to be conferâ—…ed Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 This. Thebreâ—…d promised is not mâ—… teriall bread This is 〈◊〉 by yâ— other places The verb 〈◊〉 What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉 The communicatig Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Body Matt. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Lucae 1. Ioan. 1. Exod. 17 Num. 20 Acto 17. Collos. 1. Marc. 14 16. Lucae 24. Rom. 8. Actor 1. 2. Lâ—… 22. The presence of Christes bâ—…dy is not impossible The sitting of 〈◊〉 in heauen 〈◊〉 a hâ—…p to his 〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉 Chryso de sacer lib. 3. Christes supper pas seth all woÌ„dering The places belonging to Christes supper The 〈◊〉 Chapiter All foode 〈◊〉 in Hebrew called bread Vide Pagninum in verbo Laham Deut. 8. Cath. 4. Math. 6. Luc. 11. Exod. 7. Gen. 1. 3. Marc. 16. That 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 bâ—…ad wâ—…ch 〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉 â—…et semâ—…th brâ—…ad Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom. Iustinus in Apol. 2. First Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water 2. Consecration 3. Food 4. Flesh and blood Libro 2. Epist. 3. â—…d Cecil 2. Ireneus â—… 4. ca. 34 Ambrosius de Sacram. li. 5. ca. 4. Hieron in Math. cap. 6. Nyssen in vita Moysis Tract 26 in Ioan. In Leuit. c. 22. l. 6. In operâ—… Paschal Thebrâ—… geuen to Iudas was betrâ—…â—…ed for vs. Math. 6. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 The xii Chapiter Euseb. Emissen Hom. 2. de Pasch. Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Ionae 2. Math. 12. 1. Co. 10. Luc. 24. Gen. 4. De mira bil sacrae scriptur cap. 3. Hier. in quaest He br in ge Didym in epist. Ioan. 1. Ezech. cap. 24. Math. 26 Ioan. 18. Aug. ad quaest Orosij 4. 9 Prosper de promissis prae dict Deâ—… He. 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉 to God his owne body in his owne haÌ„ds he wold do Abel by sleying his Lâ—…bs shewed himself to haue desired an other sacrifice Marc. 14 Gen. 4. Aug de Trm. l. 3. Aug. in Psal. 39. The Sacramenta ries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of â—…ain Cain did beare a sigure of yâ— English coÌ„munion Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14. Luc. 22. Gen. 14. Clemens AlexaÌ„d StroÌ„ l. 4. Christ â—…as seth Melchisedech by turning the bread which he brought forth into his owne body Cypria ad Caecil li. 2. ep 3. Euthy in panoplia Christ hath set his owne true substence vnder those formes of brend and wine which Melchise dech vsed Exod. 12 Gregor Nazian in Pasch. orat 4. Leo de pass domin se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 12. Luc. 22. Gregor Paschal Hom. 22 â—… mysterie conteineth the truth but it conteineth it after a secret manner Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. See how yâ— words of Moses and of Christ agree Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Psal. 77 Mala. 2. Luc. 22. Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread whiche Christ ge ueth is both a signe and a truth Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron aduersus Iouin l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is vnder 〈◊〉 ry peece of the forme of bread The figure of MaÌ„na is not fulfilled except the reall fleshe of Christ be geuen vnder yâ— form of bread 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to yâ— sacrament 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ equally Sap. 16. The figure of 〈◊〉 old Testa ment Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉 of couenaÌ„t Heb. 9. Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉 geueÌ„ in the chalice as the 〈◊〉 was geueÌ„ in 〈◊〉 Gen. 49. Philip. 2. The prophecie of Iob applied to Christ. Iob 31. Hieron in hunc locum Greg. in Iob li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26. Chrys. hom 45. in Ioan. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. Loue desyreth as great a ioyning vnion as may be had Ioan. 6. Chrys. hom 83. in Matth. 45. in IoaÌ„nem Psal. 22. Prophecies takeÌ„ out of the Psalmes and prouerbs of SalomoÌ„ Prou. 9. What supper wisedoÌ„ prepared Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3. The supper of Christ is set vpon the table Christ hath but one table Aug. in IoaÌ„ tractatu 50. The Sacramentaries assigne two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 21. An other prophecie taken 〈◊〉 Dauid Only Christiâ—… adore that they eate because they only eate the flesh of God Bread not 〈◊〉 our Lords table Augu. in
psal 98. Coloss. 2 Gen. 9. Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caecilium Gen. 18. Gen. 27. Gen. 49. Exo. 22. Leuit. 2. Iustin. in Triph. Leui. 24. Leui. 21. 1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciuâ—… Dei li. 17. c. 5. Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secuÌ„d 70 Aug. in Psal. 33. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22. Psal 110. 3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19 Esaiae 62 Hieron ibidem Iere. 11. Zach. 9. Mala. 1. Psal. 77. Ioan. 6. Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8. Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eiuitate Dei li. 17 c. 20. The best thing vnder yâ— Soâ—… may be eaten and drunken Origin tractatu â—…o in c. Math. 22 The custom of scriptures in coÌ„mending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body blood of Christ should be geuen vnder their formes Eph. 5. Ioan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacrament of yâ— altar Eccles. 3. 5. 8. Luc. 22. The xiâ—… Chapiter Facere Hoc facere The supper had both doing making Creare Facere Cont. Marc. l. 4 Facere ex aliquo Facere de aliquo De Sacâ—… li. 4. c. 4. Basilius hom 1. in hexame specular Agere Facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. The pricst hod of the new testament Aâ—… sauing yâ— body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing Ioan. 13. Psal. 110. A memorie is made Can. 32. â—…acobus in liturgia Clemens li. 〈◊〉 constâ—…ut Apoâ—…ol Cyrillus in Caâ—…a myst 5. Dionys. de eccle hierar cap. 3. The most 〈◊〉 things be made â—…ustin in Apol. 2. Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉 l. 5 The 〈◊〉 is made 〈◊〉 aduersus Marcionem li. 4. To 〈◊〉 bread his body Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉 myst c â—… The body is made We make Christes â—…ody because he said make this thing Hoc 〈◊〉 in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. â—… The priest maketh yâ— holy oblation Chry. de sacerdotio li. 3. Chrys. hom de prodit Iudae Man maketh not Christes body by his own vertue Aug. coÌ„tra Faust. Man lib. 20. ca. 3. Ourbread is made vnto vs mysticall Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca. 14. Psal. 113. 134. Ge. ca. 1. Psal. 32. God was made maÌ„ Christ ma keth bread his 〈◊〉 body Gen. 1. Euthy in ca 26. Matt. Make this mysterie Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11 Make yâ— whiche I haue made Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract ad eos qui haesi Aâ—… authority of ma king Chri stes body â—…ometh froÌ„ these wordes make thâ—… thing Ioan. 1. Barâ—… 3. Basil ho. 1. in Hex The 〈◊〉 Chapiter An obâ—…tion The aâ—…swere The wordes of Christ were not wet Englished by the Prote 〈◊〉 What the remembraÌ„ce is whereof Christ spaâ—…e 1. Cor. 11 The remeÌ„ brance of Christ is the shewing of his death by fact Ambros. in ca. 11. 1 ad Cor. Christes body and blood made vnder diuerse kinds doth shew and make vs remember his death The reall body with the signes of breakig is the remeÌ„brance yâ— Christ spake of The presence of yâ— benefactour is yâ— best meane to make his good dede 〈◊〉 bred The presence of a man hyndreth not his 〈◊〉 A perfect remeÌ„braÌ„ce requireth yâ— real presence of yâ— thing remembred A thing may be pre seÌ„t though it be not seen The faith of Christ his body is as much to vs as the sight of it The new preachers What kiÌ„d of fruitful remeÌ„bran ce the belief of Christes bodily pre sence did worke Basil. de baptis li. 1. cap. 3. How Christ is remeÌ„bred in eating bread in drinking wine The tuÌ„bs of the Egyptians The body of a faithful man is the tumâ—… of Christ. The monument of Christ. What remeÌ„brance is made of Christ at the masse tyme. Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100 Two 〈◊〉 des of sepulchers Caenota phium Christes remeÌ„braÌ„ce is no void monumeÌ„t The body is yâ— tumbe of yâ— soule Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24 Epipha in Ancorato Psal. 115. Heb. 11. Abdias historiae Apostol li. 5. 1. Co. 15. Math. 3. The body of Christ is the best mean to re member his death The inteÌ„t of Christ is furthered by taking the words 〈◊〉 Origen Hom. 13. in Leuit. A propitiatorie re meÌ„brance Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Euidenter osten ditur Mark the difference betwene a figurauue signifying an euident shewing If we had not Christes body present yâ— old shadowes wold shew 〈◊〉 is death better then bread and wine Concil NicenuÌ„ secuÌ„dum In vnblo dy sacrifice in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of Christ. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Fol. 102. M. Nowels words The aunswere to M. Nowell What traÌ„substaÌ„tiation meaneth 〈◊〉 real substaÌ„ces be requisite to a transubâ—… Two grounds of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ Breade is not â—…ited to Christ. Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—…s body Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Cyp ep 3. lib. 2. The true vine is no particular substance distincted froÌ„ Christ How Christ iâ—… the true vine Ioan. 2. In these words eyther christ is changed or nothing Câ—…rist coÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mala. 3. The bred is 〈◊〉 to change M. Nowels 〈◊〉 assertion Eche part of M. N. propositioÌ„ is against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eche part in this pro position beareth a transubstaÌ„ tiation The obietion The aunswere The signi fication of the verbe Sum es fui how sâ—…nne is said to be God is most properly Exo. 3. Particular â—…ces haue their being next vnto God Ioan 1. Ioan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉 1. Maâ—… 16. Matt. 21. Why the verbe Sum â—…th not â—…gnifie Christ to bâ—… the substanâ—…e of a 〈◊〉 It is against reason to take away Christes subâ—… by words which signifie a vertue thereof Ioan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11. Two sub stances be neither na med nor meant in This is my body This can not be referred to bread or wine The body of Christ is not com moÌ„ bread The consequent whereby â—…substan station is gathered Euery â—…ord of y◠〈◊〉 â—…ropo â—…tions is against 〈◊〉 Noâ—… That is grated for argumeÌ„ts sake which is not true The more semely traÌ„ substantia tion wold be the â—…ter proued The both not shew a thing present 1. Co. 10. Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉 to the â—…posties Proufe He proueth best who sheweth the thing moste really present Bread was turned into Christes body whiles he liued In orat Catech. Li. 4. ca. 14. in Ioan 6. in Math. 26 Noman euer tokâ—… any vine or 〈◊〉 to be Christ. TransubstaÌ„tiation 〈◊〉 TransubstaÌ„tiation decreed taught In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca. 34. 3. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc. 4. de caen Dom. 5 de ijs qui init cap. 9. 6. hom 60. ad P. Antio The faith 〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught 1. Co. 15. M. Nowell Act. 15. Galat. 1. Ioan. 21. Chryso ibidem These words be
signes Bare signes 1. Cor. 11 Hilarius liâ—… 8. de Trinit Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 3. cap. 29. Ioan. 6. Lib. 9. de Trinit The signes of the SacrameÌ„taries are more bare then yâ— old shadowes Gen. 14. Gal. 3. Gen. 4. The 〈◊〉 of the Catholiks not bare The 〈◊〉 vntruth 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 The xvi 〈◊〉 1. Cor. hom 24. Chrys. 1. Cor. hom 24. In Ioan. tract 50. The xvij 〈◊〉 Matt. 28. Matt. 26. Bread iâ—… not the figure of Christ. The xviij vntruth Lib. 8. de Trinit The xix vntruth The doctrine of S Bernard De coena Domini The grace The 〈◊〉 M. Iuel tâ—…keth yâ— bread doth put vs in possession of grace The third Chapiter § 11. Heb. 1. Ioan. 10. Matt. 17. § xj Matt. 28. Matt 26. The xx vntruth Matt. 26. Ephes. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioan. 13. Cypria serm 5. de lapsis De lapâ—…s â—…erm 5. Hom. 82 83. in Matt. 24. in 1. ad Cor. 60. ad pop Ant. Leo. de ieiunio 7. mens serm 6. Cyrill li. 10. ca. 13. § Xij. The xxi vntruth 1. 2. 3. Colos. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tâ—…e 23. â—…truth § 13. The 24. 〈◊〉 The 25. vntruth The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The 〈◊〉 diuision § 1. The 26. vntruth The 27. vntruth The 28. vntruth Ioan. 6. Ioan. 4. Dabo I will â—…ue The xxix vntruth The xxx vntruth Lib. 10. cap. 13. The xxxi vntruth Cyril li. 10. cap. 13 In Psal. 118. Ambr. de Sacra li. 〈◊〉 cap. 4. The 〈◊〉 vntruth Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 â–ª The 33. vntruth De ciuit li. 2. c. 20. 〈◊〉 De ciuit lib. 21. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 â–ª Cor. 10 Lib. 21. ca. 20. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body The 34. 〈◊〉 The contrâ—…y oâ—… 〈◊〉 Iuel The 35. vntruth De vtil pen. ca. 〈◊〉 â–ª Spiritual â–ª left out by M. Iuel 1. Cor. 10 â–ª SpiritaleÌ„ Wordes falsely put in by M. Iuel 〈◊〉 euit 2. Exod. 29 Num. 15. Tract 26 in Ioan. Our â—…ly meate differeth â—…rom the mâ—…at of yâ— old Fathers Tract 〈◊〉 in Ioan. Exod. 16 Iesus is eateÌ„ bodily of vs after Baptism Exod. 16 Apud Be dam 1. Cor. 10. 〈◊〉 De ciuit l. 21. c. 25 Expressed The v. Chapiter The 3. diuision The 36. vntruthe Tract 27 in Ioan. § iij. The 37. vntruthe The 38. vntruthe In Ps. 98 〈◊〉 traÌ„ 〈◊〉 The 39. vntruthe A false reasoning De resur rect car § 4. The 40. vntruthe Ioan. 6. Psal. 21. In Ioan. Hom. 47 The 41. 〈◊〉 De doct Christ. li. 3. ca 16 The 4â—… 〈◊〉 The 4â—… vntruthe in translating 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. The 44. vntruthe § 5. The 45. vntruthe § 6. De resur rect car The 46. vntruthe Tract 26 in Ioan â–ª Cypria De resur rect car The 47. vntruthe in Ps. 110 M. Iuel is a gloser M. Iuel belyeth Nicolas of Lyra. Lyra in Psal. 110. Ioan. 6. The vi Chapiter § 7. of the iij. diuision The 48. vntruth Ioan. 6. M. Iuel is cast by his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The performance doth expound the promise Matt. 3. Matt. 26. Tertul. l. 4. cont Marcioâ—…em This is ExhibeÌ„tiâ—… Ioan. 6. Matt. 2â—… This is â–ª Origen in canti The 49 â–ª vntruth The 50. 〈◊〉 De orth fi lib. 4. cap. 14. The 51. vntruth Lib. 1. cap. 31. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Faise â—…slation 9. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 False 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 August tract in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 case left out 1. Cor. 10 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christes 〈◊〉 Ioan. 6. The 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament Fine wor des left out Other words left out Note The viâ—… Chapiter The 4. diuision The 55. vntruthe The 56. 〈◊〉 Ioan. 6. Aug. in Ioaâ—…n tract 28. The 57. 〈◊〉 Math. 26 § 〈◊〉 in 1. Co. Hom 24 The 58. 59. 60. vntruthe Hieron ad Hedi quaest 2. Words falsely added Dama sc. li. 4. c. 14 Hom. 38 in Math. That â—…sely added by M. Iuel Other words of importaÌ„ce left out Christ gaue the true broad Conuina coâ—… uium The 61. vntruthe Nestor Cyril ad Enopt Anathe 11. Homo in S. Cyrill doth signi fie a man that is not God Ibidem The nature of the Godhead is not â—…ateÌ„ Note Bare maÌ„ bare bread Cyril ad Theod. de recta fide per totuÌ„ lib. Ad Theod de rect fid coll 278. De rect â—…id ad re ginas Deipara Colum. 279. vbi supra The 61. vntruthe A vile custom of M. Iuel The 63. vntruthe The 64. vntruthe The 65. vntruthe Ioan. 5. Math. 26 The viij Chapiter The v. diuision The 66. vntruthâ—… § ij The 67. vntruthe Colos. 2. Doutfull The 68. vntruthe The 69. vntruthe The 70. vntruthe Chryso Hom. 60 ad pop Antioc Nysse in orat Ca thec Hoc The 71. vntruthe The 〈◊〉 vnt 〈◊〉 The 73. vntruthe Doutful The 74. 〈◊〉 1. Co. 10. The 75 â–ª vntruthe Blessing The 76. vntruthe The 77. vntruthe Here beginne the false figures of yâ— SacrameÌ„ taries Hoc this In the 2. come of yâ— homilies the leafe 213. Est. is 1. Co. 10. Luc. 22. In the words of the 〈◊〉 Corpus Body Quod. which Datur is geuen Facite doe and make Hoc this thing In 〈◊〉 for the reâ—… Hic this In my blood Exo. 24. 23. blessing 24. thanksgeuâ—…g 25. Bread wors theÌ„ Manna 26. 1. Cor. 1â—… 27. A Sacrifice 1. Cor. 10 28. The shewing of Christeâ—… death 29. 〈◊〉 â—…ting 30. Union Ephes. 〈◊〉 31. Heb. 1 The name of body blood 32. The promise made to body blood 33. Psal. 21. 34. Psal. 9. Zach. 13. 35. 36. 37. Heb. 1. 38. â—…oan 6. 39. Ioan. 6. 40. Psal. 77. 〈◊〉 Psal. 110. Origen hom 7. in Leuit. The ix Chapiter § iij. Epi. 23. The 78. vntruth â—…mmola ri populis id est â—…d vtiliâ—…atem po pulorum The thiÌ„g The Sacrament The likenes of both thigs The incâ—… nation Iustin. in Apol. 2. Damasâ—… li. 4. c. 14. Mala. 2. The passion Amb. in 1. Cor. 11 Euseb. Emis 5. Pascha The name geuen to the Sacra ment Ephes. Capi. 1. Two consyderatioÌ„s of one flesh One only chefe bo dy â—…lation Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 10 11. Epist. 23. Moduâ—… Est corpus Chri sti 〈◊〉 foloweth 〈◊〉 thing False traÌ„slation Ioan. 10. Heb. 1. 1. Cor. 10 Ioan. 15 Epist. 23. Habitus fidei The x. Chapiter § iiij The 79. vntruth Aduerbium Aug. de grámat lib. 1. Dan. 2. Matt. 27. â—…uerbs taken oâ—… nounes Cyril ad Theod. de rect fide ambulabat mirè vt Deus Lib. 10. cap. 13. M. Iuell excludeth yâ— significâ—… tion of sub stance froÌ„ aduerbs qualities can not be ordinarily without substance SubstaÌ„câ—… may be without qualities Lib. 8. de Trinit Naturaliter is resolued by S. Hilary 〈◊〉 selfe The 80. â—…ntruth The 81. vntruth The 8â—… vntruth The 6. 〈◊〉 § 2. The 83. vntruth The 84. vntruth De consecra dis 2. ca. ego Bereng The 85. vntruth The 86. 〈◊〉 The 87. vntruth The 88. vntruth In Ioan. hom 45. The 89.
written This is 〈◊〉 figure of my bodie Secundarily thei can bring no Church where the bodie of Christ was not confessed worshipped and 〈◊〉 Thirdly they haue no generall 〈◊〉 where it was euer said that the wordes of Christ are 〈◊〉 and worke not his bodie present Thereunto they will straight take exception affirming that all yâ— first six huÌ„dred yeres cooke the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue and nedes they must say so muche for 〈◊〉 they should saie nothyng at all But what 〈◊〉 we to that saying of theirs Uerily we 〈◊〉 that it is a mayn lye an impudent assertion a fond imagination as the which hath no ground at all in the first six hundred yeres Which thing although yt may be proued many wayes yet in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is most inuincibly declared by three 〈◊〉 The former is in so muche as diuers holy Fathers 〈◊〉 vs most instantly to beleue the wordes wherin Christ said This ys my body and This ys my bloode although they seme to be agaynst naturall reason and sense and yet no wise man wil requier vs to beleue figuratiue wordes The second is because the same Fathers teach expresly the adoration of that 〈◊〉 and blood of Christe which is in the holy mysteries which 〈◊〉 on the altar and table which is taken into the handes mouthes and bodies of Christian men The third reason is because the holie Fathers teach that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthy recenuing of the blessed Sacrament of his supper All these thinges shal be declared God willing in their places We haue therefore iust cause not to graunt our aduersaries the first six hundred yeres And although we had not so iust cause to shewe the first six houdred to stand so playnlie for vs yet how ys yt possible that they or any man aliue can be sure of the opinion of that age The scriptures that should teache them what thei owght to â—…ue sounde an other waie â–ª The practise of the Churche which hath deriued to vs their custome and vse doth informe vs of a contrary meaning By what meanes then come oure aduersaries to assure them selues of the first six hundred yeres It is cleâ—…ely impossible that any man should haue any sufficient ground whereby to know that the first six hundred yeres were of the 〈◊〉 or Sacramentarie iudgement For the wrytinges of the Fathers whiche only they pretend cannot informe them of any suche their minde for so muche as none of them all writeth so fauorably for them that he hathe gone aboute once to proue that the bodie of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth or hath warned the people to beware of idolatrie or hath vsed suche words in that behalfe as the Sacramentaries of oure tyme do vse And yet suerlie a lyke fayth wolde hauâ—… browght foorthe a lyke doctrine Now where they call the Sacrament a figure and holie signe that doth not withstand the reall presence any whit but rather proueth it to him who considereth the signe we speake of not to be a signe made by men whose tokens do signifie thâ—… truth absent but institued by Christ who maketh reall truth in euerie Sacrament vnder a holy signe therof To be shorte there is nothinge to be sene or readen in the auncient Fathers concerninge the matter of the Sacrament but the same hath bene alwayes acknowleged of the Catholikes for good and sound doctrine euen continually all thies nine hundred yeres when if they had thought otherwise they might withowt reprouffe of any man before BereÌ„garius or after his tyme haue condemned what booke they lysted But no Papist were he neuer so muche addicted to the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament did find fault with any Catholike Father of the first six hundred 〈◊〉 Undowtedlie because he neuer sawe worde in them against his owne opinion Or tell me doth S. Thomas doth Sâ—…otus doth Nicolaus de Lira doth Dionysius Larthusianus accuse anie Father of the first six hundred yeres as not thynkinge well of the Sacrament No suerlie And that is because they neueâ—… founde in them but the same docteine which them selues beleued and tawght And yet as sone as Berengarius began his newe doctrine euerie lerned man founde fault with yt Likewise with 〈◊〉 with â—…uinglins and with Iohn Caluin It is therfore euident seinge no Catholike nother hathe bene before Luters time nor is nowe offended with the olde Fathers doctrine concerninge the reall presence of Christes body and yet euerie of them is offended with the Sacramentaries doctrine that the Sacramentaries teache not as the olde Fathers did and agayne that the Sacramentaries cannot be suer that their doctrine is found in the olde Fathers For if yt were there to he found why should not Catholikes find yt there as well as they Or what one word can be brought sorthe of them so plainly denyinge the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread as we are able to bringe forth certayne hundred places wherin the said reall presence is earnestly affirmed Admitte the Fathers doctrine were vncertayne were dowtfull obscure yet cowld oure aduersaries neuer be sure therby that the fyrst six hundred yeres were with them Admitte some of them semed rather to fauoure theire side then owrs whiche is vtterly false yet the plaine word of God the plaine generall Councelles the faith of all nations by the space of nine hundred yeres owght to preuaile before the probable and apparant sayenges of a fewe men But nowe seinge the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres are so clerelie for vs that oure aduersaries are forced to excuse the expresse witnesses of S. 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome S. 〈◊〉 alleged for the reall presence of Christes bodie as spoken by plaine hyperbole which in them that professe to teach the Catholike faith is no lesse to say then that these Fathers make rhetoricall lyes in wryting of the blessed â—…ucharist seing they are constrayned to deuie certaine workes of the verie most auncient as of Dionysius Areopagita of S. Ignatius of S. Polycarpus of Abdias of S. Clement of Anacletus of 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 yea of S. Ambrose and of suche like because their sayings are to 〈◊〉 agaynst them seing all that dispute now a dayes with the 〈◊〉 presse them with nothing more customably then with the autoritie of the auncient Fathers Now to saie they leaâ—…e to the first six hundred yeres when the holie scriptures and auncient Fathers generall Counceils and 〈◊〉 tradition maketh agaynst them he that listeth to consyder how 〈◊〉 how vilely how impudently it is pretended may in all other assertions mistrust them as men for great synnes geuen ouer vnto their owne lewd phantasie withowt they repent and call agayne to the holie Ghost for more grace and better vnderstanding M. Nowel in the preface prefixed before the reprouf of M. Dormans prouf semeth to haue
small confidence in the first six hundred yeres and therfore findeth fault with M. Iuell because he gaue vs that most large scope of all Doctors of the Church who haue wryten for the space of six hundred yeres after our Sauior Christes being here in earth and of aâ—…l Councells kept in the said continuance of tyme Whereas M. Nowel wolde haue had him tye vs streightly to the triall of the scriptures the certaine and only iudges sayeth M. Nowell in controuersies of religion Wherin he affirmeth we can saye nothing at all The holy scriptures M. Nowell are so certayne and vpryght â—…udges that if they cowld speake thei wold remoue out of their coâ—…rtes all suche 〈◊〉 tonges as saie This ys not Christes bodie This I say whiche is made at yâ— holy table of Christes supper This â–ª which after blessing and the wordes of consecration spoken is broken and deliuered This which at the handes of the Priest is taken and eaten If scriptures might be heard should he leue one hower that seing a thing so exaâ—…ly taken and pointed vnto and hearing the same with so manie circumstances all tendinge to the makinge a new mysterie of the new testament affirmed to be the body of Christ whiche is geuen for vs yet wold neither care sor the word nor the dede but stowtly 〈◊〉 that this whiche is sene and taken is not by the wordes of Christe made his owne reall bodye And yet haue we nothing at all to say in the holie scriptures Some others graunt we haue somwhat to say in this question of the reall presence but not in any other Whome I beseche to suspend their iudgement vntill they know what they saie For not if they vnderstand not how scriptures belong to vs in other questioÌ„s we doe therfore lack scriptures From the highest question of the sacrifice of the masse to the most abiect in our aduersaries reputation of indulgences and pardons the Catholike Churche neuer lacked nor shall at any tyme lack plentie of holy scriptures as yt shall appere when particular occasion serueth In the meane tyme because I am not able to bring foorth at once what may be sayed owt of holy scriptures for all the conâ—… of our age I haue begâ—…ne first with the cheif of all which is concerning the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine Beseching God I may haue grace and tyme to bring in other questions other like scriptures I haue examined yâ— wordes of Christes supper I haue noted the ciâ—…cumstances of thinges done and sayd there I haâ—… conferred the holy scriptures of one place with them that in the same matter are written in other places as well of the old as of the new testament I haue ioyned the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres to shewe they thought as the Catholikes nowe doe whom they call Papistes But what circumstaÌ„ce what confereâ—…ce of holie scripture can helpe owre aduersaries Before they can ioyne one place of scripture with an other they must haue some one clere and playne by whiche the other that is more darke and obsâ—…re maye be interpreted and expounded But what playne place can that be in the supper of Christe For if the wordes and dedes that make the supper be obscure if thâ—…y that sulfill the prophecies and promyses goinge before be darke and figuratiue where ys it possible to finde a prophecie a figure a psalme a promesse more eâ—…ident then the perfoâ—…mance therof was Doth not the death of Christ as fulfill so make playne and open all the lawe and prophetes Euen so whatsoeuer is browght apperteininge to the purpose of Christes supper muste nedes be more vncertayne and lesse euident then the supper it self which is the end and perfourmance and therfore the openinge and interpretation of all the rest Who so therfore maketh the wordes of Christes supper figuratiue or vncertaine muche more he maketh al other places that belonge to that argumeÌ„t obscure and harde to be vnderstanded What certentie then can theire belefe haue who neither haue an euident faithe comminge from theire ancestoures to them nor any manifest place of scripture by which they maye iudge and trie other suche scriptures as they bringe for theire figuratiue doctrine As they imagine withowt any prouf at all that they haue the faith of the first six hundred yeres so I thynke they imagine a gospell where it is wâ—…tten This is not my body or This is the figure of my bodie But as with thine eyes thow maiest reade it distinctly wrytten in fower places of the thâ—… 〈◊〉 This ys my body so if thow be of any good yeres thow 〈◊〉 â—…ember the tyme when noman professed the belese that they now doe prosesse And farther if god graunt the to leue but twentie yeres moe thow shalt see manie a thowsand of their owne felowshippe beleue the coâ—…trarie of that whiche in many articles is now professed by the 〈◊〉 them selues For heresie can not staye vntill yt come at the length to infidelitie But as I sayed thow art sure of the gospell where it is sayed This ys my body and sure of the Churche where â—…t both was and is beleued to be Christes body after coÌ„secration so can they neuer be sure where yt is wrytten this is the figure of my body nor yet can they be sure that euer yt was beleued in the first six hundred yerâ—…s to haue â—…ene a figure without the reall truth of Christes sâ—…bstance vnder the forme of bread Tell me masters I beseche yow sith before youre â—…ies the wordes of Christe lie sownding against your opinion and in your knowledge and experieÌ„ce yow haue sene al Christian people profâ—…sse a 〈◊〉 faith vnto yours by what euidence by what inuincible authoritie can yow proue that the first six hundred yeres agreed with yow Is yt wrytten in the gospell It sayâ—…th the contrarie in these wordes This ys my body Is it come to your hands by tradition All tradition maketh agaynst you whereby we are tawght the body of Christ to be made by Christes wordes vnder the forme of bread Did all nations and faithsull pâ—…ople beare wytnes to your opinion It is cleane contrarie For yow can name no people where your opinion was professed before these fiftie yeres albeit a fewe haue in corners now and then 〈◊〉 yt as now some or other alwayes 〈◊〉 the blessed Trinitie Did generall Couâ—…cels teache yow to thynke as yoâ—… dor They are cleane on the other 〈◊〉 as which professe an vnbloody sacrisice and a 〈◊〉 of Christ vpon the altar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the auucieut Fathers tell you that them 〈◊〉 beleued so They tell you cleane contrary as who forbyd you to 〈◊〉 of Christes wordes and bid vs adore his flesh in the mysteries Where is then this faith of six hundred yeres proued Admit you had a worde or two that semed to fauoure your
parte Is that enough to buyld your consciences vpon agaynst the playne scripture vniuersall tradition consent of nations deâ—… of generall Councels and so vndouted witnesses as are in the aâ—…cient Fathers are you so slenderly buylt vpon Christ that euerie blast of 〈◊〉 â—…inglius or Caluins mouth is able to remoue you from the scriptures tradition Councels Fathers and 〈◊〉 belefe of all Christendome I speake not this God is my witnesse to vpbrayd you of your 〈◊〉 but to warne you of the miserable state that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seâ—…ses haue caried you to I now requier not anie other thing of you then that yow depelie ponder and all parâ—… set a side calling for the grace of God earnestly examine what was the sirst motion that made you doute of Christes 〈◊〉 and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Was it not your senses Did not your sensuall man saie how can this white round cake be the body of Christ How can this bald shoren Priest make God How can Christe sitting at the ryght hand of his Father he also present in a thousand places at once Tell not me but tell your ghostly fathers whether theis reasons chefely moâ—…ed you not to discredit this high mysterie If those or suche like where the beginning of your departing from the Catholike â—…aith remember that God is almightie that Christ is God that he said This is my body doe and make this thing and all those thoughtes of infidelitie are straight driuen away But if now ye replie that there was in dede the beginning but afterward you found more strong argumentes I tell you the argumentes also be daily the stronger because your faith is daylie the weaker But for so muche as I am not with euerie of you face to face where I maye shew the weakenes of your argumentes I haue answered in this booke such as I found in the Apologie of the Churche of England beseching you most hartely to take my paynes in good worth If any where I seme to charge my aduersaries with malice or any like faulte take not that spoken to you but to hym that is giltie of it If my laboure lyke you in this argument it shal be redie to serue in anie other to my best habilitie Fare well and pray for me as I beseche God of his grace that I may pray especially for all them that reade my booke To th'entent it may offend none but the desperate helpe some that be not incurable comfort others that desier comfort of God to whom be all honour and glorie Amen ¶ Certeyne notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of hym that shall reade this booke IN alleging the holy scriptures although I haue had alwaies dew regard vnto the tonges wherein they were first writen yet I haue specially kept that texte which hath bene aboue these thousand yeres generally receaued throughowt all the weast Churche and therefore is expounded best and best knowen to the Latyns Concerninge the number of the Psalmes I haue followed the seuentie interpretours whom vniuersally the whole Churche hath followed from the Apostles tyme namely in the distinction of the Psalmes Concerning the englyshe bible I haue almost neuer vsed the wordes thereof partely because I am not bounde therevnto but specially because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any controuersie is in these our daies And to omit for this present other falsified places to the number of a great many hundreds these that followe are found not to be well translated in the onely matter of the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Christ saieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true Englishe were worke the meate which tarieth The translation appointed to be read in the Churches turneth Operamini labour for Whereby the sense of the place is corrupted We labour for that which we seeke and haue not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs and must nedes be present before we can worke it I suppose there is a difference whether a carpenter worke a piece of tymber or labour for a piece of tymber He that woorketh it hath it present he that laboureth for it seeketh it absent Christ bad the Iewes not labour for a meate which should be absent when they came to work but he bad them work the meate which taryeth to life euerlastinge which the sonne of man will geue them The sonne of man which is Christ will make the meate present and the Iewes are willed to worke the sayed meate being first made present and geuen to them It is not therfore the commaundement of Christ that they should labourfor it as if it were to be sought out by their diligeÌ„ce for they should labour in vain as neuer being able to find of them selues so preciouse a thing But Christ meaneth that they shuld work by faith and mouth by soule and body by soule in beleuing by body in eating that meate which the sonne of man doth promise to geue them That is the trew meaning of the word Operamini work ye as the wordes that follow to the end of the Chapiter do plainly declare But because the Sacramentaries do not beleue the meate that tarieth which is afterward shewed to be the flesh of Christ eaten in dede whereby he tarieth in vs and we in him for euer to be made really present so that we maye work it by faith and body therfore they haue changed working into labouring for as thowgh in the supper of Christ we laboured for his body and did dot rather work his body Againe Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The trew English is He that eateth me he also shall liue for me The Englishe Bible teadeth He that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me There is a similitude made in that place that as Christ being sent of the Father liueth for the Father so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places It is construed with an accusatiue case in both places it is latined by propter in both places yet in the former place it is englished in the common Bible for the Father in the later not for me as it owght but by the meanes of me Whereas Christ wold proue that as him self doth liue for his Father with whom he is one nature and Godhead by eterna generation so we doe liue for him with whom we are one flesh and manhod by eating him worthely As therforâ—… the Godhead of the Father is really present in the whole substance thereof with Christ so is Châ—…ist really present with vs in his whole substance when we eate him in the Sacrament of which kind of eating he speaketh in that place by the waie of promise as I haue proued vpon S. Ihon. What honâ—…sty can be here pretended in one sentence to turne one
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
spirituall eating is not euill but it lacketh some truthe How so because the whole man is not fed For faith feedeth bue the soule and yet the name of feeding is proper to the body and thence is transferred to the soule that feeding therefore is not fully true which eateth not that in the mouth which it eateth in the harte whereas the true supper of Christ is meat in dede and drink in dede and must be the eating of that in our body which our mynde and soule doth eate So sayd Leo the great of Christes supper Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that is taken in the mouth which is beleued in fayth The reall flesh of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the same real flesh must be eaten with mouth And what other cause can be deuysed why allways from the beginning of the world to this day eating by mouth hath beâ—…e ioyned to the highest sacrifices and chefe kind of worshipping of God that euer was vsed what meaneth the â—…ating of the Paschall laâ—…be of Manâ—… of shew bread wheateâ—… meale and all such offerings as were in the law Could not God haue inueuted an other waye to haue occupied his people in seruing him but only by eating and drinking Surely the meaning of all those diners and suppers and feasts were to shew that in tyme to come the same Messias that they loked for 〈◊〉 in whom they beleued should so truly come for our sakes into the earth that he should come also into our bodies to dwell by his flesh caten in vs that we might dwell in him Neither let this seme a laughing matter to thee good Reader For sith Christ was born to vs and geuen to vs as Esaie saith he sought not his owne commoditie but ours and perceauing that in paradyse the whole nature of man was ouercome of the deuill specially by cating with mouth of the fruit which was forbiddeÌ„ him As against the deuill persuading Eua to disobaye God he sent the arâ—…hangell Babriell to persuade the blessed virgin Marie to consent to his will as against that appletree he planted the crosse of our redemption as for yâ— disobedience of Adam him selfe came to be obedient euen to death right so for the apple of the forbiddeÌ„ tree 〈◊〉 eaten he gaue him selfe the fruit and apple of the crosse which is the tree of grace lawfully and medefully to be eaten and his blood to be drunken Bibimus sayth S. Cyprian de sanguine Christi ipso iub eÌ„te vitae aeternae cum ipso per ipsum participes animalis vitae peccata quasi sanguinem impurum horrentes fatentes nos per peccati gustum â beatitudine priuatos damnatos nisi nos Christi clementia ad societatem vitae aeternae suo sanguine reduxisset We drink of the blood of Christ him self commanding being partakers of euerlasting life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of bare natural life as vnpure blood and graunting ourselues to haue ben depriued from blisse and damned through the taste of sinne except the clemencie of Christ had brought vs again to the fellowship of euerlasting life by his blood S. Cyprian setteth the drinking of Christes blood against the taste of syn which man fell into by tasting vnlawfully the apple which was forbidden to be tasted of The like phrase also Prosper Aquitanicus hath vsed who firsâ—… declareth our fall by eating and drinking and afterward our arising again by eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Concerning our fall thus he writeth Liberum ergo arbitrium id est rei sibi placitae spontaneus appetitus vbi vsum bonorum quae acceperat fastidiuit vilescentibus sibi felicitatis suae praesidijs insanam cupiditatem ad experientiam praeuaricationis intendit bibit omnium vitiorum venenum totam naturam hominis intemperantiae suae ebrietate madefecit Free will therefore that is to saie yâ— voluÌ„tarie appetite of the thing which pleased it being ones 10thsome of the good things which it had takeÌ„ and without regard or care had to the aydes of his own blessednes hauing bent his impoteÌ„t gredines to the triall and experience of disobedience and preuarication drank in the poyson of all vices and drowned the whole nature of man with the drunkeÌ„nes of his intemperance Thus was poison drunk in Let vs now coÌ„sider whence helth maie be recouered Inde priusquam edendo carnem filij hominis bibendo sanguiuem eius lethalem digerat cruditatem labitur memoria errat iuditio nutat incessu neque vllo modo idoneus est ad illud bonum eligendum â–ª concupiscendum quo se sponte priuauit Thence it commeth that man faileth in memorie erreth in iudgement wauereth in his going neither is he by any meanes mete to choose and desier that good thing whereof he depriued himself of his own accorde before that by eating the flesh of the sonne of man by drinking his blood he digest the deadly surâ—…et which he toke As therefore the apple that Adam did really eate against the commandement of God doth make vs all yâ— were in his body at that tyme gilty of disobedience and the children of wrath so the reall eating of Christes flesh according to the worthy eating thereof which Christ commanded doth make vs all free from the pain of euerlasting death and the children of grace and glorie But as euery man did not eate the prohibited apple in his own person and by his own act but by the act of our father and mother and as being in them and of them so it is not nedefull that euery man in his own person eate the flesh of Christ which is geuen vs in the Sacrament to be eaten but it is absolutely nedefull that some or other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body maie be one perfitly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with them who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse and truly rising from death to th' intent it might be truly eaten of vs without any corruption or perishing therof Thus we find that the supper of Christ can not in any wise consist of eating the flesh of Christ by faith and spirit alone But we that is to saie some of the mystical body that are of lawfull age must eate it to saluation as the apple was eaten to damnatioÌ„ And because before Christ was incarnat we had no apple to damnatioÌ„ he toke flesh and went of his own accord to death that thence we might plucke the apple of life and the fruit of the wood of life which preserueth vs to euerlasting ioyes For as Gregorius Bishop of Nyssa brother to S. Basil doth teache the medicine must be according to the poyson which we
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods
to this kind of bread food which Christ gaue at his last supper saying take and eate this is my body So that S. Paul by bread meaneth a thing eaten By the bread a certayn knowen thing eaten By this bread one certayn kind of thing eaten which alitle before was declared to be the body of Christ. Who so euer eatet◅ this kind of bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ. Why so Because he eateth the body of Christ vnworthely oth◅wise by eating he can not be gilty of that body which he doth not eate But hereof we shall saye more vpon S. Paule Thus now I reason out of the holy gospel That thing where of Christ sayd to the twelue take and eate and drinke was taken eatē drunken of all y◠twelue that was one thing only cōceruing y◠eating one thing only concerning y◠drinking that is to say the body of Christ y◠blood of Christ. For he sayd This is my body This truly is but one thing which Peter Iohn Iames likewise Iudas did eate If Iudas did not eate this he did eate nothing of Christes supper But Christ cōplaineth at his owne last supper that his betrayer had his hand on the table with him He did therefore eate somewhat And consequētly this one thing which was only at Christes supper geuen to be eaten But this one thing is my body sayeth Christ therefore Iudas did eate Christes body If that argument be not plaine ynough take an other Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing Eche of them that foode whereof Christ sayd This is my body But S. Iohn by the confession of the Apologie did truly eate Christes body because I suppose the Apologie doth take S. Iohn for a faithfull man Therefore Iudas did truly eate the same body As truly as really did Iudas eate the body of Christ as S. Iohn but not so worthely Or made Christ in his supper two giftes Did he deliuer one thing to S. Iohn an other to Iudas What gospell teacheth that sayd not Christ This Is not This the singular nomber Is it not one certayn thing This was deliuered to all twelue and to euery of them This was eaten of all twelue and of euery of them Therefore seing this was to S. Iohn the body of Christ as the Apologie confesseth it was as also to all others that do beleue likewise this was to Iudas y◠body of Christ and to all others that receaue at Christes table What Iuglers be these that of one certayn thing whereof Christ sayd This is my body doo make the true body to Iohn and not the true body to Iudas If they say that this doth nor point to the body of Christ but to Bakers bread then how doth S. Iohn by eating this eate the body of Christ S. Iohn eateth that same thing which Christ deliuereth to Iudas But you say Christ deliuereth Bakers bread and none other thing to Iudas Therefore S. Iohn though he beleue neuer so well yet by eating this he doth not eate any thing besyde Bakers bread and so he doth not eate the body of Christ. More then Christ deliuereth him he can not eate at the supper of our Lord. But Christ geuing this deliuereth bread to Iudas and not his body as you say Then how can S. Ihon by eating this eate the body of Christ You will say S. Ihon may eate it by faith Yea Syr but that is not the eating this whereof Christ spake Here againe I presse you with y◠word of God The eating whereof Christ spake in his supper was an eating by body It was such an eating as agreed with the geuing of Christ and with the taking of y◠Disciples But Christ gaue with his hands they toke with their hands and they did eate by the meane of their tonges teeth and mouthes Therefore the eating and drinking whereof Christ sayd take and eate drinke was an eating and drinking by body albeit y◠end of that banket was to feed also y◠soule by that bodily food The end I say intended on Christes part But you can not out of that outward precept of eating and drinking deduce an eating and drinking of y◠body and blood an other way that is to wit by faith and spirit only If you can it must nedes folow that Iudas did eate and drinke the body and blood of Christ by faith and spirit also For as it is sayd Bibite ex hoc omnes drinke ye all of this so it is sayd Biberu◅t ex illo omnes they all dranke of that If the precept be fulfilled such as the precept is such the fulfilling is If Christ by saying drink did will them to drinke wine in their mouthes and his blood in spirit only Then they whom y◠gospell ◅heweth to haue drunken did also drinke wine in their mouthes and his blood in spirit Or will you take in the historie of y◠same supper Bibite otherwise then biberunt Is not drinke ye sayd of the same thing whereof it is sayd They dranke Now then either Ihon dranke not truly according to the precept geuen in the supper the blood of Christ or Iudas dranke also the blood of Christ. For this whereof Christ sayd drinke ye all of this came as wel to Iudas as to S. Ihon. Christ sayd to all drinke ye of this and they all dranke of that Lo that which S. Ihon dranke also Iudas dranke concerning I say the drinking of the supper And the drinking of that thing which is the substance of the Sacrament of the altar Ihon truly dranke as ye confesse Iudas truly dranke as the Gospell teacheth Wherefore Iudas drank the same blood that S. Ihon did Had Iudas then as greate merite by drinking as S. Ihon God forbid But Iudas dranke the same thing as all the children of Israel did eate one and the same Manna but not to one and the same merite as S. Paul hath declared The merite riseth not of drinking but of worthy drinking As Manna tasted better to the good Israelites then to the bad so S. Ihon dranke worthely Iudas vnworthely S. Ihon had by drinking life euerlasting Iudas had by drinking damnation S. Ihon dranke by body by faith working by charitie Iudas dranke by body alone with a maliciouse intent to betraye Christ. The good faith of S. Ihon was not the thing whereby he dranke the blood according to the outward precept of Christ in his last supper but it was the thing whereby and wherewith he worthely dranke the blood Did not then Christ will and command his Disciples to come worthely to his supper Yeas forsoth he not only willed them to come worthely but for his part he offered them grace to come worthely He not only for his part was redy to ◅euse their soules but in token thereof washed also their bodies Saying they were all cleane except one which was Iuda◅ The preparing to haue a
