euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude which is shed for the remission of sinnes and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words This is my bodie The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the new testament The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude thâ—t confirmeth the newe testament but that is reall bloude therefore this is reall bloude saith Sander I answere the argument is naught because in one proposition the speach is figuratiue in the other proper But he replieth that the olde testament had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof but the bloude of Calues therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe by which the newe testament is confirmed and therefore there was no figure of that bloude to bee made Heb. 9. But S. Luke and S. Paul by reciting the words otherwise doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification that no reasonable man will say that the name of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude saying this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude In deede I confesse in this sentence the worde bloud signifieth properly the bloude of Christ shedde vpon the crosse which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice But then the former wordes This cup is the newe testament are figuratiue for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not â—e is not the new testament but a sacrament or signe thereof which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vpon the crosse This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation carnall presence for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul giue the true sense of these wordes This is my bloude which is shedde for you which in effect is thus much to say this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul but bloude taken properly whereby he woulde prooue that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists bloud should not be taken figuratiuely which is as good an argument as this Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech is taken properly therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe it is not taken figuratiuely The 25. circumstance of these wordes This â—â—ppe or Chalicâ— The cuppe saith he is named to shewe the manner of fulfilling the olde figures in which the bloud was put in a cuppe as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed and presently sprinkled I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices but that was referred to the passion of Christ and not to the sacrament for those bloudie sacrifices were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie and not in the supper The supper as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments is diuerse in signe but equall in signification with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the baâ—en did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe as Sander trifleth but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse But Oecumenius saith that in steede of the bloud of beastes our Lorde giueth his owne bloud and that well in a cuppe that hee might shewe the olde Testament to haue shadowed this thing before I answere that Occumenius a late writer to whose authoritie I am not bound of the Sacrament speaketh sacramentally ascribing to the signe that which is proper to the thing signified Otherwise there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation The 26. circumstance of the verbe est left out in S. Lukes words Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe â—s according to the phrase of the Hebrewe tongue what verbe will you bring in his place saith he the verbe significat you cannot because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominatiue case then must you needes haue the verbe est but as soone as it is in his place shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat c And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him But when you haue spoken your pleasure of taking in and casting out of compulsion enforcements of verbs substantiue and adiectiue c. I pray you what great piaculum is it if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat to make good the logical sense And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est in these wordes of Saint Luke This cup is the newe Testament in your 23. circumstance when you expound it so that you say that which is in the cup is not the newe Testament which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed You will say the figure is in the words newe Testament and not in the verbe esâ— Then must I sett vpon you with your owne weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance I would faine see the brasen face of Sander with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe The 27. circumstance of these wordes which is shedde for you This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud which is shedd for you saieth S. Luke Here saith Sander the relatiue which is referred to the Nowne Cuppe and not to the Nowne Bloud because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominatiue case and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wherefore the sense must be the cuppe that is that which is in the cuppe was shedd for vs. but the onely reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes therefore the onely reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument if hell were lett loose To the graÌ„maticall construction I haue answered sufficiently in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church vnto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza that those wordes might by error of the writers be taken into the text nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes in that place as in diuerse other yet at the lest that the article prepositiue standeth for the relatiue 〈◊〉 as often it doth and that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstoode being left out as in the former part of the sentence For howsoeuer it be it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus This cuppe that is to say this bloud which is shedde for you is the newe Testament in my bloude
The name of spirituall may be taken as many wayes at spiritus which is for God the holy ghost Christ Angels winde gifts spiritual the soule the imagination breath anger or punishment and many other waies Fulke So many waies of taking as you knowe yet you cannot tell any other then as Clemens and Hierom take it for that which hath not the substance but the grace and effect of Christ. Sander That which you bring out of Athanasius apperteineth to the Capernaits and to no man else Fulke Yes to as many as erre grossely like the Capernaites as you Papistes doc Harding The fathers vsed the wordes really substantially c. to put away al doubt of the being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries Iewel He diuineth what they meane before they speake Sander Nay because he is sure of their words he expoundeth their minde Fulke He is so sure of their wordes that he knoweth not where they are written nor you neither Being so often called for and so much bragged of bring them out for shame CAP. XIII Sander A place of Chrysostome expounded Iewel Chrysostom saith in the same homilie If Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentarie quarel Sander You proue a signe here but not that the trueth is absent from the signe Fulke The Sacrament is a signe ergo not the thing signified a relatis Sander The sacrifice of the new testament is the bodie of Christ this is the sacrifice of the newe testament therefore it is the bodie of Christ. Fulke The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing as prayer almes preaching vnto which is no reall presence required Your syllogisme is all of particulars make the maior vniuersall and the error is soone espied Euery Sacrifice of the newe Testament is the bodie of Christ. Sander Chrysostome there saith that Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus who denied Christes reall flesh and death are confounded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them Fulke Verie well as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure to the thing figured The SacrameÌ„t could not be a figure of Christs body except Christ had a bodie in deede For a voide thing that is a phantasme can haue no figure Sander Chrysostom saith it is euident by these mysteries that Christ is alreadie sacrificed which cannot be true if his reall flesh be not present of which point I haue spoken in my fift booke Cap. 1. Fulke And in the same place I haue aunswered the vanitie of your argument Iewell Master Harding knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries for it followeth Euen so in baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneration is a thing spirituall wherefore if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament hee must likewise force the same in the other Sander D. Harding brought that place onely to shewe that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present Fulke The place prooueth that the body of Christ is none otherwise present then regeneration in baptisme Sander In baptisme the grace of regeneration which is giuen is conteined and giuen when the worde commeth to the water Fulke The water is no subiect for the grace of God yet Chrysost saith not the grace but regeneratioÌ„ it self Nothing is borne againe but the partie baptized therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme CAP. XIIII Sander The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper Iewel Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme The fathers in the Councell of Nice bid vs thinke that the water is full of heauenly fire c. Basil the kingdome of heauen is set open Chrysostome God himself in baptisme by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose In the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard Let vs be washed in his bloud c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue that the power of God the heauenly fire the grace bloud of Christ is really present in baptisme Sander Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament except it be signified present in the wordes instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament or of necessitie be inferred vpon them Fulke Neither is all that really present which is affirmed of a Sacrament that is signified present in the words instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament As Christ saide This is my bodie so hee sayde This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud yet it followeth not that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe no nor in the bloud of Christ which he shedd for vs but is confirmed by it and signified by the other Sander Baptisme the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other Fulke If they had no differences they should be all one yet haue they not so many as you make But in the matter in question they haue like force to vnite vs to Christ and assure vs of eternall life which none can haue but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ or else what becoÌ„meth of them that are baptized and not admitted to the communion CAP. XV. Sander M. Iewel replyeth not wel touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell Harding We behold saith the Councel of Nice the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or laide on that holy table we receiue his precious bodie and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily in deede which is to say really Iewell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstall but deuised by M. Harding Sander It is founde in the actes of the Councell that are not all printed but they are extant in diuerse Libraries Fulke You name none where we should find them to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies Sander In many Latine printed bookes it is translated sâ—â—m situated or put Fulke The question is not what some Latine coppies haue but what is the originall Greeke Iewel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed needes sounde a reall presence Sander Can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Fulke A fit comparison betweene a capon and the lambe of God Iewel Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith and yet not really Sander The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table by faith but to be set or laide there Fulke How can the Councell saye We behold it set there but by faith Iewel S. Hierom saith as often as we enter into the sepulchre we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode yet he lay not there really Sander But he lay
the body bloud of Christ is made The bread saith Sander cannot take the word which is not directed to it Yes as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God spoken by God to men and by praier directed to God by men and not to the creatures that are eaten dronken The same Irenaeus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying Panis percipiens vocationem dei bread receiuing the calling of God is not now common bread but the eucharistie consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly If vocation be not here taken for inuocation or calling vpon God as it is most like yet at least it is taken for the vertue of Gods word which it may receiue although the word be directed to men and not to bread But the earthly thing wherof the sacrament consisteth saith Sander is the old forme of breade as though accidents without the subiect and substance of earth be earthly Secondly the heauenly thing is the body of Christ this is true if he ment as Irenaeus meaneth the body of Christ the diuine vertue and efficacy of Christes body sacrificed for our redemption But as he vnderstandeth it for the naturall body of Christ like as it is monstrous to affirme that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter so is it hereticall and anabaptisticall to say that the naturall body of Christ is an heauenly matter or substance The second authority is Iustinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis c. Wee haue learned that the foode which is consecrated by the worde of praier which wee tooke of him to be the fleshe and bloud of Iesus Christ. He yeldeth the wordes of Iustinus who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the worde Foode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which foode