good faith to haue a good charitie to examine him selfe goeth before the supper eating by faith and spirit is a thing required to come worthely to the supper But when we once come thither we all eate one thing one meate one foode one body whether we come worthely or vnworthely euen as all that are sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinitie are baptized in one and the same Sacrament of baptim whether they be good men as Cornelius was or â—…uill men as Simon Magus was For Simon Magus was baptized of Philip yâ— deacon But as it may appere by that is tolde in the scriptures and gathered by the Breke and Latine Fathers he came not worthely to that Sacrament but faynedly as one that hoped to make gain of his faith And yet he had that baptisme which as S. Paul sayeth is but one But he had not the vertue of that one baptisme which is the remission of synnes I trust by this tyme the defenders nede not boast of their doctrine neither vpbraid vs of ours because they teach that only good men haue yâ— body of Christ deliuered to them And we teach that euill men also eate really the true body of Christ. We haue I suppose declared the word of God to stand in our side and seing their doctrine must be tried by the word of God I tell them it is tried and sound to be false and forged except they can proue Iudas to haue bene an honest man For surely that he receaued the body of Christ it is the mind of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Chrysoâ—…om S. Augustin S. Leo S. Bede Theodoritus Sedulius 〈◊〉 Euthymius yea it is so farre the common opinion of all men that vpon that example this â–ª conclusion is grounded that we can not remoue 〈◊〉 euill man from the commu nion excepthy order of law we may coÌ„uince him Quia nec Christus Iudam a communione remouit Because Christ did not remoue Iudas from communion Howbeit we stand not in this doctrine vpon the person of Iudas only but also vpon the generall doctrine of S. Paule who teacheth euery euill man to be gilty of the body of Christ for eating that bread vnworthely ¶ The auncient Fathers teach that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. YEa but say they we do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of Godly and faithfull men Seing the holy scriptures are proued to stand on our side it were great marueile if the auncient Fathers did make for you They are not wonte to be contrarie to the word of God But what a miserie is this what a seducing of the people The word of God is pretended the auncient Fathers be named and not one syllable brought forth out of either both concerning this question But as before we brought holy scriptures so let vs now allege the auncient Fathers Origen sayeth Those who come to the Eucharist without examining cleansing them selues are lyke to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meates of whole men doe hurte them selues Whereby we may perceaue he iudgeth the meate of Christes supper which is proâ—…ded only for whole men yet to be truly but not profitabâ—…y eaten of them who are burdened with great synnes Basile asketh what a man shall say of him qui otiose et inutiliter edere audet corpus et bibere sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi Who dareth in vayne and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ If a man eate in vaine and to his disprofit yet he eateth in dede and as S. Basile sayeth he eateth the body of Christ. Chrysostom writeth thus If those which spotte the Kinges purple be no lesse punished then those that cutte it what wonder is it if those who take the body of Christ with an vncleane conscience haue the same punishment which they haue who pearced him with nailes Behold as it is one purple still whether it be spotted or cutt so is it the same body still whether it be pearced with nailes as the Iewes haudled it or taken with an vnclean conscience as euill Christians order it S. Cyprian in manner of purpose answereth those obiections which might moue any man to doubt how euill men may doo receaue so good a thing as Christes owne body is The Sacramentes sayeth he for their part can not be without their proper vertue Neither doth Gods maiestie by any meanes absent it self from the mysteries But albeit the Sacramentes permitte them selues to be taken or touched of vnworthy men yet those men can not be partakers of the spirit whose infidelitie or vnworthynes withstandeth such holines If by the mynd of S. Ciprian the Sacramentes can not lacke their owne proper vertue come good men or euill to them one substance is alwayes geuen but the euill can not receaue the spirit or grace thereof because they are vnworthie of such a benefite S. Hierome Opponis mihi Gomor Mannae vnam mensuram Et nos Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus Thou laiest vnto me the one measure of Manna called Gomor and we take the body of Christ equally One as well taketh it as an other but as it there foloweth Pro accipientiuÌ„ meritis diuersum fit quod vnum est According to the merites of them that receaue that which is one is made diuerse The Sacrament is one in it selfe yet to one it is made yâ— cause of goodnes when he taketh it worthely to an other the cause of euill when he taketh it vnworthely There also S. Hierome sayeth that Iudas dranke of the same cuppe whereof the other Apostles dranke but yet that he was not of the same merit S. Augustine sayeth Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam DiaboluÌ„ furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod norunt fideles precium nostrum Our Lord him selfe beareth with Iudas he suâ—…th a deuill a theefe and the seller of him selfe to receaue among the innocent Disciples our price which the faithfull knowe If any thing besydes that body of Christ may be our price then S. Augustine might meane that euill men receaue an other thing But if our price be vndoubtedly that body of Christ which by death redemed vs Iudas receauing our price receaued the very true body and substance of Christ. In an other place he writeth Eundem cibuÌ„ sanctuÌ„ alios manducare digne alios indigne Some eate worthely some vnworthely the same holy meate Beholde the meate is the same Whether the euill receaue it or the good And because the Apologie though it name no Father at all yet it maie haue some pretense of certain wordes which are in S Augustine it is to be weighed diligeÌ„tly that Christ hath as well a mystical body as a true naturall body The mysticall body of
by man Truly in Baptim there is forgeuenesse of all synnes What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right of forgeuing synnes to be geuen them by penance or by baptim The mysterie or Sacrament is one in both But thou wilt say that in Baptim the grace oâ—… yâ— mysteries worketh What in Penance doth not the name of God work Here is the same vertue and name of a mysterie or Sacra ment geuen to Penance which is geueÌ„ to Baptim Whereby S. Ambrose taught as wel that there was a SacrameÌ„t of Penance as the Apologie graunteth one of Baptim But to stand about the proof of all the seuen Sacraments it nedeth not sith in that most notable generall Councell gathered both of Grekes and Latines at Florence all the seuen Sacramentes were according to the word of God confessed proued declared and expounded as in the ende thereof it may appere But neither S. Ambrose nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them to rekon vp how many Sacraments there are I brought these few places out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose to shewe as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind them selues how these defenders crie out vpon the word of God vntill they haue with swete words wonne â—…anour amoÌ„g the miserable nomber â—…f those vnstable meâ—… that allwayes harken for newes But when they haue them fast then is the word of God cleane forgotten and in siede of it Ambrose and Augustiâ—…e are captiously and falsely alleged For the truth is they that set nought by the word of God can not long esâ—…me Ambrose and Augustine who with all their hartes embraced the word of God and expounded the same according to the auncient tradition of holy Church To what end then doth this Apologie runne Truly to sette vp an Idoll of their owne making in place of the word of God To set vp I say a fantasticall religion of their owne deuising But if they should crie to the people Come come bowe down to the Idoll that we haue deuised for you the people would not come as being feared with yâ— infamouse name of an Idoll Therefore they say come to the word of God come to the holy Scriptures come to the true gospell of Iesus Christ. well Syr you say herein exceding well we are come Teach vs the word of God the Scriptures the gospell Say on a Gods name ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God WE saye that Eucharistia the supper of the Lord is a Sacrament that is to wit an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est enim secunduÌ„ clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam SacramentoruÌ„ Sacramentum The most holy Eucharist which Dyonisius named so a litle before according to the mind of our renowmed maister is the Sacrament of Sacramentes Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master yet he meaneth at this tyme as vpon him Maximus hath noted by other places of his worke it may well appere to be true Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ who in his talke whiche he was wonte to haue with Dyonisius did vse to call the holy Eâ—…charist of all the Sacramentes the chief Sacrament Surely iâ—… there had bene but two Sacramentes both Hierotheus Dyonisius had abused their words For where two things only are of one degree there one may be worthier then the other but neither of the twaiue may iustly be called the chief of the others If in all there be only two Sacramentes baptisme the Eucharist how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacramentes sith when one is taken away there doth remaine but one moe to which relation may be made The opinion therefore of this Apologie standing the Eucharist may be yâ— more chief Sacrament of tâ—…e twaine but not the Sacrament of moe Sacramentes But what nede we stand herevpon seing Dionysius hath at large prosecuted moe Sacramentes then baptisme and the Eucharist as it is easye to see in his workes Seing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture the Apologie is constrained to beleue it selfe and to teach others somewhat which is not readen in holy Scripture Againe that euery Sacrament is a signe and token it is also true but not readen in holy Scripture Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an euident token of yâ— body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture Last of all the supper of our Lord is the reall body blood of Christ him selfe And that truth is very plainly very ofte very earnestly sayd taught repeted in holy Scripture Foure thinges are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament it is consequently a holy signe It is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the foure truthes the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other The three first are taught by the Church not coÌ„trary to the scripture but ouer and besides it Now mark well whether these defenders lead vs to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord they put the three first verities of which neuer a one is named in the scripture And the last veritie which is expresly named in all the foure Euangelistes and in S. Paul as before I haue declared that they vtterly 〈◊〉 aâ—…d leaue out As if they shuld saie we make much aâ—… to pretend yâ— holy scriptures but we will be sure to bring any thiâ—…g soner then the holy scriptures Marke this Apologie who shal he neuer lightly saw any book writen in so many matters of diuinitie wherein so litle scripture hath bene alleged It is full of gloses but the texte it hath very seldome And why They loue not in dede the scriptures they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost but only make a shew of them to entangle the sunple in their snares The supper of our Lord is a sacrament a holy signe an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teache without scriptures It is the body and blood it selfe of Iesus Christ. Hereof speake they at this time neuer a word because it is in the Gospell which they loue not If this last truth can not stand with the first what doubt is there but the worde of God must ouercome and the doctrine of men gâ—…ue place If therefore the supper of our Lord maâ—…e both be the signe of the body and the body it selfe it is well we are throughly
agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
haue power to make that thing whereof Christ spake then the token was true and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them For which cause we say that Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders For he gaue vnto his Apostles at that tyme by those words the order of Priesthod The holy signe of this Sacrament is the pronouncing of these words Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me The inuisible grace wrought therein is the power which the Apostles toke to make the body of Christ. Euen so As sone as these words This is my body and this is my blood are duely spoken straight the body and blood is made present If indeed it be not present here is no Sacrament at all Note well what I say here is no true signe at all but an hipocriticall and fonde Imagination of a thing the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth and therefore the sigâ—…e is false Neither will it helpe any thing at all if one say that Christ spake figuratiuely For a figuratiue speache can not be an euideÌ„t token of any thing except it be such a figure as through the custome of speache hath now obteined some easy and knowen 〈◊〉 among all men that vse the same language as when by the name of a cuppe we meane the drinke in it or by the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen we meane authoritie to bring men to Christ and God or by opening the mouth we meane speaking which kind of speache though it be called figuratiue for some respect yet in dede it is all one with proper speach because vse and custome maketh euery speach propre Otherwise a very figuratiue speach signifieth no certain thing vntill it be plainly vnderstanded And consequently no figuratiue speach can be a Sacrament or a holy signe of an other thing For a signe is euer plaine euident and able to instruct as being according to the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Augustine the thing which besides the shew it maketh to our senses causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge But a figure not made common by vse is obscure darke vncertaine as all ridles be vntill they are opened So that if Christ saying This is my body had meant this doth signifie my body and in dede is not so truly no Sacrament had bene made as I will shew hereafter because no euident token had bene geuen of any thing It can not be called an euident token when I may more truly veryfie the contradictorie then that which is spoken For if the Sacramentaries teach wel it is a truer token to say This is not my body then to say This is my body But this is my body caÌ„ neuer signifie to me by any figure of â—…hetorike this is not my body For doubtlesse as long as I am not driuen to thinke this is not my body or to thinke of an other thing as of trees stones water bread wine or any like thing which is cleane diuerse in nature from Christes body which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christes mouth is allmost impossible so long it may still be a signe to me that it is Christes body And seing it can neuer come to passe that I hearing Christ say This is my body can exclude the thought of his body from my vnderstanding will I or nill I This will be to me either a falshod or it will be the Sacrament or signe of his body If it be so then seing the Sacrament and holy signe must nedes be true the body must likewise be truly present for so the token doth report If when I heare Christ say This is my body I must stand musing and diuising how is may be taken vnproperly and signifie a certayn betokening without a true being surely because all ignorant men studie they neuer so long are able to conclude no such thing for that no such example cometh to their minde and they are not exercised in scriptures as diuines be thereby it will folow that Christes words shall signifie one thing to one man and an other to an other To some learned men after some conference they may signifie by the waye of coniecture the betokening of his body To others who coniecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he sayd so they will sound otherwise But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together they will signifie allways the reall presence of his body Uerily the twelue Apâ—…tles were very simple ignorant and as the scriptures call them 〈◊〉 without lerning neither was their mind opened to vnderstand the scriptures at yâ— tyme. And yet I dare say they knew what they did receaue wherefore they toke the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them Now seing these words This is my body signified the body of Christ it will insewe that seing Christ maketh allways a true signe to them it was the truth of Christes body Marye to Ihon Caluine who is more deeply lerned and who studieth ful sore to make and proue Christ a lyer it may well be they will sounde otherwise O Lord to what case are these signes and Sacramentes brought if according to some menne they shall sound one way and to others an other way And yet the truth of them standeth chiefly wholy dependeth vpon the signe which they make As though all other men being able to make their last willes with wordes plaine enough thou Lord alone haddest neither vtterance nor witte nor mind nor remembrance to make a token of thy inuisible work And yet the Apologie sayth that the Eucharist is an euideÌ„t token of the body and blood If the token be euident all men do quicklie vnderstand it why then striue we vpon an euident matter Call wemen children to ask of them what token yâ— words of Christ make I warrant you they will not say that is doth stand to betoken nor body for figure of body That kind of tokens is not very euident to them But in deed the token of Christes body is euident by his own words and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present is really present for as his token is most euident so is it most true Christ after his resurrection gaue power to his Apostles to forgeue and retaine synnes This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Peuance Let vs there see the Sacrament or holy signe of this giâ—…t whose synnes ye forgeue sayeth he they are foregeuen them And whose ye retaine they are reteyned 〈◊〉 in those words a signe of remission of synnes be instituted suâ—…ely when that signe is made by a Priest duâ—…ly absoluing the peniteÌ„t his synnes are in deed remitted For loke how much the words doe signifie to men of common vnderstanding so much is geuen by them How proue I that
them consist of two parts as I sayd before Of things and of words the things are diuers as for example water bread wine oile and suche other The mystical words coming to suche things as Christ hath appointed make vp the whole Sacrament So that the things are like stone tymber iron wherâ—… withall a man will build or make somewhat the words are like the order and foorm which the Carpenter will set the stuff in The things are confuse vntill the words determine them particularly to this or that vse Therefore S. Paule saith that Christ sanctifieth his Church Muâ—…dans eam lauacro aquae in verbo vitae Cleansing it with the wasâ—…ng of water in the word of life What is that word of 〈◊〉 â—…erily whereof Christ sayd goe teache all nations Baptizing them in the nanse of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost This is the word which geueth life to him that is duely wasshed Of this word Christ sayd Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis Now ye are clean for the words sake which I haue spoken to you S. Augustine demandeth why Christ sayd not ye are cleane for the Baptim wherewith ye are wasshed but rather ye are cleane for the word which I haue spoken to you sauing that euen in wa ter it is the word that cleanseth Detrahe verbuÌ„ quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Take away the word and what is water but water The word cometh to the matter and the Sacrament is made S. Angustine calleth the thing or stuff whereof the Sacramâ—…t is made Elementum Which is to say a materiall thing that serueth for a beginning whereof a farther mysterie may be made when the word appointed by Christ cometh to it The Grecians vse to call those things especially in the supper of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things put or set before the Priest who must consecrate them with the word of God The element therefore whether it be water oile bread wine or any other thing that Christ appointeth is the weaker and infer riour part The word is the more chief and principal Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae saith S. Augustine vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath water this great vertue that it should touche the body and wasshe the hart but that the word causeth it not only because it is spoken but because it is beleued For in the â—…er e word the souâ—…d which passeth awaie is one thing and the vertue which remaineth is an other thing Now haue we thre things consydered by S. Augustine in a Sacrament the lowest is the element which in baptun is water the higher is the word which again is coÌ„sydered in two respects in one as it is spoken and so being ioyned with the element it maketh the substance of the Sacrament and passeth awaie in the other as it is beleued of him that receaueth the Sacrament and so it worketh in him a grace vertue and effect of the Sacrament If now the word be it that both chefely maketh and effectuallie establisheth the Sacrament it can not be douted but that Christ gaue the greatest diligence of all in assigning the solemn words of his blessed Sacraments For the words appointed by Christ to the making of his Sacraments are so stronge that althoughe the minister be neuer so éuil a man yet as S. Augustine saith God sanctifieth his Sacraments Ad verba quae procedunt ex ore homicidae At the words which come foorth of the mouth of a mankiller And again he saith Deus adest Sacramentis verbis suis per qualeslibet administrentur God is present to his Sacraments and words by whatsoeuer maner of men they be ministred In so much that if at the tyme of celebrating both the geuer and receauer haue don vulaâ—…fully saith S. Augustine Non tamen pro non dato habebitur Yet the Sacrament shall not be accompted as not geuen For seing the word was once spoken and ioyned with the element the substance of the Sacrament was made though it lacked his effect Whereof it foloweth that the SacrameÌ„tal words bring foorth a secret strength for their own part albeit neither the minister nor the receauer be of such worthinesse as they owght to be of In ipso aquarum lauacro saith S. Chrysostom verba Dei sunt quae nos generant In the verie washing of the waters they be the words of God which begett vs. Which thing sith it is so the words of Christes Sacraments doe not depend vpon the vnderstanding either of the minister or of him that receaueth the Sacrament but they haue a sufficient vertue in them selues whereby they may worke It is enowgh that the minister doe as the Church vseth to doe in such cases This intention being kept the words will bring the rest to passe Or if a maliciouse Priest baptize a child with the mind to make him a Lutheran or an Anabaptist shall that child by that intention be made an heretâ—…ke No verily For so much as the words of Christ wherewith he is baptized make him a member of his mysticall body not incorporating him to any other felowship Qui fuerit superbus minister cum diabolo computatur sed non contaminatur donuÌ„ Christi The proude minister saith S. Augustin is accompted with the deuill but the gift of Christ is not defiled To come somewhat nere our purpose S. Ambrose doth by name witnes what strength Christes words haue in making his supper Sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum The words of Christ make this Sacrament Antequà m consecretur panis est vbi verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi Before it be consecrated it is bread when the words of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. Hoc ait Sacerdos est corpus meum Hoc verbo proposita consecratnr S. Chrysostom writeth that when the Priest saith This is my body the things set foorth are consecrated with this word or saying If now it be clere that among many causes which concurre to make a Sacrament one of the chefe is the words pronounced at the same tyme and in the Sacrament of the Altar seing they are This is my body and This is my blood Which are spoken ouer breâ—…d and wine I say these words maie be in no wise figuratiue For by that meanes they shall not only not consecrate the body and blood of Christ but which is more they shall not 〈◊〉 so much as a signe of Christes body and blood For yf words make any thing they make it by signifiyng as the which are not only signes of things but by S. Augustines
iudgement they are the chefe among all signes And as the same Doctour saith in an other place Signum nisi aliquid significet noÌ„ potest esse signum A signe except it signifie sumwhat can not be a signe Now that which doth not signifie a thing at all can not by signifiyng make and work that thing which it doth not signifie Take these fower words This is my body Neuer a one of them doth signifie washing Therefore if a maÌ„ washing an other with the mind to make him a member of Christes body should saie This is my body out of doute that man washed with those words should not be baptized What is the cause Washing was vsed the minister was present with intent to baptize some words also lacked not but yet because those words lacked which might signifie washing in the name of the Trinitie he was not baptized If then the words of Sacraments must signifie that which shal be made these words This is my body spoken by any Priest shall neuer make the signe of Christes body Because they doe not signifie any figure or signe thereof Ou the other syde If they be in dede figuratiue as the Zuinglians affirm them to be they shall not make the body of Christ because they say Christ meant not so but only meant a figure to be made in bread and wine Behold to what case we are now brought We haue striued so long about the words of Christ whether they be proper or figuratiue that now they are proued to make nothing at all if they be figuratiue For they make not the body of Christ because if they be figuratiue they meane not to make it They make no figure of the body because they name and signifie no figure And that which they do not signifie they by signifying can not make Foâ—… their whole institution vse nature and commoditie is to signifie to shew foorth to betoken make plain the mind of the speaker That which words doe not signifie they do not work That which they work not is neuer don by them But these words This is my body and this is my blood signifie no figure no signe no token for so muche as they signifie an other thing therefore they work no figure they make no signe they leaue no token And then haue we no Sacrament at all made because none is made without suche words as may signifie that which is made and wrought If any man saye Christ may meane a figure and signe and by his meaning these words This is my body may work a figure oâ—… his body I answer if Christ wil work by his meaning who can forbed him seing he is almighty And if he will work without any words who caÌ„ gainsaye him But then his words work not And why then are they deliuered to vs as the chief instrument to work withall Why sayd he Hoc facite Doe and make this thing why are they rehersed in euery Masse and communion Why doe the auncient Fathers teache the bread and wine to be consecrated by them Why may not Baptism be made by other words then by those which Christ instituted Surely to say that these words This is my body make a figure of his body because Christ wil haue it so is to say that Christ will not hane words necessarie to the making of his SacrameÌ„ts Or it is to saie that he will haue a thing wrought by words to work the which they be vumete instruments as if a man wold take a saw to plane timber withall a beetil to cutt down a tree Christ being the word of God hath geuen that honour to words of men but yet to such as are appointed by him self that they should principally among instrumentall causes work and make his Sacraments Next vnto words he chose maruelous conuenient things wherewith they should concur The things to be most agreable to th â–ª effect which they are sett to work all men agree It is conuenient for water to washe for bread and wine to concur to the Sacrament of the Altar as meetest to nourish for oile to serue in ointing at the vse of other Sacraments And now hath Christ erred in chosing his words hath he 〈◊〉 body to signifie the figure of his body To whom doth it signifie after that sort Surely not to all men as it is eâ—…ident not to all Christians as it maie appere in that we hearing it said that Christ had a mans body or walked in a mans body or that our bodies shall rise at the later daie in all these phrases we take not the name of body for a signe and figure of a body but we take it to meane the true substance of flesh and blood How then shall the word body be taken only in the supper of our Lord for the signe and figure of body Wher is that rulâ—… readen Wher is that secret reueled â–ª For dowtlesse if it were true it were of it self a mysterie and an vnwont acception appointed by Christ and it had neded to haue ben registred in the Scriptures or in the holy Fathers or at the least to haue ben deliuered to vs by tradition But who teacheth that body standeth to signifie the figure of body many Fathers saie the words of Christ are plain manifest true and effectuall but no man telleth vs of such a strange taking of the words body and blood noman witnesseth them to be taken for the figures of body and blood and no maruail For no man knew that iuterpretation They knew that the true body of Christ geuen after such a sort vnder the foormes of bread and wine was a figure of the self same body either walking visibly vpon the earth or suffering death vpon the crosse or sitting now at the right hand of his Father or intending to come to iudgement They could tell that a thing present in a secrete maner is a token a signe and a watch word to all the faithfull of an open maner either past or to come in the same thing By this meanes they confessed the Sacrament to be the figure of Christes body and blood but they knew no such figure as the SacrameÌ„taries haue deuised they neuer could tell of Synecdoche or of Meronymia they knew Sacramentall and not Rhetoricall figures Mysticall and not Poeticall holy and not prophane Let him therfore that will haue any thing at all made by Christes words acknowlege them to be proper to signifie sumwhat and to make that they signifie which is the true body and blood of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. WE doe acknowlege the Eucharist to be a Sacrament wherein is sette after a manner before our eyes the death of Christ and his resurrection and what soeuer he did here in his humane body The eating of common bread and drinking of common wine is but an homely maner of setting
the flesh blood of Christ they haue inuented such kind of speaking as may both seme to agree with the Scriptures and yet withall mayntein their false doctrine The which thing that thou mayest the better vnderstand this is to be consydered The Catholike faith is that Christ in one person hath two natures The nature of God and the nature of man which two natures are ioyned and vnited together into one person after such sorte that what so euer is said of the one nature may be sayd of the other if we speake by that worde which signifieth the person For example we may say that man was in heauen before the ascension of Christ and that God died not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or dye or the nature of man could be in heauen before the ascension of Christ but because that which was borne and dyed was also God and that which was in heauen was also man albeit his byrth and death was by the nature of man and his being in heauen by the nature of God The natures then tary distinct but yâ— pâ—…rson of God man is but one Now shall you see the meane whereby these new prechers go about to deceaue you They say Christ geueth him selfe in his SacrameÌ„ts The word Christ doth signifie his person wherein he is both God man Likewise the word him self is a word belonging to his person wherein both natures of God man are conteyned Now when they say Christ geueth him self they meane that he being God man geueth by some spiritual way the vertue of his flesh blood which they call him self for that he as God being euery where may dwell in vs more excellently by charitie as the Father and the holy Ghost doe But they meane not by geuing of him selfe the reall gifte of his person and of both natures which are ioyned therein after such sort that our whole nature might receaue his nature For then they should teache that which we doe But howsoeuer they bable of our soules they will graunt our bodies no touching nor tasting of him no not so much as vnder yâ—â—…oormes of bread and wine You haue heard what they say Now heare what Christ sayeth Christ speaketh of him self in diuerse places diuersely Due where he sayeth I will not leaue you Orphans I will come vnto you There he speaketh of his person and concerning the nature of Godhead as it appereth afterward where it is written If any man loue me he will kepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come vnto him and make a mansion or dwelling with him or at his howse Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming that his Father as it appered afterward might come after the same sort Then was it the coming of God and not of man At his departure when he ascended from the world into heauen he sayd Behold I am with you all dayes euen vntill the consummation of the world These words may be meant as well by the nature of manhod which we haue with his Godhead in the Sacrament of the altar and so some holy Doctors haue taken them as also by the only nature of the Godhead which is euery where by maiestie and in good men by grace In an other place he sayd Poore men ye shall haue allwayes with you me ye shall not haue allwayes Where by the word me he meaneth not his Godhead which is allways euery where but the nature of his manhod and that not as it is in the Sacrament but as it was when he spake in a visible forme of a poore man who had not any howse of his own where he might reste his head Last of all let vs marke after what sorte he sayd that he wold be in his blessed supper Dyd he say I will geue my self to be eaten and to be drâ—…nken If he had sayd so yet seing he had mentioned eating and drinking which according to the letter rather belongeth to his manhod then to his Godhead we should rather haue thought that the words must haue bene taken properly then improperly To eate the substance of a man may be sayd properly for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth but to eate the substance of God it is sayd vnproperly For it can not be eaten with teethe and mouth as also S. Cyrillus hath noted but only with vnderstanding and faith If then Christ had sayd before supper I will geue my self to be eaten and had sayd at his supper I do geue my self to be eaten These words with a circumstance of a supper had made so stroÌ„gly for the bodily geuing of him selfe that their part had bene more probable who had vnderstanded it of his manhod With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood there were no doubt but he should haue bene a wicked heretik who when Christ had sayd I geue my self to be eaten wold haue denyed that we had eaten the humane nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ vsed He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 agaynst it and therefore he sayd not I will geue or do geue my self to be eaten as heretiks now delight to speake but I geue my flesh my body my blood These are not wordes of personage which may be applyed two wayes but they are the words of nature and only of mans nature For God by yâ— nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood ne soule ne body ne bone Christ as man hath all these things Now do the heretiks and false preachers of our age maruclously deceaue the people of God who alwayes say that they diminish not Christes benefite nor do not abuse the Lords supper 〈◊〉 say they we teache that Christ geueth his owne self and they repete agayne and agayn his owne self his owne self And thereby they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by fayth spirit and vnderstanding Wholy robbing vs of that flesh which dyed for vs and of that blood whiche was shed for vs. For although God was able to haue saued man otherwyse yet he swetely disposed our saluacioÌ„ by sending his dere soÌ„ne to take of the virgyn our flesh and blood This flesh and this blood worketh our saluacion Which he yâ— taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar depriueth vs of the meane whereby to come to life euerlasting For as by this flesh and blood we are redemed So that redemption is applyed to all that be of lawful age by worthy eating and drinking thereof Now when these preachers cry vnto you of God of fayth of spirit of vnderstanding of vertue they seme perhaps to say goodly things but they craftily put you from that only meane of fleshe and blood whereby God hath ordeyned our saluacion Abraham was the sather of al beleuers because neuer any mans belefe was so
and geue him self present in thâ—…e mysteries or no You graunt he doth be these mysteries in heauen or in earth I suppose they be in earth Then say I your words import thâ—…t Christ geueth him self present in the earth How then doe you straight way inferre by a therefore that we are bid lift vp our harts to hâ—…nward because he is there by whom we must be 〈◊〉 fed If you meane he is both there and here you say very wel buâ—… thâ—… you graunt his body to be at once in diuers places at the least by yâ— way of SacrameÌ„tall being Except you will say his body is not in these mysteries and then he geueth not him self present For his body is the chefe thing whereof this Sacrament is named Neither we are flesh of his flesh in those mysteries where his flesh is not present to be ioyned with ours You say that Christ geueth him self present yea so farr present that we know certainly we are flesh of his flesh and yet you bid vs goe to heauen because he is there of whom we must be ful fed As though his mysteries were not in earth in which you graunt he geueth him selâ—… present If any spark of grace remaine in you consyder that God hath geuen you ouer into a lewd vnderstanding into a blind hart in to palpable darknesse Ye wold set God and the deuill together ye wold reconcile your fond hearesie with the healthfull Gospell of Christ you wold seme to confâ—…e with Christ yâ— he geueth him self present in these mysteries with S. Paul that we are flesh oâ—… Christes flesh and yet withall you will ioyne your own repugnant assertion that the body of Christ is only in heauen and consequently not in these mysteries which are in earth The longer you stand in this repugnance the more you shame your selues I haue not spoken this for any other cause but to stirr vp your minds by words of sharp warning which S. Paul biddeth vs vse to heretiks thereby to prouoke some such as haue regard to their soules to repent in tyme and to persuade them selues that they are not able to geue a new exposition of Christes supper which may stand with the old Gospell of Christes Church The body of Christ is the meat of his supper For thereof he sayd Take eate this is my body If then Christ geue him self present in these mysteries he geneth his body present If his body be present how say ye we must lift vp our harts to heauen there to be ful fed Is not Christ him self being present able to feed vs full How is it then that we must goe vp to heauen to be ful fed But let vs farther consyder your discrete discurse It is said in the preface of the Masse Lift vp your harts which words you interprete as though it were sayd your meat is in heauen and not vpon the holy table This argument I maruail if any man be able to answere The people are warned before coÌ„secration to liâ—…t vp their myndes to heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not really present on the alter aftar consecration As much to say as Before the incarnation of Christ the Prophetes and Patriarchs called and cried to God them selues and also exhorted the people to praie for the coming of Christ therefore when he was come he was not true God and true man in earth We crie Lift vp your harts before the body of Christ is made as beseching God we may haue his body made for vs. when it is made we lift the body it self vp to be adored and worshipped of the faithfull people as hauing then obteined our desier and that because it is the true body of true God And yet euen after consecration and after the body is really present it might wel be sayd lift vp your harts to heauen where by lyfting vp we should meane nothing ells but that the faithful men should not geue them selues to wordly thoughts of the earth of mony of flesh but list vp their minds to thinke of euerlasting ioyes Againe by naming heauen we meane not to denye yâ— real presence either of God in the whole earth or of Christ on the altar but only to shew that we should looke for another worlde and yâ— life thereof This argument might haue become a tinkar better then a diuine and least of all it could become a superintendent who ought to haue knowen that yâ— Church is yâ— kingdome of heauen and therefore the kingdome of God is within vs that to consyder what Christ worketh in his Church and for her sake is also after one sort to lift vp our hartes to heauen last of all he ought to consyder that S. Chrysostom writeth Diddest thou not promise yâ— Preist when he cryed lift vp your minds and hartes and saidest thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries the Lamb of God is offred for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fyre floweth from the table See what lifting vp of harts was to the old Fathers It was to acknowlege the mysteries vpon the table to beleue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to deny the real presence of Christ. That is in deed a homely lifting vp of harts to lift the body and blood of Christ cleane from the altar and holy table Such lifting away becometh theues Hitherto these men brought neither any euident authoritie of Scripture thereby to fortifie their opinion nor any sentence of auncient Father coÌ„cerning the question of the reall presence And now I pray you see what worshipful geare they bring We say in the Masse lift vp your harts before yâ— body is sanctified and made present therefore it is not made present at all We say grace before the meate is set vpon the table therefore none at all is set there This is the stuff of them that boast so much of the Gospell This is my body is forgotten which is fower tymes repeted twise of two Apostles and twise of two Euangelists Yet is that forgotten and lifting vp of harts which came of the good inuention of Godly Fathers but yet from men it came that is called in for a witnesse against the truth of the Gospell And yet euery man thinkeththey bring nothing but the pure word of God for their false doctrine ¶ What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. ANd Cyrillus sayth that in the receauing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Here is the second authoritie alleged against the reall presence of Christes body and that I warrant you full strong Grosse imaginations must be put awaye in receauing the mysteries therefore Christ spake not properly nor truly when he sayd This is my body Are we not now happy to haue such fine preachers who can shew the beleuing of that which Christ sayth
and make them liue to God and notbe wasted by eating but rather how it may profite our soules being worthely receaued into our bodies For so Tertullian sayeth The flesh is fedde with the body and blood of Christ to th' ende that the soule may be made fatte in God Perhaps the Apologists will say that S. Cyprian doth call it bread I answere he calleth it bread because it is meate for he sayeth This bread is meate But what kinde of meate Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mu tatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which ouâ—… Lord gaâ—…e to the Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almighty power of the word Behold the kind of bread it is coÌ„mon bread in sha pe but made the flesh of Christ in substance In the olde tyme sayth S. Ciprian the shew loues being cold and hard were changed euery Sabothe daie and hote loaues of the same nomber were wonte to be sette vpon the table I am nulla â—…itpanis panis mutatio vnus est panis caloris continui Now there is no change of bread made there is one loase os coÌ„tâ—…al heate which neuer is cold By this we vnderstand that somtyme S. Ciprian speaketh of common bread which Christ tooke into his handes and that is changed and is at euery tyme a new loafe At other tymes he speaketh of the bread whereunto the change is made And yâ— bread is the flesh of Christ which is neuer changed The first bread if it tarâ—…ed in substance it should sill the belly But because the substance thereof is changed the flesh of Christ which is made by consecration is the meate of the mind and not of the belly For it feedeth vs to that state of immortalitie where the belly shall no more be filled with coruptible meates So that it feedeth vs in such sorte that we leaue to cherishe oâ—…r bellies so much the lesse by how much the more we eate it 〈◊〉 ¶ SacrameÌ„tall eating differreth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in yâ— place alâ—…aged by the Apologie ANd Augustine how sayth he shall I hold him that is absent How shall I reache forth my hand into hâ—…auen that I might hold him there sitting Reach out sayth he faith thou hast caught him To make vp and to conâ—…lnde all these wrested places which haue bene alleaged heretofore out of the Fathers a plaine text is brought forth out of S. Augustine which speaketh neuer a whâ—…t of yâ— present controuersie nor can not be at all applied to it The question betwixt vs is whether Christes body bee present in the Sacrament of the altar or â—…o The Apologie reasoneth thus A Iewe that yet beleued not niay beginne to beleue and so may streche forth his hand to heauen and hold Christ fast by faith although he be bodily absent therefore Christes body after consecration dewly made is not present vnder forme of bread Is not this a mighty argument and worthy to be kept for the last place A Iewe may hold Christ by faith if he wil beleue vpon him therefore he is not to be eaten really of faithful Christians in the Sacrament Nos indicemus modo Iudaeis vbi sit Christus Let vs now shew to the Iewes sayeth S. Augustine where Christ is Occisus est a parentibus eorum he is â—…aine of their Pa rents Venturus est iudex he shall come a iâ—…dge Audiant teneant let them heare and hold Respondet quem tenebo The Iâ—…we maketh answere whom shall I hold Absentem Shall I hold him that is absent Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam How shall I stretch my hand vnto heauen that I may hold him sitting there Fidem mitte tenuisti strech out faith and thou hast caught him Parentes tui tenuerunt carâ—… tu tene corde Thy Parents haue holden him in flesh hold holdâ—… him in harte Quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est because Christ being absent is also present And againe corpus suum intulit coelo maiestatem n on abstulit mundo Christ hath caried his body into heauen he hath not taken away his maiestie from the world This dialogue S. Augustine made betwen him selfe a Iew not intending any whit to spcake in that place of the Sacrament of the altar wherof Iewes ought to know nothing And yet commeth yâ— Apologie and will proue that we touch not the body of Christ with our teeth and iawes but by faith mind and spirite bycause beside all the former argumentes which be not woreth a strawe S. Augustine telleth a Iewe that he may beleue vpon Christ absent in body but present in maiestie of his Godhead You will say perhaps If Christ be absent in body that his body is not present vnder the form of bread after consecration Syr S. Augustine speaketh not of Christs body as it is in yâ— SacrameÌ„t to be eaten but as it is visible in heauen And to assure you therof it was yâ— custome of yâ— primitiue Church to let no infidel see or be present at yâ— tyme of Masse of yâ— ChristiaÌ„s Therefore S. Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of yâ— misticall presens of Christ in the Saâ—…ament neither surely any word of his in that alleaged place is to be referred to the Sacramentall eating They are two distinct things to receaue Christ by faith alone and to receaue by faith and SacrameÌ„t together that may be done before baptisme as it appeareth by Cornelius in the Actes of the Apostles But a Sacramentall receauing in the supper of Christ is graunted only to Christians after baptisme as S. Justinus yâ— martyr and the experience it selfe doth witnesse For as he that is not borne can not eate so he yâ— is not regenerated in Christ may not be suffered to eate his body drinke his blood in the Sacrament And truly except a man hath so addicted him selfe to Christ that he wil be contented to beleâ—…e what so euer he shal say vnto him he would neuer be persuaded that vnder the forme of so small a peece of bread the reall body of Christ were conteyned But when he hath learned in the articles of his faith that Christ is God and therefore almighty after that belefe he both can beleue his word to be true when he sayd ouer bread which was taken This is my body and also may eate the same body of Christ to his profit and to the encrease of life euerlasting But what ignorance was this to applie the eating of an infidell Iew to the mysticall eating which only the faithfull make in Christes supper ¶ The preface of the third Booke THe mysterie of Christes supper was so great that not only diuerse figures in the lawe of nature and of Moyses were by the Patriarches Priests
Christes Church sheweth that after our second birth nourishment is necessarie to vs straight way bringeth foorth Christes words in S. Ihon ioyning them with the words of his last supper which S. Basile sayeth to be writen in the end of the Gospels thereby geuing vs to vnderstand that as the performance was made in the end so the promise went before Is it not maruaile now that any thing should be pretended out of this blessed man for the contrarie opinion But how iustly it is pretended wee shall see afterward Gregorius of Nyssa brother to S. Basile teacheth the flesh of Christ to be a bodily thing because it is made meate for mans body That it is meate he proueth out of S. Ihon. For there only are found the chief words by him alleged which are Panis enim qui de coelo descendit qui verus cibus est non incorporea quaedam res est For the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate is not a thing without a body Quo enim pacto sayth he res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meanes will a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Doubtlesse Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where els but only in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper And therefore this great clerck thought him self to reason wel in bringing such words as are in S. Ihon for that effect which belongeth to the holy coÌ„munion Because he iudged both places of holy Scripture to be of one argument Cyrillus of Hierusalem intreating of the Sacrament of the altar so euidently citeth these words of S. Ihon Excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man caet that noman may doubt of his meaning And because this part of my work wold be ouer long if I should staye so long vpon euery of the auncieÌ„t Fathers I besech the studiouse Reader to be content that hereafter I may in fewer words declare euery mans iudgemeÌ„t shewing him the place of the author where if it please him he may at more leisure examine all the circumstances S. Ambrose disputing of the truth of Christes flesh in the Eucharist although it selfe be not sene bringeth out of S. Ihon My flesh is meate in dede and except ye eate the flesh c. Eusebius Emissenus hauing spoken of the bread and wine of Melchisedech sheweth Christ to haue spoken of eating his own â—…esh of drinking his own blood in S. Ihon as of two kindes whereby he is receaued which is done no where but in Christes supper S. Chrysostom is so plaine herein that of those wordes the bread which I will geue is my flesh he maketh none other literal meaning but such as apperteineth to the Sacrament of Christes body And yet he expoundeth the former partes of the Chapiter indifferently of spirituall eating and drinking S. Augustine albeit he may seme vpon S. Ihon to presse most earnestly vpon the wâ—…itie which we haue with Christ by eating his â—…esh and drinking his blood and by tarying in him hauing him tarying in vs yet he meaneth not to exclude out of those wordes al Sacramentall receauing but only the vnworthy Sacramentall receauing For he sayth expresly he that tarieth not in Christ eaâ—…eth not spiritually his flesh â–ª albeiâ—… carnally and visibly he presse with his teath the SacrameÌ„t of 〈◊〉 body and blood of Christ. So that by S. Augustine there is a dubble spirituall eating of Christes flesh one without the Sacrament and an other with the Sacrament Christ so spake of both that he spake specially of the most perâ—…it which is obteined by worthy receauing of the Sacrament Out of this worthy receauing riseth that greate societie vnitie with Christ his mysticall body whereof S. Augustine so much speaketh This is the SacrameÌ„t of Godlines the signe of vnitie the bonde of chaâ—…itie Without eating of this one way or other no life euerlastiÌ„g is to be loked for by eating yâ— same wor thely in yâ— best kinde of way which is in the Sacrament of the altar the highest degree of vnitie with Christ our head is obâ—…eined As the best signe of vnitie is in the forin of this Sacrament so the best effect springeth oâ—…t of the worthy receauing of the substaÌ„ce which is vnder that form Therefore in other places S. AugustiÌ„e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words out oâ—… S. Ihon This bread wâ—…cih I wâ—…ll geue is my flesh for the life of the world to shew the Priesthod of Melchisedech which Priesthod him selfe declareth to be in the Sacrament of the altar saying Melchicedech prolato Sacramento mensae dominicae nouit aeternum eius Sacerdotium figurare Melchisedech by bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lords table did know to shew the â—…igure of his euerlasting Priesthod Furthermore S. Augustine expounding these words of S. Ihon of the last supper in very many places of his works most expresly sayth that S. Ihon spake nothing of the body and blood of our Lord in the thirtenth Chapiter where he mentioned the last supper sed plane alibi multo vberius hinc Dominum locutuÌ„ esse testatur But verily in an other place S. Ihon witnesseth our Lord to haue spoken much more copiously thereof Except S. Augustine thought yâ— sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon to appertein literally to the Sacrament of the altar he wold neuer haue sayd that S. Ihon spake not of the supper in the due place because he spake of it in an other place more copiously But of S. Augustie I will speake again hereafter S. Hierome sayth the flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two ways or in two maners Either that spirituall and diuine whereof he sayd My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede c â–ª or els yâ— flesh which was crucified for vs and yâ— blood which was shed with the speare of the Souldiour And that one substance is in eche maner of flesh and blood only the maner of geuing it being diuerse it appereth also by the senteÌ„ce folowing where he sayeth one flesh of the Saiâ—…res may see the saluatioÌ„ of God an other flesh can not possesse heauen Not that the substaÌ„ce of natural flesh but the worthines of the men is diuerse S. Cyrillus of Alexandria writing vpon S. Ihon of purpose and shewing the most literall sense thereof that he could deuise or learn interpreateth the whole sixth chapiter of S. Ihon of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar naming very many tymes the partaking of the holy mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holy chalice Also vpon those words I will reyse him vp again he maketh this exposition Ego id est corpus meuÌ„ quod comedetur resuscitabo eum I will reise him that is to say my body that shal be eaten shall reise him As if he sayd I will reise him because my body which shal be eaten of him shall reise him Sedulius proueth the
what answere ought to be made therevnto Thus I haue proued by the proprietie of yâ— words in S. Ihon by the circumstance of the tyme and place by the coÌ„ference of holy Scriptures by the vniform consent of the auncient Fathers by the authoritie of generall Councels by the yerely practise of the west Church by the confutation of the reasons which are made to the contrarie that Christ in his disputation at Capharnaum spake in some part of yâ— sixth Chapiter by the way of promise of yâ— Sacrament of his last supper All which things if they proue not my intent I desier the learned Reader to shew me wherein they faile from the truth But vntill that be shewed I must say all the authoritie that is an yâ— earth semeth to concurre to that my position And therefore God willing I intend to build vpon this so sure a ground the rest of my disputation against the heretiks of our tyme who teach false doctrine in the matter of Christes supper affirming that Christ promiseth in S. Ihon to geue his flesh in spirit only and not vnder the forme of bread Against whom I wil from hence foorth dispute if yet I first shew somwhat more particularly that the euerlasting meate which Christ promiseth in S. Ihon doth appertein to that part of Christes talk whicâ—… is before proued to appertein to his last supper ¶ The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth to geue is meant of his reall flesh and blood to be geuen at his last supper CHrist going about to drawe the people from filling of their bellies to a more spiritual feeding said worke not the meate which perisheth but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you This proposition is diligently to be consydered as being the chief keye of the whole dispâ—…ation folowing And therefore I wil declare how euery part of it doth agree with the processe of the talke which towardes the end of the chapter is made concerning Christes owne gift First where he saith the sonne of man will geue meate he afterwarde vttereth the kinde of meate or foode more plainly saying The Bread which I wil geue is my flesh And whereas he â—…ad them worke the sayd meate he afterward sheweth that by working he meaneth first beleuing in him with a true and working faith and afterward also eating and drinking worthely his owne flesh and blood And therfore sayth this is the worke of God that you beleue in him whom he hath sent and again Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shal not haue life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting And yet farther expounding his former wordes he sayth for my flesh 〈◊〉 meate in dede the word verè in dede declareth what kinde of worke belongeth to this meate not only a metaphoricall worke but a true worke of the body and soule of the soule in beleuing of the body in eating So that if we marke well the meate that must be wroâ—…ght the bread that he wil geue and his owâ—…e flesh which must be eaten is al one thing The working of this meate reqâ—…reth the helpe as well of the minde as of the body accordingly as Tertullian sayth Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit The flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ to thintent the soule also mâ—…e be made fat of God They can not therefore be seperated in reward whom the worke ioyneth The body worketh with the soule in eating yâ— flesh of Christ the work ioyneth them because they both work and eate one thing and therefore they must be rewarded both together in the daye of Iugdement But if we did eate the body of Christ by faith only as the Sacramentaries teache our bodies should not worke the meate which perisheth not but only should eate bread and drinke wine which must nedes â—…erish But Christ goeth forward to shewe his owne flesh to be meat in dede to be that true meate which he sayd before should not perish but tary and abide still saying for he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him which thing cometh so tâ—… passe because Christes flesh being eaten is not digested into our earthly flesh and so consumed of vs as other meates are bâ—…t rather as being incomparably stronger then oâ—…r stomaks it consumeth all our carnall and fleshly humours If then it cause vs not to perish how much more is it selfe a meate not perishing but tarying for euer And to shew that the sayd worker of the meate and flesh which Christ will geue taâ—…ieth in Christ â—…ot only for a time but to life euerlasting as the not perishing meate was before sayd to doe againe it foloweth He that eateth this brâ—…ad shall liue for euer By which 〈◊〉 of Christes words it is euident when he sayeth worke not the meate whiche perisheth but which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you that then he meaneth they shuld eate his flesh drinke his blood in such â—…orte as the sonne of man wil geue it I 〈◊〉 thee good Reader once againe to conferre these sayinges Is it not all one to say the sonne of man will geue and I wil geue Likewyse the sonne of man wil geue you meate and the bread which I will geue is my flesh only this difference there is that in the later wordes he nameth the kinde of meate which in the former he did not name The sonne of man will geue the meate which perisheth not and what is that 〈◊〉 say but that he will geue his flesh as meate which flesh he will geue for the life of the world And how can that fleshe be thought able to perish which maketh all other men that beleue in it to liue for euer The meate which the sonne of man wil geue must be wrought and the bread which Christ sayeth to be his flesh which he wil geue must also be eaten for except ye â—…ate the flesh of the sonne of 〈◊〉 and drinke his blood ye shal not haue life in you The meate of the sonne of man tarieth and he that eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood tarieth in Christ and Christ in him The meate of the sonne of man dureth to life euerlasting And he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath life euerlasting If these things answere throughly if Christ be the sonne of man if the bread he wil geue which is his flesh for the life of the world be the meat which perisheth not if the working of this meate be both beleuing and eating if the meat make the eater â—…arie for euer then â—…ith so many thinges agree let these wordes
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
fulfill it â–ª for the fulfilling of the law without the putting away thereof is no lesse to say then to putt the fulnesse of new grace vnder a shadow which shadow may seme to kepe a resemblance with the old law so that of two distincte states there must now be made one new middle state of the which the outward parte resembleth the law and the inward is one with the state of grace Let vs put an example in the precepts of nature to make this thing more plaine The law saith Non occides Thou shalt not kyl This precept was not put away by Christe but the true ground of it which is not to be angry was ioyned therevnto as it appeareth by yâ— sermâ—…n of Christe in S. Mathew It was said to them of the oldelaw Thou shalt not kyl but I say vnto yow that euery one that is angry with his brother shal be gylty in iudgement Here we see two things the one of kylliug the other of being angrie That of kylling is outward That of angre is inwarde they both make but one precept of the new Testament the not kylling dependeth vppon the not being angrie and then is kylling throughly taken away when anger is throughly cured and as it fareth with this precept so staudeth it with the the blessed Sacrament whereof we reason For it keepeth yâ— forme of bread and wyne which vnder yâ— law was emptie and the truth which was be tokened by the olde manna is put by the almyghtic power of God vnder the formes of bread and wyne and so remayneth the law not altogether put away for a kynd of figure taryeth stil and it was euer a siguratiue law but fulfilled because the body of Christ which is the fulfilling of the law is made present vnder a figure The signe of circuncision saith S. Leo the sanctification of gifts the consecracion of priests the purity of sacrisice the veritie of washing the honour of the teÌ„ple is with vs. there is no legal instruction no prophetical figure quod non totum in Christi sacrameÌ„ta transierit which is not wholy transferred into the Sacraments of Christ and again one oblation of thy body and blood fulfilleth the diuersity of the old sacrifices Hitherto S. Leo the great To yâ— same effect serue yâ— words of blessed Dionysius a Counseller of the Senate of Athens scholar to S. Paule who hauing declared the holy kinde of gouernaÌ„ce which is in heauen among the ordres of Angelles and hauing shewed that by them the inferiour degrees of men are brought vnto God according to their capacitie he first sheweth that God gaue vnto the world the goueruement of the law which he gaue as to children in signes and tokens and as to weak eyes in figures clowdes or shadowes But afterward came our holy gouernaunce which is the end and fulfilling of the former law Now saith this holy writer Nostra hierarchia coelestis est legalis quae communiter medietate extremorum comprehenditur cum illa communes habens spiritales contemplationes cum hac autem signa quo sensum mouent quorum varietate distinguitur per ea piè ad deum adducitur Our holy gouernance saieth Dionysius is both heauenly and legal that is to say hauing somewhat like to the law conteyned in coÌ„mon betwene those two extremyties partaking with that of heauen spirituall contemplations and with this of the law sensible signes whereby it is diuersly distincted and by them it is brought after an holy mauer vnto God We haue heard how the scholar of S. Paule ioyneth in our state the heauenly contemplacioÌ„s of Angelles who looke vpon God him selfe with the outward signes of the law For by heauenly contemplacions S. Dionysius meaneth that truth which face to face is sene in heauen But let vs returne again to the words of S. Paule who did yet expresse this matter more plainly keping the same diuision but geuing euery thing his playne name The law had the bare shadow of things to come The truth is the body of Christ it self which he calleth also Rem ipsam the thing it self wherein also dwelleth the nature of God Now the ioyning of a figure with the truthe is called Ipsa imago reruÌ„ the very shape or image of the things Vmbram enim habens lex futurorum bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum For yâ— law sayth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of the things The good things to come are the vision of Christ in glory and yâ— clere sight of God who corporally dwelleth in the body of Christ. The shadow hereof was yâ— law whereof Moyses being steward obtayned bread from the ayer for the children of Israel But the image it self of the things that is to say wherein the body of Christ is conteyned and in that body God dwelleth yâ— image is the substance of God man couered vnder the formes of our blessed Sacrament of the altar And therefore that Sacrament is properly the gift of Christ coÌ„ teyning both it whiche we shall see in heauen and suche a figure as we haue sene vnder the lawe couering presently the truth to come with the shadow past to come I say without a shadowe past I say without yâ— real truthe but now hauing the truthe vnder a shadow Maximus and Pachimera do vpon S. Dionysius allege S. Paule for the profe of that which Dionysius said Oecu menius likewise expoundeth the things them selues to be the life to come the shadow to be the old testameÌ„t the image of things to be the state of the Gospel This I take to be the true meaning of the holy Ghost who doth not in vaine cause the gifte of God by Moyses to be named diuersly from the gift of God the father and the gift of Christ to differ from them both Moyses is sayd to haue geuen God the fa ther presently to geue Christ promiseth that he will geue God by Moyses hath geuen bread God the father at the tyme of speaking gaue his sonne in visible fleshe Christ promyseth to geue yâ— bread which is the flesh of the sonne of man which flesh vnder the forme of bread bringeth together in the Sacrament of the altar the good things of heauen such figures as were in the law All which distinctions of geuing and truth of gifts the Sacra mentaries by their figuratiue doctrine make voyd as they doe the reste of the holy Scriptures For they will that Christes outwarde gift should in it conteyne no inuisible truth of fleshe and blood but euen the bare substance of common bread and wyne feeding vs with needy and impotent creatures as though we remayned yet babes as though Christ in fulfylling all figures had destroyed them and not left them full and perfect That which the water and the cloude did signifie is now really performed in baptisme where
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
beleue The Fathers gifte is to worke Christ in vs as Christ is God and man but more as he is God then as he is man for oure â—…aith and belefe is due to the Godhead first of all aâ—…d vnto the manhood because it is ioyned vnto the Godhead and therefore Christ sayd ye beleue in God beleue also in me But drinking and eating is first apperteyning to the manhood and afterward reacheth vnto the Godhead because yâ— Godhead is in that meaâ—…e and drinke which we take therefore Christ sayd he that 〈◊〉 my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him The Fathers gift is belonging first to our spirite and then to oure flesh because it is the flesh of such a spirit which beleueth in God and loueth him the sonnes gifte is first in our body and flesh concernyng the Sacramentall receauing of him and then in our spirite because it is a spirite belonging to such a flesh which receaueth the flesh of God thorough Christ. In the Fathers gift we are not sayd to receaue yâ— true bread it self which the Father gaue into the world but to receaue as it were an effect wrought by yâ— streÌ„gth thereof for after Christ had at large described his Fathers gifte he said this is the bread comming downe from heauen to the entent that if any man shal eate ex ipso of it he may not dye he saith not ipsum if any man eate it but of it Again Ego sum panis qui de coelo desceÌ„di si quis manducauerit ex hoc páne viuet in aeternum I am the bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer to eat of this bread is to receaue some grace and effect comming from it And this much coÌ„cerning yâ— Fathers gift But concerning the sonnes gifte Christ saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ He saith not of the flesh but yâ— wholè flesh it self Again My flesh is truely meaâ—… he that eateth my flesh tarieth in me and afterward he that eateth meâ—… he saith not now of me but me Last of all qui maÌ„ducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shal liue for euer he saith not now he that eateth of this bread as he sayd before speaking of spirituall eating but he that eateth this bread And yet to make the matter more playne such an eating is assigned to the gifte of Christ which is made in his supper as before was named of MaÌ„na for it was sayd thereof Our Fathers did eate Manna they sayd not of Manna but Manna in his owne substance which words are three tymes conformably rehearsed and euery where they did eate Manna not only of Man na as though they had only taken a certeyn vertue out of it but they did eate Manna as we eate common bread Seing then we may eate of a thing or els the thing it self the eating of it is a spiritual eating by faith and vnderstanding But the eating it is a reall eating in the nature and substance of the thing it self When I say that by the Fathers gifte we eate of Christ and by the Sonnes gifte we eate Christ I meane not to deny but that also by the Sonnes gifte we eate of Christ. For as he that hath syxe hath fower so he that eateth worthely Christes flesh eateth both Christ and of Christ but not only of Christ for he eateth Christ in his humane nature wherein the diuine nature dwelleth and is geuen thereby to be eaten of He eateth of Christ I say concerning that effect grace which by Sacramentall eating the Godhead worketh in his body and soule For the Godhead it self is the bread whereof we must partake But the meane to partake it most abundantly is to receaue worthely yâ— manhood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Therefore Christ geuing all the spirituall gifts that his Father doth as meane to make vs partakers of yâ— Godhead geueth also besydes all them the truth of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar as yâ— meane far yâ— highest to ioyne vs most nigh to yâ— spirit of God And although his Father geue vs by his appointment the same flesh and blood which Christ doth geue yet Christ calleth it for a great reason his own gift because the substance of it procedeth from his own person where vnto he assumpted flesh and blood For in this Chapiter as in many other places by the Fathers gift the gift of God and of the whole Trinitie is meant And by yâ— Sonnes gift that chiefly is meant which peculiarly procedeth by meane of yâ— incarnatioÌ„ strength of Christes flesh ioyned always with yâ— dyuine nature the which flesh we receaue in the Sacrament of Christes own institution wherein he sayd in his own person Take and eate this is my body drink ye all of this for this is my blood Who seeth not nowe the difference betwene the gift that God geueth vs by charitie which he spreadeth in our hartes and the gifâ—… wherein he gaue his owne Sonne wheÌ„ he toke flesh and became man with vs and the gift which the Sonne being made man geueth in his supper No gifte of God could saue vs the prophecies standing as they did but only the geuing of his soÌ„ne into the world when he tooke reall flesh for vs. And yet was not that enough except the Sonne again had geuen him self to death for vs. Then the flesh of Christ is the meane for vs to be saued that is a ladder let down from heauen whereon we may steppe and so clyme vp God him self we could not eate thereby to be chauÌ„ged into him and made membres of him But God became man that we eating maÌ„ might receaue God as he dwelt in that flesh which we reâ—…aued The conclusion is that if the Fathers gifte which is the inâ—…arnation of Christ and his manhood be to be taken in spirite and faith concerning the feeding of our soules as you haue seen it plainly proued the sonnes gifte which is an other different maner of geuing and hath an other kynde of working appoin ted to it must be receaued not in faith spirit and vertue only but also in the substance of flesh and blood Our new preachers expound the whole matter as though Christ gaue his flesh in his last supper noâ—…e otherwise excepting materiall bread and wine then his Father geueth it vnto vs by faith And therefore they teache that we receaue in the supper of our Lord with common bread and wine Christ him self by faith and spirit But by that meanes Christ geueth a great deale lesse then his father gaue For bread and wine is lesse then the gift of faith when Christ geueth faith he doth it as God therein being one with his father Is then his owne gift only bread and wine Came he into the world to geue a lesse tokeÌ„ then God had
geue it them This is a hard talk sayd they they were hard and not the talk for if they were not hard but gentle they wold say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because there lieth priuie some Sacrament â—…eing gen tle not hard they wold â—…arie with him and should learn of him that thing which after their departure those lerned who taried for when yâ— twelue had taried with him the other being departed they as who were sorie of yâ— others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed but Christ instructed them and sayd It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth not the words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life vnderstand that which I haue spoken spiritually Ye shall not eate this body which ye see ne shall not drink that blood which they shal shed who wil 〈◊〉 me I haue commended to you a certain Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstanded shal make you liue and although that Sacrament mustenedes be visibly celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded thus much S. Augustine First I note in these words against the Lutherans that S. Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament of his last supper for there only a Sacrament of his death is visibly folemnized and inuisibly vnderstanded Secondly I note against the Zuinglaâ—…s that the figuratiue speache which S. Augustine acknowlegeth in Christes words is to be measured and meant according to the natural and customable speaking and vnderstanding of carnall men who yet be not fully faithfull for they thought they should haue eaten Christes flesh torne into peeces to fâ—…l their bellies there withal for in dede the eating of flesh naturally imploieth cutting or tearing before it come to our month and afterward chawing with the teeth and so the filling of the bellye but in respect of all suche meanings the words of Christ be figuratiue For seing it is against the honestie of maners to order mans flesh after such a cruel fashion the Iewes should haue deuised how to make an honest meaning of his words whom they confessed to be a great Prophete or at the least they should haue asked of Christ the true meaning of his own words For seing Christ had multiplied siue loaues miraculously to feed them and did so many other miracles and so much good in al the countrie that all men who were voide of malice confessed him to be of God reason geueth they should harken obediently to his words as the which they might perceaue to be spoken by no meane or common man and that therefore they should not measure them by their own phantasie experience Now then to say that except ye eate my flesh is a siguratiue speache is no more to say but you must not take the eating of Christes flesh so as at the first sight it cometh to your mind neither concerning the vsuall maner nor concerning the customable end of yâ— eating for that is vnhonest Tarie therefore vntill you find a better sense Whiche sense is found when it is knowen that Christ vnder the forme of bread geueth the substance of his flesh whole sound and quick with the Godhead corporally dwelling in it to the end we should liue spiritually for euer by worthy receauing it into our bodies and soules Thirdly I note much the kind of speaking which S. Augustine vseth For he calleth that thing a Sacrament vpon yâ— words of the Psalm now alleged which in his bookes of Christian doctrine he called a figure Shewing him self to take the name of a figure for all that when a farther and higher thing is to be vnderstanded then was outwardly expressed in which case the thing expressed is a Sacrament to wit a figure or a holy signe of that higher truth which is to be vnderstanded but he meant not by the name of a figure either to exclude the truth of eating Christes flesh or the truthe of drinking his blood but only the grosse maner of eating and drinking it to a carnal end which the Iewes thought vpon for as the killing and eating of the Paschall lamb was not only natural but also gaue yâ— faithful to vnderstand that Christ â—…ould be both killed on the crosse and eaten in a Sacrament and as the figure which was in that Lamb did not diminish the real killing and eating thereof but only did refer it to a higher truthe so the figure which is in eating Christes flesh doth not diminish the true eating thereof but only declareth that eating to be a figure because it is referred again to a higher truthe both in Christ whose flesh that once died is now eaten and in vs who eate it not so much for to eate it corporally as to fede spiritually of God him self who maketh that flesh profitable and that S. Augustine thought so it is euident by his own words vpon S. Iohn ye know not what is that maner of eating this flesh but except ye eate it c. Lo the maner of eating was secret but the thing that should be eaten was naturall flesh Again Carnem sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They so vnderstode flesh as it is torne in a carcase or solde in the shambles And not as it is quickened with the spirit or Godhead Here it is reported wherein the Iewes did erre They toke the word flesh amisse not concerning the substance of it which must be really eaten but concerning the maner of eating it Is not modus Latin for the maner Is not quomodo as much to say as by what maner The Iewes vnderstode yâ— name of flesh Quomodo dilaniatur non quomodo vegetatur After such maner as it is torn into pecces and not after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit of God Do not these words import that the Iewes erred in the manner of eating Christes flesh Doth not he that findeth fault only with the maner of eating flesh sufficiently allow the eating of the flesh it self if it be done after a good maner Yea farther doth not he that sheweth the maner how it may be well eaten approue that kind of eating it As we must not â—…ate Christes flesh after such a grosse maner as is vsed in eating such flesh which is commonly cut into peeces Right so we must eate Christes flesh after such maner as it is quickened with the Godhead So doe S. Angustines words import I beseche thee good Reader see the oddes betwene the argument of a Catholike and of a SacrameÌ„tarie He reasoneth thus we must not eate Christes flesh carnally and butcharly therefore we must not eate really yâ— substance thereof We reason thus We must eate Christes flesh as it is quickened with the Godhead therefore we must eate really the substance thereof The argument of the Sacramentarie is naught
washing hath a farther and higher end then only to cleanse the body That speache therefore wherein Christ commaÌ„deth his flesh to be eateÌ„ is figuratiue not that we should denye the true eating of his flesh but because that eating is referred to a greater purpose then to the feeding of the body for Christes flesh is meate in dede that is to say is eaten in dede as I shal proue vpon that place but it is not eaten only that it should be corporalâ—…y receaued but to th end we should partake of the spirit and godhead which is in it and so by the merit of that flesh really present in vs obteyn life euerlasting with it now from what a worthy meaning wold these figuratiue Gospellers bring the words of our sauiour whose hard harts I beseche God to mollify that when they heare the truthe their stomake do not kendle to maynteine their old fashon beâ—…ore they haue well loked about them rather choosing to confesse a fault and to amend it then to make a new synne by myssexcusing the former fault ¶ Christes slesh being meate in dede must nedes be really receaued into our bodyes HE that wil know exactly why the flesh of Christ is called meate in dede must put before his eies three thinges The first is that the Iewes hearing Christ say he wold geue them his flesh asked how he could geue it to be eaten The second is that although Christ answered not directly to their captious how and vnsaythful question yet he sayd the eating of his flesh to be necessary for them as without the whiche they could not haue life and profitable as whereby they shold haue euerlasting life that not in their soules only but also in their bodies for so much as he wold reise them vp in the last day after whiche two things well pondered the third is to marke that Christ confirmeth all these former sayings of his by suche wordes as geue a reason of them for my flesh saith he is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede as if he had sayd wonder not yâ— my flesh geueth you life euerlasting reiseth vp your bodies for it is meate in dede that is to say it hath truly in dede those proprieties which any man wold wish for in true meate Two thinges may be considered in meate the one that it is trulie receaued into the body of that liuing creature for whose vse it is appointed the other that it is receaued as a medicine whiche may preserue vs against death for meate is neither properly attributed vnto the feeding of the sowle but only by a metaphor and an vnproper speache neither is it worthy to be called true meat if it gene not a true remedie against death there fore when Christ saith My flesh is meate in dede he meaneth thus my flesh bothe shal be receaued into the verie bodies of my people and shall geue life euerlasting as well to their bodiâ—…s as to their soules â–ª the whiche interpretation S. Chrysostom maketh writing thus Quid significat c. what meane these words my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is truly drinke either it meaneth that flesh to be the true meate whiche saueth the soule or els he speaketh it to confirm them in the former wordes Nâ—… obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scirent omnino necessariuÌ„ esse vt corpus comederent that they should not thinke him to haue spokeÌ„ in parables darkely but that they should know it to be by all meanes necessary to eate his body thus far S. Chrysostom By whiche interpretation Christ geueth a reason both of his first wordes wherein he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my flesh and of the second when he sayd he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting for my flesh is meate in deede both in that respect that it shal be geuen to you as true meate is wont to be deliuered to them who truly take and truly eate it and also in that respect that it nourisheth truly as true and eâ—…erlasting meate ought to nourishe he that denieth any one sense of the twaine deuieth one veritie of the ghospell he that graunteth both senses must needes graunt that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truly the signe of flesh because he spake not obscurely nor in parables as S. Chrysostom affirmeth and yet it is an obsâ—…nre saying to put flesh for materiall bread or eating for beleuing it is a parabolicall speache if when flesh blood eating and drinking is named yet we shal â—…derstand that bakers bread must be eaten and wyne drunken and Christ must be loued beleued vppon these parables neither Christ thought of nor the Fathers knew If Adam had not synned the opinion of ancient doctors is that notwithstanding his body consisted of contrarie elements by whose continual fight and battail it should naturally haue drawen to corruption and dissolution yet through the maruelouse grace of God saith S. Augustine his body shoâ—…lo haue bene far from disseases from old age from death from all corruption by tasting of the wood of life whiche was in yâ— middest of paradise Tanquam caetera essent alimento illud Sacramento vt sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradyso corporali sicut in spiritali hoc est intelligibili paradyso sapientia Dei de qua scriptum est Lignum vitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam So that other meates in paradise were to nourish Adam corporally the word of life was also in stede of a mysterie or Sacrament to th' end the word of life should be vnderstanded to be after such sort in the corporal paradise as the wisedom of God is in the spiritual paradise which is atteined to by only vnderstanding the which wisedom of God as it is writen thereof is the wood of life to all that embrace it As now the wood of life which should haue preserued man froÌ„ incorruption was to be bodily tasted of and yet to worâ—…e a Sacramentall and spirituall effect in preseruing mans body aboue al course of a corrutible nature so is it meant that Christes flesh which is in dede the wood of life should be a SacrameÌ„t vnto vs by the corporall eating and spiritual working thereof for bothe these canses together it is called meate in dede Take a way yâ— corporall tasting of Christes body and charitie â—…aith hope or any like vertue is proportionably in his degree meat in dede or drinke in dede as the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is For all those vertues coming from God feed vs in dede to life euerlasting therefore haue that second proprietie of trut meat which is to nourish for euer But they haue not yâ— first proprietie which is to be receaued after an external maner into our bodies To this externall maner Christ had also respect when he â—…ayd My flesh is meat in dede or
not fame vpoÌ„ him what should please them but should be controlled by his word For as vniuersal tradition suffiseth to Catholiks who beleue it so the heretik who estemeth no tradition must haue his ouerthrow by the holy Scriptures In them we read that who so beleueth and is baptized shal be saued Whereby is most clere that baptism hath his promse of saluation annexed to it But when we come to our Lords supper no promise at al is made to him that eateth material bread or driketh wine Therefore no man may be so bold to say that by eatig bakers bread we shal be saued Eating verily hath his promyse of saluatioÌ„ annexed thereunto but it is the flesh of Christ whiche must be eaten it is the blood of the sonne of man which must be drunken it is the food of life Christ him felf whiche must be Sacramentallie receaued In all S. Iohn there is promyse of life made to none other thing At the last supper it is said this is my body take eate and this is my blood drinke ye all of this Where no mention of eating bread or of drinkâ—…g wine is made much lesse anie promise of life is thereunto annexed S. Paul speaketh of none other breade then of that which is the communicating of his flesh and which being one is receaued and partaken of al faithful and yet neither in him nor in the actes of the Apostles nor in anieplace place els is any promise made by Christ that who so eateth material bread in his remembrance though he eate it neuer so deuoutly shall by that eating liue foreuer Nowe whereas Caluin pretendeth yâ— words of Christes supper to be words of promise it is already confuted and albeit they were words of promise yet they neither promise bread to be eateÌ„ nor life to them that deuoutly eate bread In coÌ„sideration whereof we may conclude that water is the instrument to giue life because baptism is expresly named andd hath the promyse of saluation in Gods word But seing bread hath not suche promise they speake beside all scriptures who think it sufficient for our bodies to eate bread and to drinke wine at Christes supper And lest any man should think that I may be deceaued in the word of God and that some promise there made to bread wine may escape me I answer that euen here Christ sheweth vs not only to liue for him but also to line for him by eating him so that we haue the word of God that Christ him self is our food not only by faith but by eating We haue then two aduaÌ„tages one that no promise of life is made to bread and wine The other that expresse promise of life is made to him who eateth Christ. whereupon thus I reason Either this promise of life which is made to him that eateth Christ suâ—…iseth in the kind of eating or no. If this suffise not the word of God is reproued which sayth He that eateth me shall liue for me And by eating Christ he vnderstandeth as I haue often tymes declared beleuing vpoÌ„ him doing his wil and besydes al that the receauing of him corporally in the Sacrament of his supper If now his promise of life be alone sufficient what place is left for the Sacramentaries to chalenge life to their bodies by the eating of wheaten bread and by drinking wine Their bodies verily can not liue without the food of life for as Christ said before except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue life in you and I am sure he spake to men that had bodies But material bread is not Christes fleshe neither hath it any promise to geue life to our bodies therefore either our bodies die for euer or els they liue through yâ— that they receaue Christ into them corporally the which saying of myne is confirmed by this place of S. Cyrillus Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem vitam traduci nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur This corruptible 〈◊〉 of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life 〈◊〉 the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it which if it be true 〈◊〉 not they who take the body of Christe who is the naturall life from 〈◊〉 corruptible bodies depriue vs of all hope of life in our bodies How theÌ„ do we lyue for Christ through him as he liued for his father Doth not he liue for his father as well in body as in soule because his manhood is vnited to the word which word is the sonne of yâ— father Therefore as we liue for him by eating him as he liueth for his father who sent him so must we be naturally ioyned to his flesh in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper by receauing yâ— same worthely into our bodies liue in body and soule for euer ¶ The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was taught with the losse of many disciples IT is not to be thought that Christ who forbiddeth all occasioÌ„s of geuing offence to other men wold him self cast a stumbling block in his disciples way by pressing them to eate his fleshe and to drinke his blood if in dede they were not really to be eaten and drunken But if Christ spake that which was true in dede and spake it as it was true then was it their fault who had sene him the day before working so great a miracle not to beleue such a Prophet as their own experieÌ„ce and expresse words witnessed him to be If then they were bound to beleue him and yâ— they could do no otherwise then if they beleued that he would geue them his flesh to eate in dede their fault was in that they did not beleue that he was both able and in dede would by a conuâ—…nient meane geue them his true flesh in the way oâ—… meate and his true blood in the way of drinke If that were their fault then is it their â—…ault likewise who in our daies thinke teach that Christ hath not geuen vs in his last supper his 〈◊〉 flesh to be really eaten true blood to be really drunken 〈◊〉 the maner of eating flesh and drinking blood 〈◊〉 should in time conuenient haue learned that also Al men do know that when a thing is to be done the first question is to demand whether it may be done or no. wherein it is also conteined how easily a thing may be done The second is whether it be worthy yâ— taking in hand The third how it may be brought to passe As loÌ„g as the thig is thought either vnpossible or very hard or vnproâ—…itable so long it is in vaine to talke of the maner of the doing it Christ did talke with the Iewes of the two first points shewing that he was able to do it Quia hâ—…nc pater signauit Deus because God the father hath signed him whereby he declared
we hope to see that agreement of minds that consent of wils that vniformitie of life and belefe which our grandfathers and great grandfathers had The Trinitaries of Polonia vnder their Capitain 〈◊〉 who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉 that chief citie of yâ— Kingdom said that the name of the blessed Trinitie is a monsterouse thing not because they openly deny the father yâ— sonne yâ— holy ghost or the equality of them nor because they defend any more then one God But they affirm yâ— albeit there are three vnius naturae of one nature of one Godhead yet there are not three say they yâ— are vna natura vel Deitas one nature or Godhead And for proufe hereof they appeale to the new Testament and old and to the Churche which they call priuatiue which was of the first two hundred yeres or thereabout bidding vs looke whether we find Trinum vnum deuÌ„ or Trinitatem in vnitate or vnum deum in tribus personis in any scripture or in any Father of that age As for S. Athanasius S. Hilarie S. Basil S. Augustin so forth they esteme no more then our new brethren esteme S. Bede or S. Thomas of Aquine The booke intituled of the Trinitie which is in S. Iustinus works they affirm not to be his vsing presently the same shamles shifts against the blessed name and nature of that Trinitie which the Sacramentaries vse against the nature name of the Masse Not long after these Trinitaries an other cumpany began to think circumcision so necessarie that in Lituania many 〈◊〉 them selues who to defend that heresy must nedes deny S. Pan les epistles as Luther hath denied S. Iames his epistle for that it is against his iustification of only faith And what forbiddeth an other sect to doe the like in an other matter Thus alwaies are we seeking as Tertullian sayth but we neuer find any thing if once we goe from that which we all beleued If then a stay be to be made at any tyme in questions of belefe if we may be sure of any article of all our faith it behoueth we vndoe not that which our forfathers haue so long before concluded to be true No reason of induciÌ„g a new faith can be so weighty as the peace and preseruation of vnitie in Christes Churche ought to be singularly weighed of euery man There was but one vniuersall chang to be loked for in religioÌ„ from the beginning of Christes Church to the last end thereof And that was at the coming of Christ into the world The which chang that it might not be sodein it was prophecied of before in all ages both by yâ— dedes and words of Patriarchs of Prophets and of Priests And when the fulnesse of tyme was come it was proued to become by miracles of so great vertue and name that the very stones that is to say the infidels were turned by them so great a matter it was with God to haue the order of his religioÌ„ altered And now shal we after Christes faith preached beleued fiften huÌ„dred yeres together shall we now take a new faith of Luther of Zumglius and of Caluin If they be Christ I graÌ„t we must admit theyr doctrine but if they be not so it is not possible they should come of God though they came with neuer so many miracles but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉 To come again nere 〈◊〉 own matter if we shall geue any eare to them who affirm the words of Christes supper to be figuratiue that must be with some dout of our former faith and in douting thereof we are become men that lacke faith which if it be not sure it is not good for so much as it hath not the foundation of the things which the Apostle sayd were to be hoped for Or tell me he that first gaue eare to BereÌ„garius or Zuinglius against the bessed Sacrament of yâ— altar may the same man geue care now to another that should wickedly say the Apostles had no authoritie geuen them to write holy scriptures If he may theÌ„ he may dout of the sayd â—…utoritie and yet surely it were very hard to proue to a wrangler that such autoritie of writing Gospels or epistles could be iustified out of the expresse words of the holy Bible But if it be vnlawfull to heare any such seditiouse man how could it be lawful when eare was first geuen to Berengarius or Zuinglius for then it was no lesse generally receaued through all Christendom and much more expresly to be proued by the holy scripture that the things set foorth and consecrated vpon the holy table and altar were the reall body and blood of Christ then it is sayd that whatsoeuer the Apostles did write should be confirmed and established as the words of the holy gooâ—… Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉 of the cause â–ª And before we heare what reasoÌ„s he can bring who wil reproue the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist I say he is not to be heard because it is not possible that his reason can haue any sufficient ground why we should geue ouer our old faith and that whether we respect the writen word of God or yâ— faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his churche For â—…either can he shew where it is writen or when it was beleued This is not my body nor can proue that it is more honorable to God or more agreable to Christes coming or more profitable to vs that we should lack his body present vnder the forme of bread rather then haue it For if the death of Christ did procede from excessiue charitie of him toward vs and of God and our profite that his Sonne should take flesh and dye for vs I can not deuise how the most honorable remembrance of the same death should not be most according to th' intent of Christ and to our soules health And doubtles it is a more honorable and a more louing remembraÌ„ce where the true substaÌ„ce of Christ is made really present for the keping of his death in memorie we take more benefite by such a commemoration of his bloody sacrifice then if in stede of Christes reall body a peece of bread and wine be left vnto vs with neuer so great a feding by faith For imagine ye the faith to be neuer so great I am sure it will not be the lesse because Christ is taken into our hands mouthes and brests The touching of his garment neuer hindred any good hart much lesse can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or deuotion And yet if corporal touching did not also help the faithfull womaÌ„ troubled so long with a bloody fluxe had not bene so miraculously cured by touching the hemme of Christes garment Her faith touched his Godhead and her soule