our bloude and flesh by transmutation are nourished which confuteth transubstantiation and carnall eating But to the matter in question This worde of prayer saith Sander can bee none other but This is my bodie as though Christ hath not taught vs to frame our prayers but by that saying But see the conclusion that will followe admitting these wordes This is my bodie to bee wordes of prayer Then are they not wordes of performance for prayer and performance differ as much as promise and performance Againe when Sander saieth they are not wordes of preaching because they are wordes of prayer for preaching is directed principally to the people and prayer onely to GOD. Marke the conclusion If they bee wordes of prayer and wordes of prayer bee directed onely to God then are they not directed to the bread The like may be gathered of that hee saieth that they bee wordes of sacrifice which were Idolatrie to direct to any but to God and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatrie for directing them to the people not remembring that it is as great Idolatrie to directe them to the breade if they were wordes of sacrifice But they are directed finallie to GOD saieth hee as though wordes of preaching were not finallie directed to GOD and by the way of sacrificing they appertaine to the breade as though wordes of sacrificing appertaine not to the people for whome the sacrifice is offered as much and more then to the thing that is sacrificed For what is a sacrifice of an Oxe or a Calfe of which hee taketh similitudes but a figuratiue preaching Hath any man so greate leasure to confute such insensible arguments But Hierom ad Euag. tom 2. sayeth that at the praiers of Priestes the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Doubtlesse at none other prayers saieth Sander then wherein they saye with minde of sacrificing ouer breade This is my bodie c. seeing his argument is nothing else but doubtlesse wee may not doubt vppon it A straunge prayer wherein nothing is asked and hee that prayeth speaketh not in his owne person but in the person of another But August saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised hath taken away the promising words I wil giue is a word of promise I haue giuen is a word of performance The Euāgelists testifie that Christ hath giuen therfore his words are not wordes of promise I answere The Euangelistes testifie that Christ gaue bread which he brake and gaue vnto his disciples promising the communicating of his body to them that did eat it faithfully in saying this is my body which is broken for you the condition of faithfull receiuing required in all Gods couenantes must needes be included in this although in euery place where mention therof is made it be not expressed From this matter he returneth to the former talke of sacrifice These wordes saith he fulfill the act of sacrifice and therfore they are called of Iustinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worde of prayer or vowe It is false that he saith that Iustine calleth these words This is my body wordes of praier or vow for he saith the food to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for which thankes is giuen by worde of praier yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God specially the oblation of the holy altar And againe Orationes c. We take praiers to be saied when that which is on the Lords table is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed This blessing and sanctifiing saith Sander is made by praier that praier is vowing to God of bread and wine let all this be granted what followeth The word of vowing is to say ouer it This is my body That is the matter in controuersie which with Sander is alwaies a good argument but yet remaineth to be proued But now we must see the difference betwen Caluine the old fathers Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and giuen thankes said This is my body and confessed the chalice to be his bloud and taught a new oblation of the new testament which also he prooueth out of Malachie the Prophet Caluine will haue no working vpon the breade but onely in the mindes of the hearers and neither praier nor vowe nor sacrifice in these wordes Neither hath Sander prooued that in these wordes is either praier vow or sacrifice Neuerthelesse Caluine acknowledgeth the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers vnder stoode namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of attonement for sinnes For thus writeth Irenaeus Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum c. He taught the oblation of the newe testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God through out the whole worlde euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes Here is no oblation of the body and bloud of Christ but thanksgiuing vnto God for his benifites And what the sacrifice foreshewed
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
those wordes the same will bee the sense of these wordes taking the speaches either as proper or figuratiue But Christ saith he hath forced vs to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes This Chalice that is to say the thing contained in this Chalice is my bloud I pray you sir what necessitie except the speach be figuratiue You will say it is figuratiuely onely for the cuppe to signifie that which is contained therein If you so say then tell mee once againe whether these wordes The newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in proper speach with these wordes my bloude If the newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in sense with these wordes my bloude they are figuratiue for no man properlie vseth so to speake that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude when hee nameth nothing but his bloude naturally If these wordes bee figuratiue not onelie in the name of cuppe but in the wordes following whiche are is the newe Testament in my bloude then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue and all the babling about This and Is and bodie and bloude and mine c. are vaine and foolish for This and Is are in this figuratiue speech and that in one manner of speaking is called My bloude in an other is called the newe Testament in my bloude and by necessarie analogie that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes My bodie may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes The new Testament in my bodie crucified That the Pronowne hoc is the Neuter gender and hic the Masculine gender it prooueth not the alteration of substance for the genders followe the names and note no substantiall propertie where the thinges differ not in the sexe But where you saide first the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue bodie where it endeth then to the formes you are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also to the schoolemen which say it pointeth to neither of both but vnto indiuiduum vagum a singular vncertaine or wandering thing But point it as you will it can haue no true literall sense if you will holde your owne principles for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered as all papists I thinke except Sander will affirme That which hee had in his hande was breade at that instant when hee saide This. And