quod sumitur This is my body this I say whiche you take So that by his 〈◊〉 this pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread whiche Christe tooke neither to any doing of his but to yâ— body of Christ whiche he made by his words at the holy altar and table and which the Apostles tooke afterward at the handes of Christ. Howbeit if any man be so hastie that he wil not tary the speaking of fower words to know what particular finall substance the pronoun hoc this doth point vnto but will nedes knowe what it meaneth as sone as it came out of Christes mouth vntill the last word be pronounced I answere that by the circuÌ„stances which are about and concerne the dedes and words of Christ it may be wel sayd that the pronoun this beside his generall signisication whiche is declared before doth here also particularly betoken euen from the beginning of Christes words to the end this thing which is to be eaten or drunken and so doth it declare as well the beginning of the words which belong to wheaten bread whose cheefe vse is to be eaten as the progresse which tendeth to a supper the substance whereof is eating the end which is the bodâ—… of Christ made present to be eateÌ„ So this doth truly always signifie this food or eateable substance of which particular pointing and signification I shall haue occasion to speake more at large hereafter when I come to confer yâ— holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ. ¶ The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of Christes words to be figuratiue HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast that Christ sayd this chalice is the new Testament in my blood It can not be denyed say they but the name of chalice is figuratiuely put for that whiche is in the chalice Why may not therefore other words in the supper be also figuratiuely taken Masters it foloweth not because one word is euidently siguratiue that therefore another word must be also figuratiue except one reason be in both words Which in our case is cleane contrary and that for diuerse causes for all men that is to say as well Catholiks as Protestants and Sacramentaries confesse the word chalice to be figuratiue and thei are compelled so to doe because if we take the name of chalice properly we must confesse sith Christ sayth this chalice is the new Testament in my blood that a material cup of wood glasse or siluer is the new Testament or yâ— cause of our synnes to be forgeuen which no reasonable man will so much as dream of Seing then we are constrained by force of reason to say the chalice to stand for that which is in the chalice and no like reason presseth vs to think the like of the verbe est is or of the noun corpus body or of the noun sanguis blood the example which moueth vs to graunt a figure in the one word kepeth vs from suspecting any figure in the other words which are nothing like Secondly whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice S. Mathew and S. Marke speake not of it geuing vs to vnderstand that the meaning of Christ was only to make and shew the blood of the new Testament which was in the chalice As therefore the holy Ghost prouided for a sufficient declaration of thaâ—… word which was in dede figuratiue so leauing the verbe est is and the nounes body and blood still in they proper significatioÌ„ without mention of signe or figure it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be takeÌ„ as they did naturally sound to the common â—…ares of men Thirdly although the word calix a cup or chalice were at the beginning appointed to signifie chefely that vessel which holdeth liquour meâ—…e to be drunk yet by common vse of speaking which is farre the chefe gouernour in the vnderstanding of wordes we being at the table meane by the cup that which is in the cup. in so much yâ— if a maÌ„ sitting at the table bid yâ— cup be geuen to another no seruaÌ„t is lightly so rude as to geue a stranger the cup without drink in it now when words are as commonly vsed in theyr siguratiue sense as in theyr natural then eche way the sense is proper enough in so much as the vse of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word Fourthly seing Christ sitting at the table in the sight of his Apostles taking the cup of wine mingled with water blessed gaue thaÌ„ks saying not only the chalice or a chalice but this chalice or this cup is the new Testament in my blood it could not be that any dout could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles them selues knew to contein a certen liquour but that notwithstanding maruelouse great dout wold haue risen to them and to al Christians if he should haue vsed est for significat and body blood for the signe of body blood for so much as they could not coniecture any other meaning of these words then they did outwardly sound For it is no common vse of speaking but only both seldom vsed and not vnderstaÌ„ded but by great doctors and interpreters who know and discern tokeÌ„s of things to be called sometyme by the names of the things them selues Fifthly when with a figuratiue worde an other is immediatly ioyned which doth expound the figure the whole speach is ra ther to be accompted proper then figuratiue for so much as the weaker part yeldeth always to the stronger euen as in 〈◊〉 when one noune adiectiue serueth two substantiues of diuerse genders we make it agree with the masculin as with the more worthy gender When Christ sayd to S. Peter I will geue thee the keies he spake figuratiuely coÌ„cerning the name of keies but if we marke that he ioyned thereunto the keies of the kingdom of heauen and yet again what soeuer thou bindest or loosest in earth and so foorth by these words the former speache is made plain as if it were not figuratiue at all right so when he sayth this chalice is the new testament in my blood yâ— naÌ„ing of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken that al is one as if it had bene said this is my blood of yâ— new testament which is in the chalice See then for Gods sake how farre the figuratiue naming of yâ— chalice is froÌ„ any figuratiue naming of the body or blood As to yâ— chalice such words were ioyned which did shew the name to bâ—… figuratiue so to the body and blood such were ioyned as forbid vs to think the like of them not only because Christe sayd This is my body my blood which surely were enough to proue that I say because the body and blood of Christe waâ—… not figuratiue but true and naturall but also because to
the naming of Christes body it is ioined in S. Luke The which is geueÌ„ for you And to the name of the cup the which is shed for you Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was prouided of God for a maruelouse declaration and setting foorth of the reall blood of Christ made within it For whereas the new preachers bid vs list our mindes to heauen to receaue yâ— blood of Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding as though it were not present at Christes own table the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise prouided that the words of Christ should not only be reported This is my blood of the new testameÌ„t as S. Mathew S. Mark write but also as S. Luke S. Paul haue penned theÌ„ this chalice is the new testament in my blood this cahlice that is to say the thing câ—…nteyned in this chalice to the intent we should be sure that the said blood was euen within the compasse of this chalice and not only apprehended by saith and spirit so that euen the word chalice although by exact accompt of grammer it stand figuratiuely yet by common vse it signifieth the liquour in it and that liquour is expresly named the blood of Christ and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice ¶ That the words of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper VUhy these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood can not be like the other where Christ is sayd to be the dore the way the true viue and Iohn Baptist to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ it shal be more particularly declared in the last chapiter of the booke Nowe it shall suffise to say that they were neuer taken to meane as they seme to stand therefore the general consent of al Christians taking them for figuratiue is an euident cause why they must be confessed to be figuratiue And that vninersail consent is of more importance then the proper signification of the words But on the other syde yâ— words of Christ in his last supper haue not only no such vniuersal iudgement and consent against them but rather they always haue bene taken to be meant of the presence of his own body blood accordingly as they doe sound Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like yâ— which Christ sayd in his supper This is my body For partly they do name two seueral natures as Thâ—… Baptist Elias wheras these words this is my body name but one partly they speake not of any certeine thing as Christes body or if they doe so yet they point not to it as to a thing present A dore and the doore is not this dore this doth expresse a great deale more theÌ„ a or the. A dore is meant generally of any dore the dore of a certein dore spoken of before but this dore pointeth preseÌ„tly to yâ— dore whereof he speaketh Christes wordes were directed to one thing only which is made shewed together when yâ— Godhead maketh yâ— which by his maÌ„hod he pointeth to saying this is my body so that in dede in al scripture there is no like speach to that which Christ vsed in his last supper much lesse any like is figuratiue and least of all that it selfe can be proued figuratiue while it is compared with other speaches Let all the Sacramentaries shew where that proposition is figuratiue whiche first instituteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same saying this is this or this is that as it is sayd this is my body and this is my blood For whereas it is sayd in Ezechiel this Hierusalem it is nothing like because it was sayd rather by the occasion of expounding a parable then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said this is Hierusalem But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chefe Sacrament said of that whiche was in his hands this is my body What ignorance then is it to say these words be vnproper because other words from which they differ be vnproper ¶ It is shewed by the circumstaÌ„ces of Christes supper that he made his reall flesh and blood present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper NExt vnto the proper signification and common sense of speaking the circumstances of the talke are to be considered of which kinde of handling matters belonging to diuinitie S. Augustine geueth vs a lerned rule writing thus Solet circumstantia illuminare sententiaÌ„ cum ea quae circa scripturam sunt praesentem quaestionem contingeÌ„tia diligenti discussione tractantur The circumstance of yâ— scripture is wonte to geue light to the meaning thereof when those thinges which are about the scripture to wit which goe before and folowe after concerning that which is presentlie in question are diligentlie examined by this rule we haue nowe to consyder about the supper of Christ and about the meaninge of dedes wordes there in who spake or did when where to whome vppon what occasion how and in what maner what were the words for what cause to what effecte or purpose he spake or did with suche like respectes For I wil at this tyme so examine the last supper to proue thereby the reall prensence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine that I will shew euery part thereof whether it consiste in dede or in worde to helpe much rather then to hinder any thinge the catholike belefe of the sayd reall presence and consequentlie that no reason at all should either sufficientlie or meanly moue any man to thinke the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue or vnproper and truly whether the wordes be proper the body and blood which they signifie as present must nedes be present or els whether the body and blood be proued present yâ— wordes which signifie so much must nedes be proper ¶ The first circumstance of Christes last supper is to consyder who made it THe maker of the supper is almightie as being the naturall sonne of God so that no man may discredit his wordes for lacke of power to bring them to passe The same Sonne of God was sent of his Father to take mans flesh to th' end he might in that flesh bring vs the euerlasting meate of the diuine substance Neither came he in flesh to bring vs the meate of his Godhead in faith and spirit only for so the Godhed was eaten â—…y Abraham Moyses Dauid and other 〈◊〉 men 〈◊〉 not so plentifully before the incarnation of Christ but Christ â—…me not only to make vs beleue the better in God but also to make our weake bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhed by a better and higher meane then by our faith alone â—…or our faith is receaued in measure but the
the death of Christ the true passouer and the true Lamb of God Straight way he began to make this new Sacrament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb that the Churche of Christ might haue a new oblation which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world For as Leo the great sayeth Vetus Testamentum consummabat nouum Pascha condebat he ended the old Testament and made a new passouer As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ in yâ— banket which him self instituted is really present to be really eateÌ„ except we shal say yâ— his â—…ew banket is lesse true and really then the old was or that the old being an vndoubted figure of the new did not by the eating thereof declare that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten not only by saith which kind of eating Christ both Moyses and Phinees had but euen externally vnder the forme of bread the which kind of eating Christes flesh the old Fathers had not because the law brought nothing to perfection but we haue it because the truth is made by Iesus Christ who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really and in dede ¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to institute a new so the ioye which he tooke of that change was so great yâ— he could not forbeare but sayd to his Apostles Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antéquaÌ„ patiar I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you before I suffer And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth he did really receaue the mysteries at his supper to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare Neither doth it skill to my purpose whether the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb or to the nâ—…w If they be referred to the new alone Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles But Christ could not eate it by faith deuotion sith he had it present in a better maner then so therefore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it and by his owne eating it we learn that it is his own reall substance not only an effectuall sigâ—…e thereof And it is not to be wondered that he will gladly eate his own flesh namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie as him self hath prepared because thereby as S. Chry sostom writeth he encouraged his Apostles not to be afeard therâ—…of And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great profite seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse manâ—…r either for hunger or for anger or phansie without doing so great good to them selues or to any other as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner as it is present in then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes Marke that I say Christ did eate his own flesh not as butchers and cookes dresse it but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it by hauing it really present with them and yet in so true a sort as men receaue meat into their bodies For herein man eateth Angels foode in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of substance after that Angelicall maner it is no absurditie at all But for him to eate it by faith it were a thing cleane impossible And to eate it in abare figure without saith it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacrament If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb the 〈◊〉 yet is all one because it is certein he desired not to eate the old Lamb for the Lambs sake but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb as the which was out of hand to be taken away and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof In either of â—…oth ways the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight but for the eating of his own passouer which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter noteth well Indignum esse vt quid alienum concupisceret Deus How it were vnsemely that God should desier any thing which were other then his own With whom S. Chrysostom agreing writeth Non solummodo Pascha sed hoe in quo cum praeterijsset figura peracta erat veritas Christ desired not simply a passouer but this passoner wherein the figure being passed ouer the truth was celebrated And as he sayeth in an other place Wherein he wold deliuâ—…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self to wit his own substance because it being vnited to yâ— Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure and that substance is the meate of Christes supper and not only the eating thereof by faith ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his Church he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life and spent his own life for the same loue and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion first by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them in so much that the said Sacrament is thereof called Signum vnitatis vinculum charitatis The signe of vnitie and the bond of charitie Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus Christ hath mingled him self together with vs hath tempered his body into vs to th end we may be made one â—…rtein thing as it were a body ioyned to the head ArdeÌ„ter enim amantium hoc est For that is a point of them who loue feruently the like he saith also vpon S. Paul Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament let vs coniecture by that circumstance whether it be more like yâ— he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue or els left the best greatest iewel he had to wit his own substance vnder the form of bread to witnesse yâ— same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable that sithens he was able to geue the substaÌ„ce of his own body to vs by turning bread into it and hauing taking bread said after thanks geueÌ„ this is my body I think it more then probable that his great loue
the bread of Christes supper to wit the subsâ—… of his own body is one to all But the eating by faith is not one to all It is the body which is one Therefore 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople writeth Post eleuationem statim partitio diuini corporis fit Verum enim vero tametsi in partes diuiditur indiuiduus insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur inuenitur Aster the eleuation which among the Breakes was done immediatly before the communion by by a partition of the diuine body is made But truly although he be diuided into parts yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided 〈◊〉 and whole in euery part of the things which are cut what is this to say but that the forme of bread is only broken and the substance of Christes body 〈◊〉 whole vnder euery peece of the sayd 〈◊〉 But what speake I of the Fathers S. Paule sayeth The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body Because we being many are one bread one body For so much as we all partake of the one bread If the bread be broken how partake we all of one bread That which is broken is not according to the course of nature one in number And surely the Corinthians had more then one loaf which was broken among them And yet S. Paule hauing shewed that we breake a kind of bread sayeth Be we neuer so many we partake all of the one bread How is that but because the bread which we breake is no materiall bread but how many loaues so euer there were before after it is once sayd 〈◊〉 them This is my body euery one of them is turned into that one bread which is Iesus Christ. And that bread is distributed vnder the formes of commoÌ„ bread and so is the scripture instified which sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body And therefore that body being one bread it self maketh all vs one bread which partake of that one bread ¶ The xiij circumstance of geuing It is not to be thought that Christ deliuered first the fragmeÌ„ts of bread vnto his Apostles and then sayd the words of consecration for then he had not deliuered them a Sacrament but only had geuen them the matter and element whereof the Sacrament should be made but seing S. Paule saith yâ— bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body we must rather iudge that he had consecrated his body before he brake as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament which was already made And consequentlie as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christes own handes or lying vppon the table before him so it was deliuered with his own hands and by none other way that euer I can reade of vnto his Apostles but Christ had willed them before not to work the perishing but the euerlasting meate which the sonne of man should geue them which he shewed afterward to be his flesh and now fulfilling his promise he geueth the same euerlasting meate with his own hands which could not be so except the sayd euerlasting meate were vnder the form of bread or in the chalice which only the Apostles doe see in Christes hands therefore it is inuincibly proued by the word of God that Christes body which is the euerlasting meate was and is geuen to them that communicate vnder the formes of bread and wine What soeuer is sayd of spirituall meate comming down from heauen as to be a part of Christes supper it is vtterly voyd and without all ground of Christes institution wherein that Apostles are bound to rest vppon that onlye which Christ doth corporally geue and when he is readen to geue the which was done with his hands for vs at the same tyme to looke beyond him as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands it is a horrible blasphemie and a reprouing of his gift as insufficient He sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate the Ghospell saith he gaue at his supper saying this is my body the Catholikes beleue that he theÌ„ gaue the same euerlasting meate which he had promised to wit his own flesh and blood the Sacramentaries say he gaue it not with his own hands I say there is none other way of geuing mentioned in the supper and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be geuen as the Sacrament it self declareth being called the body and blood of Christ. I allege S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke S. Paule where it is writen that Christ brake and gaue I think our 〈◊〉 will not deuie that gift of his to haue bene made with Christes corporal handes â–ª therein I beleue his promisse to haue bene fulfilled therein the spirituall and euerlasting meate to haue bene deliuered S. Iohn witnesseth that Christ said dabo I wil geue the which is not meant only of a geuing by faith for so Christ had alreadie geuen his flesh to diuerse men but it was meant of geuing by hands after which sort he had not yet geuen now the other fower 〈◊〉 before witnesse that our lord in his supper dedit gaue I say this later word fulfilled the former promise I aske our Sacramentaries what other Ghospell they can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any tyme his promise of geuing the bread which was his flesh and the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting pardon me good reader if in so weightie a matter zeale force to 〈◊〉 out vpoÌ„ these false preachers of Gods word You cruell murderers of Christian soules where is that euerlasting meate geuen by your false glosing which Christ promised and called it his flesh is it not geuen at his own supper where then is it geuen at Christes table by which word shew you that gift if not by the word dedit he gaue if that word shew it that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystically deliuered with Christes hands appearing still bread therefore vnder the forme of that bread Christes flesh was geuen which is the meate that tariâ—…th to life euerlasting I speake so earnestly to th' end I might prouoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in Gods word ¶ The xiiii Circumstance of saying WOrds be somtyme applied to the decking and garnishing of á matter the which without theÌ„ might doe right wel albeit it doth the better through their help But when the thing standeth so that either nothing at al can be vnderstanded without words or the cheife part of the businesse wil be hindered for lack of theÌ„ in that case they are by al meanes as most necessarie so most diligently to be obserued as for example we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉 matters if God reueled it not vnto vs by his only soÌ„ne by Angels Apostles prophets or other his seruants For this reason those words are moste carefully to be weighed which
his word 〈◊〉 this whereunto he pointeth to be in substance his oâ—…n body but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body as the Sacramentaries teach May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Iewes who offered in the temple of God â—…ind lame and feint or sicke oxen and shepe Offer illud 〈◊〉 si placueret ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain tel me whether it wil please him or whether thou shalt be welcome to him or no. If one should come to a greate personage and with solemne thaÌ„ks make him a preseÌ„t in words of a fat oxe or of a couragiouse horse and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present he should geue him a peâ—…ce of paper wherein it were writen this is a fat oxe or a couragiouse horse wold the noble man take it well Now come these new preachers and whereas they confesse yâ— Christ gaue thanks to his Father and sayd in words This is my body yet they feare not to teache that he offered more to him in words then he performed in dedes Yea they doubt not to teache that the words wherewith he maketh his present are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper sayth In coÌ„secratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 doe worke â–ª The words doe worke how theÌ„ are thei 〈◊〉 A figuratiue word is like a paited image which may be somewhat if the thing meant thereby be real and true but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth absent in substance froÌ„ it can not it selfe worke or doe any thing because it is dead no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues for that they are dead as not hauing theyr meaning which is theyr life present with them S. Chrysostom likewise writeth hoc est ait corpus meuÌ„ hoc verbo proposita consecrantur This saith he is my body with this word the things set foorth are consecrated And yet can this word whiche doth so wonderfull an act can it be in the meane tâ—…me so weake so feble so dead that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes Commonly wordes do meane as they sound and those whiche do not so be concerning the vse and seruice of words which is to vtter a maÌ„s minde of baser condition then other wordes are But Christes words be so liuely that they haue power to work and make that which they sound in so much that he called them in S. Iohn life and spirit therefore it is vnreasonably said that they are figuratiue Hoc est corpus meum are but foure words of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatioÌ„ and some of them they pluck from his gender other they pluck from their case which they were put in hoc this is the neuter gender with his noune substantiue corpus body they draw it to the masculine gender that it may agree with panis bread Est is a verbe substantiue signifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue with whom it is ioyned They draw it from that signification to signifie an accident in bread which in these words is not named They put corpus meum which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case into somtime the accusatiue somtime the genitiue case for they â—…ay this doth signifie my body then is it in yâ— accusatiue case or this is the figure of my body and then it is the genitiue case what miserable taking is this of so heaueÌ„ly words but hereof I think to say more vpon those words this is my blood least I now excede the measure of a circumstance Yet this one thing I can not but warn yâ—â—…eader of although it may seme to some man of no great weight But I thinke with S. Chrysostom no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed S. Paule reciting the words of Christes supper placeth them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place as we likewise in latin put meuÌ„ last the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy yâ— now should rise caused S. Paul to ioyne that proâ—…oun belonging to Christes person vnto yâ— other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc this For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body and in sense must nedes follow after it yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this shewing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus body as wel as the other pronoun meum mine as if it were in latin hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body That ioyning I say of this and of me together doth geue such coniecture as in the order of words may be had that as of me is the genitiue case coming after yâ— noun body so this likewise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread no reason could be brought why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me vnto it This bread of me is the signe of body iudge what a hard speache it were Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable For you shall see before all is done that God hath caused the wordâ—… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened vnto vs that when the rest is all heard it wil seme probable enough not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue bene superfluouse ¶ The. 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words Which is geuen for you ALthough S. Mathew and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd This is my body as the which words both were plaine enough able to make the mysterie of Christes supper yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed to thâ—…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most câ—…tainly confirmed and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd This is my body which is geuen for you In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named besides the only substance of Christes body With it agreeth Hoc This with it quod the which It cometh after the verb est is and goeth before the verb datur is geuen If now we interpret the noun corpus body by figura corporis the â—…igure of
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
to blame to cast it out For the holy Ghost would not haue compelled you in vaine to call it in God meant ye should cal it in and kepe it in For in that he left it out he would shew to your hard harts how that verbe which when ye had it present in other Euangelists ye disdanied and scortiefully remoued that it was not only well placed but it was so necessary to the meaning of his words yâ— wheÌ„ it was left out ye should be forced to cal it in And wil ye be so forgetful as not to note these secret inforcements of God Know ye not that one iota or one title of the law and much lesse of the Gospel passeth not away vntill all things be fulfilled And yet dare you take away the verbe substaÌ„tiue it self from Christes own words the same verb I say which he coÌ„pelled you to take in when it was omitted by S. Luke See how farre Christ is from your mind when it is but once left out he will haue it euen then put in and when it is expressed in the words of Christes supper seuen tymes you will euery tyme put it out It is the custome of the Hebrew tonge to leaue out the verbe substaÌ„tiue sum es fui when it signifieth properly But how is it left out when if you say true it was neuer meant to be in Or how was it meant to be in when being put in it is by you remoued as not meant properly by him that spake And yet it is so necessarily meant to be put in Christes words that when it is left out the Sacramentaries can not chose but supply it and put it in therefore Christ meant to haue it stand in his proper and vsual signification For seing the verbe est is vsed to be left out because it may easily be supplied and may be taken as expressed though it be not expressed in deede then the vse which maketh it to be leaft out as a verbe easily supplied must by the same reason make it signifie that thing which it vseth commonly to signifie sith it is supplied by the only force of the vse of speaking and surely the vse of the verbe est is to signifie the substance of that noune substantiue which hath a peculiar substance and consequently in the words of Christes supper it must signifie the substance of his body and of his blood really present ¶ The xxvij Circumstance of these words whiche is shed for you THis cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood saith S. Luke whiche is or shal be shed for you The relatiue which in these words is not ruled as some perhaps would thinke of the noune blood which went last before but of the noune cup or chalice Which thing is most plain in the Greke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo quod pro vobis effunditur This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood the whiche cup is shed for you For seing the Greke participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth shedding is in the nominatiue case with the noune cup and not in the datiue with the noune blood no escape can be had but it muâ—…t be referred to that word wherewith in grammer it may agree otherwise if we shall neglect the literal sense which ariseth of the right construction of the words we build a roofe as I alleged before out of S. Hierâ—…m without walles or foundation What meaning then haue these words the whiche cup is shed for you or as the latine copies reade which shal be shed For it was both presently shed in a mystery at the holy table of Christ should the next day be naturally shed vpon the crosse The substance of blood was one in both places the maner of shedding only differing But as I sayd how is the cup sayd to be shed for vs The word for vs importeth a sacrifice made in the shedding and therefore S. Mathew sheweth it to be shed in redeÌ„ptionem peccatorum for the remission of synnes Marke good Reader the maner of speaking the cup is shed â–ª that is to say the thing contemed in the cup. For we all agree herein that the name of cup standeth to meane the liquour in it as continens is vsed to be put pro contento the thing which holdeth a liquour is vsed to be put for the liquour it selfe which it holdeth We say he dranke vp a great bolle who drank the ale bere or wine that was in it and that is a figuratiue speach by exacte rules of Grammar but a speach made as proper through vse and custome Therefore to say the cup is shed for vs doth signifie that the liquour in it is shed for vs what liquour was that It is the greatest marâ—…eyle in the world if any man be so impudent as to affirme that material wine was shed for vs or that wine obteined vs remission of oúr synnes and yet it can not be denied but the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper was shed for vs as Christ sayth Therefore I say the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper could be no wine but only the blood of Christ. Is this a plaine argument or no the liquour in the cup of Christes banket was shed for vs to obtein the forgeuenes of synnes but only the reall blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our synnes therefore the only real blood of Chist was conteined in the cup of Christes banket What answer can be framed to this argument if Hell were let loose what probable solutioÌ„ were it able to bring The first part is in S. Luke the second is in S. Paule who affirmeth it to be the blood of Christ who offered him self by the holy spirit vnspâ—…d vnto God which cleanseth our coÌ„science froÌ„ dead works to serue the liuing God After these two partes the conclusion 〈◊〉 solow that Christes real blood is in the cup of Christes supper in the cup I say which Christ shewed pointed vnto saying this cup that is to say the thing herein conteined is the new Testament in my blood the which thing conâ—…eiued in the cup is shed for you Euthymius wel peceauing this to be yâ— meaning of S. Lukes wordes writteth thus Quod verò dicitur quod pro vobis effunditur ad poculum referendum est porrô poculum est saguis eius Whereas it is sayd the which is shed for you it is to be referred vnto the cup. Now the cup is Christes blood God grauÌ„t our deceaued bretheren may once perceaue this Grammaticâ—…ll literall senâ—…e of Christes wordes ¶ The last circumstance of the Hymne sayd at Christes supper WHen Christ had ended his banket he renounced to â—…ate or drinke any more with his Apostles vntil the kiâ—…gdom of God came geuing theÌ„ an euident watch-word therein that he would presently offer him self to death and so depart from this world vntill he should
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
Lateran which was kept aboue three hundred yeres past seing M. Nowell for his parte could not bring foorth one reasonable creature that euer surmised any transubstantiation in these words I am the true vine were not cause shewed why these words I am the true vine did not as well proue a transubstaÌ„tiation as these words This is my body S. Paul thought it a sufficient prouf of resurrection to say If there be no resurrection our faith and our preaching is in vaine But that can not be so as S. Paule concludeth therefore likewise the faith of all Christendom these three hundred yeres together was a cause why a transubstantiation should be proued by the one words much rather then by the other M. Nowell ¶ Is not this as plainlie spoken and as pithily I am a true or a very vine as this is my body IT were small pleasure to me M. Nowell to impugne your words against whose person I haue no quarell were it not that you are wold be accoÌ„pted a teacher in yâ— realme of England which kinde of men as it is moste necessarie when by lawfull commission it preacheth the Ghospell which it hath taken of the Apostles and their successors so is the same moste perniciouse wheÌ„ it preacheth a Ghospell of his owne framing otherwise vnderstanded then they tooke it of their Prelates vnder whome they liued before they departed froÌ„ yâ— fold of Christ who appointed S. Peter to be yâ— generall sheperd of his whole flock in earth in whose chaire the Bishops of Rome sit by lawfull succession Is it then so plainly and so pithily spoken M. Nowell I am a true or a very vine as this is my body If the words I am a true vine or a very vine be as pithy as those of Christes supper without controuersie they must as well institute a Sacrament of a true and of a very vine as Christ at his supper did institute a Sacrament of his owne body and blood For words a like pithy must work an effect of like pith otherwise if yâ— words of the supper do work that which the words of a true and very vine do not work you haue spoken falslie in affirming that it is as pithily sayd I am the true vine as this is my body Before Christ came in to the world he made diuerse figures of his last supper as that of Melchisedech of the Paschall laÌ„b of manna of shew brâ—…d of wheateÌ„ meale of such like was there likewise so many figures made to prefigure that he wold be a verie vine When he was come into the world he promised at CapharnauÌ„ that the bread which he wold geue was his flesh Made he the like of geuing any vine to vs or of making himself a very vine When the houre of sacrificing the Passouer was come he sent S. Peter before to prepare the passoner which was but the shadow of his supper Did he likwise make a certeyne banket or any like matter be prepared for him which might be the shadow of himself in any such respect as he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did eate the passouer with all the twelue a mysticall number as it may well appere in the holy 〈◊〉 one of yâ— which was departed â—…rom him before that he sayd I am the true vine He protested his desier to eate this passouer but not so to eate or to be made any vine He washed his Apostles feete immediatly â–ª before his supper wherein he said This is my body but not immediatly before that he said I am the true vine He sate at the table when he said This is my body which was the place whereupon he wrought his mysterie but he rose and went out of the place before he said I am the true vine And so lacked the circumstance of that table whereof Dauid and Salomon had prophecied To make his supper he toke bread but he toke nothing at all to make thereof a vine Therefore there is a more reall ground of the one then of the other He blessed at his supper he did not so when he said I am the true vine and yet surely yâ— words wherewith blessing is ioyned are thereby the playner He gaue thankes there but not here which is a token that the mystâ—…rie of his body was the greater He brake there but not here whereby the very vine lacked a notable cerimony concerâ—…ing yâ— represeÌ„tation of Christes death He gaue there but not here because in his supper the cheif gift was externall and geuen by Christes hands to theyr bodies and hartes He sayd there and also he did those other things as S. Luke râ—…orteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying wherein he doth vs to vnderstand that Christ at his supper as well did as sayd for he toke he blessed he brake he gaue saying to wit his saying and doing went together one made the other plaine but wheÌ„ he said I am the true vine he did nothing els whereuÌ„to his words could apperteyne so that the dede might geue light to the word At his supper he bad his Apostles take â–ª not so in speaking of yâ— true vine because they had already the gift of being the braunches of him the true vine At his supper he bad them eate â–ª not so in the other place for yâ— he prouided no externall meat vnder the forme of auy vine as he had prepared his owne flesh vnder the form of bread At his supper he sayd This is my body where one substance only is named and yet that by Christes doing and speaking is vnderstaÌ„ded to be verified within the cumpasse and form of that which once was knowen to haue bene the substance of bread but in these words I am the true vine two substances are named of the whiche one is only a proper and peculiar substance the other is taken vnproperly and is no reall substance distincted from Christ. There the words passe from the worse to the better from that which was bread to the body of Christ here they passe from the better to the worse from Christ to the name of a vine There is in the former part a demonstration by pointing to this thing really present here it is only described to be the true vine but no such creature is shewed or brought foorth There such words are added which restraine the name body to that true body of Christ which died for vs here such words be added which declare the true vine which is spoken of not to be a natural vine but a parabolical vine for it is said afterwad As a branche can not beare fruit of it self vnlesse it tarry in the vine so neither ye except ye tarry in me See the ods M. Nowell This is my body Which body which is deliuered for you to say this is mine owne substance the