Sander himselfe saith This which appeared to them breade to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes His owne bodie Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended and howe can is a Verbe of the present tense signifie that which shall bee after although it bee neuer so soone after But of the Pronowne This wee shall haue occasion to speake in three Chapters following and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise CAP. IIII. That the pronowne this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine I haue prooued before that if it can point to nothing else if it point to anie thing that was there present but vnto breade and wine because bodie and bloude by your owne principle was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered But Sander saith this signifieth a substance because Christ saith not This is in my body but this is my bodie which is a blockish reason for Christ saith This is the new Testament which is an Accident in my bloud as well as This is my bloude Well the Protestants opinion is saith he that This pointeth to the bread and the wine which signifie his bodie bloud But that cannot be because this cannot agree with breade and wine neither in Greeke nor Latine and then telleth vs the genders of the nownes c. But good Sir the pronowne This is the newter gender put absolutely comprehending in signification that thing which was shewed which needed not to bee called breade and wine because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses But then saith Sander you correct the wordes of Christ as though he had said This which is breade is my bodie and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes doeth not correct them neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This to the generall substance of breade but affirme that it demonstrateth that breade onely which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament And whereas it is translated in Latine Hic est sanguis the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders maie agree with either of them but that the Pronowne This is to bee referred to the wine the other Euangelistes doe shewe which vtter it thus this cuppe that is the wine in this cuppe And whereas Cyprian sayeth haec est caro mea hee might aswell haue said pointing to bread hoc est caro mea or hic panis est caro mea and yet his words as he vttereth them haue none other meaning euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD saith Hoc est signum foederis c. This is the signe of the couenaunt where hoc agreeing in gender with signum doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna Exodus 16. saieth Iste est panis quem dominus c. This is the breade whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate In the Latine the pronowne This agreeth with panis which is the Masculine gender yet doth it demonstrate Man which is the Newter Therefore this grammaticall discourse of genders of nownes Adiectiues and their Substantiues serueth to no purpose to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This. CAP. V. That the Pronowne This cannot point to any certaine acts which is a doing about the breade and wine The Pronowne saieth hee is of the singular number and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges done about the breade as taking breaking blessing c. and seeing it can point but one thing it can point no one acte certainely To this ridiculous argument I answere that the Pronowne this doeth demonstrate that breade with all actions and accidents belonging to it so that the sense is This breade thus taken blessed broken giuen eaten is my bodie that is as Tertullian and Augustine saye a figure or signe of my bodie euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer but not a Lambe nakedly considered but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging such a Lambe so taken killed the bloude so sprinckled the bodie â—osted eaten standing with staues in their
handes c this is the Passeouer that is a Sacrament of the Passeouer You see that the Pronowne being the singular number may demonstrate a singular substance but with all actions belonging to it CAP. VI. That the Pronowne This pointeth finallie to the body bâ—â—â—d and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certeine kinde of foode He taketh for proued that which is proued to be vntrue that the Pronowne This pointeth not the bread wine and thereof concludeth that it pointeth onely the bodie and bloud but the first is false ergo the later But if you be so hastie saieth Sander that you will not tarie the speaking of foure wordes to know what particular and finall substance the Pronown This doth point vnto then this doeth meane this eatable thing Sir our haste is not so great but we can stay a much longer time to knowe our masters meaning But seeing you beare vs in hande that one substance is made of another by these wordes spoken which aske a time in speaking and you your selues determine at what instant the change is soudenly made al at once and would proue the same by the Pronowne This and euery other of the wordes you must giue vs leaue to consider euery moment of time in which they are spoken For then euery worde is true when the things whereof the wordes are signes agree with the worde in that time in which they are vttered for this proposition euery man is dead cannot be true because euery man shall die before euery man be dead And to that you saye This meaneth this eatable thing I affirme you are neuer the neere for if there bee not bread what thing is there eatable before it be the bodyâ— and the bodie it is not before the wordes are all vttered If by an eatable thing you meane Duns his indiuiduum vagum then you renounce your former position so often aduouched that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certaine substance and so you are rapped on the scoâ—se on both sides and with your owne staues CAP. VII The naming of the chaliâ—e prooueth not the rest of Christes wordes to be figuratiue He were a madde man that would reason so that because one word is figuratiue all the rest must be figuratiue but this is a good argument one word is figuratiue ergo more may be and figuratiue speeches are net inconuenient to be vsed in the institutioÌ„ of a Sacrament Therefore Sander might haue spared his seuen reasons which he bringeth to prooue that the naming of the chalis prooueth not all the rest of the wordes to be figuratiue But the naming of the chalis the new Testament in his bloud doth inuincibly prooue al the other speeches to be figuratiue For the same sense is of these wordes This is my bloud and of these This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud but the sense of these latter words is figuratiue not only in respect of the word chalis but of the new Testament in his bloud ergo the sense of the former wordes is figuratiue And whereas Sander saieth the Apostles could not coniecture that est was put for significat which fewe but great doctors can discerne token of thinges to be somtime called by the names of thinges themselues I say he doth the Apostles wrong who beeing brought vp in the daiely exercise of the Sacramentes of the lawe could not be ignorant that the Lambe was called the Passeouer whereof it was a token and circumcision the couenant of God whereof it was a seale and so of many other but these two were their principall Sacramentes vnto which with vs baptisme and the Lordes supper doth answere CAP. VIII That the wordes of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper Why these wordes of our sauiour This is my body be not like other of his sayings in which he is said to be the dore the way the true vine Iohn Bapt. to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter which is specially intituled against Master Nowels chalenge and by him throughly confuted The vniuersall consent that he boasteth of in discerning of figuratiue speeches can neuer be prooued to haue receiued the wordes of Christ for proper Two reasons yet he alleageth why none of those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like the wordes of the supper One for that they name two seuerall natures as Iohn baptist and Elias That is false for not naming Iohn Baptist Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is Helias The other they speake not of any certeine thing or else they point not to it as to a thing present This is likwise false for Helias was a certeine thing and hee that was pointed vnto by the Pronâ—une This was present Last of all where he chalengeth vs to shewe where that Proposition is figuratiue which first instituteth and maketh any thing I haue shewed before that the propositions which God vseth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal are figuratiue For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh he saieth to Abraham this is my couenant Gen. 17. And of the Lambe to bee slaine and vsed as he appointeth he saith you shall eate it in haste for it is the Passeouer of the Lorde These are words of institution yet are they figuratiue for circumcision was not the couenant nor the Lambe the Passeouer but figuratiuely seales signes and tokens of them CAP. IX It is shewed by 27 circumstances of Christes supper that hee made his reall flesh and bloud present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper The first circumstance of Christs last supper is to consider who made it Howe necessarie the consideration of the circumstances of euery place of Scripture is for the true vnderstanding thereof euerie wise man will acknowledge but no circumstance alone nor all the circumstances together do prooue these wordes of Christ to be proper and not figuratiue As first we acknowledge the maker of the supper to be almighty to do whatsoeuer it pleased him but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh promiseth his flesh and giueth his flesh all which we constantly beleeue yet it followeth not that he purposed to giue his flesh in the Sacrament after his incarnation otherwise then he gaue it to the Patriaâ—kes before his incarnation Acknowledging also the prouidence wisdome trueth and goodnesse of the speaker we affirme that he speaketh heere most wisely prouidently truely and well but yet figuratiuely without that he doth blind his spouse with figuratiue wordes as Sander saith which he doth no more then God blinded his spowse the Church of Israel with figuratiue wordes when he spake figuratiuely in the institution of the Sacramentes of circumcision and of the Paschall lambe The second circumstance may be to consider the time when the supper was made The
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
the other Although he speake contrary to poperie which teacheth the presence to be after consecration and not at the time of consecrating But what bridle may hold in the shameles furie of Sander The third figure is of the paschall lambe which was a figure of Christs death and so applied by S. Iohn in that saying you shal not break a bone of him Ioan. 19. S. Paul 1. Cor. 5. not a figure of the supper from which as it differeth in signe so it is all one in the thing signified The fourth is the prophesie and figure of Manna which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spirituall meate that we eate not a figure thereof but a sacrament of our spirituall feeding by the flesh of Christ like as the water of the rocke which was Christ was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the bloud of Christ. Wherefore the partes of this comparison as they haue ben all answered before in the third book so they are of no force to prooue the real presence or transubstantiation but the contrary seing the differeÌ„ce of these two Sacramentes Manna and the Lordes bread is only in the signes nothing at all in the vertue of the things signified according to S. Aug. rule The fist figure is of the bloud of the old Testament wherunto the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse doth answere as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9. therefore these wordes of the supper This is the bloud of the new Testament of necessity must be figuratiue euen as these which are of the same sense This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud For we may not so farre aduance the Sacrament that we abase the death of Christ which is the only Sacrifice for our sinnes The sixt is the prophecy and figure of Iob which is a manifest peruerting of the scripture from the true meaning for either Iob complaineth of the cruelty of his seruantes that would euen eate his flesh in his aduersity and speaketh not of the loue that his seruantes had to be ioyned vnto his flesh as the context of that place Iob. 31. doth euidently shew or els he sheweth the complaint of his seruantes that were so occupied in hospitality that they had no leasure to eate their meat and therefore desired to eate the meare that was prouided for the stranger Or if with Chrysost. we should vnderstand their desire to be of eating of Iobs flesh yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation seing we may eate the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament The seuenth conference is of prophecies taken out of Dauid and Salomon whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament Dauid saith Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight against them who afflict me By which wordes he sheweth how bountifully God had bestowed his benifâ—â—â— vpon him both in this life and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come without any special regard vnto the supper of Christ or any Sacrament that was of the same signification vnto him The saying of Salomon Pro. 9. I haue an swered in the beginning of this work where it was placed by Sander The 8. conference is another Prophecie of Dauid where he saith all that be fat vpon earth haue eaten adored Sander saith they haue adored that which they do eat but Dauid saith not so Ps. 21. but that they shal worship God the author of their food as it followeth immediatly They shall all fall down c. And whereas Sander quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to iustifie the adoratioÌ„ of the blessed Sacrament of the altar the footstoole wherin the fulnes of the godhead corporally dwelleth you shall vnderstaÌ„d that Augustine vtterly denieth the Lords supper to be that bodie that was crucified but a Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken vs. The last conference is of many prophecies figures