body Behold in promising his flesh and in affirming it to be meate in dede Christ spake not in parables much lesse could he do so in performing his promise and in saying Take eate this is my body Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plaine as that speache which is no parable Forgetting yâ— Christ said him self to speake in parables to the multitude so that the hearers did not vnderstand him Yet M. Nowell wil haue I am the true vine whiche is a parable to be as plaine as this is my body S. Augustine saith Christe is called a vine by a Similitude or Metaphore but he neuer taught the like of this is my body For he saith Noster panis calix certa consecratione mystious fit nobis noÌ„ nascitur Our bread and chalice is not borne but is made mysticall to vs by a certain consecration That whiche is consecrated is in dede made somwhat which it was not before not only shewed to be a thing by a similitude A parable or similitude as I am the true vine is hath no consecration belonging to it but our bread hath a certeine consecration which worketh some mysterie and what consecration is that besyde the effectual operation of these words this is my body Christ was the true vine before he said I am the true vine but the thing pointed vnto at his supper was not his body before it was said This is my body Therefore these words which make a new thing when they are spoken are more pithy then those which only shew a thing already extant But are metaphors vsed to be really made after acerteine mauer of consecration Master Nowell They be named and writeÌ„ many tymes but they be neuer coâ—…secrated 〈◊〉 made really S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉 that he called himself a vine exempli ratione by the way of example But what said he likwise this is my body as it were for examples sake wheÌ„ we bring an example we bring it to proue some other thing which is more principal then the example was Christ inteÌ„ding to teach in what sort his disciples depended vpon him for their spiritnal life sheweth it by an example of the vine but in his supper his own body consecrated made and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other thing but it was the principall thing it self which was intended Therefore this is my body was more pithily said then I am the true vine For the principal is always more pithy then that which is alleged for to serue an othâ—…r purpose in so muche that S. Cyrill sayth Longè ab omni ratione remotum est ad naturae substantiaeque rationem illud traducere quod per similitudinem dictum est It is far distant from all reason to apply that which was spoken by a similitude to a comparison of nature and substance Which words S. Cyrill spake of the Arrians who denying these words to be ment of Christes humane nature by the similitude went about to proâ—…e that as the vine and the husbandman be not of one nature so God the father who is as it were the husbandman and Christ who is the vine were not of one nature And as the Arians did amisse to applie the words spoken by a similitude to the denying of Christes own diuine substaÌ„ce right so M. Nowell doth applie the same similitude euill to disproue by the example thereof the substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament But as S. Cyrillus doth returne the argument of the Arians vppon their heads by shewing how Christ is the vine and we the braunches according to his humanitie so may we shew to M. Nowell that these words of Christ I am the true vine serue to shew the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar S. Augustine sayeth Christ was made man to th' end the nature of man might be the vine in him of which humane nature we men might be the braunches S. Cyrill affirmeth likewise Christ to be the vine euen according to the flesh and vs to be braunches both spiritually and corporally He proueth it for so much as the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporally also in vs by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally Himself sheweth saying Non habitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur veruÌ„ etiá naturali participatione Not only by habit by power by effect or by the state and condition of charitie alone but also by naturall participation â—…o he placeth naturall participation as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in vs which is by faith or charitie M. Nowell will say peâ—…haps that the naturall participation of Christes flesh is to beleue that he is true man and true God and so to fede vpon him by faith at the tyme of eating bread and of drinking wine Such cursed interpretations now adaies they bring as though he that doth not beleue Christe to be in dede true man and true God can be ioyned to Christ at all â–ª by faith and charitie But S. Cyrill speaketh of that participation which is made not only by faith and charitie but also by naturall partaking his body and blood We must put a certeine iust man to beleue most pâ—…y who yet hath not receaued the mysticall blessing or communion of Christes flesh That iust man is ioyned to God by faith and charitie but not yet corporally He is a branche of the Godhead which is principally the true vine and a braunche of the manhod in that he beleueth in Christ who is true God and man but he is not yet corporally a braunche of the manhood which is also the true vine except he 〈◊〉 worthily the mysticall blessing which is the Sacrament of Christes supper the which maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally also Note the word quoque also For Christ dwelt in his Apostles harts before the last supper by right faith and charitie and therefore he sayd they were all cleane sauing Iudas but this mysterie maketh him dwel in them corporllay also And S. Cyrill expoundeth farther how Christ by the Sacrament dwelleth in vs. For whereas Christ had sayd except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood ye shall not haue life in your selues He interpreteth life the flesh of life in your selues in your body That is to say except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue the flesh of life in your body Vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest The life may well be vnderstanded the self flesh of life In vobis ipsis dicit id est in corpore vestro Christ sayth except ye eate yâ— flesh and drink yâ— blood of the sonne of man ye shall not haue life in your selues that is to say in your body Is not this plaine enough Then heare yet a plainer
partake of the bread which is broken if the bread broken â—…e materiall we partake of the material bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by S. Paule named one bread Therefore we partake of one materiall bread which can not be so For seing the bread is broken it is not still one These and many like absurdities can neuer be escaped except we say as the truth is that the bread broken is the flesh of Christ vnder the form of bread for our partaking is named of taking part of that which is brokeÌ„ but we al that are one patake only of Christ him selfe and be one in him alone and be not one in any materiall bread Therefore Christ is the bread broken by the reason of the form of bread vnder the which he is and the bread coÌ„municated and the bread which we are for that he is the cause of our mysticall coniunction For albeit the mysticall bread and body which we are be in seuerall persons and diâ—…tinct proprieties of men yet the substancial cause of that bread which we are is only found in the person and substaÌ„ce of Christ who is the beginner mainteyner and the end of that our mysticall body from Christ as from the cause of our vâ—…itie the same vnity procedeth to vs in an effect wrought by him But either to make vs one materiall bread or to make it being stil bread in substance to be notwithstanding the communicating of Christes body to vs or to be the bond which holdeth vs together by partaking thereof it is a doctrine which can not hang together And because the matter is of great importauce I will yet intreat farther of this our vnion ¶ Now we are one mysticall body in Christ. THe Church is one body more then one wâ—… First because it is called and holden together with one sâ—…ite of God Next because it is grounded in one faith 〈◊〉 â—…reaching of one true Gospel maiÌ„teined with one hope perfited â—…th one charitic watered with one baptisme of spiritual regeneâ—…ation redemed by one Mediatour ruled by one head 〈◊〉 to one husband ioyned in mariage to one fâ—…esh of Christ rewarded with one essentiall fruition of one euerlasting God The first foundation of this one cumpany which is the house the tabernacle yâ— teÌ„ple of God is the blessed Trinitie of whome by whome and in whome all things are In his diuine spirite we mete and be one not only with the Patriarches Prophets but also we therein be one with the Aungels Thrones and Seraphins in so muche that he vseth them for our ministery who neuer synned or swarued from the way of truth righteousnes Next after God all mankinde putteth his euerlasting confidence in the flesh of Iesus Christ who is the only Mediatour of all men that fell by synne either actuall or els originall there is no saluation in any other man Christ toke really our flesh to make it an iustrument whereby we might be brought again to God Therefore he both offered the same flesh vnto God euen to death and gaue the same flesh to be partaken of vs for the obteining of euerlasting life The partaking whereof is called in holy scripture by the name of eating drinking because although it be graunted to vs by diuers meanes yet the chiefe meane of all is when we eate his flesh and drinke his blood The first and most necessary meane of all is faith without which it selfe in men of lawfull age or without the Sacrament thereof in children none other 〈◊〉 can serue But faith alone though it worke by charitie doth not always â—…uffise because it is conueaient for a corporall substance such as the flesh of Christ is to be partaken by corporall meanes also For seing the corruption of our fleshe was the thing whiche did most incline vs to synne as the sonne of God toke our true flesh without synne to th end by it he might purge our synnes so he instituted diuerse Sacraments in certeine corporal things and in mystical words whereby the grace of his flesh might â—…e applied to our flesh and by that meane also to come to our soâ—…es Against the corrupâ—…ion of our birth he would vs to be washed in water which element his own fleshe had sanctified in the flud Iordan against the tentation of the deuill he coÌ„firmeth vs with the holy Ghost In stede of the custome of synning he geueth vs heauenly nourishement as well in body as in soule By these meanes I say we are one body in Christ of the which faith and charitic are meanes only spirituall the Sacraments are both spirituall meanes through the inward grace corporal through the visible formes of them The meanes only spirituall be neuer changed sith our faith is all one with that of the Patriarches but our Sacraments differ from theirs as whiche conteine the truth whereof the old Sacraments were only the shadow Hitherto it hath bene said that we can not be of the mysticall body of Christ vnlesse we partake his flesh either by faith or by the Sacraments For as S. Augustine writeth Albeit in some the grace of faith be so great that they are now assigned to the body of Christ and to the holy temple of God yet in some it is such as doth not suffise to obteine the kingdom of heauen as in the Cathecumenis as in Cornelius antequà m SacramentoruÌ„ participatione incorporaretur Ecclesiae before that he was incorporated to the Church â—…y paraking of the Sacraments The SacrameÌ„t wherein we are first incorporated to Christ is wel knowen to be Baptim which seing it consisteth of speaking holy words and of washing with the elemeÌ„t of water it is not to be denied but that God worketh our incorporation by corporall meanes also and not by faith a lone And as it is not enough for hauing the nature of a man to be conceaued only except he be also borne so if when he is borne he be not fed he can not long coÌ„tinew a man Therefore as the Sacrament of baptim beginneth the incorporation specially nowe when we al are baptized in our infancy euen so after the we are come to the yeres of discretion an other SacrameÌ„t is requisite to mainteyne vs in the body of Christ which is called the SacrameÌ„t of his body and blood whereof Christ said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him Now sâ—…ing the sacrament which maketh vs tary in the body of Christ must â—…edes be a corporal thing as baptism was and yet it hath none other nature then that which Christ geueth it he nameth it his own body and blood we ought to confesse that the Sacrament which nourisheth the state of life euerlasting in vs is the body and blood of Christ corporally present that is to say
one with vs. Vt corpus cuÌ„ corpore vniretur That the body might be vnited to the head Behold we that by baptisme were the body must yet be vnited with our head what by only vnitie of wâ—…l or faith and loue all that we had before but we must be vnited now in nature in real coniunction of body and blood S Cyrâ—…l writeth thus If we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christ suffereth not himselfe to be diuided or separated Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ and â—…uery one of vs according to S. Paule yâ— members of Christ. For we being ioyned to Christ alone through his body because we haue receaued him in vs who can nat be diuided our members are rather applied to him then to vs. Theodoritus toucheth as well the vnion of baptisme as of the Eucharist saying As Eue was formed out of Adam so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism and we rise together with him and we eate his body and drink his blood Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mysterie which is done in baptisme or by â—…is body blood which is done in the Eucharist That is the beginning of our vniting this is the end that is the foundation of the house this is the top that is in spirit chefely this in chefely in flesh But now let vs graunt that when S. Paule saith we are meÌ„bers of his body of his fleshe and of his bones that he meant we in baptisme are members of Christes mysticall body and we are members as it were taken out or proceding from his flesh bones that is to say we are one mystical body because the flesh bones of Christ haue geueÌ„ vertue to the font of baptism wheÌ„ce we are regenerated Let vs admit S. Paule had meant so the contrarie whereof al the auncient fathers teache yet the wordes which folow in S. Paule can by no meanes 〈◊〉 auoided For he vseth the example of Adam and Eue shewing it to be a great mysterie in Châ—…ist and the Church and that mysticall example may be applied to the vnity which is betwene Christ and vs either in baptism or in the supper of our Lord. For coÌ„cerning baptisme as Eue was not corporally begotten of Adam but was taken out of his syde whiles he slept so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christes side whiles he slept vpon the Crosse without the personall begetting of Christ him selfe in his owne substance But what â–ª stayeth S. Paule in this part of the similitude Goeth he not forward to a greaâ—… mysterie Saith he not for this cause the man which is Christ shall forsake Father and mother and shall cleaue to his own wife which is the Church and they shal be two in one flesh Eue was taken out of Adam and was flesh of his flesh but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth so yâ— vnion of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ then by his flesh Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is yâ— material patern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism euen as Adam was yâ— material patern according to which God formed Eue. But Eue was borne beside the customable course of nature to betoken that the Church should be born of the vertue of Christes flesh not by company of two sexes but by the working of God without the natural seede of man But when Adam knew his wife carnally then the flesh taken before out of him by God was not only ioyned again to his flesh by God but also by the actuall cooperation of Adam him self â–ª theÌ„ two were made not only out of one flesh which was the miraculouse work of God in forming Eue out of Adam but also two diuerse persons already made by God are by natural coÌ„iunction of both theyr bodies made really one flesh euen as man and wife when they beget children are not now two as Christ him selfe testifieth but one flesh This is a great mysterie I meane sayth S. Paule that it is great in Christ and the Church For when the faithfull members who were incorporated to Christ in baptisme by the vertue of his flesh really absent in substance but presente in efficacy when those members come againe to Christ in the sacrameÌ„t of his last supper they then find not his flesh absent in substance as before but two that is to say Christ and his spouse the Church are in dede one flesh they are in deede soyned together in truth of substance on eche part Christ by his power and vertue prepared our flesh in baptism and by cleausing it there he made it a mete spouse to receaue his naturall flesh in his own real substance But in the supper we are not only of him but we are him selfe For we two are one flesh for the tyme that the coniunction dureth for as the man and wife be not always ioyned in the act of begetting children no more is yâ— real flesh of Christ always ioyned in his own substaÌ„ce with our flesh albeit his spirit and the vertue of his flesh tarie stil with vs and make vs tarie in him but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said take eate this is my body then we really haue yâ— substance of Christes flesh in our mouthes and bodie In mariage there are diuerse degrees of coupling the first is by words of promise for mariage to ensew The second is by words of present bargayning the third is when the man wife deliuer theyr bodies eche to other for begetting of children Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning when he promised that the sede of yâ— woman should tread downe the serpents head The which promise the Patriarches beleuing were euen then ioyned by faith aud loue vnto God The signe whereof Abraham and his sede caried in theyr flesh and it was renewed to Dauid and denouÌ„ced by many Prophetes as by the lawfull proctours of God At the length Christ by taking fleshe came to the house of his spouse to see whether she would goe forward in mariage or no. And although the vnfaithfull Jewes forgetting the couenants of spousage plaied the harlots parte with Christe whereof he greuously complaineth in his Prophets yet Christ keping his promise went forward in mariage with them who would receaue him Who consenting to his conditions by the aunswere of a good coÌ„science in baptisme were by present words made surâ—… vnto him for euer renouncing all other â—…orain husbands aâ—…ter which consent eche part hath right vpon the others body newe may the party baptized call for the Sacrament of Christes body if he be of the yeres of discretion And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the other syde boâ—…nd to obey the
death of that holy thing which is eaten for a liuing and sensible creature is not vsed to be eaten without it be depriued first of his life Therefore Theophilact sayth Quinta vesperi fecit Dominus coenam caet Nemo enim quicquà m edit nisi prius mactatum fuerit The fift euening which was on Maundy Thursday night our Lord made a supper and â—…ayd to his Disciples Take and eate for this is my body And so because he was of power to lay down his soule it is euident that he then sacrificed him self from that tyme wherein he deliuered the Disciples his body For no man eateth any thing vnlesse it be first killed Thus we see that the reall presence of Christes flesh to th' end it may be eaten is the consequent whereby S. Paule proueth the shewing of Christes reall death Who perceaneth not that it is a good argument to say I eate in a Sacrament Christes reall flesh thereâ—…ore he is 〈◊〉 dead Doth it not follow well in the discourse of reason I drink the true blood of Christ therefore Christ hath truly shed his blood Or doth any faithfull man at the table of God eate the flâ—…sh and drink the blood of that thing which is not yet dead and offered in a sacrifice This argument of S. Paule they make vtterly voyde who say that we eate a figure and not the truth of Christes substance for then should Christ be shewed figuratiuely dead as he should be figuratiuely eaten Neither could it folow that because Christ is eaten by faith in a figure therefore he is already dead in truth it self but only that he is dead in a figure or in bare name without the truth of death as yet presently shewed When the Paschall Lamb was eaten the Lamb was truly dead but as the Lamb was the figure of Christ and not Christ did it thereof follow that it was only shewed in a figure that Christ sometyme should dye and not that in dede he was dead But now that he is dead in dede and so dead that his death is shewed true by the eating of his own body and by the drinking of his own blood vndoubtedly as truly as â—…uer that same Paschall Lamb was killed which was eaten so truly is the same body of Christ dead which is eaten and therevpon it wil folow that by eating the flesh of the man that dyed that maÌ„ is shewed to be dead in dedâ—… Wherefore S. Ambrose sayth vpon this place Quia enim mor te Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are made free through the death of our Lord being mindful thereof we in eating and in drinking flesh blood signifie those things which were offered for vs. Lo the very fact of eating flesh and of drinking blood shew the things that were offered to death for vs That is to say shew the flesh and blood of Christ as dead Damascene in that pleasant history of Iosaphat maketh the King Auenite to demaunde of certeyne Eremites why they caried about them that bones of dead men to whome they answered Ossa ista munda caet we cary about with vs ô King these cleane and holy bones representing the death of these maruelousemen whose they are and bringing our selues in minde of their exercise and of their conuersation beloued of God and flyring our selues to the like zeale And afterward the bones of dead men cause the remembrance of death to them that are a line Here we see many commodities which the blessed reliques of Sayntes do bring to good men Among other things they cause vs to remember the vertues of them whose bones we reâ—…erently kept And for as much as Christ did shew his charity chefely in dying for his enemies we haue no greater thing to remember by the presence of his body theÌ„ the same louing death of that body But if the bare presence of dead bones make vs remember that Saynts that be with God whose bones they were how muh more doth the eating of Christs body both make vs remember his death and shew it to our eyes being eaten after such sorte as this body is eaten This kinde of reasoning which S. Paule vseth is called of the logicians A consequentibus when by those things that are put for true and follow an other thing is proued to haue necessarily gone before As for example we may reason thus This woman is brought a bed therefore she hath companyed with a man in so much that reason declareth that no woman by the course of nature caÌ„ haue a childe except she lye before with a maÌ„ Now as if the bringing a bed be but in a shadow thereof no true cumpany with a man may directly be inferred euen so at this time if by eating yâ— body of Christe we shew Christs death and yet we do eate the body of Christe only in a shadow then may it not be inferred hereof that Christ is shewed to haue dyed truly in dede but only in a shadow Such as yâ— Consequent is where vpon we reason such antecedent may be inferred thereof If yâ— ConsequeÌ„t be reall true perfyt yâ— Antecedent is shewed to haue bene like If the Consequent be imperfyt figuratiue or sayned the Antecedent is not thereby shewed to be true If two persons are maryed together it may be well inferred that they consented together but if their maryage be â—…ained to say made vppon a sâ—…afold in the way of playing some Comedy or enterlude then is the coÌ„sent also sayned If the maryage were true the consent was true Christe made his last supper chefely to haue it a remembrance of his death and therefore he sayd Hoc facite in meam commemorationem doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me S. Paule hauing before declared how this thing may be made by the preistes of the new Testament for the remeÌ„brance of Christ in declaring that Christe toke bread brake and sayd this is my body he sheweth afterward how the sâ—…me body may be eaten by the common people for the remembrance of Christes death saying As often as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this chalice ye shall shew our Lords death vntill he come so that yâ— consecrating of Christes body by priests and the eating thereof by all Christian men is the shewing of Christes death Here I would know whether Christ instituted this Sacrament to shew his death as past in dede or els past in a bare shadow If to shew it in a bare shadow theÌ„ two absurd sequeles may seme to be employed One is yâ— it may shew Christes death as well to come as already past An other is that if it be past it is rather shewed to haue bene a figuratiue death theÌ„ a true death For as the eating of vnleauened bread vnder the law were
that he had not one chappell reserued to him in all the world where idolatry was not outwardly committed And how committed by pretence of his owne Gospell of his owne word of his own dede It was Christ that sayd This is my body It was he that sayd Ye beleue in God beleue also in me I and my Father are one thing or substance If it be so wee must worship him as wee adore his Father And his body is vnited to his diuine persone Yea say you but it is not his body but bread still appointed to figure his body Well Syr he sayd it is his body and all the Church hath so far beleued him that all Christians haue worshipped it for euer as being his true body That faith of theirs ioyned with those words of Christ proue to me that it is his body and therefore no idol Moreouer I thinke my self bound to beleue the Prophetes who sayd Christ should destroy y◠idols of the earth which literally is by S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine and by many others expounded of externall idolatry whereby men fell doune geuing Godly honour to creatures Such a worshipping after the iucarnation of Christ is decayed in the whole world euen among infidels much more it ought to be decayed among the faithfull And yet if our idolatrie be any it is externall What say wee then Is there now a days no idolatry in Christendome Are there no false Gods worshipped yes doubtlesse to many But idolatry partly is outward partly is inward The outward idolatry is decayed by the outward and visible coming of Christ into the world The inward is decayed by the faith and charitie of good people But because not al that be outward Christians be the true seruantes of God therefore they still worship idols in their hartes They adore mony for the desier where of they sel benifices and cure of soules without feare and are content to robbe euen Churches and monasteries although they thinke wel inough both of Priests and Monkes as they vse to say These inward idols bee not taken away but where Christ is inwardly professed And for asmuch as likewise y◠outward idols be taken away where Christ is outwardly professed it can not be that those who beare the name of Catholikes and Christiās should adore by common consent any outward idoll Is there then no outward idol at all Noue surely made with the hands of men among Christians But yet there lack not inuisible idols made by the wit of men whereof S. Cyprian speaketh in this wise Christi aduentu detectus ac prostratus inimicus videns idola derelicta caet The enemy detected and throwen doune by the coming of Christ seing the idols forsaken and his seates and Temples left voide through the great multitude of beleuers deuised a new guile that vnder the very title of Christes name he may deceaue the vnwary He hath found heresies and schismes whereby he might ouerthrow faith corrupt truth and cutte of vnitie Lo the heresies and the schismes are the idols that be inuented since y◠coming of Christ. If you wil knowe a true marke of an idolatour note him y◠diuideth vnitie that maketh parts that goeth from agreement Fifty yeres past there was but one body of the whole West Church All worshipped one God one Christ one body and one blood of his Al were vnder one shepherd the Bishop of Rome Al spake one tong in publike seruice of the West Church all kept one faith acknowledged one truth Luther arose and sayd The Pope was not our head Straight vnitie was diuided For one withdrew him self from the rest Ergo Luther was the first idolatour Anon after he had fellows a pretie flock of idolatours very visibly seen and knowen to dwel at Wittenberge Within fower yeres zuinglius diuided him self not now from y◠Pope but euen from Luther and made two idols of one After which tyme y◠idols haue bene multiplied to the number of aboue three score that canbe named in Germany as it may appeare in Fridericus Staphylus And as for the Sacramentaries in England although they haue receaued into the number of their Gods y◠chief idols both Auther and zuingli◅s yet they worship the idoll of Taluine aboue them both For as S. Hierome saith Sicut idola fiunt manu artificis ita Haereticorum peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in idolum facit pro Christo adorari Antichristum As idols be made with y◠hand of the craftsmā so what so euer the ouerthwart doctrine of Heretikes cloketh it turneth it into an idol and causeth Antichriste to be adored in stede of Christe As for example Martin Luther or Iohn Caluine being fully determined to breake of from the reste of the Church syt a deuising sith they are at a point not to teache the olde doctrine what new doctrine they may teache Then hath the Deuill power vpon them for so much as they are finaly agr◅ed not to be subiect to any master or preacher in the whole Church of God no though it were a whole generall Councell gathered out of all the men in y◠earth For that intolerable arrogancy the Deuill may rule them as he list therefore sendeth some wicked opinion into theire mindes such as he hath plenty of They a litle while pondering it perhappes i◅dge it impossible to be admitted of men as Luther iudged of the deniall of the reall presence wherein he laboured a certaine time and in that case the Deuill inspireth a newe deuise But when they are once agreed vpon that they will goe foreward withall they haue a strong imaginacion how certeine that opinion is and with an excessiue pride acknowlege them selues the Prophetes of God and imagine what glory they shall come vnto among fooles and mad men Albeit they must take them for no fooles who soeuer wil forsake the faith approued fiftene hundred yeres together and folow the new blast of theire trompet But are they trow ye no fooles because they think them selues none Thus when they haue gotten a sufficient schole and audiēce they publish their doctrine vnder y◠name of Gods worde and so er◅ct a phantasticall idoll But to say that the blessed Sacrament of Christe is an idoll semeth necessarily to imploy that Christe iustituted an idoll which to thinke it were no small idolatry For he and noman els made or published this Sacrament to thend idolatry should cease whiles wee did only adore that body and blood which is vnited to the Godhead in one person But yet if our Fathers did and wee do worshippe wheaten bread and wine our idolatry were more grosse not only then that of the heretikes but also then y◠of the Gentils But that is vtterly against the worde of God therefore wee do not worship any creature at all as
wherein the honour may rest for the honour that wee geue to the body and blood of Christ which was taken of the virgine is according to the doctrine of S. Augustine geuen to his holy person who is the naturall Sonne of God and one substance with his Father true God and true man Thus wee saue the truth of the olde Propheâ—…ies the faith of our forefathers the proprietie of Christes wordes in his supper the honour of his Church the glory of his name who gaue no occasion of idolatry neither in worde nor in dede ¶ The adoration of Christes body in the Sacrament is proued out of the new Testament S. Paule speaking of Sacramtal eating saith he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body that is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates For S. Hierome S. Augustiue Sedulius and Primasius expound those words in that meaning The difference which is to be made betwene the meate of Christes supper and other meates consisteth in two points in one that the receauer of Christes Sacrament must prepare him self before hand to be apt to receaue the grace of God in which point Baptisme penance holy orders and other Sacraments agree with the supper of Christe For we may not come being of lawfull age to any of those or such like holy mysteries without due disposing our selues to repentance for our synnes and to amendment of our life The second point of the difference betwene Christes supper other things is that in the Sacrament of his supper we must examine our selues euen for the respect of the substance of that meate which we receaue In baptisme we try our selues not for any honour which is due to the water but for the obteyning of the grace which is geuen in that Sacrament But in the supper a farther difference is to be made What is that The very substance which is taken is to be honoured and adored That is it which S. Chrysoâ—…ome sayth Non considerans vt oportet magnitudinem propositorum non reputans muneris magnitudinem He eateth vnworthely sayeth S. Chrysostome Who considereth not as it behoueth the greatnes of the things set foorth not weighing diligeÌ„tly the greatnes of the gift He speaketh not of the effect which cometh by the Sacrament but of the substance of the things set foorth What are they but such as appeare Bread and wine and yet in dede be Christ him self There fore it foloweth in S. Chrysostome If thou doest lern diligently qui sit propositus who is set before thee thou nedest to accompt nothing els Behold the person and substance set foorth is to be considered only Nullius alterius indigebis ratione Thou shalt nede make no accompt of any thing els For out of that substaÌ„ce which standeth before thee cometh the grace and all other effects of worthy eating as if he sayd prouyde to receaue worthely the person set foorth to thee vnder the formes of bread and thou mayest be secure So that the differeÌ„ce properly belonging to Christes supper is to make a difference of this substance from al other substances That is the difference whereof S. Ambrose saith He that will receaue worthely this meate must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in a mystery What other meaning can these wordes haue but that he must iudge him selfe to drinke not wine but blood not the blood of an earthly man but his blood who is God also and that he drinketh his blood in a mysterie to wit not in his owne forme but vnder the forme of wine for he speaketh of Sacramentall drinking of that which is taken by mouth Therefore the very substance which he drinketh must be disseuered from all other creatures Nowe I say he that is willed so to iudge of the substance of this Sacrament as the substance of him who is God ought to be iudged of he is willed to adore the substance of this Sacrament sith his substance ought to be adored who is God For as S. Chrysostom saith the very table to wit the very meate staÌ„ding vpoÌ„ the table is the strength oâ—… our soulâ—… the synewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light lyfe Thus to iudge oâ—… this SacrameÌ„t by adoring it with true â—…oue in it to adore God that is to adore not only in spirite figures as yâ— Iewes dyd adore but also to 〈◊〉 in spirite and truth as Christ said we should do because our SacrameÌ„ts coÌ„teme yâ— truth which they signiâ—…ied â—…ot only signifying our Sauiour as yâ— old SacrameÌ„ts did but also geuing saluatioÌ„ as S. Augusti doth witnesse And for as muche as the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is the Sacrifice of the new â—…aw willed by him to be made for the remâ—…brance of his death we must both in our spirite and in the truth of naturall coniunction be vâ—…ted and made one with the substance thereof and also in the truth of Christes flesh externally consâ—…crated adore God offering him that reasonable and diuine sacrifice to the end we may render and paie the worship of thanksgeuing due for our redemption in none other substaÌ„ce then in the same which redemed vs. For as it is nostrum holocaustum our sacrifice wholy burnt by death of the Crosse so is it nostra hostia pacifica our sacrifice wherewith we both geue thanks for peace made betwene God and vs and also applie to our selues the fruites of that one burnt offerinâ—… truse made vpon the Crosse which was is the propitiation for our synnes and for the synnes of the whole world This kind of adoration proper to the new testament is due to God of our behalf by the Sacrament and sacrifice of Christes body and blood And herein stanâ—…eth all that which the Apostle speaketh of worthy or vnworthy receauing if the true substance of this SacrameÌ„t be vprightly estemed and both outwardly and inwardly honoured And so doth S. Augustine expound yâ— Apostles minde as now it shal appere Ianuarius had asked what S. Augustine thought concerning holy dayes fasting dayes or such like customes of the Church which are diuersly kept in diuerse countries Among other questions it was also moued what were to be more approued whethere to receaue daily the SacrameÌ„t of the altar or els to abstein sometymes To this question S. Augustine maketh answer that neither of them both depriueth the body and blood of our Lorde of honour if eche of them striue who may honour best the moste healthfull Sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honour our Sauiour in maner by contrary meanes the one by receauing him with ioy into his house the other by saying â–ª Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes
the receauers or no that Shepherd of Christes flok sayth that if it were not his true body and receaued in the mouth it were in vaine to say Amen It is true For seing the Priest bringing meate vnto their mouthes did say The body of Christ if notwithstanding it were only to be receaued in hart not in mouth also it were in vaine to say Amen or to answere it is so it is true and yet to think in hart otherwise To end this matter at the length The whole Church before Berengarius beleued the reall presence and they toke that their belefe of their auncestours from hand to hand euen vntill we come to the Apostles and by them to Christ. In the primatiue Church the Priest cried out at the altar This is my body and this is my blood All the people answered it is so It is true S. Ambrose biddeth them think as they speake yea euen as the word soundeth S. Leo sayth they say in vaine it is true if they dispute against the truth thereof And he teacheth the truth to be that the same thing is receaued in the mouth which is beleued in faith S. Hilary sayeth No place of doubting is left sith both by our Lords profession and by our faith it is verily flesh and verily blood Epiphanius witnesseth that euery man beleueth our Lords saying wherein he sayd This is my body And who so doth not beleue it eueÌ„ as him self spake it he is fallen from gracâ—… and saluation Seing all these things doe euidently proue the faith of the whole Church to haue bene that Christes body and blood was really present in the Sacrament of the altar and really receaued into the mouthes of the faithfull people it remaineth that thosâ—… who haue bene deceaued in this behalf do returne agaiâ—…e to their former belefe and that as wel in al other points as iâ—… this they do for euer beleue the Catholike Church the piller of truth Knowing for surety that it can not be a Catholiâ—…e doctrine which is begun in our age or any tyme after thâ—… preaching of the Apostles and that specially when it is conâ—…rary to the faith always preached and beleued ¶ That no man possibly can be condemned for beleuing the body of Christ to be really present in the Sacrament of the altar WHen Christe had almost ended his talke at Capharnaum and shewed his wordes to be spirit and life perceauing all the fault why the Iewes thought his sayinges so absurde to be for so much as they estemed him no more then a naturall man weighing his doctrine by theyr senses earthely reason he for declaration of theyr incurable dyssease for the detection of the cause thereof sayd Sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt But there are some of you who beleue not For Iesus knewe from the beginning who they where which beleued not Here we may see the chefe fault in all matter and question of the supper of Christ to consist in not beleuing He that beleueth is safe but wo to him that beleueth not S. Peter beleueth and confesseth Christ to haue the wordes of euerlasting life Iudas beleueth not and therefore he is called a deuil The chefe point of ChristiaÌ„ belefe is to acknowlege Christ to be God to be almighty to be able to make and to doe what soeuer pleaseth him This point he lacketh who so denieth Christ to be able to make the substance of his owne body present in diuerse places at once vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine If â—…herefore any man wil not beleue this he may be assured his portioâ—… is rekned with Iudas who as Leo hath witnessed beleued not thâ—… almighty power and Godhead of Christ. But if all men agree 〈◊〉 this point it is very well then let vs passe to the nexte Christ said â–ª The bread which I will geue is my flesh the which I will geue for tâ—…e life of the world Now are we come from the power of Chist to the will of Christ. We all were agreed that he was able to make the substance of his body present vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine Nowe these wordes affirme that he will geue a kind of bread the substance whereoâ—… is his own flesh euen that flesh the which he will geue for the life of the world And if we goe to his last supper we see bread taken and after blessing and thankes geuen he said This is my body which is geuen for you And he gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragmeÌ„tes or peeces bidding euery one of them take and eate in which deede he sheweth him self to make the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuerse places at one tyme allthough not after the manner of locall situation because his body hath not in the Sacrament actually that naturall dimention and occupying of place which it hath otherwise But as he hath ordeined it to be so is it vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread Here I am sure many will stand with me and say they beleue not so to whom I answere yâ— by so saying they haue condemned them selues to be of those of whom Christ said there are some of yow who beleue not For yf Christ said by yâ— which was bread before his blessing which still seemed bread yf Christ said thereof this is my bodie gaue it vnder twelue peeces or formes seing they confesse him to be able to make his body present vnder diuerse formes and to haue promised to geue his flesh and to haue said this is my body and to haue geuen it to twelue how can they deny that his body was present at that supper vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread being whole and all vnder eche forme The confessing of that which Christ said is a thing that apperteineth vnto faith because the speaker is God to whom all faith beloÌ„geth To beleue this that God saith must nedes be a vertue and to discredite it is a great vice You will perhap allege that fleshe profiteth nothing the wordes of Christ are spirit and life â–ª that is true therefore I beleue that when he said take eate this is my body he gaue his body not without life spirit but yet as really as euer by saying Let the light be made he made yâ— light for his wordes be not dead flesh which profiteth nothing but quicken and geue lyfe how and when so euer it pleaseth hym muche better then the spirit and soule of man is able to quicken make liuely the body wherein it is These two sayinges this is my body and my wordes are spirit and life stande so well together that I beleue the one for the others sake Christes words neuer lacke spirit and life and power to quicken other thinges euen as his flesh neuer lacked al kynd of spirit in it selfe for when the soule was out of
them make that thing as it is written in the Gospel I shewed at 〈◊〉 that I was signed of my Father and equall with him in power they them selues beleue that I made al creatures places times of nothing and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present vnder the â—…orm of bread in diuerse places Yea to maintaine the better that argument against my allmighty power they say I entred not into my disciples the dores being shut But eyther preuented the shutting of them contrary to the wordes of my Gospell or came in by the window as theues do or by some hole as crepers doe yea any thing is soner beleued then my diuine strength and working Thou hypocrite seing the word of God hath it written foure tymes in the new testament This is my body how comest thou to talke with me of my 〈◊〉 in heauen as though one of my workes were contrary to the other If in dede thou haddest bene humbly perswaded that I were God thou wouldest not measure my allmightie power by thy simple wit Thou art twise condemned first for deniall of a truth and againe for denying it against my expresse word which thou pretendest to esâ—…e and yet pronouÌ„cest it false If the pore mâ—…n say he knew not so much nor saw not the falsehod of that argumeÌ„t and beginne to accuse the salse preachers who deceiuâ—…d him Christ maie well say that he was not deceaued for before those false preachers began their false doctrine he had said This is my body and this is my blood and all the world beleued and taught the râ—…all presence of Christes body blood fiften hundred yeres together What cause nowe haddest thou to beleue a new Gospell and new preachers thereof Forsoth Sir they said the Bishop of Rome had deceaued vs and we heare say he is a very euil maÌ„ therefore we thought he had deceaued vs. If in this case Christ tell him that the Bishop of Rome were yâ— successour of S. Peter and so his vicar hauing promise by him not to erre in faith and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine but that all the Bishops doctors pâ—…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning and that Christ him selfe had sayâ—… the same that all the 〈◊〉 and the Apostle S. Paule had written the same that al faithful 〈◊〉 beleued the same what excuse can he haue who 〈◊〉 Christ the Apostles the Bisshops the Fathers the preachers and the whole Church to followe an vpâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who began his doctriue so amhitiously and proudly who â—…ed so euil died so terribly that his very â—…ominable dealing with great Princes his shamfull 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man wearie to think vpon him much lesse should so many haue folowed him To 〈◊〉 shor â—…wer the pore maÌ„ for him selfe â–ª what he may yet he can not denie but that both Christ said this is my body the Church taught the same and yet he beleued not this to be the body of Christe and therefore is one of them who beleue not without faith which is but one there is no saluatioÌ„ no pleasing of God no part in the kingdoÌ„ of heauen Which thing if they that be aliue will consider they maie returne againe to the Catholike Churche and so be made liuely members of that body whereof Christe is the Sauiour Herevnto is added the seuenth booke conteining a con â–ª â—…utation of the fifth article of M. Iuels Reply against D. Harding concerning the reall presence of Christes body in the supper of our Lorde The preface of the seuenth booke Iâ—…d thought to haue ended my treatise of our Lords supper with such matter as had bâ—…ne set foorth in my former six boks But when I had seen M. Iuels â—…eply against D. Harding and had 〈◊〉 not only contrarie doctrine to that which the Catholike Chruch beleueth vttered therin but also the same vttered with such enormouse misconstruing of the worde of God and with suche abusing of auncieÌ„t writers that it semed expedient to detect the falshod thereof I toke vpoÌ„ me to answere specially to that article whiche did unpugne the reall presence of Christes body â–ª whereof I had intreated And because I could neither well confute M. Iuels â—…ply without some respect had to D. Hardings answere nor conueniently put both D. Hardings and M. Iuels whole wordes in â—…ny booke which alredie was greate enough I was constrained to take such order that neither al their wordes might be at large laied foorth nor the pith of them in any part dissembled Wherein I haue so behaued my selfe that M. Iuel shall haue no 〈◊〉 cause to coÌ„plaine of me For I haue to my knowledge omitted no scripture no authoritie no argument of any force whereunto I haue not aunswered As for yâ— bookes of D. Harding of M. Iuel they being extaÌ„t in most mens handes nede not to be printed again by me How fully M. Iuel is answered the discrete Reader shall iudge when he commeth to the matter This much I will say it was more pain to staie my penne in suche abundance of stuffe as the goodâ—…es of the cause and euill dealing of M. Iuel gaue me then to 〈◊〉 at any tyme what might be 〈◊〉 answered One thing I beâ—…che the Reader to note most diligeÌ„tly that in all this treatise M. Iuel vseth none other meane so coâ—…on to proue his intent as to set one truth against an other As though Christes body could not both be in heauen visibly and in the Sacrament miraculously or as though because the Saâ—…rament is a figure it could not also contein the truth which it sigureth Or because Christ is eaten by faith his body might not be eaten also realy in the Sacrament But this thing is common to M. Iuel with other of his faction Marie to leaue on t the true nominatiue caâ—…e and to put in a false to leaue out the 〈◊〉 word which is the keie of all disputation to conueye wordes of his own which the authour neuer thought of to mispoint mis-english the testimonies of the fathers to 〈◊〉 their meaning that I can not tel whether any man hath vsed so much in so litle a treatise as in this one article of the reall â—…sence â—…e is â—…ound to haue done Neither is it vnknoweÌ„ to yâ— lerned who hath seen his booke yâ— hâ—… hath vsed the like falshod in yâ— other articles also 〈◊〉 by Gods grace the world shal see or it be long In the meane tyme iudg the rest by this which I shall set before thiâ—…e eyes And praie vn â–ª to God yâ— either M. Iuel may see his vnhonest dealing 〈◊〉 him selfe or els that his folly maie be 〈◊〉 to al men to thintent none may perish beside those who will not â—…denour by all meanes to lerne 〈◊〉 folow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christes Gospel and of the 〈◊〉 â–ª tholike Church The
Chapiters of the seuenth Booke 1. Maister Iuel hath not answered D. Hâ—…rding wel touching the vvords of Christes supper 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked bare figure accordig to the Doctrine of the SacrameÌ„taries 3. That Christes bodie is receaued by mouth not by faith only 4. M. Iuel hath not replied vvel touching the sixth Chapiter of S. Iohn But hath abused as vvell yâ— gospel as diuerse authorities of the fathers 5. Item he hath not replied vvell touching the Carpharnaites 6. Neither conferred the supper vvith the sixth of Iolm as it ought to be 7. Neither disputed wel touching the omnipotenâ—…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponÌ„d more vnpropertie or inconuenientlie the vvords belonging to Christes supper 9. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel 10. Of the signification of aduerbs 11. Of the first author of the SacrameÌ„tarie heresie 12. Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined 14. The difference betvvene baptisme and oure Lordes supper 15. The ansvvere to M. Iuel concerning the Nicene Councell S. Augstine caet 16. VVhether Christes bodie dvvelleth reallie in our bodies by his natiuitie 17. Item vvhether by faith 18. The contradictions of M. Iuel in this article 19. Whether by baptism Christe dvvelleth reallie in our bodies 20. Item VVhether by the Sacrament of the altar or no. 21. Christes bodie is proued really present by S. Chrysostoms vvordes 22. Item by the vvordes of S. Hilarie 23. Item of S. Gregorius Nyssenus 24. Item of S. Cyrill ¶ Master Iuel hath not answered D. Harding well touching the words of Christes supper IVel. fo 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. yeres to beleue that Christes body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament Harding Of the termes really substantially corporally coet found in the doctors Iuel His answere is that Christes body is corporally vnited to vs but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament he answereth not one word Harding The termes are fouÌ„d in the doctors treating of the true being of Christes body in the Sacrament Sander Ergo M. Iuel said not truly For as D. Harding now saith it so he proueth afterward Christes body to be really in the Sacrament Iuel In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf Harding Christen people hath euer bene taught that the body of Christ is present verely in the Sacrament vvhich doctrine is founded vpon Christes plaine vvords Sander Ergo M. Iuel â–ª he was able to allege some what Iuel It is marueil the people should be taught without a teacher or without â–ª words â–ª or those not writen Harding Christes vvordes are expressed by three Euangelists and S. Paule Take eate this is my body this is my blood coet San. Ergo M. Iuel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct prouf of Christes real presence is 〈◊〉 â–ª Harding Neither saieth our Lord only This is my body but to put the matter out of dout he addeth vvhich is geuen for you Iuel 317. Hereupâ—… M. Harding fouÌ„deth his carnal presence 318. in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament c. San. It is no grosse sort of presence whiche is reall true and miraculouse as being of Christes own institution Marcion and Apelles herein your auncestors M. Iuel thought it a carnall a grosse a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine moneths in his mothers belly to be nourished there with blood and humours to be borne naked to be wrapped in clouts For a remedie of which absurdities the one of them deuised that Christ was not really borne but that which Tertullian saith against Marcion shal be my answere to you First God saieth he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise in their own conceit 2. Whatsoeuer is vnworthy of God is expedient for maÌ„ 3. Be thou assured Christ had rather be borne then in any parte to make a lye Now if we applie all these sayinges to Christes presence in the Sacrament it shal be lesse carnall lesse grosse lesse fleshly to haue the substance of Christes corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of bread then either to be corporally in his mothers womb or to think that he made a lye when he said take eate this is my body Iuel Christ vseth not any of these words San. I will say with S. Augustine although the word be not found the thing is found Harding 130. Though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture yet it is deduced out of the scripture Iuel Christ vseth no leading thereunto Sander The worde 〈◊〉 â—…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christes hands or which lay before him the wordes is my body shewed the substance thereof as if I shewing to a man that kind of beast should say this is a lion the word this leadeth him to that beast which he feeth and whereunto I point is a lion sheweth the substance of the thing pointed vnto This oddes only there is that a man by pointing speaking can shew only that which was before but God who spake it was made by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body whiche was not so before Nowe as when it is truly said this is a lion it wil follow thereof vnder this visible forme which I shew a lion is substantially conteined so seing Christe pointeth to the Sacrament saying This is my body it will follow thereof in this Sacrament my body is conteined substantially corporally c. Thus Chrisâ—…es wordes lead vs to his body substantially present in the Sacrament ergo M. Iuel must subscribe by his owne promise Iuel 317. D. Fisher saith this sense can not in any wise be gathered of the bare wordes of Christ. Sander Wel fisht I promise you if he fish wel that catcheth a lie 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said that the vnderstaÌ„ding of the Gospell is more certeinly obteined by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practise left by them then by the bare words of the Gospel For example hereof he saith no man shall prone by the bare wordes of the Gospel that any Priest in these daies doth coÌ„secrate the true body and blood of Christ. Marke good Reader whereof he speaketh For although saith he Christ him self did in dede make his body and blood of bread and wine yet except the like be promised and graunted to vs we can not be sure we do it but no suche thing is promised For in S. Mathew now followeth one of the places alleged by M. Iuell No word is put whereby it maie be proued that in our Masse the very presence of Christes body and blood
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
the relatiue quod in latine in english whiche doth so restraine the noune corpus body vnto that only meaning wherein it is said the true body is geuen for vs that no scape may be had beside infidelitie and heresy whereof I haue spoken at large in my fourth booke the 6. chapiter the 18. circumstance If now this which is pointed vnto be the reall natural and s◅bstantial body of Christ which died for vs seing this that he pointeth vnto is meant of the Sacrament Christ meant that in this Sacramēt his body is really naturally substantially present And therefore M. Iuel must subscribe Iuel Christ was the rocke but yet not reallie Sander First these wordes were not spoken of S. Paule with the intent to make any Sacrament or anie other thing 2. Two diuerse natures are named in them which can neuer be one i◅ substāce but only in qualitie or in similitude but this is my body nameth one substance only and signifieth it alone really present 3. It was not anie one certeine rocke in number whereof S. Paule spake for the water flowed out of two rocks in two diuerse partes of the wildernes Either of which did signifie Christ and they bothe are only one rock in meaning and in the substāce figured 4. Therefore S. Pa◅le meant only by the name of the rock the spiritual rock which in substance was Christ him selfe They dranke saith he of the spirituall rock But this is my body is spoken of a real truth made present at Christes supper and shewed outwardly aparte from Christes own visible body 5. He saied not this rocke pointing to it but the rocke 6. Not is Christ but was Christ. 7. Such effectua words folowed not to shew that any real rocke was meant as these words are which is geuen for you whiche folow and expound the other wordes This is my body Iuel D. Harding must seek helpe of 16 or moe sundrie figures not knowen to the old Fathers Sander 1. You seeke one figure for all which taketh away the substance of Christes supper frome his externall table frome his hand from his word and from the Apostles bodies 2. D. Hardings figures be to defend Christes words yours to destroy thē 3. It is not true that he is constreined to seeke either sixten or sixe figures as it shal appere in due place Iuel the old Fathers thought it no heresie to expound Christes words by a figure Sander They thought it here◅ie to expound these words This is my body by a rhetorical or grāmatical figure as by Synecdoche or Metonymia or anie other which may exclude the substanciall presence of the thing figured Iuel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his body and blood Sander He did so 1. but he gaue such a figure of his own body which is also the substance of his body as him selfe being a figure of his Fathers substance is also the selfe same substance with his Father 2. He gaue a true and not a false signe And yet it were false if this which he pointeth to and affirmeth to be his body were not in dede his body seing the words signifie so much as I haue declared in my second booke xij chapter 3. He gaue a miraculouse not a common figure in the secōd booke xiij chapter 4. A diuine not a rethorical figure in the secōd booke xiiij chapter 5. A mystical not an artificial or natural figure in y◠fifth booke sixtenth chapter 6. He gaue at his supper a figure of the new and not of y◠old testament that is to yas a figure which hath the truth in it and not of that kind whiche only both betoken the truth absent from it which thing S. Augustine declareth most euidētly saying The old Fathers did celebrate the figure of the thing to come when as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foretolde in figures these sacrifices being as wordes that promise a thing are taken away Quid est quod datum est completiuum What is it which is geuen as accomplishing or performing the old figuratiue sacrifices which promised a true sacrifice S. Augustine answereth Corpus quod nostis quod vtinam non ad iuditium noueritis The body which ye know is the accomplishmēt of the old figures the which body I would ye might not know to your damnation And again exhibita est veritas promissa the promised truth is presently brought foorth In this body we are of this body we are partakers we know what we receaue Here S. Augustine manifestly calleth the body whiche we receaue in the Sacrament the very truth promised which accomplished the the old figures 7. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure You bring this autoritie to proue that Christes words be expounded by a figure as though S. Augustine thought the speach to be figuratiue For so your word expounded by a sigure must import but this authoritie proueth not your intent For S. Augustine speaketh of Christes deede and not of his words 8. The names of body and blood as they are vsually taken of men doe signifie such a visible a corruptible and mortall nature as al we haue which thing S. Augustine wel knowing and of all men most depely po◅dering the same in so much that he was afeard least childern wold thinke that Christ had walked none otherwise vpon the earth then in the shape of bread for that respect he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the Sacramēt is the signe and figure of Christes visible body After suche sorte S. Paule speaketh of Christes fleshe saying Although we haue knowen Christ according to the flesh yet we know him not In which words he meaneth not that Christ now lacketh his flesh but that he now is no more visibly seen in his former mortall shape 9. Your abusing of S. Augustine in this behalfe if it come of ignorāce ye are not worthy to be a preacher as who vnderstand not your booke if it come of malice you are not worthy to be a man as who delighteth in leading soules to damnation Iuel Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of mie bodie Sander He meaneth so as I sayd before S. Augustine did meane which solution might serue all this whole article of the real presence but the truth is so wel armed that euery word you bring may be turned vppon your owne head Tertullian doth witnesse that the Marcionites brought forth a place of S. Paule where it was writen of Christes manhood accepta effigie serui non veritate the shape of a seruant being taken not the truth said the Marcionite in similitudine hominis non in homine and in the likenes of a man not a man figura inuentus homo non substantia id est non carne
and found a man in figure not in substance that is to say not in flesh Thus did the Marcionite reason out of the word of God it selfe to proue that Christ was not true man as M. Iuel now because the Fathers name the figure of the body would disproue the true body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t But what answereth â—…rtullian Quasi non figura caet as though the figure and likenes and shape be not also ioyned to the substance So say we the figure whereof we dispute is ioyned to the substance of Christes body so that yâ— body signe of the breade make both but one perfite Sacrament or mysticall figure And that I will proue yet more plainly out of this very place of Tertullian who speaketh moste literally of bread as it was an old figure of Christes body whereof in Hieremie it was said let vs put the word of the â—…rosse into his bread to wit vpoÌ„ his body Christ theÌ„ fulfilling the old figures fecit panem corpus suum made the bread his body as Tertullian saith If he did so it could not tary bread any longer For as ayer being once made fier tarieth no more ayer so can not the bread whiche is made Christes body be any longer the substance of bread This grouÌ„d being put whiche is most true and it is expressed in Tertullian himselfe goe you forward and say this is the figure of my body as long as you wil yet the ground of that figure can not be the substance of bread sith it is made alredie the body of Christ and consequently the substance of Christe it selfe being made of the substance of bread and mystically conteined vnder the forme of bread is that figure of Christe him selfe walking visibly and suffering death where of Tertullian speaketh By this meane the worde is fastened into his bread as Hieremie said because his bread and his body is all one Iuel After consecration saith S. Ambrose the hody of Christ is signified San. S. Ambrose doth speake of that signification whiche is made whiles the Priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum this is my body Our Lord Iesus him selfe saith S. Ambrose crieth out this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named an other kind after coÌ„secration the body is signified The which place wel vnderstaÌ„ded doth vtterly ouerthrow your figuratine opimon For S. Ambrose presseth vpon the signification óf these words this is my body and this is my blood The body saith he is signified the blood is named by mouth and this signification is made when Christ or his minister doth consecrate by these heauenly words Now immediatly before he said Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur What say we of the selfe consecration of God where the self words of yâ— Lord our Sauiour do work Now put together M. Iuel The words of our Sauiour do signify his body blood and yâ— selfe words doe worke verily them selues caÌ„ worke none other thing then they signifie therefore the wordes of our Sauiour which doe signifie Christes body and blood doe worke and make the same body and blood That is the signification whereof S. Ambrose speaketh The which his meaning when you dissemble you shew your selfe to be an enemie of the truthe Iu. I am oppressed with the multitude of witnesses San. As for these witnesses that say the Sacrament is a figure be no witnesses to your belefe because they proue your intent as well as if a man would proue by solenâ—…e witnesses that I had no soule because I hauc a body For whereas a Sacrament consisteth of two parts of an â—…uisible grace and of a visible signe whereas the inuisible grace of the Sacrament of Christes supper is the substance of his body made present to vnite vs to him and the visible signe thereof is the form of bread whosoeuer nameth that Sacrament a signe or a figure whether he meane both the grace and the signe or the signe alone certeinly he nâ—…er meaneth to deny the substaâ—…ciall presence of Christes body which is the chefe part of the same Sacrament Iu. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steede of the things signified San. It is more a miserable bondage and death to exponud the things them selues for the signes as you doe S. Augustine meaneth of such a kind of signes when â—…ither the thing that appeareth to be signified is not at all true according to the letter as when God is said to be angrie or to repent or els wheÌ„ the thing signified is absent in substance as it was in the old sacrifices which yet the Iewes estemed as if they had bene the truth As therefore he that being athirst if he come to the yuie bush it selfe goe no further he should thereby neuer the more be filled with drincke so if a man come to an vnproper or to a bare signe he is miserably deceaued as those are who come to you for holy orders who were not your selues laufully ordeined Bishopes But as if a glasse of wine staÌ„d in the window to signifie what kind of wine is to be sold he that cometh to that signe may quenche his thirst because the substance whiche is signified to be sold is also there conteined so he that cometh to yâ— holy signes instituted by Christ he shal haue the truth of the signe really present and really geuen to him He that commeth to baptime is in dede borne by the vertue of that Sacrament and â—…e that commeth to our Lordes table shall â—…ate by his mouth therein the bread of life really present ¶ That the supper of Christe is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries HArding The Sacramentaries hold opinion that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament but in a figure signe or token only Iuel M. Harding vniustly reporteth of vs. San. I must say to you in this case M. Iuel as S. 〈◊〉 said to the Arrians who called Christ Dominum the Lord but yet denied him to be God Dominum licet nuncupes dominum tamen esse non dicis quia tibi ex communi genere potius familiari nomine quâm ex natura sit Dominus Albeit you name him Lorde yet you meane him not to be the Lorde Because he is a Lord to you rather by a commoÌ„ kind and a familiar name then by nature Euen so pretend what honorable opinion or doctrine you list of Christes supper as long as by nature and substance you thinke not that externall gift to be his body which him selfe called so you rather 〈◊〉 it by a better name then meane it to be any better thing then a bare signe and figure Ebion although he denied Christes Godhead yet as Epiphanius telleth he
faith at Christes supper came from Christe howe could els any man haue it and it is described in the Gospel how could we els know it But all that he is writen to haue geuen came from his haÌ„ds when he saied take eate therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all as by his gift there made and by the Euangelistes rehersed or his body came then from his owne hands Can you proue that he gaue his body at his supper otherwise then by his own hands where is that writen For though he â—…wel in vs by faith yet no such thing was spoken of at his last supper Answere the Gospel M. Iuel or els blaspheine no more What soeuer was geuen at Christes supper came from the handes of Christ. shew me els an other gift and shew me where it is witnessed He gaue saith the 〈◊〉 said take eate nothing was eaten at his table but that whiche was there taken Nothing was there taken but that which was there geuen nothiâ—… was there geuen but that which Christ prepared and gaue Christ can be knowen to haue geuen nothing but that which the Euangelistes tel haue wâ—…ten They witnesse that he gaue such a tâ—…ing which at the least he called his bodie Now if in that external foode he gaue not his own reall body as you say his body was not eaten at all by the gift of his last supper not so much as by faith If it be so where or when shall his body be eaten by faith but if it was eateÌ„ by faith as vndoutedly it was by the eleuen Apostles who were al cleane as Christ said if that eating of theirs can be proued by the gospell it must be proued by these words take eate but these words were spoken of that visible thing whiche Christ gaue to their mouthes therefore all the eating by faith that can be shewed to haâ—…e bene made at Christes supper depended at that tyme vpon the eating by mouth Therefore the body of Christ which at Christs supper must nedes be eateÌ„ by faith if it shal be eateÌ„ worthelie as it ought to be was in the handes of Christe and thence came to the mouthes of the Apostles and so M. Iuel hath affirmed a proposition directly 〈◊〉 the veritie of the gospel Secâ—…dly the 〈◊〉 teach yâ— we eate Christes body by our â—…thes noâ—… by 〈◊〉 only â—… 〈◊〉 speaking of euil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing denied Christ yet came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meates 〈◊〉 vp to 〈◊〉 vnto oâ—…r Lords table faith 〈◊〉 modâ—… in dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum dominum negauerunt they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more againâ—… our lord with their handes and mouth 〈◊〉 when thei denied our Lord. Consider wel this saying An 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 Christ with his tonge before the tyran for feare of death eateth of things offered to idols The same man without 〈◊〉 cometh to Christes â—…able he synneth in both places and that with his mouth 〈◊〉 by denying Christ and by 〈◊〉 polluted meates here by touching and eating â—…ur lordes bâ—…die S. 〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 committed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the more 〈◊〉 â–ª Why so Is there aâ—…ie 〈◊〉 more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deny Christ to communicate with idols How is it then a more grâ—…uouse fault to come without repentance to Christes supper then to deny him both in worde dede Studie M. Iuel as long as you will you shall neuer find any solution wherein you maie 〈◊〉 but only this because he that commeth vnworthely to Christes table toucheth the reall and substantial body of Christ inuading and doing violence as S. Cyprian there saith to our Lords body blood So that the only cause why it is more heinouse to communicate vnworthely then to committe idolatrie or to deny Christ is the substance of Christ which is vnworthely touched Take away the reall substance from the handes or mouth of the receauer and it is not possible that it should be a greater synne to receaue vnworthely a peece of bread theÌ„ to denie Christ in word and to committe idolatrie in dede But as the treason that is committed against the kings owne person is the greatest of all so the greatest synne that can be bodily committed against Christ is the touching of his own substance with a polluted mouâ—…h therefore S. Cyprian beleued our Lord him selfe and the substance of his body to be receaued into the mouth of the communicant S. Chrysostome likewise witnesseth vs to take in our hands in our mouthes to touche to eate to receaue into vs Christes sleshe Is all this done by faith only Pope Leo writeth thus of this matter Ye ought so to coÌ„municate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at al of the truth of Christes body and blood Hoâ—… enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that thing is receaued in mouth which is beleued in faith but yâ— true substance of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the true substance of Christ is receaued in mouth Whereupon it foloweth that M. Iuel falsely affirmeth Christ to be eaten by faith only none otherwise Diuerse other testimonies I will bring hereafter as occasion shall serue Last of all S. Cyrill reporteth that a certaine Arrian saied Patet quia corpora nostra non dependent â—… carne Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euident that our bodies hang not of the flesh of Christ as braunches of the vine Neither is the fruit of yâ— Sainctes bodily â–ª but rather spiritâ—…all therefore the Godhead of the sonne is the vine whereon we depend by faith Thus saied the heretike To whome S. Cyrillus making answere saith because he thinketh vs to be ioyned with Christe by faith and loue and not in fleshe let vs say somwhat herein Doth he thinke vs not to knowe the vertue of the mysticall blessing The which when it is in vs doth it not make Christe to dwell corporally also in vs by communicating of his flesh Here S. Cyrill placeth corporall being against being by faith and loue Christ by communicating of his flesh dwelleth corporally in vs and not by faith and charitie alone and yet our communicating is made by mouth Therefore M. Iuel doth communicate with the Arrian in saying that we eate Christes body by â—…aith only and none otherwise For S. Cyrill of purpose to destroie that heresiâ—… sheweth vs to 〈◊〉 Christ corporally also Iu. We place Christ in the hart M. Harding placeth him in the mouthe San. D. Harding placeth him in the hâ—…rt and mouth you place him touchiÌ„g his corporal presence neither in hart nor in mouth And touching faith in hart only and not in mouth D Harding teacheth the flesh of Christ to be ioyned to our flesh for the increasing of spiritual grace You teach bread to be vnited to our flesh affirming beside the word of God that our bodies eate bread as our soules are fed with Christe D. Harding teacheth the meate of Angels which
therefore yâ— substance of Christs flesh is promised to be eaten verily and not only by faith but also in a sacrament That kind of promise was only performed in the laste supper when he sayd Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you There was euery word literally performed For the particular declaration whereof I beseche the reader to consider that which I haue writen vpon S. Ihon in the 3. booke the 2. Chap. Iuel S. Augustine saith Thei eate Christes body not only in the Sacrament but also in verie dede Behold not only in the Sacraâ—…ente San. To 〈◊〉 out a peece of the sentence of S. Augustine and such a peece as vtterly changeth the â—…eaning of his words is it not the signe of one that hath cast of all feare either of god or of man S. Augustine saith thus some men promise pardon to Catholiks though they liue noughtily because they haue eateÌ„ yâ— body of Christ not only in yâ— SacrameÌ„t but in very dâ—…de But how yâ— body of Christ is 〈◊〉 in very dede that M. Iuâ—…l would not write and yet it is a peece of the very same clause The rest of the wordes are in ipso eius corpore constituti de quo Apostolus dicit Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Being stablished in the selfe body of his of the which S. Paule said we being many are one bread one body which yet is againe expounded afterward 〈◊〉 iâ—… coâ—…pore Christi id est Ecclesia Catholica sumpseruÌ„t baptismum Christi manducaueruÌ„t corpus Christi Euil Catholiks 〈◊〉 not coudemned as some men said because they haue receaued the baptisme of Christ and haue eaten Christes body in the body of Christ that is to say in the Catholike Church This false opinion proponed in the xx chapter is impugned by S. Augustine in the xxv of the same booke Where he sheweth that none other are to be accompted the members of Christ beside those that tarie euen to ytâ—…d in the vnitie and charitie of his mystical body the Church But M. Iuel playeth the Sophist by taking the word body otherwise then S. Augustine meant it for as the cumpanie of Merchants in London make a certaine feloship among theÌ„ selues therefore may right wel be called a collegiate body euen so the cumpanie of faithull men who beleue and liue well make a certain body of Christ which is called his flocke his elect his fold most often of al his mysticall body â–ª Now M. Iuâ—… taketh yâ— word body which signifieth both Christes naturall mystical body as if it signified only his naturall body He wil proue the body of Christ to be eaten without the Sacrament and therein he taketh it for the natural body whiche 〈◊〉 at the right hand of God He proueth it by S. Augustine who speaketh of the mystical body which is the cumpanie of the elect and the holy Church of God Is not this man worthy to be a preacher â–ª Iu. S. Augustine contrarie to M. Hardings doctrine so farre forceth this difference that he maketh the eating of Christes body in the Sacrament to be one thing and the very true eating thereof in dede to be an other thing San. Why then doe you mingle the one with the other Why 〈◊〉 you against D. Harding who speaketh of the Sacrament â—…ly that place which spâ—…th oâ—… an another thing that is to say of the mysticall body You 〈◊〉 him vniustly and condemne your self most â—…ly He denieth not the mystical body and therfore is not contrarie to S. Augustine but he sheweth that Christ promised a real eating beside al other kinds of eating The promise of that reall eating you would exclude by shewing yâ— Christ may be eaten by other waâ—…s then by the Saâ—…ment â–ª as if wheÌ„ you had dâ—…d a â—…an to haue in his house yâ— armour which he is bound by lawe to haue ready you would afterward acquit your selfe if you proued that he had horsâ—…s in his stable and oxen in his pasture As though the hauing of the oâ—… proued the lacking of the other For how many waies oâ—…â—…ating Christ soâ—…r there are yet the â—…ating of his real flesh which was promised at Capharnaum is thereby rather coâ—…ed then â—…isproued Iu â–ª S. Augustine saith â–ª the Fathers of the old law receaued the 〈◊〉 same body that is now receaued oâ—… the faithfull Sander You leaue out some words of S. Augustine you adde other of your owne S. Augustine saith the old Fathers diâ—… eate the same spiritual meate which we eate you leaue out the worâ—… spirituall wherein he chefely 〈◊〉 His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vppon S. Paules words is that the olâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eate the 〈◊〉 spirituall meate the same saith he I can not find how I may vnderstand but the meate which we also eate Some man then will say was this which I now take manna is there nothing then at this time come if it was before is then the slaunder of the crosse made voyde How els did the Fathers eate the same meate but that the Apostle added spiritalem the same spiritual meate Againe Eundem ergo potum quem nos sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur The old Fathers drunk the same drinck which we doe but the same spirituall drinck that is to say which was taken by faith not which was drunck by body Is it plaine enough M. â—…uel that S. Augustine speaketh not generallie of the same meat but of the same spiritual meate why leaft yoâ—… that word out why sayd you in stede thereof that the old Fathers did eate the self same body that is now receaued of the faithfull What delight haue you to misreport the auncient Fathers where is it writen the self same body saieth not S. Augustine eundem potum quem nos sed spiritalem they dranke the same drinck which we doe but spirituall did he not expound the word spirituall saying the which was taken by faith and not drunk by body Note well those wordes M. Iuel noÌ„ qui corpore hauriebatur they drank not that which we doe concerning the drink which is taken into the body that is to say they tooke not the blood of Christ into their bodies as we now do they toke a signe of Christes blood as we doe and among other figures they had also bread wine At the time of which figuratiue bankets the iust men did fede in spirit vpon Christ but we fede vpon him also in body we eate the same in spirit and also in body which they did eate in spirit only We meete with them in the meate as it is spiritual but we differ in the same and farre passe them as it is corporal Therfore S. Augustine saith vpon S. Ihon Spiritalem vtique eandem 〈◊〉 corporalem â—…lteram quia illi manna nos aliud â–ª they did
geue Whereas the Sacrament was not yet deliuered but was only commended and set foorth in words vnto the Iewes when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh 2. Iâ—… commendare were Latine to geue yet it should haue bene translated I haue geuen 3. For viuificabit M. Iuel readeth viuificat it doth geue life for it shall geue life He was â—…oth to haue any commendation past or any geuing of life to come For he wold so vnderstand Christes words that the gift the quickening might be present lest it should apperteyn to the supper Whereas the commendation of the gift was past in those words I wil geue and the geuing of life to come verily because the Sacrament should then geue life when it should be receaued These are miserable shifts to saue your selfe from subscribing Iu. We haue a spirituall mouth a spirituall tast eyes eares as Basill Leo Origen Tertulliá say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the mind not of the belli to beleue in him that is to eate the liuing bread therefore Christes meaning is spirituall and not reall San. What grosse ignorance is this to thincke that the reall preseÌ„ce of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t hindereth my spiritual mouth tast eares eyes faith or minde All these muste goe together Christ tooke his body to bring to our bodies the meate whereof our soule might spiritually eate It is the fondest kind of reasoning in the world by one truth to denie an other seing both staÌ„d together Is my faith the lesse because Christ was bodily seen in earth How is then my spiritual feeding the worse because the foode of life is in my mouth Doth not Tertullian say the flesh is fed with the body blood of Christ to thend the soule may be made fat of God Iu. M. Harding wil say eating with mouth and grinding with teeth is a worke spiritual And so he is a good proctour for the Ca pharnaites San No that hâ—… will not say except the meate be so eaten that the manner of eating it be so cleane and spirituall that although it enter into the mouth yet the â—…aith both may and doe worke vpon it by adoration and participation as it chanceth in Christes supper And therefore Christ said work the meat which perisheth not which the sonne of man wil geue you And he meaneth work it by soule by beleuing and in body by eating And the Prophet Dauid saieth They haue eaten and worshiped This vnderstanding neither yâ— Capharnaites had nor the Sacrmentaries haue therefore they grind now common bread with their teeth whereâ—… they shal bitterly gnash if they repeÌ„t not yâ— soner Iuel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who sayth to vnderstand carnallie is to vnderstand plainly as the things be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing els San. We vnderstand not so For we seing the forme of bread thinke vppon the body of Christ which is vnder it Therefore S. Chrysostom is not against our euasion Iuel S. Augustine sayeth the saying of Christ is a figure or maner of speache San. What you meane by your maner of speache I can not tell S. Augustine vseth not those words But except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is in dede a figure and the speaking thereof is figuratiue because it was not meant that a maÌ„ should be visiblie eaten as flesh is eaten at common tables But yet that he should be really eaten Albeit the maner of eating be figu ratiue as we know And therefore when Christ had consecrated the bread into his body and sayd this is my body that speache was not figuratiue because as the truth of the body was to be eaten so the maner of the eating it was determined And theâ—… all was plain to good beleuers but not to Iudas and his companions who beleue no more then they see bodily S. Augustine then calling those words except ye eat my flesh figuratiue referreth the figure to the maner of eating But not to the substance which is to be eaten For els if by no meane the flesh of Christ might be eaten it should not be eateÌ„ by faith But if it may be so eaten it may be eaten by mouth also in that pure maner as it is geuen vs. Iuel The figure commaundeth vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. It had bene more truly translated that we ought to communicate with Christes passion Communicare is to partake in the fullest maner that may be And how can you possiblie communicate better or more fully with Christes passion then to eate worthely the self body that suffered Whereof S. Paule sayeth How oft so euer ye eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he come That is the communicating whereof S. Augustine speaketh Iuel And with comfort and profit lay vp in our memorie that Christ hath suffred death for vs. San. The perfit laying of this matter in our memorie is with Penance loue to eate the thing which is made for the remembrance of Christ. Thence cometh power to liue through or for Christ so really as he liueth through or for his Father with whome he is one thing and nature Of this whole saying of S. Augustine I haue intreated more fully in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter Iuel This therefore is Christes meaning and the very eating of his flesh San. Not this which you meane But this it is M. Iuel as I haue told you The whole man must eate as well in body as in soule because the whole is taken and assumpted of Christ the whole is incorporated by Baptism the whole redemed by death and the whole shal be crowned with glorie therefore the true eating is to eate that meate which of it selfe coÌ„sisteth of body soule and Godhead to eate it I say in body soule and spirite and not by faith only Iuel The Capharnaites vnderstoode Christe grossely of éating with teeth that whiche Christe spake spiritually and so would M. Harding teache the people San. D. Harding 〈◊〉 no more then he toke of Christ and of the Euangelists It is no grosie thing vnder the form of bread to eate the bread of life The Capharnaites went no farther then to theyr teeth and belly But we make the teeth to serue the mind also That of Origenes S. Dierom S. Augustine maketh not againste vs. Iu. Tertullian saith the Capharnaites thought his speachâ—… was hard and intolerable as though he had determined to geue them his flesh verily and in dede to be eaten with theyr mouthes therin saith Tertullian stode theyr erroure San. You know they thought not of eating it vnder the forme of bread For S. Augustine saith in Christes person Quis modus sit manducandi istum panem ignoratis Ye know not what waie there is of eating this bread Therefore the
word vere verilie â–ª doth not shew that they toke it to be eaten in substance without al grosse humours or carnal diuision of his members but yâ— they thought they should eate it carnally as the flesh of oxen is eaten with the destructioÌ„ of Christes flesh TertulliaÌ„ did not referre the errour to the mouth as you say but vnto yâ— maner of taking into the mouthe For him selfe teacheth in the same booke that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ. Iu. Nicolas de Lyra saith these wordes of Christ in the sixth of S. Ihon pertein not vnto the Sacrament SaÌ„ Ye shal neuer haue honestie by allegâ—…g yâ— gloses which your self haue condemned But I know your disease saine you would haue a witnesse that the 6. of S. Iohn perteineth not to the supper I will geue you in yâ— third chapiter of my third booke aboue twentie honest witnesses to proue that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper and all they shal be elder then Nicolas of Lyra. But what saieth he as you report He neuer in his life thought vppon that whiche you attribute vnto him What seeke you to know his mind vppon the 110. psalme sith he hath writen vppon the whole sixth chapiter of S. Iohn Perhaps he speaketh not of the matter vppon the psalmes or if he doe it is but by the way and not of purpose Wel it wil serue you whatsoeuer it be your hunger and neede is such Let vs then here Nicolas de Lyra vpon those words Memoriam fecit Our Lord hath made a memorie of his marueilouse thinges Thus he writeth Eucharistiae cibus sapidus est gustui spirituali propter quod dicit Saluator Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternuÌ„ The meate of the Eucharist is a sauerie meate to the spiritual taste Wherefore our Sauiour saieth if any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer Is Eucharistia the Sacrament or no Are the other wordes in S. Iohn or no It is then perceaued by his comments vppon that psalm that you speake falsely of him and in verie deede so falsely that he is wonderful plaine iâ—… al his workes concerning that the sixth of S. Ihon perteineth to the last supper As for the Replica which of late is printed with Nicolas of Lyra remember that it is no part of Lyra and that you are conuersant in gloses neither with truth nor with diligence ¶ M. Iuel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth of S. Ihon as it ought to be IVel. Christe in S. Ihon speaking of spirituall eating by faith made no mention of any figure but in his supper he added an outward sacrament to the same spiritual eating which the Fathers oft call a figure San. You can not tel what you say For if in S. Ihon spiritual eating by faith be only spokeÌ„ of why is it said dabo I wil geue Whereas spirituall eating was alreadie geuen to al that euer beleued and therefore it was not to come But the bread whiche Christ wil geue is his flesh and the gift thereof is to come therefore it is more then a spirituall eating by faith whiche was both past and present but there is no mention of any figure say you in S. Iohn Thereforâ—… say I seing the promise of his fleshe whiche is to come is not a promise concerning the figure thereof it is surely a promise coÌ„cerning the substance thereof If it be so and yet it must nedes be more theÌ„ a promise of eating by faith which was not come it wil folow that it was a promise of a bodily eating aswell as by faith As if Christ said the bread whiche I will geue to be receaued bodily at my last supper as I haue and presently doe geue the same to your soules that doe beleue in me that bread is my flesh But leste I should leaue this matter only in confutinge your surmise it is to be knowen that when a promise and a performance of God belong to one thing the promise is made plaine by the performance thereof and seing this word dabo I will geue is a word of promise concerning Christes fleshe we must seeke the performance of it which will neuer be found to be fulfilled any where but only in the last supper and there the old Fathers sought the performance of it as in my third booke I haue declared Therefore as all the promises made before Christes coÌ„ming were plaine when he had taken flesh and when God from heaueÌ„ said of him This is my derebeloued sonne so is the promise made in S. Ihon very plaine when Christe hauing taken bread and geuen thanckes brake and gaue saying take eate This is my body The words this is doth answere yâ— word dabo I wil geue for as Tertullian wel noteth this is ar words af performing of fulfilling the promise Thus he writeth of God the Father who hauing promised his sonne did also performe his promise in geuing him really Itaque iam representans â—…um Hic est filius 〈◊〉 vtique subadditur quem repromisi Si enim repromisi aliquaÌ„do posteâ—… dicit hic est eius est exhibâ—…ntis voce vti in demoÌ„stratione promissâ—… qut aliquando promisit God therefore making him present saieth this is my sonne surely it is to be supplied whoÌ„ I haue promised For if he promised him at any tyme and afterward saith hic est this is he it belongeth to him who sometyme made the promise to vse the word of bringing foorth really or of deliuerance in shewing the thing promised Applie this now to our purpose Christ saied the bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world At his supper after bread taken and blessing vsed he saith take eâ—…te This is my body which is geueÌ„ for you This is are words which shew present and bring â—…oorth really and deliuer the flesh before promised But these wordes take eate this is my body make present and shew and deliuer Christes body to vs bodily therefore the promise wherein Christ said I wil geue was also meant I will geue to you bodily euen by the ministerie of mie hands and you shal receaue it with your hands or mouthes or with both together Which being so the Fathers who cal Christes supper a figure must nedes meane such a figure as was promised But when the promise was made at Tapharnaum M. Iuel confesseth as the truth is that no mention was made either of bread or of wine but only of Christes own flesh therefore in the last supper the selfe same substance of Christe is called of the Fathers a figure because it is in such sort present Iuel M. Harding putteth no difference betwene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Sander Origines doth speake of them who reading
M. Iuel left out two genitiue cases vnitatis and huius rei which being repeated in S. Augustine maketh all the matter exceding clere S. Augustine affirmeth the felowship of the sainctes to be the body of Christ whereof S. Paule saith we being many are one bread one body The SacrameÌ„t saith he of this body which body is the cumpanie of the elect is receaued frome our Lordes table Huius rei Sacramentum The Sacrament of this thing Of whiche 〈◊〉 M. Iuel saieth of the body of Christ and meaneth the naturall body which sitteth in heauen for M. Iuel said before in the same verie paragraph Christes body is the thing it selfe Christes body is in heaueÌ„ gloriouse subiect to no corruptioÌ„ And he made the bread which is in earth a figure of that body But saith S. Augustin so No douttesse His words be Sacramentum huius rei 〈◊〉 est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi c. The SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of the vnitie of Christes body and blood is prepared in our Lordes table and thence receaued The vnitie of Christes body is not his naturall body but his 〈◊〉 body the Churche whiche before S. Augustine called Societatem Sanctorum the feloship of the holy men Now the Sacrament of this feloship and of this vnion is receaued from our Lords table Therefore we see two things noted of S. Aâ—…gustine the one is the Sacrament it self The other is that thing whereof it is the Sacrament The Sacrament is such a substance which may be either life or destruction to vs because it is the naturall and true body of Christ which being vnited to God can make vs liâ—…e if it be worthely receaued and that by his own vertue which thing manna the Sacrament of the Iewes could not doe and the same being vnworthely receaued destroieth vs for that we touche and violate the reall substance of our maker But the thing whereof that Sacrament is the sigâ—…e is hurtful to no man Why so Because it is the â—…nioying or fruition of that feloship which being not entred into but by vertue and grace can not possibly make any man to be destroied For we can not abuse the vertues them selues All substances we may abuse and God we may offend â–ª but we can not take hurt by faith being faithfull chast humble charitable temperate modest by which vertues we are incorporated to the mystical body of Christ. This thing therefore which is the â—…ffect of the Sacrament being wrought in faithfull men is called in S. Augustine res ipsa the thing it selfe And was called before societas Sanctorum the feloship of the sainctes and straight after haec res this thing and again vnitas corporis sanguinis Christi the vnitie of Christes body and blood This thing is destruction to no man whosoeuer be partaker of it M. Iuel doth most ignorantly I can not tel with what greater malice leaue out huius rei and vnitatis and saith Sacramentum de mensa dominica sumitur The SacrameÌ„t is receaued from our Lords table But S. Augustine said the SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of vnitie is receaued All those wordes huius rei id est vnitatis were left out of M. Iuel The which thing doth clene alter the whole sense of S. Augustine Againe whereas S. Augustine saide the Sacrament of this 〈◊〉 is prepared in our Lordes â—…able 〈◊〉 Iuel left it 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much for me to shew to the reader that Christes Sacra ment is not only receaued from his table but also prepared in his table and first prepared before it be receaued Prepared by consecration receaued by coÌ„munion It is not common bread as â—… Iâ—…el wickedly preacheth For that was prepared before we came to our lordes table but Christes Sacrament is prepared in his table it is there first made thence it is receaued Wel if the Sacrament be one thing and the thing of the Sacrament wherof S. Augustine speaketh be the cumpanie of good men what will follow hereof Surely that the Sacrament is the substance of Christes bodie vnder the foorme of bread How so It is not possible that the body of Christ should be excluded 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his holy table but al yâ— is there prepared or els receaued eyther it is the SacrameÌ„t it self or the thing of the Sacrament but Christs body is not now called of S. Augustin the thing of yâ— SacrameÌ„t as it hath ben proued therefore it is called the SacrameÌ„t it selfe But yâ— Sacrament is prepared in Christes table receaued thence therefore Chrâ—…stes body is prepared there receaued thence That which is receaued theÌ„ce appeareth bread that only is prepared by consecration and receaued by communion Therefore vnder that visible foorme the bodie is made present by consecration and receaued into our mouthes by communion Was there not cause trow you why M â–ª Iuel should leaue out the genitine case iâ—…yned with Sacramentum and take it absolutely for a sacrament that is to say for bread And so to make the thing of the Sacrament to be the body of Christ in heauen By such falshods mainteined must be mainteined otherwise it wold fal to the ground ¶ M. Iuel hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh HArding Christ by shevving his diuine povver vvhereby he vvill ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbelefe of the Capharnaits touching the promised substance of his body Iuel Christ maketh mention of his ascension into heauen ergo sayeth M. Harding his body is really in the Sacrament San. You leaue out the omnipotencie of Christ where vppon D. Harding grounded his whole reason and so you play with him the pelting Sophist Iuel If he conclude not thus he concludeth nothing San. He concludeth that the Capharnaites be confounded for their vnbelefe as you also be For seing Christ sayed of his flesh I will geue And the whole stay why the Capharnaites beleued him not was because they knew not his Godhead which was able to doe it by so excellent a meanes as now we Catholikes know that he hath done it and ye will not know when both they and you here that Chrisâ—… is God and will asceÌ„d where he was before you are both confounded as who measure his workes by your own 〈◊〉 reason and not by his almighty word For his words are spirit and life and therefore do work really whatsoeuer they speake Iuel When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shal see that he geueth not his body in suche â—…ort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels sayeth S. Augustine vsing Christes ascension to proue that there is no such grosse presence in the Sacrament San. True it is that Christ is not present to be wasted by eating but yet he is really eaten And that is clerely mea nt of S.
omnipotencie alone as you caâ—…ill ¶ Whether the Catholiks or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the words belonging to Christes supper HArding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his very body the Fathers say it is really in the Sacrament Iuel A thing is taken to make prouf which is doubtfull and the antecedent is vnproued Sand. Sayd not Christ take eate this is my body Say not the Euangelists that he gaue vnto his Apostles How then is the antecedent vnproued Iuel The Fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image caet Therefore Christes words may be taken with a Metaphore trope or figure San. It standeth well together to be a signe and the truthe As Christ is the image of God and yet also God The higher euery signe or image is the lesse it differeth from the truth and therefore the figure of Christes body and blood differeth in form but not in substance from Christ him self and so albeit the Sacra ment be a figure yet the words this is my body be not tropâ—…call or vnproper Iuel Euen Duns saw that folowing the bare letter we must nedes say that the bread itself is Christes body San. Thinke you any man doth beleue you without allegiâ—…g the place who haue abused so many Fathers already Or â—…row you we speÌ„d so much time in reading Duns that we know all that is in him Iuel So the words stand This bread is my body San. Where stand they so Is it writen in any place of the Ghospell this bread is my body And yet you say the words stand so I think it be so in your Ghospell but surely it is not so in ours Iuel They saâ—… this meant not this bread but one certein thing in generall San. I haue shewed how it is taken in my 4. booke in the 4. 5. and. 6. Chapiter it can not signifie bread by any meanes Neither doth it only signifie in generall as you say but it signifieth that which is conteined vnder the forme of bread Iuel Est they expound erit it shal be San. It is a shameful pleasure that this man hath in falshod For we beleue that Christ toke this word est is to consecrate his body withall because of all words it signifieth a most present being of a thing And for asmuch â—…s God worketh in a moment or at the instant of his word he chose to say this is my body foorth with making it so as S. Chrysostom Gregorie Nyssen affirme But he wold not say this shal be my body which had bene a promise only and not the working or making of the mysterie Iuel Erit they expound the substance of this vncertaine generall one thing shal be changed San. These interpretations be false neither is the substance vncertein which is chaunged For the substance of the bread is changed and that because Christ affirmeth that which was bread before he spake at the end of his speache to be his body to whose voice the substance of bread geueth place to what him list Iuel Is geuen they expound shal be geuen San. What a vaine tale is this seing we vppon the present gist shâ—…w an vnbloody sacrifice euen preâ—…ently made and therefore we vrge always this is my body which is geuen for you Although it be also true that it shal be geuen and both are true together the one in the supper concerning the vnbloody sacrifice the other on the crosse concerning the bloody sacrifice but yet against heretikes we vrge most the present gift This man by mocking vs semeth to say that Christes body was not geuen at all For at the supper he will not graunt a sacrifice And he mocketh at datur for dabitur Yet if it be meant of the crosse it must be so expounded of him self it is geuen that is to say it shal be geuen it is broken is in the same condition with is geuen Iuel Doe ye this they expound sacrifice ye this San. Nay Sir They hauing first controuled your English as imperfit though not false afterward will haue hoc facite also to signifie make this thing to wit make my body The making of which sacrificed substance must nedes be always a sacrifice I haue spoken hereof in my iiij booke the. xiij Chapiter Iuel This bread they expound this that was bread San. You should name the place where we so expound it For according to the circumstance it may be so taken But much rather we take it for this food which is the body of Christ after consecration Iuel These verbs he tooke he blessed he brake he gaue stand together and rule one case San. They stand together in order of writing but not in order of doing For if Christ had not sayd this is my body before he had broken S. Paule wold not haue sayed the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body For it commeth of the word of God this is my body that it is the communicating of Christes body If then the words of 〈◊〉 were spoken before the breaking what wonder you 〈◊〉 the thing that was taken being changed we change the construction of those verbs which folow the change Iuel He toke bread he blessed it away San. You iest But in dede we teache not the bread to be annihilated or done away but to be changed into a better substance For blessing bestowed vppon a creature is the abettering of it Which is not done without some change Now if the thing pronounced at the tyme of blessing by God be an other substance the former nature by blessing is then changed in substance God blesse me from such a man who scoâ—…th at the holy mysteries Iuel He brake the accidents San. That is true because there was none other thing left after consecration to be broken And that you wold confesse if you thought Christ to haue vsed a proper kind of speache which allways you ought to think if it may possibly be defended as it may and must in the words of the supper So that the chief question is of those words this is my body The rest must be ruled by them Iuel He gaue his body San. We beleue it a meter gift for Christ then to geue common bread Iuel Vppon these few words of Christ thus many figures and moe they haue imagined Sand. Is it not 〈◊〉 sayd of you vppon these few words of Christ as though all these were Christes own words whereas the foure verbs be all writen of the Euangelists but neuer a one of them spoken by Christ. which thing S. Ambrose also hath noted but D. Harding spake only of Christes words wherein he 〈◊〉 his body in al which you haue yet found neuer a figure for this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing are all proper words and
is no lesse required to the substance of Baptism then of the Eucharist But when some things be like and some things be different in two SacrameÌ„ts it is great ignorance to reason from the similitude which one way is betwene them to destroye an other way those points wherein they differ After which sort M. Iuel doth reason ¶ M. Iuel replieth not well touching the authoritie alléged out of the Nicene Councell HArding We behold saith the Councell of Nice the Lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or layd on that holy table and vve receaue his preciouse body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily and in dede Which is to say really Iuel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greke nor in Tunstal But deuised by M. Harding San. It will not folow that because the common Greke edition or B. â—…unstall hath it not that therefore D. Harding faineth that Greke word It is found in the actes of the Councell of Nice which are not yet all printed but they are extant in diuerse libraries And this place is in many print bookes where commonly they haue the Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated into situm situate or put Your self also in the Apologie did allege certein words out of the same acts of the Councell of Nice Yea you haue done the like euen in this very article therefore you ought not to be angry with D. Harding for doing the same Iuel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed nedes sounde a reall presence San. It must nedes proue a real presence of that thing which if it were not present it could not be set vppon the table Or can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Iuel Christ dwelleth in our hart by faith and yet not really San. No wonder sith a thing may dwel somewhere by faith where yet it is not in dede As Christ was killed in the saith of inst men from the beginning of the world yet not in dede vntill he was nailed to the crosse A being by faith is a lâ—…sse pâ—…ite being then a being really And therefore the fewer and the lesse doth not infer the more and the greater But the Lamb of God is not said to be vppon the holy table by faith but to be sâ—…t or layed there Iuel S. Hierom sayth as often as we enter into the sepulcher we see our Sauiour lying in his shrowd Yet he lay not there really San. Not then truly when S. Hierom entred but he spake in respect of that true place which Christes body had sometyme occupied But if the things vpon the holy table neither be now nor at any time were the body of Christ how sayd the Councell we behold the Lamb placed vppon the holy table Iuel In the Councell of Chalcedon it is demaunded in what Scripture lye these two natures of Christ. it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures San. The heretike Eutiches who asked for those two natures in the Scripture asked for very material and reall words which being seen and readen might lead him to these two natures For the words which signifie two natures haue a reall place in holy Scripture and they haue bene at large declared by S. Cyrillus But I pray you syr If a maÌ„ should aske you where you find that Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could you shew a sufficient discharge thereof I think scaut so good as D. Harding can bring for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Once it is not extant in the common booke of the Councels Iuel That word signifieth a naturall situation of place and order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christes body hath not in the Sacrament San. Although Christes body in it self hath not any such extensiue 〈◊〉 locally in the Sacrament yet it hath such a situation as the foorm of bread requireth which suffiseth to declare a reall presence For as his Godhead might be shewed in his manhod he that seeth me seeth my Father so his body is placed vnder the foorm of bread and there may be shewed to a faithfull man Iuel The Councell is plaine that we consyder not basely the bread and the wine that are set before vs. San. He considereth them basely who sayth they remain still in their earthly substance notwithstaÌ„ding that Christ after blessing hath called theÌ„ by greater names whose calling is the making the thing to be that which it is called Iuel It is sayd lift vp your hartes so that there is nothing in the action to be consydered but only Christ. San. It is meant not only to lift them vp to God but also to lift them from earthly thoughts of infidelitie and to beleue that which Christ sayeth and doth in his holy mysteries as S. Chrysostom noteth I haue spoken of this matter at large in my second booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter Of Egles I haue spoken the second booke the. xxvij Chapiter Uerily the thing made whereof Christ sayd make this thing is to be coÌ„sydered in the myâ—…ries and not only Christ in heauen Iuel S. Ambrose saith it is better sene that is not sene San. Therefore yâ— body of Christ which Christ pointeth vnto saiyng this is my body is better seue to a faithâ—…ull Catholik theÌ„ bread and wine which the vnfaithfull Sacramentarie saith he sâ—…th Iuel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent sor they are tokens of things being one thing and signifiyng an other as S. Augustine saith San. As they be tokens they be one thing signifie an other and therefore the substance of Christes body is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Churche which things vnder the foorm of bread it doth signifie but it is an other maner of thing to wit a body immortal impassible and out of al daunger of corruption how be it S. Augustine disputeth not there of those which are the peculiar SacrameÌ„ts of the Church as your words for the same cause wold seme to signific but generallie of all sigues which commonly differ in substance from the things signified by them But as S. Chrysostom well noteth we must beleue God in al things yet speciallie in the mysteries As therefore wheÌ„ God maketh a signe by water or oile or any other creature we ought to mark not what substance that thing is but what it is set to signifie so when Christ toke bread and after blessing sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing for the remembrance of me we must note that he did not appoint any creature to signifie his body but made a new signe he made I say a signe which might signifie
by diuerse places of your booke Another way the incarnation may be considered according to that nature which is generally common to all men As that thei consist of bodies of soules of reason and of certain accidents The question is whether Christ at his incarnation toke al man kind after such sorte that he is now the coÌ„mon substance of vs all or no. Here I know not what M. Iuel would answer if he were namely put in mind thereof But his wordes draw to the affirmatine sense altogether For he saith Christs body dwelleth in our bodies by his natiuitie whiche saying semeth to haue no real truthe in it except Christ be common man kind whiche is in 〈◊〉 man If he be that vniuersall substance then I see that as reason as life as sense as fleshe and blood are no lesse in one man then in an other so Christe who is supposed to be that generall reason life sense fleshe and blood is supposed likewise to be really in euery mans owne body But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain as it shall appere anon The third way of considering the incarnation is to say that Christ toke not yâ— common substance of al mankind but only the whole particular nature of man so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as any other 〈◊〉 euer had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉 to wit he hath assumpted the mind the 〈◊〉 the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is true S. Paul saith that he is not 〈◊〉 to call vs his brethern and that because the children whome God 〈◊〉 to him had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them ipse similiter participauit eisdem and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he toke parte that is to say he toke to himselfe fleshe and blood for his own part as they had the same for their parts And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies soules of al men 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone the sonne of Dauid and of Abraham according to the fleshe whiche being so his body was no more really in our bodies by his natiuitie then one of our bodies is in the body of an other man For wheÌ„ we speake of our bodies we speake of that which is particularly proper to euery man in his own persoâ—… and not of that which is common to all mankind But yet certeyn general benefites are deriâ—…ed out of Christes 〈◊〉 euen to euery man Due is that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and auanced in so much that it is truly said man is God and God is man Moreouer S. Cyrillus affirmeth that euery particular man shal rise in his owne body at the later day because of the mysterie of Christes resurrectâ—…on who as man conteined all men in him self But seing they that haue done euill shall rise to be punisheâ—… and that more greuously then death it self is as there S. â—…llus witnesseth and yet sith no damnatioÌ„ is vnto them who are in Christ Iesus we may well say that Christ doth not only not dwell in euery mans body by his natiuitie but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or soules who either did not partake of his flesh at al by faith or els did vnworthely partake thereof either by Baptism or by the Eucharist or any other way All this notwithstanding M. Iuel will proue that Christes body dwelleth euen really in our bodies by his natiuitie And when all is done it will proue either an heresie or noâ—…ing or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of mans nature assumpted then in any mans body after that sort of dwelling which is properly called reall or substanciall But let vs heare his proof Iuel S. Bernard sayth the body of Christ is of my body and is now become mine San. S. Bernard sayth Corpus Christi de meo est the body of Christ is of mine He saith not of my body as you traÌ„â—…ate it But of mine yâ— is to say of the same kind of stuffe whereof I am Of the same stock and 〈◊〉 of like flesh blood but not of my proper flesh of my proper blood not really dwelling in my bowels or in the partes of â—…y body Again when he sayth 〈◊〉 est and the body of Christ is mine he meaneth it is mino to take commoditie thereof mine to vse mine to 〈◊〉 mine to offer to enioy but not mine through this only condition because it is born but because I am ioyned to it by faith by Baptism by Penaunce and by râ—…auing it into my body at Christes holy table and by such like meanes Iuel A babe is born to vs. San. That is to say to th' end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only to vs or for vs. Iuel A Sonne is geuen vnto vs. 〈◊〉 Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him but not to them who receaued him not For he came into his own and his own receaued him not Iuel S. Basill We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation and 〈◊〉 called all his mysticall conuersation flesh and blood San. We partake him in his nature comming to ours and in ours communicated to him but not yet in our bodies coâ—…ing to his bodie except we also be ioyned to him by som other mean beside his natiuitie Iuel Nyssenus sayth His body is all mankind wherevnto he is mingled San. You haue abused this testimonie turning the due construction of the words â–ª and haue put that before the verb which should haue come after the verb. The true construction is The whole nature of man wherevnto he is mingled is the body of Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ which he toke of the virgen by his natiuitie whereof you intreate but he meaneth the mysticall body of Christ whereof he said before The subiection of the body of the Church is referred to him which doth inhabitie the body And immediatly before yâ— words 〈◊〉 out by you Our Lord is the life by whome it doth happen to all his body that it is brought to the Father Againe Si Pater diligit â—…lium caet If the Father do loue the Sonne and we all that through faith whereby we beleue in him are made his body be in the Sonne consequenâ—…e he that loueth his owne Sonne loueth also the bodie of his soâ—…e euen as he loueth his Sonne himselfe And we are that bodie Lo we are that bodie He spake not therefore of Christes naturall body Iuel Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin beâ—… â—…esh of our slesh and bone of our bones San. Of the same kind of â—…sh and
for naught that you talked of a phrase His phrase was such that you were afeard to vse it The Chrism had such vertue of the holy Ghost mingled in it that one who was not of the holy Ghost could not abide to name it No not so much as when he had â—…ede to vse the words of the same sentence to serue his turne Iuel Alexander sayeth the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments San. Yet shall we haue an other Pope I feare me this man wil be come Popish shortlie The world goeth hard with his note booke when he fleeth to these Decretall Epistles for the profe of any thing and specially for â—…atine phrases But one thing I promise you M. Iuel You may better proue Masses oâ—…t of that Epistle yea I goe nere you out of that self senteÌ„ce which you allege then you may proâ—…e any other phrase which shall presently serue your purpose But if you had not lest out the middle words which he speaketh of Masse your brethern wold haue ben so angrie with you for bringing this testimonie that they wold altogether haue misliked your phrase The words of Pope Alexander be these In Sacramentorum quoque oblationibus quae inter missarum solennia Domino offeruntur passio Domini miscenda est In the oblations also of the Sacraments which are offered vnto God at yâ— solemnities of masses the passion of our Lord is to be mingled And farther expounding his own meaning he saith that his passion may be celebrated whose body and blood is made If now as the passion of Christ being absent in quality concerning that Christes body sâ—…ffereth nothing at this present is yet present in his whole value concerning that the felf same substance is here which suffered death for our sakes if I say as the passion is in this wise presentlie mingled with the Sacraments and offered vnto God so M. Iuel wâ—… graunt that Christes body being absent in shape and quality concerning that it is not sene presently in his own foorme is yet present in his whole valuâ—… â—…oncerning that the self same substance is vnder the foorme of bread which walked visiblie vpon the earth if I say M. Iuel will graunt such a presence of Christes body throughe which it may be mingled and really ioyned to vs then the phrases of S. Chrysostom of Alexander shal be somewhat like and he shall gaine nothing at all Iuel â–ª Nyssenus saith S. Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy Ghost San. Which saying of his doth right wel proâ—…e that the gracâ—… of the holy Ghost was really in S. Stephen and not only imputed vnto him euen as Christes body is really mingled with our bodies Iuel Chrysostom meant that we should consyder that wonderfull coniunction which is betwene Christ and vs euen in one person San. This man denâ—…ed hitherto that Christ is really mingled with vs by the reall presence of his body and now he confesseth more then we aske For the coniunction which is made in onâ—… person is much greater then euer any other could be in so much that the ioyniâ—…g of our nature to the Godhead in the person of the sonne of God is the highest mystery that euer was heard of I am not ignorant that S. Paul calleth as well the head of the Churche as all the members by the only name of Christ nor that S. Cyrill saith we are all in Christ and that the common person of mankind was reâ—…ed in Christ nor that S. Paul saith of Christ and the Churche two shal be in one flesh nor that Christ concludeth thereof therefore they be not now twain but one flesh but all this doth not import that Christ is in vs we in him euen in one person For S. Cyprian saith our coniunction with Christ doth neither mingle the persons nor vnite the substances Therefore seing we stand now vpon precise truth of doctrine not writing at pleasure but disputing of a matter in coÌ„trouersie in this case you might haue forborn this your more bold then wise phrase of speache For as Damascene hath well noted whereas the blessed Trinity is one substance and we of one substance and Christ one with God one with vs through his dubble nature yet according to his person which he calleth Hypostasim differt a patre a spiritu a matre â—… nobis Christ in his person differeth from the Father from the holy Ghost from his mother and from vs. And yet M. Iuel will bring vs euen into one person Iuel Leo saith â–ª the body of him that is regenerate is made the flesh of him that was crucified San. Here is the thitd Pope in whose phrase M. Iuel doth solace himself He saith that by Baptism we are made the flesh of Christ and I beleue the same But he speaketh of his mysticall flesh whereof no question is betwene vs and M. Iuel For we only dispute now of Christes naturall flesh which is not in Baptism but only in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel S. Augustine saith â–ª we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whoâ—…e man San. Albeit the matter be not great yet S. Augustine saith not one whole man as M. Iuel doth â—…nglish it but the whole man for he now speaketh not of any one maÌ„in nuÌ„ber nor of any one singular person but of a mystical body which coÌ„sisting of diuers persons as of diuerse members is made vp perfited into a whole collegiate body but S. Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning him self to euery faithfull man one by one at the tyme of receauing his body into our hands and mouthes as I wil shew anon Iuel As we are by baptism made Christes flesh and Christ in the same sense Chrysostom saith we are made one lump with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with vs. San. If we wil without fraude vnderstand the mind oâ—… S. Augustine of Leo and of S. Chrysostom we must not only consider that they speake of our vnioÌ„ and ioyning to Christ but also by what meanes they vtter that their mind S. Augustine speaketh generally of euerie kind of vniting vs to Christ. Leo doth not only saie we are made the flesh of Christ but shewing the meane he saieth 〈◊〉 The bodie of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of Christ. The name of regeneration importeth the meane of Baptism by which we are grafted into Christe S. Chrysosâ—…ome speaketh of an other meane which is the Eucharist But what is that meane Baptism al men confesse to be the wasshing with water in the name of the Trinitie What is then the Eucharist What is the substance I saâ—…e whiche in the Sacrament of the aâ—…ltar worketh our vnion with Christe Is it water No. Is it bread and wine Yea saith M. Iuel No saeâ—… we Now then let vs
Baptism only Christ ioyned vs to him selfe then as it were he should put vs foorth to nurse for neither faith nor baptism is Christ him selfe But when he fedeth vs with the reall substance of his own body and with it not only apprehended by faith but receaued by mouth then he fedeth vs by his own self and by him selfe vniteth vs to him selfe To conclude S. Chrysostome saith writing vppon S. Iohn Cum suum c. Christe intending to shew his loue towards 〈◊〉 hath mingled him selfe with vs by his body and hath brought him selfe into one with vs to thend the body should be vnited to the head Here are foure things to be noted First that Christe worketh the vnion Secondly that loue causeth him to worâ—… it Thirdly that the meane whereby he worketh it is affirmed to be his owne body Fourthly that so the body whiche is the Church is vnited to the head who is Christ. In whiche consideration Christ as sitting in the glorie of his father is the worker of the vnion His body as present in the Sacrament is the instrument whereby he worketh Christ as the Sauiour of his body whiche is the Church is the end whereunto the vnion doth bring vs. And herein appereth his loue that he him selfe in his owne substance is the beginning the middle the end of the vnioÌ„ The fondation the wall the top of the spiritual building The carpenter the instrument the dweller in the house of his ownâ—… handy working Now M. Iuel I will geue you certein phrases to pick out whereof you shal neuer be able to rid your handes 1. You proue right well that by faith we are dwelt in of Christ proue now that such dwelling is made by the thing it self and not by faith only â–ª for els Christes dwelling in vs by faith is not so reall a dwelling as that whereof S. Chrysostom speaketh which is not by faith only but by the thing it self to wit by the reall body of Christ. 2. You say in Baptism we are made Christes flesh and so we are made in dede his mystical flesh proue now that we are made also his flesh in baptism per corpus Christi by the body of Christ â–ª for els the vnion of the Sacrament wil be more real because the meane is more reall and more excellent 3. You proue that we are vnited to Christ by faith and Baptism proue now either that we are vnited vnto faith it self and vnto Baptism it self or els the vnion made in this Sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is made in the other For here we are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fed which we see touche but there we be not vnited to the water wherewith we are washed 4. You say we are made Christ by Baptism but proue now that Christ is there deliuered in sensible things to your hand to your mouth to your tonge so that you may haue him within you as it is done in Christes supper These phrases you must proue to be verified by faith and Baptism if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by Baptism as is made by the Sacrament of the altar Iuel As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body of our Lord euen so the bread of idols is the partaking of diuels and if we eate one bread with idolatours we are made one body with them San. You falsifie the words of S. Paule who is not reported by Primasius to saie that the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord but the bread which we breake is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord. That which S. Paule spake of the substance of the bread which is the coÌ„municating of our Lords bodie that thing you assigne to the action of breaking And whereas Primasius saith the bread of Idols is also the partaking of diuels as the bread which we break is the partaking of our Lords bodie it sheweth yâ— he toke not yâ— name of bread materiallie for wheateÌ„ bread but for all kind of meare drinck which the Idolatours vsed And therefore he meant likewise yâ— the bread which we breake is no material bread but a kiÌ„d of meate which Christ hath prepared specially for vs. Againe as the Idolatours did offer their meate vnto diuels so much more the Christians did offer theirs vnto god And seiÌ„g the Idolators did in will and consent of mind partake with the diuels to whoÌ„ they offered the Christians did partake with God not only in will mind those I meane that were faithfull but also in body and mouth by receauing the natural flesh of Christ into theire bodies For Christ herein specially had honored his Church to theÌ„d the external sacrifice thereof should be no more any earthli creature but 〈◊〉 his own body blood the only propitiatorie sacrifice for al maÌ„kind ¶ It is proued that S. Hilarie taught the body of Christ to be really in the Sacrament HArding If the vvord be verily made flesh and vve receaue verily the vvord being flesh in our Lords meate hovv is he to be thought not to dvvell in vs naturally vvho both hath taken the nature of our flesh novv inseparable to himself in that he is born man and also hath mingled the nature of his ovvn flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder the Sacrament of his flesh to be receaued of vs in the communion Iuel M. Harding hath not hitherto found that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the Sacrament San. You found such a deuise M. Iuel to call for Fathers for their names and their words before their place was come that a maÌ„ wold haue thought when they were once come you wold haue examined their sayings most diligently But now your first shift is to heape them vp altogether And whereas in matters of lesse weight you did diâ—…ide D. Hardings words into a competent number of lines here you will not answer to the testimonies one by one least your nakednesse appeare but lay them all in one so to hyde your ignorance in answering Your second shift is to intreate of things out of order speaking now of one now of an other confusely But I wil bring your words to their due order as nigh as I can Your third shift is to let goe S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie and to râ—…ne to iâ—…pertinent sayings of S. Augustine of S. Bernard and of Cyrillus which are already answered The fourth shift is to say â—…alsely that M. Harding findeth not Christes body to be naturally or corporally in the Sacrament The which point God willing I wil now declare against your dissembling assertion 1. S. Hilarie disputeth against the Arrians which thing also M. Iuel in this article confesseth 2. The Arrians alleged against the Godhead of Christ diuerse arguments the which I must nedes repete
that we are ioyned to Christ by faith and by Baptism Yeas Syr and by will also But note the point we stand vpon we are not ioyned naturally to Christ nor he is not ioyned by nature vnto vs by our faith or Baptism It is yâ— term naturally which M. Iuel denied at S. Poules crosse and that teâ—…n D. Harding hath found to appertein to the Sacrament as it shal be be made most manifest That term M. Iuel wold wrest to faith and Baptism And for that termes sake he is almost become a wicked Arrian or a naturall The second argument of the Arrians is He that planteth he that watereth are one Ergo sayd they the vnitie of will is in both them and they meant of will only and not any other vnitie S. Hilarie answereth that they are one because to them being born again in one Baptism one ministerie or dispensation of the one Baptism which doth regeneraâ—…e is graunted So that they are onâ—… because they haue one ministerie and not only because they 〈◊〉 of one minde At the last S. Hilarie geueth a generall rule qui per eandem rem vnum sunt naturâ etiam vnum sunt non tantum voluntate Those who are oâ—…e by the same thing they are one by nature and not only by will The third argument of the Arrians is Exemplum vnitatis istius sayth S. Hilarie caet The Arrians haue brought foorth an example of this vnitie out of our Lords words also to th' end all may be one As thou O Father in me and I in thee that they also may be in vs. To this argument S. Hilarie answereth declaring now first that which M. Iuel spake of before out of place Now first beginneth S. Hilarie to shew how Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we in him And consequently how we also dwell in his Father by the meane of him To this matter should M. Iuel haue applied his solutioÌ„ For vppon the discourse made by reason of this argument D. â—…ding did ground his proof of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament What saith M. Iuel to this matter Iuel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundry meanes and therefore not only as M. Harding holdeth by receauing of the SacrameÌ„t San. Thus it appeareth say you but I haue shewed that no such thing appereth For S. Hilarie neuer sayd hitherto that we were naturally in Christ. Iuel Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by Baptism euen so and none otherwise he is in vs by the Sacrament of his body San. First you begin with a thing not confessed nor agreâ—…d vpon and thereof you conclude a manifest falshod Christ is in vs by faith and Baptism but not corporally in our bodies But by the Sacrament of his body he is both in vs and in our bodies in the true and corporal substance of his own flesh blood Secondly you distinguish regeneration from Baptism as though Baptism were not the Sacrament which doth regenerate vs euen by S. Hilaries own doctrine alleged before Thirdly if Christ be none otherwise in vs by the Sacrament of his body then by faith or Baptism why do you make it a seuerall way from the other named before Why is that counted by your self a fourth meane of Christes being in vs which disferâ—…th not at all from the other three At the length it is tyâ—…e that I proue out of S. Hilarie which thing you M. Iuel dissemble and denie Chrisles body to be really present in the Sacrament It is to be remembred that whereas the Arrians had sayd aâ—… vuitie of will to be only betwen God the Father and the sonne as we likewise are one with Christ by will only for so thei sayd S. Hilariâ—… doth not in that case rest vpoÌ„ this answer that Christ by his birth is one with vs in truthe of flesh blood and therefore not in will and assent only as the Arriaâ—…s pretended and as M â–ª Iuel did before goe about to proâ—… S. Hilarie I say rested not therein because the vnitie of nature which was made with mankind by Christes Incarnation â—…ight be thought to pertein no more to the good then to the euill whereas Christ prayed for the vnitie of good men aloâ—…e that they might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christ in him Therefore S. Hilary seking an other meane of our natural vnitie with Christ thereby proueth seing the faithfull men are one with Christ not only by faith or Baptism but by naturall coniunction and by corporall partaking of his own substance that much more Christ is one with his Father in nature and not in will alone S. Hilarie then must prone that we are one with Christ naturally which thing he doth after this â—…ort The word is verily made flesh and we take verily the word being flesh in our Lords meate therefore Christ is to be iudged to tary is in vs naturally Thus doth S. Hilari reason as I haue now shewed his coÌ„clusion is yâ— Christ tarieth in vs naturally yâ— meane to proue it is dubble one because Christ hath true flesh and blood whereby it is shewed to be possible that he may dwell naturally in vs the other is to shew that Christ gaue vnto vs aâ—…d that we take verily the same word being flesh in our Lords meate whereby the flesh that was able to be geuen to vs because it was really assumpted of Christ cometh in dede reallie vnto vs by his gift â–ª our Lords meate whereof S. Hilarie speaketh is the Sacrament of Christes supper wherein only he â—…ed vs corporallie with the word being flesh therefore S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstand that in the Sacrament we take the word made flesh and so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh â–ª Iuel That we verily and vndoutedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament it is neither denied nor in question SaÌ„ You sayd before pag. 323. that Christ in his supper added an outward Sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Ihon which Sacrament you sayd was commonly called a figure and again you sayd the bread is a figure Last of all you said out of Rabanus that the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth but now you say it is not denied yâ— we verily receaue Christes bodie in the Sacrament whereof I say it must nedes folow that Christes body is receaued with the mouth For it is receaued in the Sacrament as here you confesse and the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth as you taught before therefore by your doctrine Christes body is receaued by mouth which is against your third conclusion pag. 319. Who can tell where to find you But to return to my purpose the aduerb verily doth signifie in this place naturallie
really substanciallie For as the word is made fleshâ—… really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meat The worde was not made fleshe onlie by our faith but in truthe of his substance therefore we take the worde being fleshe not by our faith onlie but in truthe of his substance If M. Iuell will haue vs receaue Christes bodie verily and yet by faith only it must be made flesh verily and yet by faith onlie Ivel It is the bread of the hart â–ª hunger thou within thirst thou within San. If Christ being in his diuine nature toke real flesh and yet maie be hungred within is much yâ— better to vs bread of yâ— hart by natural slesh right so it is extreme madnes to make vs beleue that Christes bodie geneÌ„ vnder the form of bread is therefore the lesse hungred within or the lesse the bread and foode of the hart Iuel The thing that is receaued in spirit is receaued in dede San. If it be to be receaued corporally as well as in spirit as Baptisme and the Eucharist then it is false and foolish to say that it is receaued in dede when the outward dede lacketh This man wil cloth the naked and fede the pore in spirit and yet he saith it is done in dede albeit thei die for cold Spiritual receauing is true and good when it shuldreth not out reall receauing as spiritual resurrectioÌ„ is good true but yet it is not al yâ— truth of resurrection S. Bernard is alredie answered and S. Cyril Iuel It is a holy mystery and a heauenly action forcing our mindes vp into heauen and there teaching vs to eate the body of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies San. Is not verè sumimus we verily take spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies can it be otherwise meant Again it foloweth in the same sentence that Christ hath mingled the nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a Sacrament of his flesh to be coÌ„municated vnto vs. Mark these words M. Iuel which you passed ouer as if you had ben vtterly blind The nature of Christes flesh is I trow real it is communicated to vs vnder a Sacrament know you not that sub is vnder is not the Sacrament receaued by the seruice of our bodies did not your self graâ—…nt the Sacrament to be taken by mouth If then the nature of Christes flesh be vnder a Sacrament when the SacrameÌ„t is receaued by the seruice of our bodies the nature of Christes flesh is receaued by our bodies not by faith alone Iu. The truth hereof standeth not in anie reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is in a Sacrament San Whereas S. Hilarius saied We receaue verily the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie you report him to saie in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Well he saith we receaue Christes flesh vnder a mysterie and by your owne confession a mysterie is a Sacrament therefore we receaue the flesh of Christes body vnder the Sacrament And the Sacrament deliuered in the laste supper is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verilie receaue the flesh of Christes bodie vnder an outward figure and the outward figure is knowen by our eye to be the figure of bread therefore vnder the figure of bread we receaue the flesh of Christes bodie albeit by the figure you meane the substance of bread Iuel Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sorte teacheth vs the purgatioÌ„ of the mind as Dionysius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes body San. Can you haue the mind better tanght by an outward action then if you eate the same flesh in body which we doe eate in faith Is it possible to haue a greater coÌ„formitie a more vehemeÌ„t figuring and liuely expressing of al truth And albeit I haue shewed differences before betwen Baptisme and the Eucharist yet omitting yâ— I wil now say 〈◊〉 S. Augustin then yâ— bodie blood of Christ shal be lise to euerie man if yâ— thing which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament be eaten in the truthe spirituallie and be drunken spiritually M. Iuel would haue one thing ouâ—…wardly taken and an other thing eaten inwardly But S. Augustine saith that must be eaten in the truthe it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the Sacrament Iuel Although Christ be not bodily â—…resent yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie San. The substance of the mysterie muste nedes be hindered when it is absent For it can be no mysterie without the substance thereof The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament therefore S. â—…ilarie saith The naturall propriety by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of the perfite vnitie Of this place I haue often times spoken and I would gladly heare M. Iuels minde in it For then should I be sure to know how I might dispute against him I can not coÌ„strue it otherwise then thus Naturalis proprietas the natural propriety which is to saie the natural substance he meaneth the substance of Christe For S. Hilarie vseth the ward proprietas verie muche and ost for the substance or personall being of God or of Christ. Wel then Christes naturall substance Per Sacramentum by or through the SacrameÌ„t est is Sacramentum the SacrameÌ„t perfectae vnitatis of perfite vnitie The substance of Christe is a Sacrament by or through the Sacrament these words can haue none other literall meaning but this the substance of Christe through the form of bread wherein vnitie is figured and vnder which it is by that meane I saie it is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie how can els the natural substance of Christe be a Sacrament Of it self alone it can be no holy signe but by the forme of bread it may be a Sacrament and yet M. Iuell can not find the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in al S. Hilarie Moreouer S. Hilarie making a preface that we muste not speake otherwise in Gods matters then we haue lerned of him who said my flesh is verily meate yâ— there is no place of douting of yâ— truth of flesh blood concludeth thus For now both by the profession of our Lord him selfe and by our faith it is flesh in deede and blood in deede Answer I pray you M. Iuel What is fleshe in deede what is the nominatine case to est is I knowe none other besyde the worde Sacramentum the Sacrament or some like word which doth import the SacrameÌ„t as to saie that which the faithfull receaue at Christes supper For of that thinge S. Hilarie now speakethe That then is verily flesh and that is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thig for he saith immediatly Haec accepta these things taken and drunke do bring
not proue that Christ hath a bodie But Christ is so made meate vnto vs that the reall truth of his body is proued thereby Thereâ—…ore it is taught that his body is made meate to our bodies in a corporall truth of his naturall substance This only is the discourse of S. Nyssenus This meate sauoreth to euery maÌ„ who receaueth it as Manna did Therefore it is meant that it is receaued to fulfill the figure of Manna which can not be throughly fulfilled without the self meate which came from heauen being receaued into our mouthes and bodies geue thence that spirituall tast sauour for Manna gaue his swete taste in the mouthes of the Israelits This kind of bread which is able to be turned to all things and yet not able to be wasted is no materiall bread but the food which was born of the virgin He that prepared this table was Christ who neuer prepared for vs any table so literally as at his last supper Yet al this to M. Iuel is not one word concerning the dwelling of Christ naturally in vs or concerning his reall presence in the Sacrament Nay here is not one word touching the Sacrament at all besyde that where he nameth herbs and milke For those words M. Iuel thought mete meate for his diuinitie and therefore spied them out and vttered the same to destroy all the discourse of Gregorie Nyssen whereas they signifie the effect of grace proceding from the reall â—…esh of Christ. Tell me good Reader of thy conscience if thou sawest a mad man running with a naked sword in the streat which were full of children slaying and killing all that euer he could come by tel me I say wold you not crye out to all men to beware of him Wold you not run to saue yâ— poore babes wold you not if nede were rather lame the mad man â–ª theÌ„ he should so destroy a number of persons God is my iudge I haue no quarell to the person of M. Iuel But for as much as I see him run mad and to kill innumerable soules of poore men with greef of hart I crye out against him and say to you all beware the mad man who is so much the more 〈◊〉 mad because it appeareth not outwardly But what shal we 〈◊〉 If whâ—… he came to reade Gregorie 〈◊〉 he saw neuer a word of that which I haue now declared and which euery man may see if he will open the booke If he I say saw not one word thereof doe you not perceaue that his eyes are possâ—…ed with seme horrible spirit of blindnes Is not all reason and vnderstanding takeÌ„ from him But if he saw all that which I haue told and therein found so many words spoken of the Sacrament and those so effectuall against his errour what shall we then think or say Is it possible that so great a malice may be in any man as to delight in deceauing willingly poore and ignorant men and to lead them al to infidelitie If such malice may be in man whome shall we trust and in what danger are the simple and 〈◊〉 people Whether it be blindnesse or malice in him take this rule to thy comfort against all 〈◊〉 that euer shall chaunce Trust no one man aliue Trust no one generation of men the beginning of whose doctrine thou hast knowen or heard of Trust only the whole bodie of Christ the whole Catholike Church the whole cumpaine of the faithfull the whole succession of Bisshops of Priests ioyned also with the faithfull forefathers That which hath once prâ—…led through all the knowen Church that beleue in Christes name For to dispute against it S. Augustine saith it is the point of a most proude 〈◊〉 But the whole Churche can not faile It is a citie built by God vppon a hill which can not be hid It is the piller of truth as S. Paule sayth To that vniuersall practise and belefe if thou committe thy soule and doe as it commaundeth it shal be saued in that 〈◊〉 body of Christ whereof only he is the Sauiour Leaue Iuel Cranmer Ridley Latymer leaue all that tarie not in the tried faith and stick only to that interpretation of Gods word which the Caâ—… receaued and deliuered euen from the Apostles tyme to this day Iuel The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was only to speake of Christes birth San. His purpose was to speake of the miracles done in the wildernes vnder Moyses of yâ— which MaÌ„na being one of yâ— chefe it did both signify the birth of Christ by the falling of it from heauen vpon the earth the Sacrament of the altar whiles it was afterward taken into the bodies of the Israelits as we eate really the flesh of Christe which he toke of the virgin Iu. In like manner of speache S. Hierom saith the wheat wherof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lord said my flesh is meate in dede San. I marâ—…le what you meane to say the manner of speache is like whereas by your assertioÌ„ Gregorie Nyssen speaketh only of Christes birth But S. Hierom speaketh not thereof but of Christes body and blood as it is receaued in the Sacrament Thus you are againste your self For in deede as S. Hierome speaketh of that wheat and of that wine which is Christ himself not only being borne of the virgin but also eaten at his supper euen so doth Gregorie Nyssen speake as wel of the supper as of the birth of Christ. Iu. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius onlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually San. To what purpose did he say it For I see not howe your wordes hange together but only that you patche vp a number of sentâ—…nces as sone as one is done you bring in an other with a therefore or in like manner or to this purpose or in this sense and he saith so foorth But if they were particularly 〈◊〉 â–ª it is but a heape of words without order dependaÌ„ce or any good reason To what purpose I praie you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually I see noâ—…e other purpose therein but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and thâ—…t because if the birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the Sacrament whiche had not bene at all borne Iu. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becoÌ„meth strong meate vnto the perfite herbs vnto the weake c. San. Here you presuppose that Gregorie Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread and nothing els But I haue shewed you that he saith howe can a thing bodilesse be made mâ—…ate vnto the body As for the wordes whiche you name I finde them not in Gregorie Nyssen so vttered as you report them He saith Christ is bread but D. Harding forced not
naturally doth signifie nothing els but not fainedly How say ye then when we are knit to God by right faith and syncere charitie is it a fained coninnction or no If it be a true not a fantasticall coniunction then the words whiche affirme Christe to be ioyned also vnto vs corporally and naturally being added ouer and aboue the ioyuing by right faith and syncere loue must not only â—…ane a true ioyning whiche was already made but also an other manner of ioynig which is both true in effect as yâ— ioyning by faith was also true in the corporall mingling of Christes flesh to our fleshe Otherwise what meant the aduerbe quoque also We be ioyned by faith and also corporally Is that also nothing Furthermore if corporally be nothing els to say but truly and without imagination how coÌ„strue you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ is it only to say it dwelleth truly in Christ well but it may dwell truly in Christ though Christ be not man therefore by your exposition a phrase is found whereby yâ— truth of Christes body may be wiped away whensoeuer it pleaseth the Protestants Consyder M. Iuell that you are not Capitaine generall of the whole army Satan him selfe had taken that cure vpon him before you were borne It is he that directeth all yâ— soldiours of his campe What place in his army doe you occupie I doe not know This I am sure of your Capitaine intendeth fully to displace Christe as much as lieth in him not only froÌ„ dwelling corporally in our bodies by the blessed communion but also from taking real flesh of the blessed virgin Satan him selfe would haue an other Messias to be prepared for Iudge you whether you helpe towards his comming or â—…o He coueteth to persuade that corporally doth meane truly and nothiâ—…g els wherâ—…ore it foloweth that corpus is latin for the truth and for nothing els and seing Christ toke of our lady corpus a bodie by you it is meant he toke tâ—… truthe of our lady nothing els Or can you avoid the yoke the â—…dance the mutuall respecte that is betwene bodie bodily corpus and corporally Whatsoeuer one of those names whiche are in one yoke doth signifie the other doth signifie after the same rate If bonitas be goodnes bonus is good bene is well â–ª corporally is of the same yoke with corpus body If bodily doth meane truly corpus doth meane truth so Christ toke truth of our Ladie and what is that forsouth it is whatsoeuer it pleaseth M. Iuel So that it be no phantasie it maie be then faith or charitie or els bones without flesh or skinne without flesh and bone To this point M. Iuels diuinity leadethvs O miserable time O cor rupted maners The noun corpus bodie and the aduerb corporaliter corporallie do not onlie signifie a truthe but a truthe of bodie and in Christ it signifieth a truthe of flesh and of blood Iuel Otherwise there must nedes follow this great inconuenience that our bodies must be in like maner corporally naturally and sâ—…eshly in Christes body For Hilarius saith we also are naturally in him and Cyrillus we are corporally in Christ. San. It is most true that both we are in Christ corporally and he in vs during the time of the coniunction For when a ioyning of twain is made it must nedes be that yâ— one is ioyned to yâ— other whiche is no absurditie at al because that twaine to wit Christ and his Church should be in one flesh it is the doctrine of S. Paule And as flesh is made one with him who really eateth and digesteth it so is Christ ioyned most really to him that worthely receaueth his body Iuel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being San. That were a fine kind of being M. 〈◊〉 that Christes body should be in vs corporally and yet the being should not be corporal In dede the maner is not corporall But if you exclude the truth also of corporall being you speake coÌ„trarie to the word it self For the word corporally can signifie no lesse then a corporall truth Iuel It requireth not any locall being San. It is a local being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the form of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before And when we haue that kind of bread in vs euen so Christes being is locall in vs. Iuel Christ sitting in heauen is here in vs not by a natural but by a spirituall meane of being San. The being of Christ in vs by spirit is also naturall concerning the nature of his Godhead which is euery where But coÌ„câ—…rning the grace which is created in vs it is a spiritual being after the rate as euery cause is in his effect Iuel S. Augustine saith After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirit And S. Basil and again S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paule caet San. You are now in a common place M. Iuel Who denieth but Christ being in heauen is here in spirit Wil that take away his being here in body when bread is turned into his body Shall one truth always displace an other with you These be sowters arguments to say Christ is God therefore he is not man He is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Iuel This coniunction is spirituall and therefore nedeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence San. The coniunction is spirituall but the 〈◊〉 of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. M. Iuel hath forgotten that we now 〈◊〉 whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally for thâ—…nd to make a spirituall coniâ—…ction by this meane of his own flesh or no as if a man to coÌ„â—…t an heretike do not only write vnto him but also doe come him self and by disputation of mouth do persuade him the conuersion is spirituall but the meane of working it is by corporall prâ—…sence Iuel The coniunction that is betwene Christ and vs neither doâ—…h mingle persons nor vnite substances But it doth knit our affects together and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian San. S. Cyprian in the same place expoundeth himselfe to meanâ—…e that we are not made by this vnion the second person in 〈◊〉 for saith he the only Sâ—…e is consubstanciall or of the same substance with hiâ—… Father But we by eating his reall flesh in this Sacrament are made 〈◊〉 vnto the Sonne of God Atteyning throâ—… the flâ—…sh vsque ad participationem spiritus euen to the 〈◊〉 of the â—…pirit of Christ. Again whereas our vnion with Christ is 〈◊〉 in the holy Scriptures to yâ— vnion wâ—…ich is in 〈◊〉 as in matrimonie the wife husband tarie â—…oth 〈◊〉 persons and eche of them kepe their seuerall substances notwithstanding
that â—…or a tyme they are vnited in flesh right so is it in this blessed mysterie where Christes flesh is ioyned to our flesh for a tyme only 〈◊〉 ' â—…nd yâ— spirit of Christ by so excellent a meane as his own flesh is may be more fully partaken Thus it is clere that S. Cyprian saith the same thing with vs who likewise deâ—…nd our vnion with God to be made in will and hart and not that we be at any tyme made consubstanciall with the blessed Trinitie But the meanes of vniting vs to God are not our 〈◊〉 only but the nature of faith the regeneration of Baptism and the reall flesh of Christ receaued vnder yâ— forme of bread The whiâ—…h reall presence of Christes fâ—…esh S. Cyprian so plainly teacheth that I can not suâ—…iclently mâ—…e at the â—…dencie of M. Iuel â–ª Who knoweth him to teache 1. That the bread is changed in nature and not in forme 2. That vnder â—… Sacrament we eate the bread of Angels in earth the which selfe same we shall eate more manifestly in heauen without a Sacrament 3. That this doctrine came newly from Christ alone that Christian men should drinke blood which thing was forbidden to the Iewes and seing it was not forbidden them to drink Christes blood in faith but only to drinke common blood in their mouthes it foloweth euidently that the Christians by this new order of Christ drink blood into their mouthes also not by faith alone Al these argumeÌ„ts besyde many other which are in the same sermon declare euidently that S. Cyprian vtterly abhorred from this blasphemouse heresie of the Sacramentaries Iuel The coÌ„iunction because it is spiritual true full and perfit is expressed by this terme corporall San. As though God because he is spiritual true ful perfit he might therefore be called corporall Who euer heard of such diuinitie Because it is spiritual it is termed corporal Because it is red it is called grene because it is chalke it is named chese Nede these words any confutation Were not the writer of them worthy to be rebuked rather then to be refelled Iuel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maner light and accidentall ioyning San. If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substancial ioyning remaineth A substancial ioyning requireth the substances to be present which are ioyned together If then we are substancially ioyned to Christes body our bodies and his must be present For the substance of our soules is not without the cumpasse of our bodies Neither can they be substancially ioyned to Christes body as long as they are absent from the real body of Christ. As for the ioyning which is made by faith or charitie it is made by an accident and not by substance Iuel It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs only by receauing the Sacrament San. Neuer a Father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your own head whom no man that wise is wil beleue For seing we can not haue him corporally within vs without his body be within vs and yet none other thing is his body beside yâ— which is deliuered at his supper by that meane only he may be corporally in vs. Iuel By M Hardings construction the child is damned who dieth without receauing the Sacrament of Christes body San. Neither he nor no Catholike teacheth so Baptism suffiseth as we beleue vntill a man come to the yeres of discretion Iuel Without natural participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation San. If it be so it is you that teache the damnation of al those who receaue not the Eucharist for only in the Eucharist we partake the nature and substance of Christes flesh in it self But we partake the grace thereof by faith and Baptism Iuel S. Chrysostom saith In the Sacrament of Baptism we are made flesh of Christes flesh and boan of his boanes San. Those words you haue not in S. Chrisostom Who in â—…hat place confesseth plainly that those who are partakers of the holy mysteries can tel how thei are foormed Germanè ac legitimè ex ipso properly and lawfullie out of him Moreouer he geueth an other sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum according to him saying as Christ was born without the sede of man so we are made the same thing in baptism Thirdly he sheweth that we were taken out of Christes side as Eue out of Adam But the proposition that you haue framed in his name is not in him but although it were in him yet it is not to the purpose For it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ whiche maie be meant of his mystical flesh and an other thing to partake his fleshe naturally We are made of his flesh by spiritual meanes For to be of his flesh it is to belong to his flesh that is to say to be members therof by any meane at al. But when we speake of natural or cor poral partaking of flesh we exclude al mystical flesh and restrain the talke onlie to Christes own real fleshe whiche he toke of the virgin Marie Last of al yâ— reason why certain places of holy scripture are interpreted somtime of baptisme somtime of Christes supper is because in the old time in manie couÌ„tries yâ— SacrameÌ„t of Chrites body was geuen straight after baptism as it maie appere in S Dionysius Areopagita and in S. Ambrose in so much that somtime these two SacrameÌ„ts are so intreated of in S. Cyprian Eusebius Emissenus and S Augustine as if thei were one Sacrament for that thei were ministred together But in so weightie a matter as we now intreate of it was not vprightlie done of M. Iuel to make a proposition of his owne and to set it out in the name of S. Chrysostom Iuel M. Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receaued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament San. It is you that are not able to find it for D. Harding hath found it and shewed it many wayes and as I haue shewed it in S. Chrysostom in S. Hilarie in S. Gregorie Nyssen so wold I shew it at large out of Cyrillus but that partly this booke is growen alredie to great partly a marueilouse number of places in S. Cyrillus doe proue both Christes body to be corporally receaued into our bodies and to be corporally 〈◊〉 in the Sacrament 1. CoÌ„cerning vs he saith It behoued this earthly body should be brought to immortality cognato cibo by meate of his owne substance for so himself expoundeth the word afterward saying that Christes body is cognatum nostris corporibus hoc est consubstantiale It is of kin with our bodies that is to say of the same substance 2. As two waxes being melted are mingled together so he that receaueth Christes flesh and blood is mingled with Christ. It
Custom The vse of Gods church The adoration of Christes body A new heresie in PoolelaÌ„d Circumâ—… of them selâ—…s Tertull. de prae scriptioÌ„ aduersus haeretic One chaÌ„ge only could be in religioÌ„ Iacob 1. Heb. 11. A teacher of new doctrine is not to be heard Berenga rius preached a new doctrine The Sacramentaries can haue no ground of their doctrine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The honour of God The profite of the faithfull Lucae 6. Lucae 8. Two cau ses of spea king figuratiâ—…ly Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap 10. The proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nother agaâ—… the 〈◊〉 nor good maners We can neuer be sure that Christ spake figu ratiuely The ii Chapiter Wordes are to be taken as they do properly signifie Tertull. de carne Christi Things must be beleued aâ—… they are named Li. 67. de leg 3. The names vsed at Christes supper are to be kept This is body my EpiphaÌ„ lib. 2. to 1. haer 61. TraditioÌ„ is to be re spected in exposiding holy scriptures The iiâ—… Chapiter Ioan. 13. This can be said but of one substance Christes words directed to the bread The streÌ„gth of the pronoun this The prâ—…per sense of Christes wordes TransubstantiatioÌ„ 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. hoc this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noune body Christes naming to making Rom. 4. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The optmoÌ„ of the protestants The substance of bread is not pomted vnto 1. Co. 11. Mat. 21. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. This and bread be not of one gender CypriaÌ„ de coena Domini not farre from the beginning This in English is of all genders The v. Chapiter This doth not stand to signifie many things All the doings be not pointed vnto 1. Co. 10. 1. in Apo. 2. 2. in Or. cathech 3. li. 4. de Sacram. 4. depro dit lud 5. contr Faust. li. 20. ca. 13. epi. 59. Breaking is not poin ted vnto Of S. Iames. Of S. 〈◊〉 Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost. Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed vnto 1. Cor. 10 The body or blood is only pointed vnto The brea king The taking The eating Luc. 22. The geuing The vi Chapiter Theop. â—… Math. 26 In Marc. 14. This doth mean particular ly this eatable thiâ—… The vii Chapiter 1. Cor. 11 The obiecion The aunswere 1. The Cha lice 2. The chalice expouÌ„ ded in holy scripture 3. The chalice by vse of speakig signifieth the drinke in it 4. This cha lice where in liquor is knoweÌ„ to be can not make the speach obscure 5. Matt. 16. The word ioâ—…ned with the name of 〈◊〉 maketh aâ—… plaâ—… 6. Luc. 22. 7. 26. 14. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 is â—…amed The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Ioan. 15. 1. Cor. 10 Uniuersal consent is a way to knowe figuratiue speaches 〈◊〉 dore The dore Chiâ—…ore Ezec. c. 5 The circuÌ„ stance of yâ— speache is to be considered Aug. lib. quaest 83 q. 69. The intâ—…t of the author in this chapi ter Ioan. 1. 14. God Ioan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉 flesh To men that were flesh Rom. 12. Col. 2. Promiseth flesh Geueth flesh He is to be beleued Euseb. homil 5. in pasch Men speake most ware ly toward their death 1. Co. 11. Aug. ep 118. ad Ia nuar. Christ 〈◊〉 not bethought lesse discrete in his words then other men wold 〈◊〉 The Apostles haue 〈◊〉 Christes words to vs without any mentioÌ„ of a figure Math. 13. Parableâ—… hide the truth in part Math. 13. Ioan. 6. Leo in serm de pass do Exo. 12. 1. Cor. 5. Ioan. 1. Ireneus lib. 4. ca. 32. Leo de pass do serm 7. Heb. 7. Ioan. 1. Lucae 22. Chryso in Math. ho. 83. Christ did not eaâ—… his own flesh by faith but in dede Hom. 83. Psal. 77. The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake Psal. 49. Malac. 1. Tertul. l. 4. aduer Marcio Chryso in Ps. 37. Chryso in Math. hom 82. 83. Ioan. 13. In fine di lexit eos Chrys. hom 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. homi 24. great loue cauleth yâ— greatest gifâ—…s Ioan. 13. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar cap. 3. Hieron in Math. 26. Luc. 22. Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yâ— of 〈◊〉 Luc 22. Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉 Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth fi lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. Leuit. 24 Christos supper is vpon the table it self If yâ— table be râ—…ll muche more the meate Luc. 6. The bread â—… Christ toke was already ha lowed The 〈◊〉 of Christes supper is made in bread and wine Gen. 14. Leuit. 1. 2. c. Al things that be sacrificed be changed Matth. 5. Cypr. ad Caecil li. 2. epi. 3. Blessing Psal. 148 Ioan. 6. Marc. 6. Luc. 24. The blessing of god is a doing The word blessing sheweth yâ— intent of Christ. Amb. de ijs qui init mys cap. 9. Cyril li. 4. in IoaÌ„ c. 16. 17. 19. lib. 11. ca. 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Nysse in orat cathechet Amb. de ijs qui init ca. 9. Blessing Thanks 〈◊〉 Iustin. in Apol. 2. Euchar. The best kind of thanks True words be most thaÌ„k full â—…ren lib. 4. ca. 34 Theod. Dial. 3. The order of doing and speaking 1. Cor. 10 Christes supper diuided into 〈◊〉 and wordâ—… Manna Exod. 16 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12 1. Cor. 11 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Homil. 〈◊〉 in Pasch. Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉 In Theo 〈◊〉 Eccles. 1. Cor 10 The one bread to Christ who 〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉 whole 1. Cor. 10 Christ gaue with his hands Ioan. 6. The meat of Christes supper came from his hands 26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11 Christes gift in S. 〈◊〉 is meant of an externall gift The Sacramentaries can not 〈◊〉 when Christ ful filled his promise 1. The profite of words 2. The necessitie of words 3. The wordes of God 4. Mysteries 5. The mysterie of Christes supper 6. The Sacramentaries trust not Christes words 26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22. 7. Dedes be doubtfull Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. 8. The 〈◊〉 of the supper were para bles 9. The words of the supper expound yâ— parable of the dedes 10 Mere 〈◊〉 words ex pound nothing 11. The words of yâ— supper geue 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 Ioan 3. Matt. 28. In yâ— secoÌ„d booke ca. 〈◊〉 12. It is no singâ—… 〈◊〉 che is not knowen The 〈◊〉 The aunswerâ—… Ioan. 6. In Epi. 162. 〈◊〉 belongeth to the body â—… soule Tertul. de resur carnis â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epipha haer 30. Hebr. 10 Christ pre sented no external sacrifice besyde his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16 Malac. 1. Working words caÌ„ not be figuratiue Chrys. homi de prodit Iudae Ioan. 6. Howe the SacrameÌ„ taries 〈◊〉 Chri stes wordes Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 35. How S. 〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉 â–ª words There is but one noun substantiâ—… in Christes 〈◊〉 By the Sacraâ—… doctrâ—…e a â—…gure was cruâ—… for vs. The obâ—…ction The aunswer One word can not haue at once a pro
play with Gods word to elude the scriptures and to destroy the whole writen Gospell ¶ What the new Testament is whereof the holy Scripture speaketh FOr as much as in consecrating of the blood S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule make mention of the new Testament it is necessarie for the vnderstanding of the circumstances which folow â–ª to declare what the new TestameÌ„t is A Testament is the solemne ordeining of a thing by words which is wont to be confirmed by naturall or violeut death For neither the last will of any man is of strength and force vntil the testatour dye Nor any truse or 〈◊〉 is perfit vntil it be dedicated with sacrifice wherein some liuing creature is wont to be offered vnto God bloodily Of Testaments one is old an other new For it was of old tyme couenanted with the Iewes that in case they kept the law of Moyses they should haue a temporall inheritance for keping it Christ made a new truse that if we kept his law we should haue forgeuenes of synnes and enioye the euerlasting inheritaÌ„ce of God The old truse was dedicated as S. Paule speaketh by the blood of calues or oxen which were offered for the confirmation thereof The new truse is dedicated by Christes own blood which was shed for the confirmation of his new law and promise The blood of the old truse was put into basâ—…s and so sprinckled with hysope vpon the people The blood of the new truse is put into a cup or chalice and thence it is drunk by the people of God They that kept the old truse enioyed the land of promise and they that kepe the new truse enioye the kingdom of heauen Now because there are many things requisite to a TestameÌ„t first a law couenant or promise next a bloodshedding to confirm the promise thirdly an application of the blood that was shed for to be as a witnesse and a remembrance to all them who bound them selues to kepe the conditions agreed vpon it may so be that either all these things or some one of them alone may be called the new Testament When God sayeth by Jeremie consummabo Testamentum nouum he meaneth all together For he will as well publish his true law as confirm it by blood and distribute the blood wherewith it is confirmed to the faithfull when Christ sayeth This is my blood of the new Testament he meaneth the first part of the new Testament which is the law and promise it self of forgeuing syâ—…s And therefore it foloweth the which shal be shed for many for the remission oâ—… synnes In which words he sheweth how this is the blood of the new Testament Uerily because it is the blood which shall obtein and merite the forgeuenesse of those synnes which the new law promiseth to take away â—…e called it sayth S. Chrysostom the blood of yâ— promise of yâ— new law And again Testamentum nouum hoc ipso confirmatur The new Testament is confirmed with this very blood Tertullian sayeth of Chrâ—… Testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum He establisheth the Testament that is to say the law sealed with his own blood But when S. Luke and S. Paule report Christ to haue said This cup is the new Testament in my blood they seme to take the word Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirm the new Testament or witnesse it to be confirmed and not properly for the new truse and promise thereof For this that is in the chalice is not the promise of remitting synnes but it is the new Testament in Christes blood that is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the new law or that witnâ—…h it to be confirmed So doth Sedulius very well expound the words of S. Paule saying Ideo autem calix Testamentum vocatur for so I think the true reading to be and not Testamenti quia testatus est pòst paululum passionem futuram nunc testificatur factam The chalice is therefore called the new Testament because it did beare witnesse at Christes supper that the passion should be a litle after and now it doth beare witnesse that yâ— passion is made or done Thus we see that whereas a Testament hath a law a confirmation and a witnesse of the confirmation the blood of Christ is not the law it self but it is both the thing which confirmed the law and the thing which doth witnesse it to be confirmed The which if it be well remembred I trust the circumstances of greatest importance whereof I shall speake hereafter wil be the better vnderstanded ¶ The. xxiiij circumstance of the blood of the new Testament THis is my blood of the new Testament sayth Christ that is to say the blood wherewith the new Testament is con firmed and sealed as S. Chrysostom Tertullian Theophilact and the other auncient Fathers declare But the blood of Christes new Testament was reall and true Therefore this which Christ doth point vnto is the true reall blood of Christ and not the substance of wine which the Sacramentaries imagine to be a figure of this blood And so consâ—… the words this is the sigue of my blood of the new Testament But their interpretation is proued false by conferring the old Testament with the new For as the old Testament had none other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde yâ— self same blood of the calues which was shed to confirm the old couenant so much more the new Testament must haue noâ—…e other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde the self same blood of Christ which was shed to confirm the new law For if it be a perfection not only to haue the truâ—…e and law confirmed by blood but also to haue the confirmation thereof witnessed by sprinkling yâ— blood which was shed vpon the people it is not possible that the old law should in that point passe the new For as S. Chrysostom sayth the figure neither is cleane different from the truth yet if it kepe the condition of a shadow minor erat veritate it was lesse then the truth And yet the basin of calues blood were more then the truth if the substance of common wine were set to shew that the new truse is confirmed Again S. Paule and S. Luke so euidently expound these very words by reciting them otherwise that no reasonable man coÌ„â—…ing the words together will say that in these words blood may stand for a figure of blood They write thus Hic calix nouum Testamentum est in meo sanguine This cup is the new Testament in my blood but the new TestameÌ„t is not in the figure of Christes blood but in his true blood Therefore the name of blood which Christ vsed in consecrating the liquor in the chalice is not vsed figuratiuely For the same blood whereof S. Matthew S. Mark do speak is also meant of S. Luke and
the qualitie alone may be like As when Christ is called the vine the doore the way But to coÌ„clude with this place of S. Augustine he saith the holy signes whiche are like vnto the truth take also the name of the truth he bringeth that rule to shew that a child baptized maie well be called â—…aithfull because although he beleue not actually yet he hath faith in yâ— he hath baptisme which iâ—… the Sacrament of faith For saith S. Augustine Sacramentum fidei quodammodo fides est The Sacrament of faith after a certaine manner is faith He saith not only it is called faith after a certain phrase of speache as M. Iuell would haue it but it is faith after a certaine manner of being and not only of speaking and that being or truth whiche yâ— infant hath â—…eceaued is so great that as it foloweth in S. Augustine the Sacrament shal be of strength to defende him froÌ„ the power of the deuill and from euerlasting damnation And iudge you M. Iuel that to be only a name not a truth which is able to bring the child to saluation It is faith and it is not faith as the Sacrament of the altar is Christes body and not Christes â—…ody It is not faith in actuall consent of the will It is faith in the vertue of that power which the Sacrament printeth in the soule of the iufant it is the habit of faith and not the act euen so the Sacrament of yâ— altar is the substance of Christes body not the outward forme thereof the thing it selfe and not the shape thereof The name therefore of faith is geuen to yâ— child in respect of a truth which by baptism is wrought in the child although it be not all the truth which is requisite to actuall beleuing And the Sacrament of Christes supper is called the body of Christe for the substance of the body which is present although it be not visibly present according to al the maÌ„ner of a true naturall mans bodie ¶ Of the signification of aduerbes HArding By these vvordes really substantially cae The Fathers ment only a truth of being not a meane of being after carnal or natural vvise Iuel Al aduerbes taken of nounes signifie euer more a quality and neuer the substance Sander An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioyned to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification therof so that if the verb whereunto it is ioyned do signifie the substaÌ„ce of a thing the aduerbe maketh it to signify the same substance more perfectly as when the king Nabuchodonosor said to Daniel Verè deus vester deus deorum est Your God is verily the God of Gods The aduerb verily doth not signifie a qualitie as M. Iuel reporteth but it doth affirme most vehemently the substance of one God aboue all other Gods or iudges rulers And when the Centurion said this man was verily the sonne of God it is not to be meant that Christ was the sonne of God in â—…alitie at all but only in substance Now concerning that some aduerbes be taken of nounes it is to be knowen yâ— if they be taken of suche nounes as import rather a similitude of a substance then a real truth thereof in that case M. Iuels resolution will serue that they shall signifie the manner and qualitie of the thing as virilter doth signifie manly because it commeth of virilis whiche signifieth manlike and it commeth of vir which doth signifie rather the sexe then the substance of a man But when the nounes doe signifie the substance it selfe the aduerbes deriued of them must nedes draw with thâ—… the signification of the same substance as corporalis carnalis substantialis and naturalis be nounes which signifie a thing that belongeth to the body the flesh the substance the nature of yâ— wherof we speake and the aduerbes comming of them of necessitiâ—… must signifie the truth of that nature whereof we intreate But whether it shall signifie the qualitie also with the truthe that dependeth of the circumstance of the thing which is in hand For example Christe walked corporally vppon the water that saying must be vnderstaÌ„ded in the truth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed manner as other mens bodies are wont to walke vpon the water For there is no such manner of walking at all And whereas the aduerbe must be referred wholy to the verbe whose signification it maketh perfite that saying must be this resolued Christes bodily walking vpoÌ„ the water was a true walking concerning the truth of the flesh which did walke notwithstanding the manner of the walking did excede the qualitie of a mere â—…atural body Thus the aduerbes shall signifie the truth of the substance of a body walking and yet not the manner of walking belonging to a natural and true body Euen so when Syrill writeth that Christ dwelleth corporally also in vs and not only by right faith and charitie the meaning of him shal be that Christ in the true substance of his body dwelleth in vs although he dwell not in vs after suche manner as other naturall bodies of men dwel in the places where they are Thus M. Iuel is cast in his grammar also whereof he iâ—…iteth D. Harding But to thend his ignorance or malice may appere yâ— better I beseche the discrete Reader to consider the ods betwene D. Harding and M. Iuel D. Harding saieth when the Fathers teache Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes S. Hilary S. Cyrill haue then they meane that Christe is in vs by the true substance of his fleshe and not in suche manner as common flesh is wont to be any where This saying of D. Harding is so true yâ— he neuer thought it nedeful to proâ—…e it yet M. Iuell saith yâ— the Fathers must meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall natural maÌ„ner not in substaÌ„ce For he saith aduerbs taken of nounes signifie euermore yâ— qualitie neuer yâ— substaÌ„ce Wel how think you then M. Iuel is Christ after a carnal sort in vs or no It is wel seen by your work yâ— you think nothing lesse For he yâ— graâ—…teth the manner of body or flesh much more should graunt if he were wise the nature substance thereof because it is not possible that the qualitie or manner of fleshe should be without the truth of flesh Sith no qualitie ordinarily consisteth of it selfe but only resteth in the substance of that thing whose qualitie it is But a substance may be without qualities as the substance of God is without all manner of accidents Now D. Harding affirmeth at the lest wise the truth of body and of fleshe to be meant by the Fathers without the common qualitie thereof Which thing may right well be so M. Iuel wil haue their sayings meant
so that the substance of flesh and blood shal be excluded by all meanes And as for the qualitie of Christes fleshe he wil haue it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that qualitie may rest which his opinion is against all the course of nature Agayn when S. Hilarie saith that Christ tarieth naturally in vs what qualitie wil M. Iuel assigne to that aduerb shal he tary in vs in the maner of a natural tarying and yet shal not his true nature be in vs let vs go a litle farther S. Hilary saith Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet Christ hath the father in him according to yâ— spirit naturally How wil M. Iuel expound the worde naturally whether that Câ—…riste hath a qualitie of his fathers nature in him not the whole true substaÌ„ce Last of al S. Hilarie expoundeth his owne wordes euen as D. Harding hath done For as he saith in one place Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente he tarying in vs naturally so he saieth in an other place a litle before Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Therefore he is in vs him selfe by flesh Aâ—…d again Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti We liue by him according to the flesh naturally that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh Consider good Reader that naturaliter viuere to liue naturally is by S. Hilarie thus resolued to liue by hauing the nature And to liâ—…e naturally according to the flesh is to liue by hauing yâ— nature of Christes flesh Who is now the more ignorant in grammar D. Harding or M. Iuel And yet M. Iuel in that childish eloquence of his triumpheth vpon D. Harding saith childern are taught these things Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing but the manner of doing But M. Harding will ouerloke the grammar rules San. That rule is to be vnderstande in matters belonging to manners But now we dispute of substances and not of doings We say Christes body is in our bodies naturally this truth is to be discussed and not any morall action of ours Iuel Our childern must lerne a new grammar for thâ—…se mens pleasure otherwise these mens dâ—…initie can not stand San. Priestes childern may 〈◊〉 a new grammar but as the old faith so the old grammar wil â—…erue other mens childen It is verily a verie new graÌ„â—…r to say that aduerbes taken of nounes neuer signifie the substance Good Scholmasters wil not admâ—…e such rules Iu. Haue these old Fathers nor names nor wordes San. As though you knowe that they folowe hereafter when you are come to them you wil be quickly werie of them ¶ Of the first Author of the Sacramentarie heâ—…sie HArding Berengarius first began openly to shevv the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes body in the Sacrament Iu. Before M. Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Harding The Messalians opinion VVas the Sacrament of the altar did nor good nor euil And therein they VVere the first parents of the Sacramentarie heresie San. That which the Messalians did begin priuily by generall disgracing the Sacrament Berengarius began openly by denying this speciall vertue thereof which is the real presence and so there is no contradiction at all and you are founde but a cauiller Iu. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteinâ—…d the same doctrin before Berengarius Sander If these men did barke in priuie corners at anie ceremonie which thing yet is not euident to vs but if it were so yet thâ—…y mainteined it not For then they had bene condemned of heresy But if that also were true you haue gained litle more theÌ„ two huÌ„dred yeres and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good historie And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred yeres of continuall practise and open doctrine suche as we Catholiks haue had Iuel For farther declaration hereof it shal be necessary to open Berengarius iudgement San. Nay Sir it is enough to vs that you are at a stay can bring your faith no higher then to Ihon Scote and Bertram If your faith began priuily almost eight hundred yeres after Christ shall we here the declaration thereof if that may be permitted the heresy of the Arrians may be heard againe who was before Bertram Iuel Thus Berengarius wrote San. I care not what he wrote sith he recaÌ„ted yâ— same The 〈◊〉 wil standeth in his force and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his follie will afterward allege his authoritie for that which he recalled Iuel But his iudgement is confirmed by the Fathers San. It is not possible that the Fathers should confirme his iudgement who impugned their vniuersall tradition in so muche that he him selfe 〈◊〉 his own iudgement For seing he recanted his whole opinioÌ„ he recanted also that verie errour which he had coÌ„ceiued as by pretense of yâ— fathers words What a madâ—…es is it for you to allege any of both in his name for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers Iuel Let vs see the confutation hereof San. Seing Berengarius is the coÌ„futour his own true word is enough to vndoe as muche as his word had falsely stablished before Iuel Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man Iuel I beleue that the bodie of our Lorde Iesus Christ sensibly and in very dede is touched with the hand of the Priest brokeÌ„ and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull San. You haue englished the wordes very spitefully you haue added rent of your owne head and atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to be wasted which may be done without grinding You are so accustomed to falsify things yâ— no mans wordes may escape your poison Iuel The very glose saith vnlesse you warily vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fal into a greater heresy then euer he heald any San. The glosse warneth vs that all the touching breaking and wasting or coÌ„suming is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine the which thing if you had not left out you had alleged some one glosse without falsifying the same Iu. These Fathers redresse the lesse errour by the greater San. The cause whie Berengarius recanted by those wordes rather theÌ„ by anie other were two the one for yâ— he had taught in the tyme of his errour the body of Christ not to be before our eyes Against whiche words he now saith it is sensiblie handled The secoÌ„d was for that the body being vnder the form of bread and touched by the Priestes hands and broken by reason of the same form is thereby shewed most really present to witnesse the whiche reall presence S. Chrysostame had