ioyned together as he saith for breuities sake The first is of Noe being naked after he was drunk laughed to scorne of his sonne So saith Sander was Christ after he had drunke his owne bloud in his supper which he planted for him selfe in the virgins wombe hanged naked laughed to scorne not only of the Iewes but also of the Sacramentaries for so grosse a deede that he drank his owne bloud vnder the form of wine What shal I say to this monstrous blasphemie wherein he compareth that filthie drunkennes shameles nakednes of Noe to the holy mysterie and passion of Christ After this he ioyneth the cakes that Abraham set before the Angels as figures of that mystical cake which was to come in Christs supper but whereof then were the butter milk calues flesh figures O madnesse more then folly for now wheresoeuer bread corn wine vines fruits of the earth were named all were figures of the sacrament wherin yet he saith is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit Isaac blessed Iacob which corne wine saying to Esau what caÌ„ I do more to theeâ— Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aser that should giue deinties to the faithful kings of that church God promiseth as the highest reward for keping of his coÌ„mandement to blesse the loaues of his people to giue abundance of bread wine If it be lawfull for Sander on this sort to play with the holy scriptures he may proue what he list And more probably might we proue the substaÌ„ce of bread wine to remaine in the SacrameÌ„t of which the scripture speaketh so often with so great coÌ„mendation if we should reason after his maner As for the meat of the sacrifice the she we bread the priests Ioaues they were in deede figures ofy e spiritual feeding that both they we had haue of yâ— flesh of Christ. But the curse of Elies house that his posterity should come beg a morsel of bread at the successors of Sadoc it is a grosse prophanatioÌ„ of Gods word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church to obteine the Sacrament And the dissembling of Dauid before Achis which came of infidelity is blasphemous to apply to our Sauiour Christe and especially with such termes as Sander vseth At his last supper he driuelâ—d like a child to their seeming that be wise in the world he changed his countenance and caried himselfe after a sort in his owne handes when holding and giuing to be eaten that whith seemed bread he doubted not to say this is my body c. For Christ carying him selfe after a sort in his owne handes Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation ferebatur in manibus suis which is neither according to the Hebrue text 1. Sam. 21. which saith he plaied the mad man in their handes nor according to the vulgar Latine which saith collabebatur inter manus eorum he fell downe among their handes troubleth himself to find how Dauid as a figure of Christ should
〈…〉 oud of Christ and yet no necessitie of reall presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else but 〈…〉 ho is set foorth and the greatnes of the thinges sette 〈…〉 rth Therefore saith Sander it is not breade and 〈…〉 ine that is set forth but the body and bloud of Christ. 〈◊〉 answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of breade and wine Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach in all his writinges alâ—hough intreating of so high a mysterie hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically as Hom. 6. he saith The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred is the place of Angels the place of Archangels the palace of heauen heauen it selfe Nam hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas Mensam istam vide cuius gratia constituta sit quapropter For doest thou doubt that heauen is here behold this table for whose cause and wherefore it is set CAP. XI No figure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently guiltie of Christes naturall bodie Sander confesseth that when a man by willfull contempt doth breake or defile the kings image it is reputed all one as if he had striken the prince himselfe not because the deede is one but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe But he saith this similitude is not like because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vpon the reall fact it selfe then vpon the will or minde of the dooer I answere there is no worde in saint Paul to prooue that he maketh his argument vpon the reall fact which is eating and drinking but vpon eating and drinking vnworthily which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing I answere the argument holdeth as well or neglecting as of contemning that which Ch 〈…〉 commaunded to be regarded although it be a greater fault to contemne then to neglect Secondarily saith Sander they that say the signe image or figure of Christs bodie is abused must shewe wherein that figure doth consist and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images external internal c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth in forme or shape are like to Christs bodie and bloude but in the vse and ende of them which is to nourish bodily as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vs is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vs spiritually of which spirituall feeding and nourishing the bread and wine being sanctified to that vse are not a bare naked or emptie signe Image or figure but a fuil perfect and effectuall seale confirmation and assurance to as many as receive yâ— same bread and wine being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin theÌ„ in baptisme of his body and bloud where vnto we are incorporated thereby then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament namelie then in Manna or the shewbread of which Sander speaketh But it is a thing neuer heard of saith Sander that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud therefore there is some other substante vnder the formes of bread and wine then was in Manna c Although the scripture saith not in so many words that he that did eate Manna vnworthily was guiltie of yâ— body of Christ yet in effect it saith the same and the same by necessarie consequence may be inferred He that did eate the same spirituall meate that we do vnworthily was so guiltie the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily for God was not pleased â—ith them as the Apostole saith therfore they were guil 〈…〉 e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply â—nd say it was not the same that we eate and drink First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expresly the rocke was Christ of whom wee 〈…〉 te and drinke S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe cap. 2 â—aith expressely they did eate the same spiritual meate that 〈…〉 ve doe for Manna was Christ vnto them Cyrill in Ioan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vnto those old fathers The like by Analogie is prooued of all other sacraments But Sander replyeth the â—ewes must then haue prepared examined themselues â—uerie day which is not reade of who doubteth but the Godly Iewes so did that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke and it is reade that they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes Why then saith Sander if it were so it had required more perfection in the law then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare and surely at the most but once a day wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked for 40. yeares The Law which is spirituall requireth more perfection then any man can performe but to argue what perfection is required of vs by that we vse corruptly is as grosse a fault in reasoning as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day so often they were to prepare and examine themselues And what if I say that euerie day although a man doe not receiue hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe as when he doth receiue But wee receiue but once a day at the most saith hee verily they receiued oftner because it was not onelie a spirituall meate but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues as our Sacrament is not wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament so coulde not they at that time Howe be it when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray which wee ought to doe more then once a day I would know what preparation or examination is necessarie for them that receiue the Sacrament excepting the onely relation of receiuing but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vnto God I speak not as Sander doth howe vnreuerently men vse to pray but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God CAP. XII The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating of the name of flesh bodie bloud eating drinking and such like wordes And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe and the fruite of the vine as for
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
of the condition of all infantes which is not chaunged by baptisme although sinne be not imputed vnto them Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme is abolished in baptisme what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of baptisme be angry with them that haue taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme is this no sinne But what infant can examine himselfe of this sinne And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will haue to examine himselfe As for the distinction of Votum explicitum implicitum he sendeth vs to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. c. For how can we be assured that children haue a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion Or how can it be proued That they haue any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infantes against all reason and without all scriptures wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable Last of all hee chargeth mee with falsification by adding because the councell of Trent saith that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis some times and in some places But I pray thee Bristowe what haue I falsified the councel of Trent which thou affirmest that I did neuer read Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes were not so many as Fulke doeth make them Why howe many doe I make them I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augustines time were in this error that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ was to bee ministred to infantes And haue I not playnely and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine where is then this falsification If I had not prooued that which I sayde yet there is difference betwixt falsification and a false affirmation And because the Tridentine councell sayth it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli de Coron mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius and Lotharius and after citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised Si Episcopus c. If the Bishop be present it must bee immediately confirmed and then communicated If the Bishop bee not present before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing let the Prieste giue him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST yea before the Masse if necessitie require By this Testimonie it appeareth not onely that this custome was long obserued but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie so that masse should not be taried for if the infant were in any danger Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes and not of olde and 1. touching the bodies of Angels According to the demaunde of the challenger which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church to bee shewed him I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors which are not the matters in controuersie betweene vs but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church but those which I note vpon such occasion willeth all them that would know the true Church to consider that these errors if they bee any are so fewe and so light that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time no lesse then of olde time considering it is no lesse but much more vnreproueable of the aduersarie Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme they are sufficient if they were but one to proue that which I intend namely that the Popishe Church hath erred which being proued the surest piller of Poperie is broken and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures the true Church of God when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred will shewe themselues to bee errors which had nothing else to gayne them credite but this one false principle That the Popishe Church can not erre And touching the bodies of Angels where I say Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that Angels and soules of men had bodies were visible and circumscriptible and therefore must bee paynted affirming this to be the iudgement of the Catholike Church Bristowe answereth that I misreport the matter for it is not the councells determination nor saying but the saying onely of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica rehearsed in the councell with an admonition giuen by Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that ouerthrew the images of our Lorde his vndefiled mother seeing this holy father doth shew that Angels also may be painted But the trueth is as may apeare to euery man that wil read the Councel act 5 that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter After the saying of Ioannes is rehearsed in which this grosse error is conteined Tharasius the archb of Const. thereupon concludeth Ostendit autem pater quòd angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt vt homines apparuerunt This father sheweth that we ought to paint the angels also seeing they may be circumscribed haue appeared as men by which it is manifest that Tharasius approueth the opinion of Ioannes Would you now haue the determination of the Councel It followeth immediatly Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde By this it is manifest that not I but Bristow hath misreported the matter Where I sayde If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites haue bodies visible and circumscriptible there was neuer any errour since the world began Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith Soft man other manner of errours haue beene defended since the world began I wot well greater but if any of them be a manifest errour this is as manifest as any of them all Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this error that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it Basilius Athanasius Methodius yea Augustine he sayeth make a question of it In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers sounding to such a purpose it onely by mistaking the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or corpus which they vsed generally for that which nowe in the schooles according to Aristotle is called 〈◊〉
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
bread of euer lasting life which holdeth vp the substance of our soule I like this saying of Ambrose or whosoeuer writ that booke very well The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall body of Christ which the Papistes affirme to be a kind of bread that goeth into the body Seuenthly Gregory of Nyssa saieth in vita Mosis panis est c. It is bread prouided for vs without seede without plowing without any other worke of man But he saith immediatly before that it is receiued with a pure and cleane mind and is an heauenly meate therefore a spirituall food spiritually to be receiued and not bodily Eightly S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Ioâ—n saith when would flesh vnderstand this thing thâ—â— he called bread flesh In deed the spirituall manner of nourishing is not possible to be vnderstood of the flesh but the fleshly transubstantiation may be vnderstood of euery fleshly man Ninethly Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthily nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis the nourisher of our spirituall substance He meaneth if it bee worthily receiued otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth vnworthily Lastly Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saieth of the bread which Christ gaue to Iudas Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat To whome he himselfe gaue bread which bread was to be betrayed A great miracle if a Poet speake specially But nowe directy against transubstantiation speake many doctors Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat by that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast foorth into the draught Likewise the matter of the bread profiteth not c. Theodoret Diâ—l 1. saith Simbola c. The symboles or tokens which are seene he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to the nature Likewise Dialog 2. he saith Manent in pâ—iori substantia the bread and wine after sanctification abide in their former substance Gelasius a bishop of Rome cont Eutich writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament Et tamen esse non definit substantia natura panis vini The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine These sayings with diuerse other are direct against transubstantiation and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers to proue it of which not one of them hath a reasonable colour when it is examined CAP. XII The presence of the bodie bloud of Christin his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old testament In deede of scriptures he bringeth ether vaine allegories fantastical figures of his own brain or els shamefully racketh the sentences of the old testament to make them prophecies of transubstantiation which were not once spoken of the Sacrament And first he slandereth S. Paul to haue said that to the Iewes al things chanced in figures where he saith of such things as came to passe in the wildernes all these things happened to them as figures or examples are written for our instruction And although Saint Paul had so saide as hee reporteth yet it followeth not that he may drawe their figures whither he will He beginneth with the figure of Abel whom he maketh the first shepeheard Priest Martyr and perpetuall Virgine in all which he would haue him to be a figure of Christ. Although that hee was the first shepeheard it is not like for it is not to bee thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of Cattell before Abel tooke it in hand no more then it is like that he occupied no tillage before Cainefell vnto it But that he calleth Abel the first Prieste it is vtterly false For Adam was the first Prieste and receaued or God the lawe of sacrificing which hee taught vnto his sonnes except Sander thinke that Adam liued so many yeares without exercise of religion vntill Abel and Caine were made Priestes For Caine is named to haue offered sacrifice as soone as Abel Whereby it is probable that neither of them both was Priest but Adam the heade of the familie to whom they brought their seuerall oblations vnto that place which was called the presence of the Lorde from whence Caine was bannished after his murther committed Concerning Abels virginitie I will not contend although if I should followe the Iewish traditions as Sander doth in his allegoricall comparison in diuerse pointes I must say he was a married man hauing to wife his sister Delbora But to the comparison Sander saith that Abell first offered himselfe vnder the shape of other things and after went forth to be offered in his owne person being traiterously slaine This is nothing else but a drousie dreame of Sanders sleepâ—e heade The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christes death and not of his last supper Neither did he offer himselfe vnder the shape of his satte lambes but he offered his lambes in signe that God by the mediation of Christs death should accept him Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person when he was murthered as Christe did neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice whose bloud cried vengeance whereas the bloud of Christs sacrifice crieth mercie Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a grosse abusing of the Scriptures to faigne such foolish figures which haue no grounde in the worde of God but are such as euerie one will inuent out of his own imagination Euen as that iest of Sander that Caine did beare a figure of the English communion in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered when much rather I might say that Cain did beare a figure of the murdering church of Rome which hath slain so many Abels because her sacrifice of the fruits of the erth is no better accepted But what should I trifle after so vaine a ma ner The second figure is of Melchizedek which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers Against all which I oppose the credit of the Apostle to the Hebrewes who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks priesthood might be referred to Christ maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberalitie not of priestly dutie And yet it is a vaine thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks bread wine when they in their sacrifice wil acknowledg to remain neither bread nor wine But of al that euer I heard it is a most impudent comparison that Sander maketh of Melchizedek consecrating AbrahaÌ„ by blessing of him that was really present as it were in his haÌ„ds And Christ consecrating his owne bodie bloud present in his hands at the time of his blessing consecrating and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one denying
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye