This is my body any faithfull man doubteth but that both Christ had a true naturall body which he might geue and is able to make his word true vseth to vtter no falshood And whereas Christ sayd after bread taken This is my body it is geuen vs to vnderstand that by his word he maketh that particular substaunce of bread which was taken into his hands to be his own body what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these knowen significations and seeke out other more strange The law of nature wold vs to rest in the names which we find Iradition also maketh for the same interpretation And surely these are that chief rules to know that meanig which any words may haue Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule saying Omnia diuina verba non habent opus allegoria sed prout se habent accipienda sunt Speculatione autem indigent sensu ad cognoscendam vniuscuiusque argumeÌ„ti vim facultatem Oportet autem traditione vti non enim omnia a diuina Scriptura accipi possunt All the words of God nede not an allegorie or a figuratiue meaning but they are to be taken as they be They require in dede a diligent obseruation and vnderstanding that the strength and power of euery matter proponed may be knowen wherein it behooueth to vse tradition For all things caÌ„ not be gathered out of the diuine writing Here is the first place geuen by Epiphanius to the naturall takiÌ„g of words for al things be not figuratiue though many be To know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consyderation and auncient tradition helpeth much Well of other helpes hereafter Now let this be graunted that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholikes Which is that euery word and speache as long as the contrary is not manifestly proued is to be taken as it commonly doth signifie According to the which rule these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood affirme the reall presence of Christes body and blood as now it shal be shewed ¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body and This is my blood is that the substance of Christes body and blood is couteyned vnder the visible formes of bread and wine WHen the Paschall Lamb was eaten and the Disciples feete washed Christ by taking bread into his hands declared him self to be disposed to vse it for some one purpose or other by blessing and thanksgeuing ouer it we are informed he wold make some diuine mysterie of that bread And when he began to make the mysterie saying this is and ended it adding thereto my body we lern by the two first words this is that his mysterie consisteth not of bread and of his body but of one substance only which was declared to be so really intended as well in his mind as at his tongs end that hauing once named what it was to wit my body no maÌ„ aliue might doubt but either he both in word and dede made a false signification which is with all true Catholikes a thing without al possibilitie or els that it was in dede so as his words of blessing and of saying This is my body witnessed And for asmuch as his word affirmed this to be his body and his dede of taking bread and of blessing shewed his words to be directed vnto yâ— which was in his hand or lay before him which was bread before it must nedes be that the pronoun this so shewed to his Apostles the thing already subiect vnto their eyes that much more it serued to teache their vnderstanding verily this which appeared to them bread to be in substance at the ending of the words his own body Therefore we teache the pronoun this to serue both to the eyes and to the vnderstanding of the Apostles to their eyes in pointing to the foorm of bread which they saw to their vnderstanding in teaching that substance which was present vnder that they saw to be his own body streight when it was so named And in so much as the same forme of bread tarieth after coÌ„secration which was there before the pronoun this doth allwayes direct their eyes to one and the same forme of wheaten bread which was there when Christ tooke it first and also it insinuateth to their vnderstanding that they must looke by the nonn that foloweth the verb to know what proprietie or substance that visible thing hath And seing the noun which cometh after is not the name of a qâ—…alitie or proprietie but the name of a substance and of such a substance as before was not present Without all question these words This is my body haue according to the proper custom of speache this meaning The substance which is conteyned vnder this forme of bread and vnder the accidents the which I shew you is the substance of my body Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is no longer the substance of bread and consequently therevnto that the substance of the bread is by the word of Christ changed into the substance of his body And likewise when Christ sayd This is my blood the sense is The substance which is conteined vnter the forme of wine which you sensibly perceaue to be in this cuppe is my blood or is the substance of my blood Which interpretation is so true that Christ hath forced vs to seeke it out in causing S. Luke and S. Paule to write This chalice is the new Testament in my blood For of necessitie we must interpret these words This chalice that is to say the thing conteined inthis chalice is my blood As therefore This in na ming the chalice doth serue to shew the place compasse within which I must looke for that substance which afterward is defined to be the blood of Christ euen so this being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christes hands doth first point vnto the eye within what circuit or quantitie the mind shal seke for that substance or proprietie which afterward the mouth of Christ wil declare and when the name is once heard it sheweth it to be that substance of Christes body Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions The one that this beginneth most naturally with the sense of man The other that it with the rest of that speache informeth the vnderstanding of more then the eye saw To the sense it sheweth yâ— outward formes to the vnderstaÌ„diÌ„g it sheweth prâ—…cipally the inward substaÌ„ce vnder those formes Now looke by how many degrees the inward substance doth passe the outward formes and the end of the talk doth passe the beginning thereof by so many the pronoun this rather apperteyneth to the substantiue body wherein it endeth then to the formes within the which it goeth about to shew an invisible substance Which being so Hoc this is in Latin of the neuter gender because the noune
quod sumitur This is my body this I say whiche you take So that by his 〈◊〉 this pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread whiche Christe tooke neither to any doing of his but to yâ— body of Christ whiche he made by his words at the holy altar and table and which the Apostles tooke afterward at the handes of Christ. Howbeit if any man be so hastie that he wil not tary the speaking of fower words to know what particular finall substance the pronoun hoc this doth point vnto but will nedes knowe what it meaneth as sone as it came out of Christes mouth vntill the last word be pronounced I answere that by the circuÌ„stances which are about and concerne the dedes and words of Christ it may be wel sayd that the pronoun this beside his generall signisication whiche is declared before doth here also particularly betoken euen from the beginning of Christes words to the end this thing which is to be eaten or drunken and so doth it declare as well the beginning of the words which belong to wheaten bread whose cheefe vse is to be eaten as the progresse which tendeth to a supper the substance whereof is eating the end which is the bodâ—… of Christ made present to be eateÌ„ So this doth truly always signifie this food or eateable substance of which particular pointing and signification I shall haue occasion to speake more at large hereafter when I come to confer yâ— holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ. ¶ The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of Christes words to be figuratiue HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast that Christ sayd this chalice is the new Testament in my blood It can not be denyed say they but the name of chalice is figuratiuely put for that whiche is in the chalice Why may not therefore other words in the supper be also figuratiuely taken Masters it foloweth not because one word is euidently siguratiue that therefore another word must be also figuratiue except one reason be in both words Which in our case is cleane contrary and that for diuerse causes for all men that is to say as well Catholiks as Protestants and Sacramentaries confesse the word chalice to be figuratiue and thei are compelled so to doe because if we take the name of chalice properly we must confesse sith Christ sayth this chalice is the new Testament in my blood that a material cup of wood glasse or siluer is the new Testament or yâ— cause of our synnes to be forgeuen which no reasonable man will so much as dream of Seing then we are constrained by force of reason to say the chalice to stand for that which is in the chalice and no like reason presseth vs to think the like of the verbe est is or of the noun corpus body or of the noun sanguis blood the example which moueth vs to graunt a figure in the one word kepeth vs from suspecting any figure in the other words which are nothing like Secondly whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice S. Mathew and S. Marke speake not of it geuing vs to vnderstand that the meaning of Christ was only to make and shew the blood of the new Testament which was in the chalice As therefore the holy Ghost prouided for a sufficient declaration of thaâ—… word which was in dede figuratiue so leauing the verbe est is and the nounes body and blood still in they proper significatioÌ„ without mention of signe or figure it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be takeÌ„ as they did naturally sound to the common â—…ares of men Thirdly although the word calix a cup or chalice were at the beginning appointed to signifie chefely that vessel which holdeth liquour meâ—…e to be drunk yet by common vse of speaking which is farre the chefe gouernour in the vnderstanding of wordes we being at the table meane by the cup that which is in the cup. in so much yâ— if a maÌ„ sitting at the table bid yâ— cup be geuen to another no seruaÌ„t is lightly so rude as to geue a stranger the cup without drink in it now when words are as commonly vsed in theyr siguratiue sense as in theyr natural then eche way the sense is proper enough in so much as the vse of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word Fourthly seing Christ sitting at the table in the sight of his Apostles taking the cup of wine mingled with water blessed gaue thaÌ„ks saying not only the chalice or a chalice but this chalice or this cup is the new Testament in my blood it could not be that any dout could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles them selues knew to contein a certen liquour but that notwithstanding maruelouse great dout wold haue risen to them and to al Christians if he should haue vsed est for significat and body blood for the signe of body blood for so much as they could not coniecture any other meaning of these words then they did outwardly sound For it is no common vse of speaking but only both seldom vsed and not vnderstaÌ„ded but by great doctors and interpreters who know and discern tokeÌ„s of things to be called sometyme by the names of the things them selues Fifthly when with a figuratiue worde an other is immediatly ioyned which doth expound the figure the whole speach is ra ther to be accompted proper then figuratiue for so much as the weaker part yeldeth always to the stronger euen as in 〈◊〉 when one noune adiectiue serueth two substantiues of diuerse genders we make it agree with the masculin as with the more worthy gender When Christ sayd to S. Peter I will geue thee the keies he spake figuratiuely coÌ„cerning the name of keies but if we marke that he ioyned thereunto the keies of the kingdom of heauen and yet again what soeuer thou bindest or loosest in earth and so foorth by these words the former speache is made plain as if it were not figuratiue at all right so when he sayth this chalice is the new testament in my blood yâ— naÌ„ing of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken that al is one as if it had bene said this is my blood of yâ— new testament which is in the chalice See then for Gods sake how farre the figuratiue naming of yâ— chalice is froÌ„ any figuratiue naming of the body or blood As to yâ— chalice such words were ioyned which did shew the name to bâ—… figuratiue so to the body and blood such were ioyned as forbid vs to think the like of them not only because Christe sayd This is my body my blood which surely were enough to proue that I say because the body and blood of Christe waâ—… not figuratiue but true and naturall but also because to
the naming of Christes body it is ioined in S. Luke The which is geueÌ„ for you And to the name of the cup the which is shed for you Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was prouided of God for a maruelouse declaration and setting foorth of the reall blood of Christ made within it For whereas the new preachers bid vs list our mindes to heauen to receaue yâ— blood of Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding as though it were not present at Christes own table the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise prouided that the words of Christ should not only be reported This is my blood of the new testameÌ„t as S. Mathew S. Mark write but also as S. Luke S. Paul haue penned theÌ„ this chalice is the new testament in my blood this cahlice that is to say the thing câ—…nteyned in this chalice to the intent we should be sure that the said blood was euen within the compasse of this chalice and not only apprehended by saith and spirit so that euen the word chalice although by exact accompt of grammer it stand figuratiuely yet by common vse it signifieth the liquour in it and that liquour is expresly named the blood of Christ and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice ¶ That the words of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper VUhy these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood can not be like the other where Christ is sayd to be the dore the way the true viue and Iohn Baptist to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ it shal be more particularly declared in the last chapiter of the booke Nowe it shall suffise to say that they were neuer taken to meane as they seme to stand therefore the general consent of al Christians taking them for figuratiue is an euident cause why they must be confessed to be figuratiue And that vninersail consent is of more importance then the proper signification of the words But on the other syde yâ— words of Christ in his last supper haue not only no such vniuersal iudgement and consent against them but rather they always haue bene taken to be meant of the presence of his own body blood accordingly as they doe sound Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like yâ— which Christ sayd in his supper This is my body For partly they do name two seueral natures as Thâ—… Baptist Elias wheras these words this is my body name but one partly they speake not of any certeine thing as Christes body or if they doe so yet they point not to it as to a thing present A dore and the doore is not this dore this doth expresse a great deale more theÌ„ a or the. A dore is meant generally of any dore the dore of a certein dore spoken of before but this dore pointeth preseÌ„tly to yâ— dore whereof he speaketh Christes wordes were directed to one thing only which is made shewed together when yâ— Godhead maketh yâ— which by his maÌ„hod he pointeth to saying this is my body so that in dede in al scripture there is no like speach to that which Christ vsed in his last supper much lesse any like is figuratiue and least of all that it selfe can be proued figuratiue while it is compared with other speaches Let all the Sacramentaries shew where that proposition is figuratiue whiche first instituteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same saying this is this or this is that as it is sayd this is my body and this is my blood For whereas it is sayd in Ezechiel this Hierusalem it is nothing like because it was sayd rather by the occasion of expounding a parable then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said this is Hierusalem But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chefe Sacrament said of that whiche was in his hands this is my body What ignorance then is it to say these words be vnproper because other words from which they differ be vnproper ¶ It is shewed by the circumstaÌ„ces of Christes supper that he made his reall flesh and blood present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper NExt vnto the proper signification and common sense of speaking the circumstances of the talke are to be considered of which kinde of handling matters belonging to diuinitie S. Augustine geueth vs a lerned rule writing thus Solet circumstantia illuminare sententiaÌ„ cum ea quae circa scripturam sunt praesentem quaestionem contingeÌ„tia diligenti discussione tractantur The circumstance of yâ— scripture is wonte to geue light to the meaning thereof when those thinges which are about the scripture to wit which goe before and folowe after concerning that which is presentlie in question are diligentlie examined by this rule we haue nowe to consyder about the supper of Christ and about the meaninge of dedes wordes there in who spake or did when where to whome vppon what occasion how and in what maner what were the words for what cause to what effecte or purpose he spake or did with suche like respectes For I wil at this tyme so examine the last supper to proue thereby the reall prensence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine that I will shew euery part thereof whether it consiste in dede or in worde to helpe much rather then to hinder any thinge the catholike belefe of the sayd reall presence and consequentlie that no reason at all should either sufficientlie or meanly moue any man to thinke the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue or vnproper and truly whether the wordes be proper the body and blood which they signifie as present must nedes be present or els whether the body and blood be proued present yâ— wordes which signifie so much must nedes be proper ¶ The first circumstance of Christes last supper is to consyder who made it THe maker of the supper is almightie as being the naturall sonne of God so that no man may discredit his wordes for lacke of power to bring them to passe The same Sonne of God was sent of his Father to take mans flesh to th' end he might in that flesh bring vs the euerlasting meate of the diuine substance Neither came he in flesh to bring vs the meate of his Godhead in faith and spirit only for so the Godhed was eaten â—…y Abraham Moyses Dauid and other 〈◊〉 men 〈◊〉 not so plentifully before the incarnation of Christ but Christ â—…me not only to make vs beleue the better in God but also to make our weake bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhed by a better and higher meane then by our faith alone â—…or our faith is receaued in measure but the
play with Gods word to elude the scriptures and to destroy the whole writen Gospell ¶ What the new Testament is whereof the holy Scripture speaketh FOr as much as in consecrating of the blood S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule make mention of the new Testament it is necessarie for the vnderstanding of the circumstances which folow â–ª to declare what the new TestameÌ„t is A Testament is the solemne ordeining of a thing by words which is wont to be confirmed by naturall or violeut death For neither the last will of any man is of strength and force vntil the testatour dye Nor any truse or 〈◊〉 is perfit vntil it be dedicated with sacrifice wherein some liuing creature is wont to be offered vnto God bloodily Of Testaments one is old an other new For it was of old tyme couenanted with the Iewes that in case they kept the law of Moyses they should haue a temporall inheritance for keping it Christ made a new truse that if we kept his law we should haue forgeuenes of synnes and enioye the euerlasting inheritaÌ„ce of God The old truse was dedicated as S. Paule speaketh by the blood of calues or oxen which were offered for the confirmation thereof The new truse is dedicated by Christes own blood which was shed for the confirmation of his new law and promise The blood of the old truse was put into basâ—…s and so sprinckled with hysope vpon the people The blood of the new truse is put into a cup or chalice and thence it is drunk by the people of God They that kept the old truse enioyed the land of promise and they that kepe the new truse enioye the kingdom of heauen Now because there are many things requisite to a TestameÌ„t first a law couenant or promise next a bloodshedding to confirm the promise thirdly an application of the blood that was shed for to be as a witnesse and a remembrance to all them who bound them selues to kepe the conditions agreed vpon it may so be that either all these things or some one of them alone may be called the new Testament When God sayeth by Jeremie consummabo Testamentum nouum he meaneth all together For he will as well publish his true law as confirm it by blood and distribute the blood wherewith it is confirmed to the faithfull when Christ sayeth This is my blood of the new Testament he meaneth the first part of the new Testament which is the law and promise it self of forgeuing syâ—…s And therefore it foloweth the which shal be shed for many for the remission oâ—… synnes In which words he sheweth how this is the blood of the new Testament Uerily because it is the blood which shall obtein and merite the forgeuenesse of those synnes which the new law promiseth to take away â—…e called it sayth S. Chrysostom the blood of yâ— promise of yâ— new law And again Testamentum nouum hoc ipso confirmatur The new Testament is confirmed with this very blood Tertullian sayeth of Chrâ—… Testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum He establisheth the Testament that is to say the law sealed with his own blood But when S. Luke and S. Paule report Christ to haue said This cup is the new Testament in my blood they seme to take the word Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirm the new Testament or witnesse it to be confirmed and not properly for the new truse and promise thereof For this that is in the chalice is not the promise of remitting synnes but it is the new Testament in Christes blood that is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the new law or that witnâ—…h it to be confirmed So doth Sedulius very well expound the words of S. Paule saying Ideo autem calix Testamentum vocatur for so I think the true reading to be and not Testamenti quia testatus est pòst paululum passionem futuram nunc testificatur factam The chalice is therefore called the new Testament because it did beare witnesse at Christes supper that the passion should be a litle after and now it doth beare witnesse that yâ— passion is made or done Thus we see that whereas a Testament hath a law a confirmation and a witnesse of the confirmation the blood of Christ is not the law it self but it is both the thing which confirmed the law and the thing which doth witnesse it to be confirmed The which if it be well remembred I trust the circumstances of greatest importance whereof I shall speake hereafter wil be the better vnderstanded ¶ The. xxiiij circumstance of the blood of the new Testament THis is my blood of the new Testament sayth Christ that is to say the blood wherewith the new Testament is con firmed and sealed as S. Chrysostom Tertullian Theophilact and the other auncient Fathers declare But the blood of Christes new Testament was reall and true Therefore this which Christ doth point vnto is the true reall blood of Christ and not the substance of wine which the Sacramentaries imagine to be a figure of this blood And so consâ—… the words this is the sigue of my blood of the new Testament But their interpretation is proued false by conferring the old Testament with the new For as the old Testament had none other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde yâ— self same blood of the calues which was shed to confirm the old couenant so much more the new Testament must haue noâ—…e other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde the self same blood of Christ which was shed to confirm the new law For if it be a perfection not only to haue the truâ—…e and law confirmed by blood but also to haue the confirmation thereof witnessed by sprinkling yâ— blood which was shed vpon the people it is not possible that the old law should in that point passe the new For as S. Chrysostom sayth the figure neither is cleane different from the truth yet if it kepe the condition of a shadow minor erat veritate it was lesse then the truth And yet the basin of calues blood were more then the truth if the substance of common wine were set to shew that the new truse is confirmed Again S. Paule and S. Luke so euidently expound these very words by reciting them otherwise that no reasonable man coÌ„â—…ing the words together will say that in these words blood may stand for a figure of blood They write thus Hic calix nouum Testamentum est in meo sanguine This cup is the new Testament in my blood but the new TestameÌ„t is not in the figure of Christes blood but in his true blood Therefore the name of blood which Christ vsed in consecrating the liquor in the chalice is not vsed figuratiuely For the same blood whereof S. Matthew S. Mark do speak is also meant of S. Luke and
of S. Paule but as S. Paule and S. Luke take the noun blood it can not possibly be taken figuratiuely â–ª except any man wil be so desperate as to say that the â—…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood or in the substance of common wine Which if it were so we are in worse case then the Patriarâ—…hes and Iewes who at the least had true blood to coÌ„firm their temporall truses Testaments and promises as it may be seâ—…e both in Genesis Exodus although it were the blood of beastes it must nedes be that the heaueuly things them selues be cleansed with better sacrifices saith S. Paule If then the name of blood being put in these words this cup is the new testament in my blood be taken for the substance of Christes blood which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paule speaketh without al question in these wordes this is my blood of the new testament it stondeth likewise for the substance of Christes blood It is one supper one Sacrament one parte of the supper and one part of the Sacrament yea one self same thing whereof all foure do speake If new do answere to new testament to testament this to this is to is how can it be that blood should not answer to blood But this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood can not be meant in yâ— figure of my blood least yâ— signe of blood and not the truthe thereof be that which establisheth the new truse therefore in these words this is the blood of the new testament the noune blood standeth not for a figure and signe of blood but for the real substance thereof ¶ The xxv Circumstance of these words this cup or chalice AS euery Apostle or Euangelist wrote later then other so he made the supper of Christ more plain geuing vs euidently to vnderstand that the words of Christes supper are so far of from figuratiue speaches that rather the propriety of them is by all meanes fortified I haue shewed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whyt why all yâ— rest of Christes words may not be proper and literally true but now I affirm also that it increaseth much the reason of their pro prietie Why so Because the cup is named to shew the maner of fulfilling of the old figures In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crateras into great cups or basins and so the people were sprinkled therewithall Now to bring the Apostles and all vs in mind thereof Christ nameth the cup or chalice Declaring thereby that his own blood is now to vs as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel His in the chalice as the blood of oxen was in the basiâ—…s His presently drunk as that other was presently sprinkled Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix caet There was a cup or chalice sayth S. Chrysostom of the old Testament and sacrifices and the blood of brute beasts For after sacrifice the blood being taken in a chalice and cup they made after that sort libations or offerings of that which was liquide and renning CuÌ„ igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset ne quis his auditis perturbaretur illius veteris sacrificij meminit Seing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stede of the blood of brute beasts least any man hearing of these things should be troubled he maketh mentioÌ„ of the old sacrifice Decumenius also writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem Et bene in poculo vt ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse Our Lord geueth his own blood in stede of the blood of vnreasonable creatures And he doth well to geue it in a cup to shew that the old Testament did shadow this thing before Behold why the cup is mentioned Uerily to shew Christes blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper as euer the bruâ—…e beastes blood was in the cup of the old testament yea much more also For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup to shew that Christes blood should be really present in the cup of his supper the old blood did not shew that wine should be in Christes cup for that had bene lesse then the old testameÌ„t it self because the blood of oxen is better then wine of the grape but that blood in the basin did signifie that Christes blood should be in our chalice not only as in a figure for so it was in the basin also of the old testament but euen in very dede vnder the forme of wine It is not now sufficient to say we drink Christes blood in hart or by faith it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christes supper thence the hart must take it at Christes supper thence it must be receaued both in faith and truthe ¶ The xxvi Circumstance of the verb est left out in S. Lukes words IT is the custome of writers in the Hebrew tonge to leaue out many tymes the verb sum es fui which is latin to be and that because common sense and vse doth easily teache vs to supply that verb as being both most necessarie of al other and most frequent in common speache S. Luke writeth thus This cuâ—… is the new testament in my blood shed for you this sentence is imperfit for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together I ask what verb we shal vnderstand to make it perfit The Sacramontaries say that Christ meaneth this cup doth signifie the new testament in my blood will ye then vnderstand the verb significat doth signifie if ye do so I wil shew that as well the noun cup as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testamentum are both put in the nominatiue case but if S. Luke had meant to vnderstand the verb significat he wold haue put one of them in the accusatiue case If ye supply the verb est is to make the sentence perfit that verb must nedes be takeÌ„ in the same sense wherein it is wont to be supplied but it is coÌ„monly supplied as a coÌ„mon verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing which is spoken of therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise what a folly were it wheÌ„ a verb is at the first left out to call it of purpose into the speache and as sone as it is placed there to say it staÌ„deth not properly but to remoue it again put an other verb for it What was the verb est being once left out brought in for this intent only yâ— as sone as it was in his place it should be immediatly cast out chaÌ„ged into the verb significat If ye say ye were compelled to cal it in I agree with you and say further ye are
to blame to cast it out For the holy Ghost would not haue compelled you in vaine to call it in God meant ye should cal it in and kepe it in For in that he left it out he would shew to your hard harts how that verbe which when ye had it present in other Euangelists ye disdanied and scortiefully remoued that it was not only well placed but it was so necessary to the meaning of his words yâ— wheÌ„ it was left out ye should be forced to cal it in And wil ye be so forgetful as not to note these secret inforcements of God Know ye not that one iota or one title of the law and much lesse of the Gospel passeth not away vntill all things be fulfilled And yet dare you take away the verbe substaÌ„tiue it self from Christes own words the same verb I say which he coÌ„pelled you to take in when it was omitted by S. Luke See how farre Christ is from your mind when it is but once left out he will haue it euen then put in and when it is expressed in the words of Christes supper seuen tymes you will euery tyme put it out It is the custome of the Hebrew tonge to leaue out the verbe substaÌ„tiue sum es fui when it signifieth properly But how is it left out when if you say true it was neuer meant to be in Or how was it meant to be in when being put in it is by you remoued as not meant properly by him that spake And yet it is so necessarily meant to be put in Christes words that when it is left out the Sacramentaries can not chose but supply it and put it in therefore Christ meant to haue it stand in his proper and vsual signification For seing the verbe est is vsed to be left out because it may easily be supplied and may be taken as expressed though it be not expressed in deede then the vse which maketh it to be leaft out as a verbe easily supplied must by the same reason make it signifie that thing which it vseth commonly to signifie sith it is supplied by the only force of the vse of speaking and surely the vse of the verbe est is to signifie the substance of that noune substantiue which hath a peculiar substance and consequently in the words of Christes supper it must signifie the substance of his body and of his blood really present ¶ The xxvij Circumstance of these words whiche is shed for you THis cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood saith S. Luke whiche is or shal be shed for you The relatiue which in these words is not ruled as some perhaps would thinke of the noune blood which went last before but of the noune cup or chalice Which thing is most plain in the Greke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo quod pro vobis effunditur This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood the whiche cup is shed for you For seing the Greke participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth shedding is in the nominatiue case with the noune cup and not in the datiue with the noune blood no escape can be had but it muâ—…t be referred to that word wherewith in grammer it may agree otherwise if we shall neglect the literal sense which ariseth of the right construction of the words we build a roofe as I alleged before out of S. Hierâ—…m without walles or foundation What meaning then haue these words the whiche cup is shed for you or as the latine copies reade which shal be shed For it was both presently shed in a mystery at the holy table of Christ should the next day be naturally shed vpon the crosse The substance of blood was one in both places the maner of shedding only differing But as I sayd how is the cup sayd to be shed for vs The word for vs importeth a sacrifice made in the shedding and therefore S. Mathew sheweth it to be shed in redeÌ„ptionem peccatorum for the remission of synnes Marke good Reader the maner of speaking the cup is shed â–ª that is to say the thing contemed in the cup. For we all agree herein that the name of cup standeth to meane the liquour in it as continens is vsed to be put pro contento the thing which holdeth a liquour is vsed to be put for the liquour it selfe which it holdeth We say he dranke vp a great bolle who drank the ale bere or wine that was in it and that is a figuratiue speach by exacte rules of Grammar but a speach made as proper through vse and custome Therefore to say the cup is shed for vs doth signifie that the liquour in it is shed for vs what liquour was that It is the greatest marâ—…eyle in the world if any man be so impudent as to affirme that material wine was shed for vs or that wine obteined vs remission of oúr synnes and yet it can not be denied but the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper was shed for vs as Christ sayth Therefore I say the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper could be no wine but only the blood of Christ. Is this a plaine argument or no the liquour in the cup of Christes banket was shed for vs to obtein the forgeuenes of synnes but only the reall blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our synnes therefore the only real blood of Chist was conteined in the cup of Christes banket What answer can be framed to this argument if Hell were let loose what probable solutioÌ„ were it able to bring The first part is in S. Luke the second is in S. Paule who affirmeth it to be the blood of Christ who offered him self by the holy spirit vnspâ—…d vnto God which cleanseth our coÌ„science froÌ„ dead works to serue the liuing God After these two partes the conclusion 〈◊〉 solow that Christes real blood is in the cup of Christes supper in the cup I say which Christ shewed pointed vnto saying this cup that is to say the thing herein conteined is the new Testament in my blood the which thing conâ—…eiued in the cup is shed for you Euthymius wel peceauing this to be yâ— meaning of S. Lukes wordes writteth thus Quod verò dicitur quod pro vobis effunditur ad poculum referendum est porrô poculum est saguis eius Whereas it is sayd the which is shed for you it is to be referred vnto the cup. Now the cup is Christes blood God grauÌ„t our deceaued bretheren may once perceaue this Grammaticâ—…ll literall senâ—…e of Christes wordes ¶ The last circumstance of the Hymne sayd at Christes supper WHen Christ had ended his banket he renounced to â—…ate or drinke any more with his Apostles vntil the kiâ—…gdom of God came geuing theÌ„ an euident watch-word therein that he would presently offer him self to death and so depart from this world vntill he should
arise the third day And straight he sang an hymne and with his Apostles went forth of the parler where they had supped Although the hymne or song of praise whereof S. Mathew speaketh doe not alone proue the real presence of Christâ—…s body and blood yet it helpeth thus far toward it as to shew and expresse a singular banket to haue bene made after which so rare and solemne a praise was geueÌ„ to God as again is no where els mentioned For albeit no man may doubt but Chist did always geue thanks vnto God after his meate receaued yet we neuer reade of an hymâ—…e sayd or song after any other Feast besyde this And yet I doubt nothing atall but that Christ gaue him self by faith and spirit euen at the supper tyme to some of his Disciples before this night and namely to the blessed Mary which at Bethaâ—…y oynted his feete at supper tyme. but that geuing of him self to Sainâ—…t Mâ—…ry or any other to be eaten of by faith was not this dreâ—…ful giâ—…t of Christs supper The hymne which was externally song or said was â—…ue to this externall worke of God wherein he witâ—… 〈◊〉 own hands gaue his own body and blood to his disciples To conclude at the length coÌ„cerning all these circumstances of this heauenly supper I besech the Reader to accompt weighe them all together and not only to consyder them a part albeit many of them alone are not able to be answered but a circumstance is not a perfit thing of it self but is a part of that whole thing about the which it hath his being and place If all these circumstances ioyned together doe proue the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— formes of that bread and wine which Christ toke and sayd thereof this is my body and this is my blood I haue my purpose and intent but he dealeth vnhonestly who diuiding them a part cauilleth at one or two and wil not looke to al at once If al these ioyned together proue not my purpose let him who thinketh so either shew me so many so strong for his contrary assertion or let him yeld to yâ— Catholiâ—… faith ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken ouâ—… of the new Testament and speaking of our â—…ords supper EUery place in holy scripture hath not another place like or in apparance coÌ„trarie to it whereby the more light may be taken for the vnderstanding thereof but when there are any such places they helpe marueilously toward the vnderstanding of holy scripture Christ one yere before his last supper said at Capharnaâ—… The bread whiche I will geue is my flesh my flâ—…sh is meat in dede At his supper he toke bread and hauing blessed said Take eate this is my body and this cup is the new Testament in my blood S. 〈◊〉 speaking of the self same mysterie wryteth thus The chalice of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of Christes blood And the bread which we breake is it not the com municating of the body of our Lord Let vs now conferre euery word together That whiche was promised in S. Iohn by these wordes The bread whiche I will geue is discribed in the supper presently by these words Take eate this and this cup. not that I make this the accusatiue case to the verbe eate but only to shew that these three wordes agree with the first words in S. Ihon. And afterward in S. Paule it is called The bread which we breake so that these foure particles belong in effect to one thing The bread whiche I will geue The bread whiche we breake and take eate this or drinke ye this cup. By which conference we learne how the pronoune this may be particularly expounded in Christes supper for of his generall signification whiche is to shew vnder a visible form an inuisible substance I haue spoken before sufficiently This then is as much to say as this meat drink or food which is now broken and geueÌ„ and willed to be taken and eaten or drunken is my body or blood It hath bene euidently proued vppon the sixt of S. Ihon that yâ— bread which he promised was not meant of wheateÌ„ bread whereof Christ spake not in yâ— place but of the meate and foode of euerlasting life Therefore when Christ sayth this in his last supper he meaneth none otherwise then this eatable thing or this which is to be drunken this kind of meate or drinke and food which I nâ—…w geue is my body or bloâ—…d otherwise iâ—… it were not his flesh and blood but material bread and wine it were not the euerlasting meate which Christ at Caphaâ—…namn promised to geue and now at his supper doth geue So that whereas Christ both brake and gaue after blessing said take eate this therewith beginning to consecrate the Sacrament of his last supper we haue it expounded what this doth 〈◊〉 by three 〈◊〉 ways by the tyme to come when it is sayd the breaâ—… that I wil geue â—…hich out of question is vnderstanded the food 〈◊〉 Christ wil geue For Christ him self called it before the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting Agayne the pronoune this may be wel expounded by the dede exercysed about the Sacrament after cousâ—…ration when it is sayd of S. Paule The bread which we breake for the breaking is vsed after consecration in the signe and form of bread to shew the death of Christ wherein his flesh was in dede broken and to distribute the mâ—…rites thereof by the holy communion The third way is by conferring together the very words of the consecrating the two kinds For as he said of the bread this alone so he sayd of the wine this cup. geuing vs to vnderstand that as this cup must of necessity be resolued into yâ— thing within the cup so in the other kind we should resolue the pronoune this into that which is within this visible form Thereby declaring that this generally meaneth the substance vnder this and particularly meaneth the food vnder this All is in effecte to say The meate that I will geue the eatable thing that we breake at Masse that whereof Christ sayd take and eate that which is conteyned vnder the apparant formes that is it which in the supper is termed by the pronounâ—… â—…his The next word is the verbe is which can very hardly be expounded by any other word in any tonge because it being the verbe substaâ—… is in all tonges set alone to signifie yâ— being or substaÌ„ce that euery thing hath and no other one word is equal to it which may expound it Yet I may boldly say the holy Ghost hath done so much to expound this verbe as may suffise to any reasonable creature For Christ sayd before any signe of his body was 〈◊〉 The bread
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
about the Lambe The mysterie we speake of taketh not away any truth from the thing but sheweth the maner of the doing to be spirituall For the offering is made without slaughter the rosting without operation of sensible fier the eating without coÌ„suming of the meat the sprinkling without diuision or losse of the blood But as the incarnation being wrought without the seede of man did not cause the 〈◊〉 of Christ to be the lesse true euen so the inuisible changing of the substance of bread and wine into his body and blood the vnbloody offering the Sacramental eating and drinking doth rather shew to all faithfull people the worker of so high a mysterie to be true God then any whyâ—… hinder the reall presenâ—… of his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The Prophecie and figure of Manna GOd sayd to Moyses Behold I wil raine bread to thee froÌ„ heauen Christ sayd worke the meate abyding to life euerlasting which the Sonne of man will geue you This is the bread which came downe from heauen And the bread which I will geue is my flesh for the life of the world The Israelits said Manhu What is this For they knew not what is was The Capharnaits striued saying How can this man geue vs his flesh to eate Moyses pointing to Manna sayth This is the bread which our Lord hath geuen you to eate Christ pointing to that true Manna coming down from heauen which him self made sayeth Take and eate this is my body which is geuen for you Moyses sayd this and Christ this Moyses sayd is Christ is Moyses the bread Christ my body Moyses which our Lord hath geuen Christ our Lord sayth which is geuen Moyses to you Christ for you Moyses to eate Christ sayd take and eate The bread which Moyses shewed was not the substance of wheaten bread but heauenly Neither the bread which Christ geueth is the substance of wheaten bread but the true bread which by the mysterie of the incarnation came from heauen The bread which Moyses shewed was made by Angels of such earthly stuffe and vapours as they found in the â—…ppermost part of the ayer And the bread of Christ was made by the Angell of great Councel of such earthly stuffe as he found vppon the table of the Paschall Lambe which was bread and wine willing also his Priestes who are his Angels in earth to doe and make the same The bread which Moyses shewed was truly eaten of the Israelites within the cumpasse of that white and cleare dew which they gathered And how much more is the body of Christ eaten of the Apostles and of other Christians within the cumpasse of yâ— forme of bread which they receaue from the altar of God The bread whereof Moyses him self bearing but a figure of the truth at this tyme spake was a signe not the truth The bread which Christ being the truth it self geueth is both a signe the truth The bread which Moyses shewed was perfect in his own nature before the Israelites did eate it Euen so the meate which Christ geueth is perfect in the Sacrament it self vnder the forme of bread before we do 〈◊〉 it whether more or lesse were gathered of Manna oue measure was always found in the ende to signifie that sith whole Christ is vnder euery part of yâ— forme of bread whether you take a greater peece of the forme or a lesse euer the same substance of Christes body is wholy receaued of euery Communicant Neither is it sufficient to fulfil this figure if we say that euery man hath the vertue and grace of Christes body geuen him by faith and spirit for the measure of that grace is as S. Paule teacheth diuers in diuers men according to the measure that Christ geueth it in Some haue greater giftes and some lesse and no one member is the whole body But Manna was in one measure to all men Euen so the substaÌ„ce of Christes body vnder the forme of bread is geuen to all that receaue the sayd forme in one measure and equally concerning the body it self For euery man receaueth the whole As wel the good men as the 〈◊〉 did eate Manna But the euill did eate with 〈◊〉 but to the good it gaue the taste of all swetenes Right so yâ— body and blood of Christ which is vnder the forme of bread and wine is as really taken of the euill as of the iust But they take it to their damnation these to their saluation He that marketh these comparisons shall easily perceaue that the holy Ghost both by the figure and by the truth condemneth their false doctrine who teache the reall body of Christ not to be geuen vnder the forme of bread and wine after consecration is once made ¶ The figure of the old Testament MOyses hauing offered oxen to God powred one halfe of the blood vpon the altar the other halfe he powred into basins And after he had readen the booke of 〈◊〉 betwene God and the Israelites and the people had promised to kepe the conditions thereof he sprinkled them with the blood saying This is the blood of the Testament which our Lord vpon all this talke hath made with you Christ intending to offer him self vnto his Father and certaine yeres before publishing to his people the conditions of his new Testament at the last in his supper he geueth his own blood the very same blood which con firmeth the new agreemeÌ„t made with vs And in stede of â—…ling vs with it he toke the chalice and gaue thanks and gaue to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which shal be shed for many for the remission of synnes The figure and the truth answer maruelously as they may finde who will conferre the partes It is sufficient at this tyme to note that as the blood of the old Testament was in the 〈◊〉 or cup really whence it was sprinkled so the blood of Christ which is the blood of the new Testament is really in the chalice whence it is receaued As the noune blood in the old Testament which is but a figure of the new yet was not taken figuratiuely but properly for true naturall blood so much more the noune blood in Christes words which appertein to the new Testament it self may not be taken tropically but euen as the word most literally doth sound As the substance of blood which Moyses spake of was shewed vnder the accidents of the naturall blood of calues so the substance of the blood whereof Christ spake was shewed vnder the accidents of wine For as Iacob had Prophecied Christ wasshed his garments and cote in wine because he tooke the â—…orme of wine to couer his owne humane nature which was his garment in respect of his Godhead as S. Paule sayeth Habitu inueÌ„tus vt homo Found in his apparell as man ¶ The prophecit and figure
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuen froÌ„ the signification of his noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body You supply in S. Luks Greeke words the verbe est is by common vse when you haue it present you cast it out again or expound it not according to yâ— common vse of speaking which forced you to supply it but according to an vnproper meaning very sildom vsed not vnderstanded of any meane lerned man You teache by necessarie ineuitable sequele of your doctrine a figure of Christes body that is to say material bread to be sacri ficed for vs. You teache the wine to be in the cup and yet Christ saith the cup to wit that which is in the cup to be shed for vs. You diuide the noune substautine from his genitine case sanguis from testamenti vitae from panis you cut of the article you mysseÌ„glish many things as I haue noted before These be faults into which a Grammarian should not fal yet you are so blind that you see them not For so I rather think of you theÌ„ that you of purpose chose to be Heretiks and to be damned persons What might a man doe to bring you home You wrote not passing twenty lines together of this blessed Sacrament in this place and yet sâ—… into what grosse 〈◊〉 you be fallen If your whole booke were so particularly skanned euery leafe is full of such like faults But because it wold passe all measure of writing if in a great volume euery line should be thus staid vpon therefore al things euery where be not nor can not be so particularly examined but surely all be as fond as vayne as false To returne to my chefe purpose Christ is yâ— bread of life according to his Godhead and manhod and is to be eaten of by faith as it is often times said in S. 〈◊〉 But he is also to be eaten iâ—… his humane fleshe and to be drunken in the substance of his naturall blood not onlie by faith but verè trulie â–ª that is to saie he is to be taken at the mouth and so cometh to oure hartes and mindes which is the waâ—… of eating him at his last supper The which way by that meane of eating fulfilleth the figure MaÌ„na In respect whereof Christ calleth him self not dead food as yâ— was but the liuing bread not without power to quicken as that was 〈◊〉 the bread of life which can geue life to him that worthily 〈◊〉 it Not a 〈◊〉 breade as Manna was but the true bread â–ª not geuen from the 〈◊〉 as Manna but from heauen and the bread sayth Christ which I wil geue is my flesh This bread of life M. Nowel is the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man promised to geue and at his supper he doth geue it euen as he is the sonne of man to wit by the instrument of his manhod verily by his own handes and by his corporall deliuery made to the twelue at his last supper The preface of the fift Booke ALmighty God knowing the reall presence of his Sonnes flesh vnder the forme of bread to be a thing so farre aboue the whole course of nature that no vnderstanding of man was able to atteine vnto it did at the least so fortifie the same by his holy wordes put in writing and by the continuall practise of the Church that who so listeth to beleue may haue more then sufficient grâ—…nd to bâ—…ld his faith vpon That I may now omitte other proâ—…es how plainly doth S. Paul speake in this matter whose words are the more earnestly to be weighed for so much as S. Augustine a man much â—…nuersant in the Epistles of this chosen 〈◊〉 affirmeth him to dispute according to the Apostolike maner more plainly Et magis proprie quam figurate 〈◊〉 qui and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely Which thing I wish the Reader to haue always in his minde depely consydering that if Chrâ—…s body 〈◊〉 not really present â—…o 〈◊〉 hath spoâ—… more â—…ely 〈◊〉 S. Paul be â–ª cause he alone hath writen more of the last 〈◊〉 it selfe then any other holy writer But 〈◊〉 he vseth for the most part to speake properly we must not in this myâ—…y alone take his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chapiters of the fyfth Booke 1. The reall presence of Christe is proued by the blessing of the cup of his blood 2. Item by the name of breaking and communicating 3. Item by the one bread which maketh vs all one body 4. Item by the conference of al those wordes together 5. It is shewed how vve are one body in Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the like example vvhiche S. Paule vsed concerning the Ievves and Gentils 7. Item by the kind of shewing Christes death 8. Item because euill men eate this bread vnvvorthelie 9. Item because euill men are gilty of Christes body and blood by eating and drinking it 10. Item because they discerne it not in their doings from other meates 11. Item because no figure can make a man gilty of Christes body vvithout speciall conempt except it be the truth and the figure together 12. Last of al the real presence is confirmed by the frequent repetition of the body and blood of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christes blood where of S. Paule speaketh S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians of the Sacrament of the altar in this manner The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of the blood of Christ as though he sayd there is no doubt but that the chalice which we blesse maketh vs partake the blood of Christ. This aduantage we haue by conference of those holy scriptures whiche speake of one matter that one place geueth light to the other S. Mathewe reherseth how Christ taking the chalice said This is my blood of the new testament S. Luke sheweth that he said This chalice is the new testament in my blood S. Paule addeth thereunto The chalice of blessing which we blesse is the communicating of Christes blood A blessing in holy scripture is either a praising of a thing or it is the geuing of a benefite thereunto It is certaine that the chalice as long as it hath nothing but wine in it can not deserue any praise because a thig without life is not apt to receaue praise It remaineth then to 〈◊〉 what benefite is bestowed vppon the liquour in the chalice The Sacramentaries wil say that it is made holy wine of coÌ„mon wine and sanctified bread of common bread which sanctisying is a blessed action and by that holy signification wherevnto it is apointed a certaine holines is geuen to it which may be called a blessing This were very wel said if it had bene only said generally of yâ— chalice that it is the chalice of blessing which we blesse but the blessing that S.
his mysteries to naked names shall enioye his glorie no more really then they allow him a reall truth in his blessed Sacraments ¶ The reall presence is proued by the example which S. Paule vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentils SAint Paule intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentils at their false and vaine sacrifices vseth in that behalf this kind of argument Whosoeuer doth eate or drink that which is offered vp in sacrifice he is made one with the oblation it self and with it to whome the things eaten and drunken are offered This proposition he proueth by example of the ChristiaÌ„s who by partaking of the bread which we breake and of the chalice which we blesse which are the communicating of Christes body and blood are made one bread one body because they partake all of the one bread The like is sene also in the carnall Iewes among whom they that eate the oblations or things offered thereby were partakers of the altar to wit of the sacrifice and of the worshipping of God to whom it was offered Therefore if the Corinthians wold also partake of the meate offered to ydols it must follow that they should be partakers of the ydolatrie For although the dead ydoll be no true God nor any thing at all wherewith they may communicate yet a societie is ioyned thereby with the deuils who reigne in those ydols Therefore as ydolatry it self so the eating of the meates offered to ydols is to be auoided Out of this discourse it is proued that the Christians Iewes Gentils eche of them haue a God true or false eche of them offereth an externall sacrifice to him eche of them vse to partake of the things offered and eche of them communicated among them selues The meat offered and eaten of the Iewes was the flesh of such cleane beasts or such other oblations as were allowed by yâ— lawe of Moyses The meate offered and eaten of the Gentils was such as their superstition had receaued To one ydol a shepe was offered to another an oxe The meate offered and eaten of the Christians is described of S. Paule to be the bread which we breake which is the communicating of Christes body and the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the communicating â—…f Christes blood The vnitie rising thereof is to be one bread one body because all partake of the one bread Uppon which ground it may be wel built that the meate partaken at Christes supper is the body and blood of Christ wherein we passe and ouercome the Iewes Gentils who had other earthly oblations but none of them had this foode which came down from heauen For as S. Paul sayeth We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle But surely they might eate bread and wine who serued the tabernacle therefore the meate of Christes supper is not bread and wine but the bread of life and the blood of Christ. And whereas the Iewes had certeyn obseruancies of eating this and of leauing that meate or that the Leuits should eate this and the Priest that and the laye people an other meate S. Paule counselleth them to stablish their hart with grace and not so carefully to obserue the old law which commaunded so many differences of meate How beit if it be a good thing to haue some meates reserued for the Priests which the common people may not eate as the Iewes think then sayeth S. Paule we Christians also haue an altar to wit a thing offered vnto God and that so preciouse that the very Priests and Bisshops who serue in the tabernacle may not eate thereof That meate is as Theodorite sayth Hostia rationalis diuina A reasonable and diuine sacrifice as Sedulius writeth yâ— altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ as Theophtlact witnesseth the vnbloody sacrifice of the body which quickeneth This then being the meate of our altar it foloweth that this meate is no lesse present vppon his holy table then that which the Iewes or ydolatours did eate was present at their sacrifices But that which they did partake was really present anâ—… receaued into their mouthes therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present and is receaued into our mouthes The meate of the Iewes and of the Gentils was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof therefore we likewise are made one naturall flesh with the meate of Christes tabâ—…e But herein is the oddes that their meat was turned into their flesh because it was weaker then their own nature but our flesh is turned without losse of his owne substance or proprietie into the nature of Christes flesh because it being the flesh which is dwelt in by the Godhead is stronger then our nature Again as the Iewes and Gentils by eating meates offered vp are made one body among them selues by coÌ„formitie of wil and mind alone because the meate was not able to tary in his own nature and to draw them vnto it so contrariwise we that eate Christes body are made really one flesh with Christ amoÌ„g our selues because as S. Cyrill declareth Christ suffereth him self to be no more diuided but kâ—…ping his owne flesh whole he gathereth all vs into it And seing we all that eate Christ are made naturally one with Christ we are also one among our selues For they who are one in any third are withall one among them selues Thus the meate of Christes table hath more truth in it then the meate of the Iewes or Gentils had according to the Catholike doctrine ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kind of shewing Christes death QVotiescunque manducabitis paneÌ„ hunc calicem hunc bibetis mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat How often so euer ye shall eate this bread and shall drinke this chalice ye shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Shewing may be either in word alone or in dede alone or in both together S. Paul speaketh in this place of that shewing which is by dede alone for eating and drinking is a kind of doing But not the eating of euery bread and the drinking of tuery chalice doth shew Christes death except it be this bread eaten that chalice drunken whereof S. Paule had sayd in Christes person a litle before This is my body which is broken for you and this cup is the new Testament in my blood The eating and drinking of â—… sacriâ—…iced body and blood doth euidently shew the death thereof as the which should not be eaten and drunken if it were not already consecrated by death vnto God For who doth eate the flâ—…sh of any creature whiles it yet liueth and hath blood in it Or how can blood be drunken in a cup if it be yet in the veines of the body The nature of the fact is such that it presupposeth the immolation and sacrifice and
Augustine when he sayeth He will not geue his body in that maner as you thinke As who should say he will geue it one way but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine He will not geue a shoulder to one and a leg to an other But the supper sheweth the maner of the geuing Where bread was taken and after blessing and the words pronounced Christes body was geuen to the mouthes of the Apostles Iuel This is the table for Egles and not for Iayes sayth Chrysostom San. I haue answered your iangling talk of Iayes in my iâ—… booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter And haue turâ—…ed it vppon your own head Iuel S. 〈◊〉 let vs goe vp with the Lord into heauen into that greatparlar and receaue of him aboue the cup of the new â—…estament â–ª San. Certein men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand yeres together drinke a new kind of wine who grounded their heresie vpon these words of Christ I say vnto you I will not drinke from hencefoorth of this frute of the vine vntill the day when I will drink it new with you in the Kingdome of my Father S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 Iudaicas fabulas Iewish tales therwith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdome of God which is the Church saying Si ergo panis qui de coelo caet If then the bread which came down from heauen be the body of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of synnes let vs repell Iewish fables let vs ascend with our Lord vnto yâ— great parlar spread and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cup of the new Testament Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authâ—… ritie M. Iuel hath abused diuerse ways First you adde to S. Hierom these two words into heauen without cause For it folowed in S. Hierom whither we should ascend coenaculum magnum vnto the great parlar there to take of Christ the blooâ—… of the new Testament aboue that is to say not in the stalenes of the letter but in the newnes of the spirit as it foloweth afterward And yet againe more plainly in regno Ecclesiae in the Kingdome of the Church And last of all Impleamus opus eius Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum Let vs fulfill his work and Christ will drinke with vs in the Kingdome of the Church his blood Thus it is plaiue that S. Hierome spake not of going into heauen by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament but oâ—… going vp into the great parlar which is the Church and Kingdome of God S. Hierom alluded to the Historie of Christes last supper which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed as it is thought in the mount Syon Let vs goe thither sayth S. Hierom there let vs receane the new wine whereof Christ spake S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying yâ— Christ maketh this supper which now his Priests doe consecrate as well as he made that wherein he deliuered his owne banket Hoc est illud coenaculum caet This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples Hence he went to yâ— mount of Oliues â–ª which sith it is so it was very euill done of M. Iuel to diuide the verb from his accusatiue case and to put an other â—…oun betwene against all reason grammar and honestie S. Hierom sayd ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum 〈◊〉 vs goe vp with our Lord to the parlar M. Iuel putteth the noun in coelum into heauen betwene As if when a man sayd let vs goe vp to the chamber he wold put an other word beâ—… and say let vs goe vp into the sliple into that chamber For after he had conueyed into S. Hierom his words into heâ—… uen he secondly turned coenaculum that parlar where is that in S. Hierom M. Iuel That was of your putting in to make vs beleue that heauen is the parlar whereof S. Hierom spake Thirdly M. Iuel left out these â–ª words which went immediatly before and shew in what respect S. Hierom spake of going vp Iudaicas fabulas repellamus Let vs put away Iewish fables and so let vs goc vp with our Lord to the great parlar by keping that which Christ instituted and by leauing other fables Fourthly whereas in the same very question it foloweth that not Moyses but our Lord Iesus gaue vs the true bread himself eating and being he that is eaten How can M. Iuel find in his hart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the reall presence For how is our bread more true then the bread of Moyses if at Christes supper we must goe vp into heauen to eate it Might not Moyses eating Manna doe the same How is Christ the maker of the feast and the meate it selfe if common bread be eaten and not his flesh Is common bread the maker of the feast If not the maker of the seast neither is it the meate for al is one saith S. Hierom. Iuel Cyrillus saith our Sacrament anoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the minds of the vnfaithfull in vngodly maner to grosse or flesh cogitations Sand. A man would scant beleue how wickedly this place is abused First these are not the words of S. Cyrill â–ª next he neuer meaÌ„t not so much as by dreame any such thing as M. Iuel doth father vppon him His own words are spoken vpon such occasion Nestorius the Heretike sayd that Christ had two persons and that his â—…hod was not â—…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the sonne of God Against whom S. Cyrill saith in that place proprium â—…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi non hominis alicuius seorsum separatim we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word that is to say to be the words own body and not to be the body of any man apart or separated Nestorius replied out of Christes words He that eateth my flesh tarieth in me what eate we sayd the heretike the Godhead or the flesh meaning therby to conclude that seing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth yet the flesh was really eaten that there was one person of the Godhead an other of the flesh Cyrillus answereth Doest thou then affirm that there is an other sonne and Christ besyde the word coming from God the which hath appered to whoÌ„ alone the matter of Apostleship may be coÌ„mitted Now follow yâ— words corrupted by M. Iuel Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man M. Iuel turneth these words as though S. Cyrillus had set foorth a doctrine of his own without any respect to the heresie of Nestorius but the
signifie most properlie Iuel Besy de these figures they haue imagined many moe Sand. We haue imagined none but we teache as we receaued But wil you geue me leaue M. Iuel to repete a few of your figures or of your absurd doctrines in this behalfe and then let the discrete reader iudge who doth more contumelie to Gods words you or we 1. First ye ioyne together this bread otherwise then the Ghospell hath don where it is not sayd this bread is my body but this is my body 2. Ye haue don it cleaue against the Ghospell for hoc this is of the newter gender but panis bread is of the masculine gender 3. You haue iterated the same fault in ioyning hic this being of the masculine gender to vinum wine being of the â—…ter gender 4. You haue diuided the pronoun this both 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ with which substantiues only it may agree in right construction 5. You expound the same pronoun somtime for bread somtime for the body when ye say this is my body are words of promise For I dare say you meane not that bread is promised to any maÌ„ If theÌ„ the body be promised by these words this is my body as Caluin your homilies say doutlesse in that interpretation this doth appertein to the body and not to bread 6. Est is you expound for significat it doth signifie and that without any example For that verb In this is my body standeth not betwene two seueral natures as in these words the rock was Christ but it only 〈◊〉 meth one substance of Christes body 7. You take the very same verb est is properly referring it to the body of Christ which 〈◊〉 euery maus hart you consecrate by preaching these words this is my body as Caluin teacheth 8. Some other of you will haue the verb est alwaies to stand properly euen in respect of the bread because it is a signe of Christes body and in dede it must nedes stand so for you know that the verb substaÌ„tiue is nâ—…cessarily eyther expressed or supplied in euery propositioÌ„ in so much yâ— these words this doth signifie my body must be resolued this is signifying my body 9. When the verb est is in greeke is left out by S. Luke ye supplie it by force of common vse which leaueth out that verb as being easye to be vnderstanded and when you haue supplied it you cast it out again as though it were superfluouse 10. The â—…oun body you take properlie when you haue taken est for significat 11. The same noun you take vnproperlie for the figure of Christes body when est is taken properlie 12. You expound the relatiue quod which so as it can not agree with his antecedent and with the verb solowing together for when body is taken for the signe or figure of body as you take it most commonly and therein pretend to folow Tertullian S. 〈◊〉 then the relatiue which must nedes repete his antecedent in his whole sense and so the sense is This is the figure of my body the which figure of my body is geueÌ„ for you Now as you will say this is the figure of Christes body wherof he sayd this is my body so you can not say that the sâ—…gure of Christes body is geuen for vs. Thus quod the which standeth betwene corpus body and datur is geuen in such sort that it can not agree with both except ye say with Marcion that a figure is geuen or offered vp to God for vs. 13. Datur is geuen you expound dabitur it shal be geuen denying that it is presently true that it is geuen at the supper We say it is geuen at the supper shall be geuen also vpon the crosse not denying one truthe by an other 14. You expound facite â—…oe ye only whereas it is also make ye we graunt both ye denie the one sense 15. Hoc ye English this expound it in your homilies thus do ye as if it were sayd fic or ità do ye so or do ye thus whereas the true English is this thing 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationeÌ„ ye english in the remembrance of me whereas in with an accusatiue case doth signifie rather for the remembrance of me as we say in meam gratiam fac hoc doe this thing for my sake and nâ—…t in my sake 17. When you haue expounded est is for significat to signifie then remaineth the pronoun hic this in the confecration of the blood without a noun substantine For Hic significat sanguinem meum can haue at all no substantiue with whom it may agree in case and gender sanguinem is the accusatiue case and vinum is the neuter gender 18. If in these words this cup is the new Testament in my blood ye take the noun blood for the signe of my blood the new Testament is established in a figure of blood and so is worse theÌ„ the old which was established in true blood of oxen 19. If there you take the name of blood properly and without a figure likewise in these words this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t it must stand properly which is against your doctrine 20. The construction of these words this cup is shed for you in S. Lukes words doth import this sense The thing with in this cup is shed for you but you say the thing within the cup is winâ—… therefore you teache wine to be shed for vs. but we teache the thing in the cup to be reall blood therefore we teache blood to be shed for vs. 21. When Christ sayed the bread which I wil geue is my flesh You so expound I will geue that it meaneth also I haue geuen and I do geue For you take it spoken only of a spirituall geuing which was both past and present and therein ye breake the nature of the word 22. In S. Paule the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body you expound signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paule distinâ—…eth our Sacraâ—…ent from theirs 23. The cup of blessing which we blesse you will haue to be a cup of wine still as though the blessing wrought nothing in it For if it work any thing it worketh the blood which at the consecration is affirmed present 24. You make Christ geue thanks to his Father in beginning the state of the new Testament in better words then dedes for his words be this is my body Yet you will haue him in dede to offer no body at all to his Father in that thanksgeuing but bare bread and wine still to remain 25. You teache Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to geue externally that is to say to our mouthes bodies lesse then Moyses For Manna was better then common bread and a gist more
per vnproper meaning The rela tiue must repete hiâ—… whole 〈◊〉 By the Sacramentarie doctrine bread is sacrificed for vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but one verb in the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 The aunswer To signifie and to be a signe â—…o all one Significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Reg. 18 Leuit. 15 Exod. 12 Gen. 14. Cypria lib 2. Epist. 3. The 〈◊〉 were com 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 sacrifice Psal. 39. Heb. 10. The body oâ—…red was at Christes â—…ble ThisthiÌ„g is more then such an other thing Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. Iustin. iâ—… Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 27. Hoc est 1. Cor. 11 A thing is the remeÌ„braunce of it self Exo. 16. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. Marc. 14 De eccl Hierar cap. 3. In Ioan. li. 4. c. 14 why althe Apostles dranke of one cup. Theaâ—…use 〈◊〉 the English ministers Ignat. in epist. ad Phi. Matt. 10. Iudas drank The graÌ„maticall sense of Christes words Est 〈◊〉 not stand for significat Heretiks build with out a foun dation Hieron in Amos proh c. 4 Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of hoâ—… scriptuâ—…e The literall sense â—…s the fon dâ—…tion Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea A testament Hebr. 9. Gene. 31 Galat. 4. Ierem. 31 Hebr. 9. Exo. 24. Three things in a solemne TestameÌ„t Ierem. 31 Hebr. 8. Math. 26 Ierem. 31 Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. Li. 4. coÌ„t Marci Sedulius in 1. Co. 11. The chalice beareth witnesse 1. 〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. coÌ„ Marci 3. in Lucae 22. The same blood which con firmeth doth also witnesse y◠〈◊〉 Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 13. The blood is not meant the figure of blood Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9. Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Why the cup is named Exod. 24 Chryso Hom. 27 in 1. Co. Oecum in 1. Co. cap. 11. Christes blood real ly in the chalice The verb substaÌ„tiue left out The verb significat can not be vnderstan ded The verb est must nedes be supplied The necessitie of the verb est in Christes words Math. 5. Qui calix The which cup In Amos cap. 4. A demonstratioÌ„ out of Gods worde Hebr. 9. Euthy in c. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. An hymne said only at Christes supper Ioan. 12. The x. Chapiter Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 The places which are to be conferâ—…ed Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 This. Thebreâ—…d promised is not mâ—… teriall bread This is 〈◊〉 by yâ— other places The verb 〈◊〉 What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉 The communicatig Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Body Matt. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Lucae 1. Ioan. 1. Exod. 17 Num. 20 Acto 17. Collos. 1. Marc. 14 16. Lucae 24. Rom. 8. Actor 1. 2. Lâ—… 22. The presence of Christes bâ—…dy is not impossible The sitting of 〈◊〉 in heauen 〈◊〉 a hâ—…p to his 〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉 Chryso de sacer lib. 3. Christes supper pas seth all woÌ„dering The places belonging to Christes supper The 〈◊〉 Chapiter All foode 〈◊〉 in Hebrew called bread Vide Pagninum in verbo Laham Deut. 8. Cath. 4. Math. 6. Luc. 11. Exod. 7. Gen. 1. 3. Marc. 16. That 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 bâ—…ad wâ—…ch 〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉 â—…et semâ—…th brâ—…ad Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom. Iustinus in Apol. 2. First Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water 2. Consecration 3. Food 4. Flesh and blood Libro 2. Epist. 3. â—…d Cecil 2. Ireneus â—… 4. ca. 34 Ambrosius de Sacram. li. 5. ca. 4. Hieron in Math. cap. 6. Nyssen in vita Moysis Tract 26 in Ioan. In Leuit. c. 22. l. 6. In operâ—… Paschal Thebrâ—… geuen to Iudas was betrâ—…â—…ed for vs. Math. 6. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 The xii Chapiter Euseb. Emissen Hom. 2. de Pasch. Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Ionae 2. Math. 12. 1. Co. 10. Luc. 24. Gen. 4. De mira bil sacrae scriptur cap. 3. Hier. in quaest He br in ge Didym in epist. Ioan. 1. Ezech. cap. 24. Math. 26 Ioan. 18. Aug. ad quaest Orosij 4. 9 Prosper de promissis prae dict Deâ—… He. 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉 to God his owne body in his owne haÌ„ds he wold do Abel by sleying his Lâ—…bs shewed himself to haue desired an other sacrifice Marc. 14 Gen. 4. Aug de Trm. l. 3. Aug. in Psal. 39. The Sacramenta ries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of â—…ain Cain did beare a sigure of yâ— English coÌ„munion Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14. Luc. 22. Gen. 14. Clemens AlexaÌ„d StroÌ„ l. 4. Christ â—…as seth Melchisedech by turning the bread which he brought forth into his owne body Cypria ad Caecil li. 2. ep 3. Euthy in panoplia Christ hath set his owne true substence vnder those formes of brend and wine which Melchise dech vsed Exod. 12 Gregor Nazian in Pasch. orat 4. Leo de pass domin se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 12. Luc. 22. Gregor Paschal Hom. 22 â—… mysterie conteineth the truth but it conteineth it after a secret manner Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. See how yâ— words of Moses and of Christ agree Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Psal. 77 Mala. 2. Luc. 22. Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread whiche Christ ge ueth is both a signe and a truth Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron aduersus Iouin l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is vnder 〈◊〉 ry peece of the forme of bread The figure of MaÌ„na is not fulfilled except the reall fleshe of Christ be geuen vnder yâ— form of bread 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to yâ— sacrament 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ equally Sap. 16. The figure of 〈◊〉 old Testa ment Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉 of couenaÌ„t Heb. 9. Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉 geueÌ„ in the chalice as the 〈◊〉 was geueÌ„ in 〈◊〉 Gen. 49. Philip. 2. The prophecie of Iob applied to Christ. Iob 31. Hieron in hunc locum Greg. in Iob li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26. Chrys. hom 45. in Ioan. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. Loue desyreth as great a ioyning vnion as may be had Ioan. 6. Chrys. hom 83. in Matth. 45. in IoaÌ„nem Psal. 22. Prophecies takeÌ„ out of the Psalmes and prouerbs of SalomoÌ„ Prou. 9. What supper wisedoÌ„ prepared Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3. The supper of Christ is set vpon the table Christ hath but one table Aug. in IoaÌ„ tractatu 50. The Sacramentaries assigne two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 21. An other prophecie taken 〈◊〉 Dauid Only Christiâ—… adore that they eate because they only eate the flesh of God Bread not 〈◊〉 our Lords table Augu. in
altar to offer them That offering is a vowing of them to God When are they vowed When the word of vowing or of prayer is spoken When is that prayer made S. Augustine sheweth in the same place Orationes accipimus dictas cum illud quod est in Domini mensa benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur We take prayers to be sayd when that which is on the table of our Lord is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed Mark whether S. Augustine speake like Caluin or no. that which is on the table is blessed that is sanctified that is broken that is distributed that blessing sanctifying is made by prayer that prayer is the vowing to God of that which is brought to the table which was bread and wine The word of vowing is to saye ouer it This is my body For the sense of these words is that Christ so â—…estly offereth so throughly voweth the substance of bread and wine to the honour of God that he maketh them by his almighty power the same flesh and blood of Christ which is vnited to the sonne of God in one person This only is the offering and vowing of an outward thing which came to that perfection whereunto in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 it was destenied Because the Priest who offered it according to the order of 〈◊〉 is God as well as man The instrument of this great sacrifice the word of this prayer the execution of this vow are the words of Christ who said in the waie of blessing of thaÌ„ksgeuing oâ—… praying and of vowing or of offering to God This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Caluin wold neither haue prayer nor vow nor any sacrifice made vnto God in these words but hath with swete poysoned talk made of them a promise apreaching to the people geuing to man the 〈◊〉 of sacrifice dew 〈◊〉 God only But S. Ireneus witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and geuen thanks said This is my body and confeâ—… the chalice to be his blood Et noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem and he taught a new oblation of the new testament Which also he proueth out oâ—… Malachie the Prophet Caluin wold the words to be spoken without working any thing vpon the brend as who should say the bread could be offered according to the state of any law or testament and yet no change of substance be made therein Caluin wold the working to be only in the minds of yâ— hearers whereas yâ— gospell teacheâ—… that Christ hauing taken bread said This is my body But Caluin imagineth that he spake not to the bread but sayd to the people this bread is a witnesse that you shall caâ—…e my body whereas the bread it self was by those words made Christes body and so made that it was his body as sone as the word was spoken So saith Bregorius Nyssenus who writeth that the bread is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ statim vt dictum est â—… verbo Hoc est corpus meum straight as sone as it is sayd of the word of God thiâ—… is my body S. Chrysostom sheweth the words to be spoken by the Priests mouth who saith This is my body Hoc verbo propâ—… sita consecrantur With this word the things set foorth are consecrated S. Ambrose saith Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint sanguis efficitur qui plebem redâ—…it When yâ— words of Châ—…ist haus wrought the blood is made which hath 〈◊〉 the people Is it nâ—…t a great madnesse to resist theâ—…e witnesses Or can the thâ—…ngs set foorth which are 〈◊〉 and wine be consecrateâ—… be chanâ—…d â—…e made the body 〈◊〉 of Christ not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I might bring against Caluin whatsoeuer the Catholikes teache or saie of the reall presence of Christes body and blood of 〈◊〉 and of the sacrifice For 〈◊〉 word destroyeth this foolish inuention of promising and preaching It shal be now sufficient to shew that the whole East and West Church by diuerse meanes yet conformably destroye that erroneouse opinioÌ„ of Caluin In the East Church the words of consecration This is my body which is geuen for you and likewise of the blood are spoken with so lowd avoice that the whole Church maie here the Priest pronouncing them And immediatly after eche of the words the quere and people cried out Amen Which doth signific as S. Ambrose hath expounded it Verum est it is true Wherby all those Churches did signifie that the body and blood of Christ was presently made when the people affirmed it to be true and yet noman had at that tyme receaued the communion Therefore thâ—…se words This is my body which is geuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you Which Caluin calleth words of promise made to the receauers are witnessed by yâ— who le Churâ—…h to be true presently and so to be perfoormed lâ—…g before any man receaue cither kind On the other side in the West Churche the same words are spoken secretly oâ—…er the bread and the wine and immediatly after the pronouncing of eche words the body and blood of Christ is adored of all the people because it is really conteined â—…nder the foormes of bread and wine Which auncient custome of secretly pronouncing these words This is my body shew they are neither words of promise nor of preaching If they were words of promise or of preaching they should be spoken to the people out of the chaire or pulpit or some like place But now they are spokâ—…n at the alâ—…ar of God and not at all directed to the people as the which 〈◊〉 to that office of 〈◊〉 Priesthod whereunto yâ— people is not called For as the high Bishop among the Jewes went alone and that but one day in the whole yere into the Holy of Holies in the temple of Salomon right so when the Priest goeth to consecrate the Holy of all Holies which is the body and blood of Christ it is most conneniently ordeined that he alone enter 〈◊〉 And this custom is in that West Church which S. Peter and S. Paule planted with their preaching and watered with their blood This is the Church which S. Ambrose honoured so 〈◊〉 that albeit himself in manie points followed in his seruice the 〈◊〉 rite and manner yet he openly praised the good and laudable custom of the Romane Churche saying In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam In all points I couet to follow the Romane Churche But now let vs bring a practise of the whole primatiue Churche as well in the East as in the West which so euidently doth confute the 〈◊〉 opinion of Caluin that he is sain to condeÌ„ne the Apostles them 〈◊〉 to auoide that argument For so had he rather doe yea to deny all the whole Bible then once to remoue the breadth of a 〈◊〉 from
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
cause thereof We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his which he deliuereth to vs. But Christ deliuereth it not only spiritually but also with his hands saying Take eate this is my body As therefore yâ— deliuery is real and not only spirituall so is the eating reall and the coupling reall I haue proued this thing in other places folowing Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apologie ¶ That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God VVE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament yâ— is to say an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former vaâ—…t of the word of God already brought foorth to the reproche of the Catholikes also the Apologie aâ—…tle before these words witnessed that yâ— auctours abâ—…tours thereof gaue thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raysed to them which they might allwayes haue before theyr eyes as a moste certayne rule to which all doctrine of yâ— Church ought to be called for his triall And within lesse than 〈◊〉 lines after the same Apologie cometh to denie our Lords supper calling it a Sacrament that is to say an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. What mâ—…ers Hauâ—… you in the holy Scriptures that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a signe of yâ— body and blood of Christ From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later ende of tho â—…ocalips you finde â—…t our Lordes supper so called Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it yâ— mâ—…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not but 〈◊〉 into lâ—…e 〈◊〉 He saieth yâ— bread which he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 â—…or yâ—â—…se of yâ— world He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the sonne of man meate in dede and drinke in dede his flesh and his blood the eating of him the bread which who so eateth shall liue for euer In S. Mathew and in S. Marke his body and his blood of the new testament In S. Luke his body whiche is geuen for vs and the chalice which is the newe testament in his blood which is shed for vs. In S. Paul the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the coÌ„municating or partaking of Christes blood the one bread yâ— table of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord the body which is broken for vs the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood the eating of this bread and drinking of this chalice So many names are geuen in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament and it being no where called a signe or token yet the Apologie which thanketh God for yâ— holy scriptures aâ—…d will trie all doctrine by them in the chief question of our age goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth the Eucharist or the Lordes supper is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in wordes you make so much of holy scripture and in dede so litle What Apostle what Euangelist what Prophete or Patriarke taught our Lordes supper to be a signe or token S. Paul threateneth damnation to him who vnworthely eateth it and he calleth vnworthy eating not only the contempte thereof or lacke of faith but euen the omitting to proue or examine him selfe before he eate our Lords body And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meates And come you with a new doctrine affirming that we receaue not our Lords body into our bodies but an euident signe and token thereof you 〈◊〉 no authoritie no rule no triall of matters belonging to faith but only the holy Scriptures and immediatly ye breake your owne rule in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord his body and blood and you teach it to be an euident token of his body and blood If you kepe not your owne rule whom can you binde to kepe the â—…aine Ye will aske me perhaps whether the Lordes supper be not a Sacrament if a Sacrament then also a signe and token I aunswere ye that prescribe rules of beleuing to the world ye that wil haue all thinges iudged and proued by that touchestone of Gods worde ye that for pretense of folowing the gospell haue stirred vp so greate strife through all Christendome must not talke with vs with if with and with conditions and peraduentures But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say Although the supper of our Lord were neuer so much a Sacrament surely to you it were none because ye cannot proue out of the word of God where it is so named To vs it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice A Sacrament because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles A sacrifice because Malachie the prophet in the person of God expressely saieth In omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda â–ª quia magnum est nomen meum in geÌ„tibus In euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed and offered to mie name because my name is greate amonge the gentils There is absolutely no pure and cleane oblation besides the sacrifice of Christes body and blood whiche was offered to death not in euery place but without the gate of Hierusalem alone and the same is at this daie vnbloodily offered in the masse in euerie place where so euer among the gentils the name of God is 〈◊〉 called vpon Thus both we and you maie proue the â—…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice but that it is a 〈◊〉 â–ª we can proue because our forefathers delyuered such a doctrine to vs You can not proue the same seing you will not be bound to folow vnwritten traditions If you flee to the Church for naming it a SacrameÌ„t the church hathe seuen Sacramentes But ye in this present Apologie acknowledge only two properly to be rekoned vnder yâ— name for so many saie you do we find deliuered and sanctified by Christ and allowed of the olde fathers Ambrose and Augustine Concerning the deliuery of Sacraments by Christ ye might haue found in the word of God ConfirmatioÌ„ Actor 8. Penance IoaÌ„ 20. Extreme vnction Iacob 5. Priesthod Luk. 22. Matrimonie Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist But what kind of talk is this to say that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that workes of Christ was not the deliuery and consecration of Christ of sufficâ—…ent autoritie except Ambrose and Augustine had approued it I thoâ—…ght Ambrose and Augustine should haue bene allowed by the scripture and not the scripture by them I stand with you vpon the autoritie of the word of God proue me thence that these two are Sacramentes alone yea proue that thei are so named at all what gospell calleth baptisme a Sacrament What holy write nameth
substance And it is so truly made and the Lamb so truly prosenâ—… that he is offered not in hart alone but euen outwardly of the Priests not by shedding of blood as vpon the crosse but vnblodely as it becommeth the cleane oblation of the new Testament whereof Malachie did prophecie That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present for they offer with their hands moâ—…thes and other externall members of their body After that the sacrifice is made the faithfull people who stand by doe partake with the altar which could not be except a perma neâ—…t substance were made by consecration The Lamb is vpon the table He is offered there by yâ— Priests It foloweth in the Councell We take truly the precious body and blood We take it and truly take it That is to say in deed really and bodily For the truth of Christes body and blood is not an imaginarie or fained truth it is not a thing conceaued only as a man might conceaue in his mind men flying in the aier it is not only beleued or hoped but he in naturall existence and among external things hath as true a body and blood as any creature hath a substance of his owne The true taking of the which precious body and blood is the taking of it in suche a truth of subsâ—…ce as it self hath And because it is true in yâ— thing it selfe the taking of it is in the thing it self The taking of that which sâ—…andeth before vs on the table is by instrument of our bodyes therefore it is deliuered according to the same external truth by the corporall ministerie of yâ— Priests So that all is truly and externally done by the iudgement of this auncient councell Wel we truly taking them beleue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some bookes read of our resurrection For as our redemption was by the â—…ame body and the same blood really wrought vpon the crosse so hauing them selues present vpon yâ— holy table and truly taking them we take the sure witnesses and euident tokens of our redemption But if the things which stand vpon the holy table were in substance bread and wine how could they be the tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeme vs Or did they rise from death for vs It is the body and blood of Christ which redemed vs and which arose from death and the self same body and blood are now made present to vs offered vnbloodely for vs to shew in fact and dede our redemption already wrought by them and to distribute the fruits of yâ— Crosse by none other thing so much as by the same body and blood that redemed vs. For least we should assigne any part of our saluation to any other creature besydes to the only body and blood of Christ he made the selfsame body both the price wherewith he redemed vs and the token and dispensour of the redemption It was proued before that if these things be the tokens of our redemption instituted by the expresse words of Christ then they are the things them selues which they betoken because they are mysticall tokens of the new Testament But they are here not as redeming vs new and therefore as tokens of yâ— old redemption that no man should thinke Christ to die again or should doubt as S. Chrysostom hath noted of his death already past or of any maner prices of our redemptioÌ„ to be payed then one or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besydes it selfe For it was so worthy a truth and raâ—…som payed for vs vpon the Crosse which was able to be painted worthely or set foorth to the remembrances of the faithfull by none other image then such wherein yâ— truth might be set foorth after an other sort more mystical concerning the manner But no lesse true then the thing which died was concerning the substance Who so is faithfull and humble is now able to vnderstaÌ„d how the shew of bread and wine standeth with the truth of body and blood present on the holy table How the vnbloody sacrifice is made of the Priests whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turne the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christes body and blood how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ coÌ„cerning the substance of them vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet beleue them to be tokens instituted of Christ of our redemptioÌ„ betokening the price paid by making present the body and blood which payed it Was not this a worthy place for the Apologie to allege But I warrant you it alleged the weakest part therof leauing out the situatioÌ„ of the Lamb of God on the holy table The vnbloody sacrifice made of Priests the true taking and receauing of the pre cious body and blood Only bread and wine which are named to shew the formes within the which the body and blood are them they name as a great matter to further this new broched heresie But he is a faithfull trier and examiner of auncient Fathers who faithfully citeth the whole place neither adding nor diminishing which honest dealing we may not looke for at these defenders hands ¶ That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iaies ANd as Chrisostome writeth wel we say that the body of Christ is the carcas and we must be the Egles that we may know that we ought to flye highe if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes It is a weake stake that these meÌ„ wold not take hold of being now plunging for life vnder the water S. Chrysostome so plainly expoundeth his owne meaning immediatly where he speaketh of the carcas and of the Egles that I can not sufficiently wonder at the impudeÌ„cie of him who allegeth this place For the alleger wold haue the wordes taken as though the body of Christ were not vpon the altar But we only shold by faith ascend into heauen whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh of going in to heauen by good life also and not by faith only His words are these The body of our Lord is through death become the carcase for vnlesse he had fallen we had not risen Christ vseth the name of Egles to declare that it behoueth him who shall approchevnto his body to seeke for high things and not to medle with the earth nor to be draweÌ„ down or crepe vnto earthly matters which are a low but to flee allways vp to higher matters And to behold the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eye and the mind quick of sight for this is the table of Egles and not of Iaies Hetherto S. Chrysostome Who first sheweth why the body of Christ is called the carcase Not because it is without life but because it once hath died for
we are saued by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the holy ghoste Likewyse that which Manna dyd then shadow hauing the swetenesse of all deyntie and pleasant tastes as now really geuen because yâ— flesh of Christ is meate in dede We differ not in substance of our manna from the Angels of heauen but only they are out of all feare we lyuc in good hope they see and eate we eate see not but beâ—…ue They are in theyr and oure countrey we are in the way to them Whyles we are goyng the truth of heauen is couered to vs but sith Christ came downe to be our guyde he hath left the kingdome of heauen in the blood of the newe testament among vs as really as him self â—… really for that purpose tooke fleshe and dyed in the same flesh to thintent he being exalted vpon the crosse should draw al things vnto him selfe ¶ The bread that Christ promiseth to geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh HAuing already touched the three seuerall tymes of geuing â–ª which are spoken of in S. Ihon order wold yâ— I should shew the three seuerall kinds of working those three gifts But for as much as the last gift of the three is the gift of Christ whereof we doe principally intreat I thought good to say somewhat of it alone Christ hauing sayd before work the euerlasting meat which the Sonne of man will geue you cometh now to namè what kind of meat it is and the bread sayth he which I will geue is my flesh I haue proued already that these two sentences belong to one maner of gift which also is promised to be geuen to vs and not only to be geuen for vs as some doe aâ—… To be geuen to vs I say in the Sacrament of Christes supper and not only for vs vpon yâ— Crosse the which thing because I haue by diuerse reasoÌ„s proued in two places of this present booke it shal be now suâ—… to warn the reader that S. Cyprâ—… writing vpoÌ„ our Lords prayier hath alleged these words The bread which I will geue is my â—…esh as spoken of the Eucharist The like hath S. Chrysostom done in his comments vpon the same place affirming that Christ spake of the mysteries beside that which he speaketh hereof vpon the sixt of S. Ihon doth also allege it again for the Sacrament of Christes supper naming benedictionem mysticaâ—… the mysticall blessing S. Augustine often tymes allegeth this text for the gift made in Christes supper as I haue declared before also Theodoritus was of the same mind and as for Theophilact and Euthymius be so clere in this matter that they neuer doubted thereof Which sith it is so let it staÌ„d for a truth most vniuersally receaued yâ— Christ saying The bread which I wil geue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil geue you at my last supper is my flesh Moreouer the word bread must be noted which standeth not presently for wheaten breade but only for food and meat For as Christ sayd before work the meat which the sonne of man wil geue you so now he sayth and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh declaring yâ— bread in this place is all one with meat The which truthe is also expressed of S. Cyrillus where he sayth Saluator cuÌ„ ad Iudaeos multa de carne sua dissereret ac viuisicum verè panem â—…am appellaret panis enim inquit quem ego dabo caro mea est When our Sauiour disputed manie things among the Iewes of his flesh and caâ—…ed it the bread truly geuing life he sayd for the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thus it is clere that Christ in effect sayth I will geue you a kind of meat or food in my last supper yâ— which is my flesh euen the same flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world This promise Christ made at Caphâ—… to al the â—…tude but 〈◊〉 submitted theÌ„ selues to receaue that doctrine beside the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas being one had this promise made to him also For although Christ knew him to be a deuil and traitour as him self sayd euen at Caphâ—…um yet seing he taried with the twelue euen at the last supper and other men knewe not so muche of his maliciouse intent Christ dissembled it and as he promysed his fleshe to all so he gaue it to the twelue in the night wherein he was betrayd The whiche thing I speake to thend the reader might perceane what Christ promised presently Suche a gift it was the whiche was performed â—…o lesse to Iudas then to the other Apostles It was not therefore a spiritual gift only which was promised for such a one Iudas neither did nor could take but it was a reall â–ª and externall gift which was deliuered with the hands of Christ and receaued into the mouthes of the Apostles After which sort Iudas tooke it Which could not be so except the fleshe of Christ were vnder the forme of bread which Christ gaue Again Christ spake not now of geuing his flesh by faith only for that gift his Father presently gaue as he sayd Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum my Father doth geue you the true bread from heauen That gift Christ him self was being geuen in flesh to th end we should beleue in him and 〈◊〉 vpon him by spirituall deuotion But Christes gift both hath an other person an other tyme. The person is Christ the tyme is to come Wherevpon S. Chrysostom here noteth Se non patrem dare dicit He saith him self to geue and not his Father It is therefore a reall gift to be made externally whereof Christ speaketh WherupoÌ„ it foloweth that Christes flesh was promised vnder the form of bread which suin his â—…pper was taken blessed and deliuered Under that form Christes flesh is promised not in faith only but in truth of nature and in the same substance which was geuen 〈◊〉 the life of the world The Sacramentaries must nowe say that flesh here standeth for the signe and figure of Christes flesh and so by that meanes they will say both Iudas had the figure of Christes flesh geuen â–ª and the other Apostles had the flesh it self by faith and spirit It hath bâ—…e â—…wed before that the bread whereof Christ now speaketh and which he affirmeth to be his flesh is Christ him self as he is true God and man Therefore to say the bread which Christ will geue is the signe of his flesh is to say that Christ him self through his own gift is the signe of his own flesh for of any other bread Christ spake not in this place then of such bread as him self is And of that he spake not in that only respecte as he is God but as he is man And so either the manâ—…hood of Christ is yâ— signe of his flesh
of the argument or the desyre to haue the thing wel remembred or my forgetfulnes may cause me to fall in to that default The Chapiters of the fourth Booke 1. That no reasoÌ„ ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expouÌ„ded vnproperly or figuratiuely that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof 2. That as al other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vntill the coÌ„trarie doth euidently appere 3. The proper fignification of these words this is my body and this is my blood is that the substance of Christes body blood is conteined vnder the visible formes of bread wine 4. That the pronoune this in Christes vvords caÌ„ point neither to bread nor to vvine 5. That the pronoune this can not pointe to any certein acte vvhiche is a doing about the bread and vvine 6. That the sayd pronoune pointeth finally to the body and blood of Christ and in the meane tyme it signifieth particularly one certaine kind of food 7. The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of the vvords to be figuratiue but helpeth much the reall presence 8. That the vvordes of Christes supper be proper though many other vnlike to them be figuratiue 9. The reall presence is declared by xxvij circunstances vvhich belong to Christes supper 10. The same is proued by conference of holy scriptures in the nevv Testament 11. Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration 12. The real presence is proued by câ—…nference of holy scriptures of the old Testament 13. Item by the vvords hoc facite vvhich do signifie make this thing 14. Item by the vvords for the remembrance of me 15. The grosse error impudent chalenge of M. Novvell is corrected and fully satisfied concerning the coÌ„ference betwene these vvords this is my body and I am the true vine ¶ That no reason ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expoundâ—…d vnproperly or figuratuely and that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof CHrist in his last supper was bâ—…th like a testatour who disposeth before his death what shal be comâ—… of his goods afterward and like a maker of lawes who prescribeth an order to be kept in his commoÌ„ weale The legacie bequeath ed or rather the gift made by his life tyme in consyderation of death cerâ—…einly approching was the deliuery of those inestimable tâ—…wels which he called his own body and blood willing his heyrs and fruids to take to care hâ—…s bodâ—… which should be geuen for theÌ„ and to drink his blood of the new Testament which should be shed for the remission of synnâ—…s The law which he made was that the Apostles and their successones in the like degree of Priesthood should make that Sacrament which he had then instituted for the remembrance of his death vntill he came again to iudge the world His Testament and the gift made therein was confirmed by that famouse death which he siffered the next day vpon the Crosse. His law was receaued and practised from the coming doune of the holy Ghost euen to this day through al the catholike Church A few yeres after Christes death his TestameÌ„t and law which he made by mouth was by witnesses of sufficient credit put in writing published and acknowleged of al faithful men If therefore any question arise coÌ„cerning such words as were either in yâ— last wil or in the law or the narration of them who wrote the Gospell We ought to weigh whether that question be moued of a thing not already determined or els vpoÌ„ that which many yeres before was accustomed and receaued For as reason would a new doubt to be newly dissolued so no reason no law no conscience can suffer that a matter once fully decided and perfitly ended should be again called into iudgement The question is whether the words of Christ be figuratiue or proper I say that question was decided aboue fiftene hundred yeres past For when that wil law of Christ was first published al men toke those words This is my body and this is my blood to be proper And so we receaued of our forefathers from hand to hand in so much that the Church neuer heard before these daies any other doctrine preached by publike auctoritie it neuer saw other practise then to adore with Godly honoure those things ouer which the Priest as Christes mynister had sayd the words before rehearsed The vniuersal preaching and vsage of Christes Church is a sufficient witnesse that it hath always taken those words to be proper not figuratiue Whiche thing sith it is so minimè sunt mutanda sayth the lawier quae interpretationem certam semper habuerunt Those things are least of all to be changed whiche haue always had a knowen vnderstanding And yet if we should come to geue accompt of these vniuersall customs how reasonably might it be applied to our purpose which yâ— same lawier saith Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur inprimis inspiciendum est quo iure ciuitas retro in huiusmodi casibus vsa fuisset Optima enim est leguÌ„ interpres 〈◊〉 If a question be moued coÌ„cerning the interpretation of a law it is principally to be attended what order and law the common weale hath vsed before in those cases for custome is the best interpreter of lawes We are sure that before the birth of â—…uther yea also of Berengarius al the Church vsed to worship the body blood of Christ vnder the forms ofbread and wine and yet it could not haue done so if it had taken the word body for material bread only signifying the body that name of blood for wine which was appointed only to signifie Christes blood For the Church of God wold neuer haue worshipped with Godly honour bakers bread wine of the grape though they were tokens of neuer so goodly things But if the Sacramentaries answer that once the Church did other wise and that the auncient fathers neither adored the body blood of Christ vnder that formes of bread and wine nor preached the words of Christes supper to be proper besyde that such answer of theyrs is stark false as by that plain words of S. Ambrose of S. 〈◊〉 of S. Augustine and of Theodoretus it shal hereafter euideÌ„rly appere yet surely though so much could not be presently declared yet it were a great folly vpon the allegation of a thing so far beyond memorie of maÌ„ as the primitiue Church is to leaue the manifest vse and custom of the present Church the which Christ no lesse redemed no lesse gouerneth and loueth theÌ„ he did the faithfull of the first six hundred yeres Furthermore if all that is presently beleued shal be vndone as oft as it is pretendâ—…d that the primatiue Church thought otherwise what quietnes can there be in the Church after this order what end shall we haue of controuersies When shall
Christes supper hoc facite do not only signifie doe this but much rather make this thing whereof it foloweth that yâ— body of Christ is commaunded to be made FAcere doth more properly stand to make then to doe specially when it hath an accusatiue case ioyned with it wherevppon somewhat is to be wrought as facere librum nauem domum is to make a booke a ship a howse But when it hath a generall word ioyned with it as hoc this thing is then it may stand either to make or to doe according as the matter spoken of doth require For if I doe a thing first and afterward say to an other hoc fac doe this thing if my dede were also the making of a thing as the making of a chayer or of a sword then my word importeth that he must by doing make this thing But if my dede were only doing not making as if I did only play vppon a harp in that case hoc fac doth not import make this but only doe as I haue done Christ in his supper both did and made His doing was to take bread to breake to geue His making was to say with the intent of blessing and of thanksgeuing This is my body For yâ— word so spoken made his body Therefore when he sayeth afterward to his Apostles hoc facite he meaneth doe and make this thing Or by doing the like to that which I haue done make this thing which I haue made That is to say by taking bread and by blessing and saying This is my body make my body Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly For making doth first signifie such a work as presupposeth a matter to worke vppon Which is the difference betwene creare and facere in that creare is to make a thing of nothing Facere is to make one thing of an other according to which sense Christ made bread his body as Tertullian sayth And when one thing is made of an other that whereof it was made may either kepe his old substance as it chaunceth in artificiall things which are made and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo to make one thing of an other as a chayer is made of wood or els the substance may be changed and it is more properly called facere aliquid de aliquo to make one thing from an other thing that is to wit so to make it that the thing whence it was made remaineth not in his former nature And so S. Ambrose sayth De pane fit caro Christi from of bread the flesh of Christ is made Moreouer facere which is in Greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ as S. Basile noteth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speculari and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agere Speculari is an action of the mind exercised by thinking or studying without any outward working at all Agere is to worke with the body not leauing any work behind as he that daunceth can not shew what part of his dauncing remayneth after that it is past But facere doth signifie the doing of a work which remayneth to be seen or vnderstanded after the working of it As God made heauen and earth not only to tariâ—… for the tyme of working them but also to remaine still as a witnesse of his handy work The Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Basile writeth is the same which S. Luke and S. Paule haue vsed to expresse the commaundement geuen in Christes supper by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this commaundement what thing is it that Christ will haue made Wil he haue bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunken for his remembrance No surely For he had sayd before Take and eate and drink ye all of this which notwithstanding he sayd hoc facite clerely certifying vs that he now coÌ„maundeth an other thing besyde eating and drinking And that is verily the making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine by blessing speaking the words of consecration Let vs now consider also the persons to whome this commaundement was geuen They were those twelue Apostles whome Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament as S. Ireneus writeth geuing them authoritie by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and blood As for bringing of bread and wine to the table it is a kind of doing which may be performed by other as well as by the Apostles eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone but to all that coÌ„municate with them But when it is sayd namely to them Make this thing such a thig is commaunded which none other man may doe besyde them and their successors And that is not only to eate and to drink but to make the body of Christ. That body is the only thing which is so precisely appointed vnto in Christes supper For whatsoeuer els is done at the supper which may consist in any action whether it be taking blessing breaking eating or drinking it is rather the doing of a like thing to that which Christ did then the making of this thing When Christ had washed his Apostles feete he sayd not hoe facite make this thing But I haue geuen you an example that as I haue done Ita vos faciatis euen so you also may doe In which place the word facere doth signifie to doe not to make And therefore Christ doth not say doe you that thing which I haue done but ita faciatis doe ye so as I haue done But straight after that he had sayd This is my body he then sayd not ita facite doe so as I haue done But hoc facite make this thing to wit my body Moreouer as it is here sayd Hoc facite in meam commerationem so in an other place Dauid in the spirit of prophecie did say concerning this very facte of Christ Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator dominns escam dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marueilouse workes he hath geuen meate to them that feare him Behold as it is sayd in the Gospell Make this thing for the remembrance of me so it is said in yâ— Psalme He hath made a memory of his miracles And euen as he hath made a memory so hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory Making then can not 〈◊〉 excluded from these words hoc facite which hitherto being proued by the proper nature of the word facere by yâ— circumstance of the words this is my body make this thing ioyned together by the word hoc this thing which is ioyned with facere by the conference of a like place in holy scripture and by the condition of the persons
Paule speaketh of is named specially also the communicating of Christes blood A generall blessing geueth a general benefite as when we say our Lord blesse you God send you good speede the right hand of God blesse this meate the holy Ghost sanctifie this wine and make it to be a remembrance of Christes bloodsheading These like wordes be blessings hallow or sanctifie the thing blessed as S. Paule saith the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and praier But when a speciall blessing is geuen a speciall sanctifiyng must folow As when God blessed the 〈◊〉 Benedixitque eis dicens Crescite multiplicamini replete aquas maris and God blessed them saying Increase and multiplie and fyll the waters of the sea this special kinde of blessing worketh a speciall benefite vnto the creature which is blessed â–ª and it worketh euen that which the word signifieth â–ª who doubteth but by these words of Gods blessing increase and multiplie the fisshes toke the vertue of increasing and multiplying which before these words they had not for this kind of blessing gaue them this kind of benefite Seing then Christ blessed the chalice saying This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gaue it really this vertue to be the blood of the new testament Tell me no more that Christ willed it to signifie his blood for I tel you out of yâ— word of God what soeuer words haue bâ—… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing they haue wrought that which they did signifie But Christ said in the way of blessing â–ª This chalice is the new testament in my blood Therefore he made by that blessing his blood within the chalice Bring me no more of those paltry examples I am a dore I am a vine the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias the holy Ghost is a doue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort I 〈◊〉 in one word to al that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing The 〈◊〉 saieth not that Christ blessed any certaine vine saying this is Christ or This is my body â–ª He sayd many thinges without blessing and he blâ—…ed sometymes without speaking But when blessing words are â—…oyned we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens and bare sigâ—…s but working and making that which is said For if they promise a thing to come they worke by the way of causing the promyse in due tyme to be fulfilled as when a soâ—…e was promysed to Abraham by the Aungell of God If they be spoken as betokening a present verbe they presently worke the thing betokened Let no 〈◊〉 deceaue thee good Reader There is a dubble blessing spoken of in S. Paule there is the chalice of blessing and the chalice which we blesse The chalice of blessing as S. Chrysostom saieth is that which wheÌ„ we haue before vs we prayse God with admiration and horrour of the vnspeakeable gift but it is not the chalice of blessing vntill we haue blessed it The blessing whiche maketh it the chalice of blessing is that we speake of and that is the blessing whiche is made by the wordes of consecration as I haue said before Therefore S. Chrysostom wryteth thus vpon this place of S. Paule Cùm benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico dicendo Eucharistiam omnem benignitatis Dei thesaurum aperio magna illa munera commemoro When I say blessing I say the Eucharist and in saying the Eucharist I open all the treasour of the goodnes of God and I make rehearsall of those great gifts But least any cauill should be made as though the wordes of 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing heare what S. Ambrose aâ—…th of this Sacrament Quantis vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit How many 〈◊〉 vse we to proue that it is not yâ— thing whiche nature made but that which blessing consecrated Lo that which conâ—…eth is blessing But what blessing After yâ— S. Ambrose had bronghâ—… many examples to shew what strength blessing had at the last he concludeth Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur If the blessing of man was of that power that it changed nature what say we of Gods own consecrating where the self words of our Lord Saniouâ—… do worke Marke good Read er blessing consecrating and the words of our Sauiour working is all one matter And yet againe to make it playner S. Ambrose saieth Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis Christi sermone conficitur for this Sacrament which thou receauest is made with the wordes of Christ what the words be he telleth him self Vide omnia illa verba Euangelistae sunt vsque ad accipite siue corpus siue sanguinem inde verba sunt Christi Behold al those are the words of the Enâ—…ngelist vntill we come to this word take either body or blood from thense they are the wordes of Christ. Yf blessing be that which consecrateth both blessing consecration be made with the words oâ—… Christ his words he those which folow the word take yâ— words which folow be these This is my bodie and This is my blood who perceyueth not yâ— these only are the words of blessing Then we blesse the chalice when we consecrate when we say This is my blood of the new testament when we blesse saying the wordes of blessing in Christes mysteries then we make so much as our words do signifie For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth that yâ— chaâ—…ce which we blesse is the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ. In saying which we blesse he sheweth the cause why it is Christes blood In saying it is the communicating of Christes blood he sheweth both yâ— effect wrought by blessing which is yâ— presence of the blood of Christ and the cause finall why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the sayd blood was shed for the remission of synnes If the â—…halice after blessing had no blood in it how did it communicate to vs the blood of Christ S. Chrysostom geuing the literall sense of these woordes writeth thus EoruÌ„ auteÌ„ huiusmodi est sententia Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit et illius sumus participes of these wordes this is yâ— meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side aâ—…d thereof we are pà rtakers He affirmeth S. Paul to say that both yâ— blood which flowed from Christes side is in the chalice also that we are thereof partakers But yâ— blood whereof we are partakers by the confession of yâ— Sacramentaries is yâ— naturall blood of Christ therefore the natural blood of Christ is coÌ„teined within yâ— chalice And consequeÌ„tlie
then the image and figure of it When we will shew how far a thing is from that which it is called doe we not say Hoc nomine tenus tale est noÌ„ re ipsa This is such a thing in name and not in dede So that the naming of a thing without being the true thing it self is the nakedest and barest thing that can be â–ª Our aduersaries wold the bread after consecration to be the body and blood of Christ in name only not in truthe which being so the chalice of blessing bread which is broken should rather be called partaking because a sinal part of yâ— truth is taken then communicating where all is made common But S. Paule sayd it is a communicating and S. Chrysostom sayeth he did it to shew that it was more than partaking therefore it is a false doctrine to say that yâ— true body and blood of Christ is not really vnder the forme of bread which is broken and within the chalice which we blesse Let vs conferre the scriptures and seke the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicare in other places of the new Testament we shall find that it standeth to geue and make common the thing it self rather then the shadow or name thereof S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles sayeth Multitudinis cre dentium erat corvnum animavna nec quisquà m eorum quae possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat sed erant illis omnia communia Of the multitude of beleuers there was one hart and one soule neither any man sayd any thing of that he possessed to be his own but all things were common to them In which place we haue it defined what communicating is truly it is such a geuing that all is made common and nothing chalenged as his own If then the chalice of blessing which we blesse be the communicating of Christes blood and the bread which we breake the communicating of his body all the blood and all the body is made common to them that receaâ—…e that chalice and that bread If all be common then we doe not receaue only a spirituall remembrance of Christes body or a figure and signe of his blood For in so doing we had not all but rather the smallest part In so doing Christ kept the best back and chalenged somewhat yea far the best part to his owne self and we should not haue it Likewise when S. Paul sayeth that the Gentils did communicate with the spirituall goods of the Iewes for his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth not a ioyning in name in shewe in figure in signes but in the truth of faith and in the grace of God and in the redemption of Iesus Christ Last of al S. Paul shewing Christ to call the faithfull people of God his brethren and children reasoneth thus Quia ergo pueri communicaueruÌ„t earni sanguini ipse similiter participauit ijsdem Because therefore the children did communicate â—…lesh and blood him self likewise tooke parte with them In which place communicating is the naturall knitting and vniting which men haue to flesh and blood so that whether communicating be spoken by flesh and blood or by the goods of the world the communicating of them is the hauing of them common or making them common Euery where communicating importeth a great and liberall geuing or taking which can not be fulfilled with the only figure and bare name of body and blood but requireth the things them selues in truth of nature as holy Ireneus a disciple of the Apostles scholers writeth against those that taught that our flesh could not aryse againe to glory Vani sunt omnes c. They are all vayne that denyd the saluation of the flesh and despyse the regeneration of it saying that it is not able to receaue the state of incorruptibilitie So in dede to wyt according to those sayinges neither our Lorde hath redemed vs with his blood neither the chalice of thankes geuing is the coÌ„municating of his blood neither the bread which we breake is the communicating of his body For blood is not but from the vaynes and flesh and from the other substaÌ„ce which is belonging to man in the which substance yâ— worde of God truly made redemed vs with his blood S. Ireneus accomptâ—…th it a great absurditie that the bread which we breake should not be the communicating of Christ his true body the chalice of the Encharist the communicating of his blood Of what blood of the same which 〈◊〉 from vaynes from flesh and from the rest of our substance And S â–ª Ireneus bringeth this interpretation to proue that we that receyue the sayd body and blood receyue therein a gyft sufficient to raise our flesh at the later daye But surely fignes and figures of Christ wil not raise our flesh for so much as they are perceaued only by vnderstanding and be not of the same nature and kinde whereof our flesh is And S. Ireneus neuer dreamed of blood that should be receaued from heauen but only of that blood which is in the chalice and cup of Christes supper ¶ The presence of Christ in his supper is proued by the one bread which being receaued of vs maketh all vs one body VNuspanis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes qui de vno pane participamus we being many are one bread and one body all we that partake of the one bread He that listeth only to mark the order of S. Paules words may quickly perceaue what his meaning is concerning the true doctrine of the Sacrament of the altar First he described our Lordes supper by the name of the chalice of blessing which we blesse and of the bread which we breake Secondly he saith that eche of them is the communicating the one of Christ his body the other of his blood Last of all he feareth not to say that the partakers of that bread all are one bread and one body Who seeth not that he is come from blessing and breaking to communicating and from communicating to vniting making one so that vse we what wordes we please in vttering the matter call we it partaking eating drinking or communicating certainly it is so nigh a ioyning that a very vnion which is to say one thing is made of that which is receaued in this blessed Sacrament and of those that receaue the same one thing I say is made of both yea one of al not only he that receaueth this one bread is made one with the bread but he is one also with al them that any where within the Churche worthely receaue of the same bread for when two things meâ—…e in a thirde they mete also betwene them selues The reason of this great ioyning is the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament for seing the bread receaued is Christ he is so strong a bread and foode that he can be ouercomed of
voice and commandâ—…meÌ„t of Christ and to be subiect to him as the wife is to her husband As therefore the parties maried come to the third vnitie of being made both one fleshe is no lawfull impâ—…diment stay them so doth Christ present him self in the Sacrament of his body and blood to make perfite and to coÌ„sâ—…ate his mariage in the last degree And as in adultery S. Paul graunteth a place of reconciliation beâ—…wene the man and wife so if any maÌ„ after he is maried to Christ folow the world the fleshe or the deuill he may be absolued by the Priests and so come to be ioyned with the body and blood of Christ in vnion of true flesh If now the naturall and the whole mysticall body of Christe haue so great affinitie with the state of mariage that in all degrees they be described by like termes in the worde of God seing the last and chefe coniunction whiche is in mariage can not be made without the real presence of the two bodies which are ioyned no more can the last vnion of Christ and of his Churche be made in his last supper vnlesse both his and our bodies come really together If Christ sit only in heauen not hauing his body made present at his holy table and our bodies be yet still in the earth what coniunction of bodies is made betwene Christ vs If the vnitie which is betwene two persons in mariage be a signe of the vnitie whiche is betwene Christ and the Church as S. Paul proâ—…eth it is not possible that the vnity can be lesse real in the truth then it is in the signe But in mariage whiche is the signe the persons maried are one flesh during the tymâ—… of their being together and they are both present bodily Thersore Christ is present in his own substance to be ioyned in that most chaâ—…e and vnspotted bed of matrimony with his own spouse whiche ioyuing is made in a Sacrament the which SacrameÌ„t is ministred in those knoweÌ„ forms of bread wine Therfore vnderthose forms the substance of Christes body and blood is really present This is that which S. Hilarie saith Verè verbum carneÌ„ cibo dominico sumimus We take truly the word made flesh in the meat of our â—…ord â–ª we take yâ— word made flesh yâ— is to say yâ— who le substance of Christ we take it truly that in the meate whiche our Lord geueth It is writen that he gaue saying Take eate Therefore in that meate we take truly the word made flesh but seing that meat semeth bread vnder that which semeth bread we take the whole substance of Christ. Again he saith Naturam carnis suae sub sactamento nobis admiscuit he hath mixed the nature of his flesh to vs vnder a sacrament That same word sub vnder sheweth what he meaneth for the form of bread is called a signe or sacrament alone as the body vnder it is called a sacrament or signe and also the thing or substance of the Sacrament S. Chriostom saith vt non solum per dilectionem sed reipsa in illam carnem conuertamur per cibum id efficitur quem nobis largitus est It is brought to passe by yâ— meate which Christ hath geuen vs that we may be coÌ„uerted into that flesh not only by loue but in the thing it self If bread and wine be not the thing it selfe but only Christes owne flesh and yet we are connerted in very dede into yâ—â—…lesh of Christ through the meat which he gaue seing he gaue al that he gaue vnder the form of bread and wine vnder those formes we receaue in dede and truth that flesh according to which we are reformed Which place of many shall I bring out of S. Cyrill He sayth one where Cûm mystica benedictio in nobis fiat nónne corporaliter quoque facit coÌ„municatione carnis Christi For as much as the mysticall blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christe to â—…wel in vs corporally also through the coÌ„municating of Christes flesh Can the mysticall blessing make Christ dwell corporally in vs if it self haue not Christes flesh corporally in it Cur membra fidelium membra Christi sunt Nescitis inquit quia membra vestra membra sunt Christi Membra igitur Christi meretricis faciam membra Absit Why are the meÌ„bers of yâ— faithfull the members of Christ Know ye not saith S. Paule that your members are the members of Christ Shall I then make yâ— members of Christ the members of a harlot God forbid Here S. Cyril doth manifestly allude to the kind of vnitie which is betwen man and wife in lawfull mariage and betwene foruicatours in vnlawful coniunction In eâ—…he place two are made one but in mariage lawfully in whoredom vnlawfully The SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is like to lawful mariage And therefore S. Cyrill concludeth Non habitudine solum quae per charitateÌ„ intelligitur Christum in nobis habâ—…are sed participatione naturali That Christ dwelleth in vs not only by affection or deuotion or efficacy which is vnderstanded by charitie but by natural partaking It is therefore an heresy to defend as the Sacramentaries do that we are ioyned to Christes flesh in his supper by faith and spirite only as though Christ being so long maried neuer came bodily to make vp that most chast knot of vnion betwene him and his Church But if the Sacramentarie doctrine were true it should haue lesse for asmuch as it should not be present really with vs it should not be offered externally vnto God by the Priâ—…ts of the new lawe it should not be vppon the table it should not be in the mouthes of them who receaue yâ— same it should not be made naturally one with our bodies nor we one with it S. Paule by the reall vnitie which is made betwene the meat of Christ and of his faithfull people doth proue an vnitie in lesse degree but yet an vnitie betwene those who did eate together of meates offered to ydoles But yâ— meat of Christes supper whereby we should be ioyned as well to it as among our selues our new brethern take cleane away from the visible table and altar S. Paule sayeth Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord and of the deuils table Our new brethern graunting the deuils a reall table will not allow any such to Christ. They must conâ—…esse a table as well inuisible as corporall of the Iewes and Gentils for eche of them had their faith and their God albeit not good and true but to Christes body and blood which is the altar and table of the new Testament they will not allow any externall or visible altar or table I neede not insult at them for it â—…â—…ithens the day will come when Christ will not allow them any table to eate or drink with him in the kingdom of heauen They that haue brought all
by it selfe aâ—… also being one of those things which doth principally declare the saith of the whole Churche in this behalfe For no man would adore the body of Christ in the Priestes hands or vpon the altar if it were not really present there The Chapiters of the sixth Booke 1. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophet Dauid in the Psalm 21. 2. Item of the Psalme 98. 3. It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatry to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 4. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the new Testament 5. That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ dyd honour the body blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 6. The adoration of the body blood of Christ is proued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first six hundred yeres 7. The reall presence is proued by the doctrine consent of the auncient Fathers 8. Item by the faith of the people 9. That no man can be coÌ„demned for beleuing the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophete Dauid OF this adoration due to the body of Christ the holy ghost forewarned vs by the Prophete Dauid in that psalme which Christ him selfe hanging vpon the Crosse declared to be literally ment of him selfe and that as well concerning his death whch he suffered for vs as also concerning the memory of the same death which he instituted in the night wherein he was betraied Christ therefore hauing she wed in that psalme the cruelty of Iewes in killing him most humbly asketh of his Father through his manhod that his soule may be deliuered by resurrection from the mouth of yâ— lion promising or vowing therewithal that he will open the name of God vnto his brethren and praise him in the middest of the congregation And when I cried vnto him he heard me If God hath fauorably heard Christ as there can be no doubt but he hath Christ is bouÌ„d by his own promise to praise his Father in a greate Church therefore saith he will doe so adding thereunto I will render or performe my vowes in the sight of them that feare him By what meane wil he performe them It foloweth immediatly Edent pauperes caet The poore shal eate be silled and they that seeke him shal praise the Lord theyr hartes shall liue for euer all the endes of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord. All the families of the Gentils shall adore in his sight Because the kingdome is the Lords and him selfe shall beare rule among the nations All that be fat on the earth haue eaten and adored al they that goe doune into the earth shall fall doune before him 1. Christ then â—…or his resurrections sake 2. made a vow to praise God 3. in the great Church of all nations 4. the performance whereof should be stablished by the meanes of eating filling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worshiping â—…ose that after baptism by yâ— grace of God are preserued froÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar 〈◊〉 be filled 〈◊〉 praise God for euer Eating is the acte of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirituall 〈◊〉 is the heauenly effect thereof the praising of God is the fruit of the 〈◊〉 For we 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 are filled to the end we should praise God for euer 〈◊〉 that after 〈◊〉 fall into greate 〈◊〉 partly they so fal that they rise 〈◊〉 and then they remember in yâ— memory of Christes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his last supper is that Christe died for them and so the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 forceth presseth them by penance to returne Partly they so fall that they care not to returne to God but lye wallowing still in their synnes yet they departe not by 〈◊〉 or infidelity out of the Church but kepe stil the bare belefe of Gods truth without performing his â—…dementes Such men eate worship but because they wil not remeÌ„ber be 〈◊〉 to God but come to the table of Christ vnworthely they are not filled by their eating But there are two other kinds of men who sometime haue bene of Christes church but now are not of it of which two the one doth eat and not worship because it beleuâ—…th not the thing eaten to be the flesh of God such are the Zinglians the other doth neither worship nor eate which are the vnfaithfull Iewes who are not only departed from the Catholike Church but also froÌ„ yâ— coÌ„fession of Christ our true Messias of whom S. Pâ—…ule saith we haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle Christ being absent in the visible forme of his body sitting therein at the right hand of his father ruleth his Church reigâ—…eth in it not as the vnfaithfull Iewes thought he would haue done by exâ—…ising violent inâ—…isdiction and subduing the bodies of men by force but he reigneth in yâ— hartes through faith charitie which he geueth vs. This inuisible reigning among visible men requireth for conuenient maâ—…tenance thereof an inuisible kinde of presence concerning the person of the king bâ—…t yet visible concerning the forâ—…ies of bread and wine to theâ—…d his members may know where to worship him For as his Church is visible through the bodies of them whose soules do inuisibly serue him so his body is visible through the formes of bread wine vnder the which it lieth inuisibly distributing the frutes of his death and resurrection All this eating adoring filling raigning and praysing doth chieâ—…ly belong in this place to the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Through those mysteries Christe the bread of life is really eaten wee are filled with grace God is praised in good works reigneth in our hartes we bowe downe to his body and worship him for our maker our King and our Lord. And that this interpretation is not of mine owne making it shall nowe appere S. Hierome vpon those wordes vota mea reddam I wil render my vowes which I promised saith Vota Christi natiuitas vel passio vota Ecclesiae opera bona vel mysterium corporis sanguinis mei offeram cum his qui in eius timore haec celebrant The vowes of Christ are his birth or passion the vowes of the Church are good workes or els I will offer saith Christe the mystery of my body and blood with them who celebrate these thinges in his feare First S. Hierome taketh the vowes of Christ to haue bene the promises that he made to be borne or to die but afterward he geueth an other sense which is more agreable to the letter For Christe had spoken before of his passion
holding and lifting vp the consecrated host said with a lowd voice Sancta sanctis the holy things for holy men The quere and people answered Vnus sanctus vnus dominus vnus Iesus Christus in gloria dei patris cum Spiritu sancto Amen one holy one Lord one Iesus Christ in the glory oâ—… God the Father with the holy Ghost Amen The Priest by lifting vp the holy consecrated hoste proâ—…oketh the people to adore and receaue the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread saying as it were These holy thinges are not for prophane synners or those who are not baptized but for holy Christians whereby the Priest meneth aswel to shew where the holy things be that he speaketh of as for whom they be Uerily they are those which he hath in his hands which he lifteth vp and sheweth to them Which I do so much the more earnestly presse vppon because now a dayes the Sacramentaries would make vs beleue that the holy thinges which must be adored to sanctisy vs and which must be adored be stil in heauen and not vpon the altar vnder the form of bread Why doth then the Priest hold vp the sanctified host cry holy things if those â–ª which he sheweth be not the holy things Why doth he adde holy tbings for holy men if those men that be holy shall not content them selues with those holy things but must looke for a new supper from heauen at the same tyme But the people of the primatiue Churche well knowing the things that were shewed to be the most holy of all holies because they are the body blood of Christ yet wil not acknowledge them selues to be holy and therefore do aunswere that there is one holy and he their Lord Iesus whiche words Cyrillus of Hierusalem expoundeth thus Sacerdos dicit Sancta sanctis Sancta scilicet ea quae in ara proposita sunt aduentu Spiritus sancti sanctificata Sancti vos cum sitis sancto spiritu donati atque ita sancta sanctis conueniunt Vos deinde respondetis vnus sanctus c. The Priest saith holy things for holy men Uerily the holy things are those whiche are set forth in the altar consecrated by the comming of the holy Ghost And seing ye are holy indewed with the holy Ghost by that meanes holy things are mete for holy men But afterward ye aunswere one holy one Lord Iesus Christ. In dede he alâ—…ne is holy as who is holy by nature For although ye are holy yet ye are not holy by nature but by partaking by exercise and by praier Behold the holy things â—…re not only in heauen but also vpon the altar S. Chrysostom saith Cûm dicit Sancta sanctis hoc dicit Si quis non est sanctus non accedat When he saith holy things for the holy he meaneth this thing If any man be not holy let him not come And in an other place Consydera quaeso Mensa regalis est apposita Angeli mensae ministrantes ipse rex adest cae Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before thee Aungels minister at the table the king him selfe is present and thou standest by idle thy garments are foule and thou carest not But if they are cleane then adore and receaue By conference of these places we vnderstand that the Priest by saying holy things for holy men warned that none should comme but those that were cleane from synne And yet those that were holy might not receaue before they had acknowleged and confessed by theyr fact and word the king to be present The confession by wordes was to answer the Priest one holy one Lord Iesus Christ. The confession in fact dede was to bow doune bodily and to adore the holy things which are the body and blood of Christ and Christ him self Adore saith Chrysostom and communicate worship and receaue The eleuation of the consecrated host was made for these two purposes that the king of glory should be worshipped vnder the form of bread receaued of holy men By worshipping we conâ—…esse him to be holy by nature in his Godhead and person by communicating we partake the fruits of his passion Of this lifting vp of the holy host Dionysius writeth Pontifex laudatis sacris dei operibus ea quae diuinissima suut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificat vel consecrat laudata oculis subiicit per symbola quae ritè proponuntur The Bishop hauing praised the holy works of God doth offer vp in sacrifice or consecrate the most diuine things and after praise geuen to them he sheweth them to the eyes by meanes of the signes which are duely set forth The consecrating or offering vp in sacrifice of the most diuine things doth shew the real presence of the body and blood which only are the diuine things and only may be consecrated or finally offered in the state of the new testameÌ„t The praising of theÌ„ whiche is made of the Bishop doth witnesse that they are not creatures without life as they were before consecration but such as may receaue of a reasonable man praise and thanksgeuing offered vp to them The shewing of them declareth that other men are prouoked to the like praysing and honouring of them The shewing of theÌ„ by meanes of the signes declareth their presence not to be intellectuall only albeit the maner thereof be spirituall but their presence to be reall vnder the formes of breade and wine For those are the signes whereof Dionysius speaketh Neyther must one of these things be considered alone without the other as some men consider them who suppose they are lifted vp to be only as it were a watcheword of lifting vp our harts to heauen whereas they are first said to be consecrated and then to be lifted vp If the diuine things that were consecrated be lifted vp they be not now a signe only but they are made the diuine things theÌ„ selues and those diuine things are shewed to vs by the signes Lo there are diuine things shewed signes also but the diuine things being praised are shewed by the signes What is that to say but vnder the signes of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are shewed to be praised and honoured of other men as the Priest him self hath already praised and honoured them The word signifying the praise of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things praised with an hymne which worde hymne is most peculiar to the things of God for hymnes are specially dedicated to God in the praise of his workes S. Basil speaking of the same matter saith Inuocationis verba dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit which of the Saincts hath left in writing to vs the wordes of innocation whiles yâ— bread of thankes geuing and the cup of blessing is shâ—…wed The word which S. Basile vseth
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
when it is sayd ouer the bread of Christ him self This is my body This grosse imagination maketh Christ a lyer as Cyrillus hath witnessed And now came our Apologists and bring those wordes against the Catholikes as though they had a grosse imagination who thinke and teach the wordes of Christ to be true to worke that they speake when soeuer they belong to any Sacrament And therefore the substance of bread and wine to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ the formes of the same bread and wine remaining as veyles and cortaines to couer the sayd flesh as well because our faith should haue merit as because our eyes be not able to see that gloriouse mysticall kind of presence The which consecrating of Christes body is an vnblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind of the death which redemed the world Euery part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ euery kind alone is sufficiēt to norish him to saluatiō who worthely eateth it And yet both kinds together must be cōsecrated to shew the death of Christ. This belefe hath no grosse imagination in it as shall appeare in all the worke folowing ¶ What the first Councel of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper ANd the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greek of some doth expresly forbid vs that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before vs. The words of the Nicen Councell whereof the Apologie spea keth are these Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa caet Again here also in the holy table let vs not basely attend the bread and cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind let vs vnderstand by faith That Lamb of God which taketh away the synnes of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitū esse to be put and laid on that holy table incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum to be vnbloodely sacrificed of the Priests and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verè Truly and in deed taking his own precious body and blood doe beleue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause we take not much but litle that we might know we take not to fill vs but for holynesse In these words many things are affirmed of the blessed Sacrament of the altar euery of the which doth proue or helpe to proue the real presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and wine First the Councell sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before vs vpon the holy table bidding vs not basely attend or consyder them What other thing can these words meane then to warne vs ▪ that we should not looke to the natural appearing or shew of the bread and of the cup but to a greater vertue which lieth priuie vnder their formes Therefore begin we to collect that the bread and the wine which stand vpon y◠holy table kepe not any more their old nature substance but contein vnder their old formes the new substance of Christ. For if they remained as before consecration they were materiall bread and wine then we nede no warning to put away base considerations of them sith by that opinion we are bound to beleue earthly bread and wine to be still bread and wine and to be nothing bettered in substance Then as concerning the vse of them so long as y◠blessed word of God which is the form of the Secrament is ioyned with any element which remaineth still in his old nature so long y◠word and the element make a mysterie But when the word or form is ended the Sacrament is ended as the which only worketh and hath grace annexed to it whiles it is in the vse whereunto Christ hath appointed it So long as the Priest whiles he washeth is saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost so long y◠baptim is a doing and working when the wordes be ended the Sacrament is ended For seing y◠promesse of forgeuenesse of synnes is geuen to the washing in y◠name of the Trinite when that is done the promesse is sinished for that course The councell of Nice speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration after that it was sayd ouer thē This is my body and this is my blood which wordes are the form of that Sacrament For the councell speaketh of the being and standing and of cōsyderig these things vpon the holy table not only whiles y◠wordes are spoken but still afterward vntill they be receaued If then both the wordes of the Sacrament be past and yet y◠councell say we must not basely attend the bread and the cup that are vpon the holy table It geueth vs to vnderstand that the wordes did not only come to the elements of bread and wine to make them a Sacrament after the commen sort of making which is in baptim in confirmation in holy orders and in penance but also that the wordes did worke some reall thing vnder y◠formes of bread wine which remaineth still as long as y◠sayd formes signes remain For this cause the councell sayd we ought not basely consyder the bread and cup for that more was vnder the shew and colour of them then our eyes could tell vs. What must we then doe We must resort to a higher master then our eyes are we must lift vp our mind we must vnderstand not by loking seing but by faith Whether must we lift our mind To heauen That is not euill but the councell sayth an other thing We lifting vp our mindes must vnderstand by faith Then the lifting vp of our mind is the renouncing of our senses the cleauing to our faith We must beleue that which we can not see What must we beliue That the Lamb of God is vpon the holy table Which Lamb He that taketh away the sinnes of the world On which table On the holy table whereon that standeth which semeth bread and wine How is y◠Lamb there He is put layed situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of an other thing For of such a situation the councell speaketh so we must beleue of it Now put this geare together and thus the councell sayth Consyder not basely that bread and cup which standeth before you For although it seme that which nature made yet we must lift vp our mind and vnderstand by faith that thing or substance which is standing on the holy table how so euer it appere bread and wine to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world Now we see what is base and what is high Bread and wine is base Body and blood is highe That must not be consydered because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be This must be beleued because it is made present in
shall differ any thing at all from the fathers gift must nedes be more then a spirituall eating of Christes flesh he shall perceane â—… this chapiter both a spirituall eating presently offred and a sacramentall eating promised hereafter â—… the naturall substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood which in this place thus breefly touched shall at large be handled in the treatise folowing At this tyme he that conferreth what was done and sayd both at the last supper of Christ and the yere before about the sea of Tyberias shall see concerning the doyngs bread taken in bothe places blessing and thanksgeuing in bothe eating in bothe And as concerning words let him deeply ponder and consider that as in S. Iohn he began his talke of coÌ„mon bread saying to the Iewes ye folow me because yehaue eaten of the loaues of bread but at the length he ended his talke with the eating of his fleshe and drynking his blood So in his last supper he tooke into his handes coÌ„mon bread but at the length he ended his banket in the eating his body and drinking his blood As in S. Iohn he speaketh distinctly of a meate which the soÌ„ne of man will geue So at his supper the soon of man did administer the whole gift of his heauenly meate in his owne person As in S. Iohn he saieth the bread which I will geue that is to say the meate of my last supper so in his last supper he takâ—…g bread after blessing breakyng dâ—…th geue a blessed food saying sumite take As in S. Iohn he sayd the bread whiche I will geue and not the bread whiche I will take so in his supper he tooke one kind of bread and gaue an other For as in S. Iohn he saieth the bread which I will geue is my flesh so at his last supper after he had taken coÌ„mon bread and blessed he sayed Take this is my body As in S. Ihon the bread to be geuen and the flesh of Christ is all oâ—…e so in his supper he geueth none other bread besides his owne body For the substance of the coÌ„mon bread was chaunged by blessing and speaking the wordes As his bread and flesh was sayd to be in S. Iohn for the lyfe of that world so in his supper he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you As in S. Iohn he saieth my flessh is meate in deed so in his supper he saieth take eate this is my body That whiche is eaten in deed is meate in deed As in S. Ihon there is mention oâ—… drinking the blood of Christ so in his supper he sayth drink ye al of this for this is my blood As in S. Ihon there is no mention of wine to be geuen or druÌ„ken so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine at the tyme of driÌ„king nor gaue any wine at all to be druÌ„ken because it was by his words changed into his blood As at Capharuaum certaine of his Disciples went away from him so at his last supper he did reiect and separate them from his table And as his twelue Apostles most faithfully taried with him at Capharnaum so they alone were in the night of his betraying admitted to his holy table As at Capharnaum when Christ had asked the twelue whether they also wold goe away S. Peter answered for them Lord to whom shall we goe meaning they were not offendedâ—… nor wold noÌ„t got from him euen so after his last supper S. Peter likewise all the rest sayd they wold not deâ—…ie him though all the world forsoke him or toke offence against him As at Capharnaum Christ sayd that one of the twelue was a deuill so at his last supper yâ— Bospel doth tell that Satan entred into Iudas one of the twelue If the tyme wordes dedes persons throughly agree it is vnsemely to make them diuerse kindes of eating and drinking whereof one man at one tyme of the yere speaketh and practiseth to the same Disciples so conformable a doctrine and doing ¶ It is proued out of the holy Fathers and generall Councels that Christ in S. Ihon spake of his last supper THat I may here omit S. Ignatius who defineth the bread of God of heauen and of life which is named in the sixth of S. Ihon to be the flesh of Christ and his cup or blood That I may let passe Clemens Alexandrinus who speaking of the nourishment which we that are baptized in Christ haue by him calleth it not only Christ the word milk bread and drink but also the flesh and blood and body of Christ and the mysterie of bread alleging diuerse places out of S. Ihon for that purpose Last of all that I may not stand vpon Origen who comparing the fulnes of Baptism to the red sea which was but a shadow and likewise the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper to Mauna declareth out of S. Ihon that now the flesh of Christ is meate in deed by that meanes witnessing that he toke the words of the sixth of S. Ihon to belong to the mysterie oâ—… Christes last banket Surely S. Cyprian doth not only by occasion of other talk but euen of set purpose teache that who so euer for some great fault is any long tyme kept from the body of Christ in the Sacrament he is in danger of euerlasting life And yâ— because Christ sayd except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood ye shal not haue life in you And yet he should wholy faile of his proofe if that place which he bringeth out of S. Ihon did not proue the necessitie of communicating Sacramentally S. Athanasius setting foorth a brief and compendiouse rehersal of the whole diuine Scripture witnesseth that Christ at his coming to Capharnaum reasoneth with the multitude concerning the mysteries Which saying of his can not be iustified according to the historicall sense which he professeth in that worke if Christ in S. Ihon spake principally of that spirituall eating which is besyde his holy mysteries S. Hilarie disputing of the naturall veritie of Christ which is in vs by the SacrameÌ„t of receauing his flesh doth not only bring for that intent these words My flesh is meate in deed But also concludeth that as well by the profession of our Lord as by our own faith Christes flesh is truly in vs. And certainly he meaneth it so to be in vs as we receaue it in his last supper But if the place by him alleged proue not so muche his reason lacketh a sufficient ground for so much as he citeth none other authoritie for that argument of his against the Arrians but only the words which are in S. Ihon. By those words he affirmeth Christ to be in vs after such sort that he is in vs naturally and we naturally in him S. Basile intituling his booke of Baptism and wholy bent to declare the Sacraments of
be coÌ„fessed no lesse to perteine to the promise of Christes supper then those doe towardes th ende of the chapter when he sayth the bread which I wil geâ—…e is my flesh So doth Theophilact expoâ—…d this place Cibum manentem mysticam dicit sumptionem carnis domini quam nobis ipse dat filius hominis factus He calleth the meate which tarieth the mycall receauing of our Lords â—…esh which him selfe being made the Sonne of man geueth vs. What name I Theophilact All the Fathers yea all Christians agree that Christe in his supper is the meate whereof it is sayd it perisheth not Now Christ perisheth not whether he be geuen to vs by faith as his Father is sayd to geue him or in the Sacrament of his supper as yâ— Sonne of man is afterward sayd to be of the will to geue his flesh which is meate in dede As therefore we can not denie Christ when he is geuen by faith to be the not perishing meate so it were woâ—…derfull impiety to say the substance of Christes flesh geuen at his supper not to be the same not perishing meate or seing it is also a not perishing meate at his supper why should not these words be vnderstaÌ„ded of the same supper And seing Christ would it to be wrought not only as his Father geueth it presently but also as the Sonne of man wil geue it hereafter to wit vnder the form of bread at his last supper it must nedes be graâ—…ted yâ— Christ speaking of working the gift of the SoÌ„ne of man meant no lesse of working his own gift which he nameth afterward eating then the working of his Fathers gift which is straghtways called beleuing How beit concerning equalitie of substance in Godhead all is common betwixt them In fine the not perishing meate which the Sonne of man wil geue to yâ— Iewes is his flesh which he wil geue to be eateÌ„ Which flesh 〈◊〉 not perish as well because it is wholly 〈◊〉 in by the na ture substance of almightie God as also because it is not chaÌ„ged into our flesh when it is â—…aten as other meats are but spiritually changeth vs into it Now that fleshe not perishing but tarying in our soules bodies maketh them also kepe and preserue 〈◊〉 life whereby we come to the ioyâ—…s of heauen For that Christ meant of suche a not perishiÌ„g meat as might be receaued not only into our soules but into our bodies Also S. Cyrillus hath witnessed vpoÌ„ this place Operemur igitur vt saluator ait non eum â—…ibum caet Let vs work therefore â—…s our sauiour saith not that meat which â—…iding into the belly and geuing vs a short pleasure at the leugth goâ—…th forth in excrements and perisheth but let vs work the spiritâ—…all meat which strengtheneth the hartes leadeth to life â—…uerlasting the which meate he promiseth that he wil geue saying the Sonne of man will geue you this meate Thus he hath ioyned the things oâ—… man to the things of God and touched the whole mysterie of the incarnation For he sheweth sum what priuily the spirituall meate whereby we liue in Christe being sanctified both in soule and body But he wil say this thing more openly anon wherefore we also wil write there more at large an interpretation that shall agree to this place 〈◊〉 dured the words of S. Cyrillus who as he was a most excellent man of wit and lerning so hath he most exactly declared the meaning of these wordes which I now expound Christ meaÌ„t to persuade the Iewes his diuine nature and that he was himself according to his flesh the true maâ—…a which came down from heauen and that he would geue the self same flesh as truely to be â—…aten into the bodies of the faithfull for a spirituall nourishement of them as euer the Iewes dyd corporally feede vpon manna To persuade this he wrought a miracle in bread he traiâ—…ed them to talk of bread and of manna withal exhorting theÌ„ to sede vpon the â—…corruptible meate which he would geue This meate was his owne fleshe but he as yet would not vtter so muche vntill their myndes were somwhat prepared therunto by true faith For this cause S. Cyrillus wryteth that Christ as yet describeth the spirituall meate occultius somwhat secrâ—…tly Buâ—… that afterward hâ—… will shew it apertius more openly Agame S. Cyrillus saith Christ hath ioyned humana diuinis the things of man to the things of God The things of man are that flesh assumpted by Christ and the sanctifying of our bodies by receauing his fleshe into them through the gift of Christ whiche he gaue as man The thinges of God are the feeding of our soules by right belefe vpon God Thirdly by the iudgement of S. Cyrillus this place apperteineth to that which foloweth concerning the sanctification as wel of our bodies as of our soules but that whiche foloweth is most properly meant of the sanctification which our bodies receaue by the food of Christes supper of which supper S. Cyrillus exponndeth those words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. What nede more words this place is like to the othâ—…r following in the end of the same chapiter The bread which I wil geue is my flesh whiche wordes al the auncient fathers without any contradiction teache to belong to the supper Therefore doubtlesse they are of the same mynd concerning this place also but because this place is not so plaine as the other no man nede to maruaile why they rather allege the other then this And yet euen to this place of S. Iohn the holy martyr Ignatius alluded when he sayd in that epistle which both Eusebius S. Hierom acknowledged to be his Non mihi placet cibus corruptionis nequè voluptates vitae huius panem Dei volo panem coelestem panem vitae quod est caro Christi filij Dei poculum volo sanguineÌ„ eius quod est charitas incorruptibilis perennis vita The perishing meaâ—…e and pleasures of this life plâ—…ase me not I long for Gods bread the heaneÌ„ly bread the bread of liâ—… whiche thing is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and for the cup his blood which thing is â—…haritie not perishing and life euerlasting Thus as wel the coÌ„ference of holy scriptures as the witnesses of S. Ignatius of S. Cyrillus of Theophilact of S. Augustine and of Tertullian do shew this place to belong to the SacrameÌ„t of the Altar therefore therein we muste eate not bread and wine which perishe but only the permanent fleshe of Christ and so we must eate it by mouth as we beleue on it in hart For eating and beleuing is referred in this Chapiter to the selfe same fleshe of Christe therefore as really it must be eaten by mouth as it is beleued in hart to be most râ—…all in it selfe ¶ The equalitie of substance with his father which Christ allegeth
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
soule must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospell that as now they doe in England when one cup is drunken vp an other should be filled out of a prophaue pot that staudeth by as though al were one so that wine be drunken with a remeÌ„brance of Christes death and resurrection it is not so All must drink of one chalice that is to say of yâ— one blood of Christ which is consecrated at one tyme though the chalices which hold it were diuerse as sometymes they haue bene when a great multitude of people did receaue at once This circumstance doth shew that it is more then wine which is drunke This doth shewe that these words This is my blood work somewhat in that one chalice whereof all must drink And consequently that Christ speaketh to bread and wine at his supper and not only preacheth to the audience as Caluin most ignorantly aud impudently affirmeth This is the cup whereof S. Ignatius writeth VnuÌ„ poculum vniuersis distributum est one cup is distributed to the whole eâ—…mpanie and he meaneth not so much one cup in nuÌ„ber as that the drink is al one in euery cup to wit the blood of Christ. This cup was so throughly communicated to all the twelue that Iudas one of the twelue drank thereof and that to his own damnation because he made no difference betwen the blood of Christ and other drinkes And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case concerning that they teache the substance in Christes chalice to bethe substance of common wine and not the blood of Christe As our Sacramentaries in England by geuing the faithfull people drink they care not whence so it be wine doe by that facâ—…e shew them selues to beleue that the blood of Christ is not present in the cup of the holy table so Christ by willing his Apostles that all should drink of that one cup because it was his blood geueth vs a greate warning to beleuc that cup to haue had really his owne blood in it For contrary doctrines haue contrary vsages ¶ The xxiii circumstance of these words This is my blood I Must nedes touch in this place somewhat spokeÌ„ of before but I will doe it for a farther purpose and to an other effect whereas the Sacramentaries teache the wine to be made a â—…igure of Christes blood wine is neither named at the consecration tyme as it is euident nor pointed vnto because the article hic this which only pointeth to all that is pointed vnto can not agree with wine but diffeâ—…eth from it in gender for so much as in Latine hic this is of the masculine gender and vinum wine is of the neuter Again in Breeke the articicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the maculine so that if the pronoune hic this be not a noune substantiue it self but do point vnto a certain substance and yet that substance by the rules oâ—… grammar can not be wine and withall it both may be blood and of Chist is sayd to be his blood there can be none other literall proper and historical sense of these words but that This which is shewed by pointing vnto it is the substance of Christes blood I chose rather to say this much vpoÌ„ these words then vppon yâ— other This is my body Because though in them also yâ— pronoune hoc this doth only agree with the noune body not with bread yet I know that the Sacramentaries would striue therein say impudently that hoc standeth substantiuely for this thing and so would resolue it into this thing which is bread But in the consecration of Christes blood they can not pretend so much for it is not sayd hoc est sanguis meus in the neuteâ—… gender but hic est sanguis meus in yâ— masculine gender where the pronoune hic may only agree with sanguis blood By the which words we are certified also that in hoc est corpus meum the pronoune hoc this may only agree with the noune corpus body and neither with bread nor with any other acte which at the supper tyâ—… is a doing It can not now be sayd that est doth staÌ„d for significat seing there is no nominatiue case at al to go before the verbe significat for hic this can not stand neutrally but is of the same case geÌ„der and number that his substantiue sanguis blood is of It can not therefore be sayd Hic significat sanguinem meum this doth signifie my blood because in that speache this doth lack a noune substantiue to whome it may be referred and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noune substantiue to be the nominatiue case vnto it By which meanes the Sacramentaries leaue no congruitie of speach at all And so as S. Hierom wel noteth of their forefathers they build a roofe without walls or fouÌ„dation For what sense can they make without congrue words or what congruitie of words is in hoc panis and hic vinum what proposition will they haue without a nominatiue case or what nominatiâ—…e case without a noune substantiue or without an other thing which may stand substantiuely Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantiuely The words of S. Hiâ—…rome are Debemus scripturam sanctam primûm secundum literam intelligere facientes in ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt Secundô iuxta allegoriam id est intelligentiam spiritualem Tertiô secundum futurornm beatitudinem Vos autem primam inquit secundam contemnentes diem spiritualia vobis quaedam figmenta componitis sine fundamento parietibus tectum desuper imponentes We ought first to vnderstand the holy scripture according to the letter doing whatsoeuer things are commaunded concerning morall vertues Secondly according to the allegory that is to say according to the spirtual vnderstanding Thirdly according to yâ— blessedues of the things to come But you sayth God contemning the first and yâ— second day do frame you certain spirituall imaginations putting a roof thereuppon without a foundation and walles Euen so the Sacramentaries tel a goodly tale of eating and drinking by fayth and of spirtuall feeding but they take away the meat and drinke whereupon we should â—…eed they take away the literall sense of Christes words which being once gone all that is buylded vppon the words is the putting vp of a roofe without walles or fouÌ„dation These three propositioÌ„s are found hic est sanguis meus haec est caro mea hoc est corpus meum In all three it is euident that the pronoune agreeth only with the noune folowing the verbe The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis blood ioyne it to vinum wine They pul haec from caro flesh and hoc from corpus body and ioyne haec and hoc to panis bread Is not this to
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
no stomack but ouercometh all their natures that touche him By that meanes it is brought to passe that as 〈◊〉 approching nigh to any thing â—…urneth all that is apt to be burned into it self making it of his owne condition and qualitie yea rather of his owne nature so Christ who is consuming fier turneth into his mysticall body all that worthely eate and drinke his naturall body in the Sacrament of the altar Yf we did eate common bread drinke common wine out of all question both the bread and wine wold be ouercomed of our stomack and by lytle and lytle wold be conuerted into our flesh and blood to norrish them corporally by which meanes neither we should by eating wheaten bread at any time be made one bread neither any of vs should become one with an other For they that differ by reason of diuers persons as diuerse men doe can neuer in any kinde of meate be made one whiles they eate that which is digested into their vaynes and made parte of their persons but only they are able to be made one who eate that which taryeth styll whole and sound in his owne nature styll common to all neuer appropriated to any one but gathereth all them into it self as making one spirituall mysticall body of all faithfull men Yf then we eate a kinde of bread in the holy mysteries and are one bread because we eate of the one bread surely it is no common bread but such a foode and meate as being eaten is not consumed of vs but rather consuming our weaknes maketh al vs that eate it of the same immortall nature with it which none other meate doth absolutely besydes the reall body and blood of Iesus Christ and it so mightely worketh our spirituall vnion that Christ wold his owne body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be the Sacrament of that self vnitie which it worketh Nothing is more common in S. Augustine then to say that we take in the Sacrament the body of Christ which we are Vos estis in mensa vos estis in calice ye are in the meate ye are in the cup but we are not in the substance of wheaten bread albeit we are after consecration signified by that forme of bread which bread it self was from many graines of corne made one loaf but we are not at all signified by the substance of the bread For so euery bread in the world were the holy signe of yâ— Church of God by that meanes it were much more the body of Christ which thing S. Augustine denieth saying that euery bread and cup is not borne mysticall to vs but it is made mystical by a certeine consecration If then the natural substance of bread suffise not to signifie the body of Christ and the felowship of the elect and yet they be manifestly signified to be one in the Sacrament of Christes supper what other ground must concur to shew them to be in the meate which they receane in the cup whereof they drink The Catholikes haue learned of the auncient Fathers that it is the reall body and blood of Christ which only being vnder the foorm of bread and wine can make vs to be shewed in the meate in the chalice For we are shewed in them because our head Iesus Christ is there within the forme of bread and wine now where the head is there also the members be signified to be specially seing the head is there to gather his members nere vnto him and as S. Chrysostome speaketh to make them as it were one lumpe with him For as many grains of corne are made into one loaf and that loaf by consecration is turned into Christes body the forme of bread stil remaining so many persons are in Baptisme made one mysticall body and that body at Christes supper is againe naturally ioyned to Christes own flesh and by that corporall vnion is mingled wholy tempered with him so that one thing is made of Christe and of his Church ¶ The reall presence is proued by ioyning together all the former wordes HAuing particularly declared how breaking communicating vniting make for the real presence of Christes body and blood I thought good now to coÌ„ferre al these things together The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of the one bread Here bread is thrise named and foure things are affirmed of it 1. We breake breade 2. bread is the communicating of Christes body 3. we are one bread 4. we partake of the one bread Seing in all these places the name of breade is put to expresse one and thesame mysteriâ—… it must nedes be ment so that all these sayings may be verified without 〈◊〉 of the one to the other which can be done by no meanes except we take the substance of Christes body vnder yâ— form of bread to be called bread By that meanes the body in respect of the form of bread is conuenieiuly said to be broken By that meanes the substance of the body is the thing coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder the form of bread By the communicating of that substance we are vnited to the one bread and be made one body not only by faith and will as in baptism but by the corporall coÌ„innction of Christes flesh because we partake of that one bread in his own substance whereof we did partake before in certaine effectes of grace proceding from it Thus the breaking distributing of such a bread is the cause of the communicating of Christes body and such a coÌ„municating is the cause of ioyning vs corporally in one body and such an vnion procedeth of the partaking of that one bread in his owne substance And consequently all things agree well together But if we once take the sub stance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither that substance is the communicating of Christes body because euery bread in the world should by like reason be the communicating thereof for so much as that which is the substance of any thing is in euery particular propriety of the same kind nor we are not all one material bread as it is euident nor we all partake not of one wheaten bread either in baptisme or after Again if the wheaten bread which is said to be the communicating of Christes body be interpreted to signifie yâ— coÌ„municating betwene vs and Christ when it is likewise said of the Apostle we are one bread and one body for it is one verbe and oue noune in both places est there sumus here communicating of one body there one bread and one body here If the bread which is the coÌ„municating of Christes body be the bread which is the figure of the communicating we that are said to be one bread are said to be the figure of one bread Likewise seing we
vnworthy eating and drinking of euill men WHen S. Paule had said As oft as ye shall eate this bread and drink the cup of our Lord ye shall shewe our Lordes death vntill he come he goeth forward saying Therefore who so eateth this bread drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our Lordes body and blood How doth this senteÌ„ce hang vpoÌ„ yâ— former how coÌ„meth it in with â—… Therefore but because in the former sentence S. Paul said by eating this bread we shew Christes death And for as much as we shew it in that self thing which dyed for vs therefore he that eateth vnworthely such a meate wherein by the substance which died he sheweth Christes death he is gilty of our Lordes body none otherwyse then if he had betraied it as Iudas did For the same body that Iudas did by a false kisse geue to death we eate vnder the forme of bread to shew the same death If then Iudas were gilty of Christes natural body for geuing it vnworthely to death we are gilty of the same naturall body when by eating it we shew vnworthely the same death But if we had not present the same real flesh which Iudas hetraied our vnworthy shewing could not be like his vnworthy doing al the strength of S. Paules reasoning is only grounded vpon the real presence of Christes body the vnworthy shewing whereof he now speaketh is the vnworthy â—…ating And for so much as eating is a corporall action which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth S. Paule doth vs to vnderstand that euil men might touch and haue in their mouthes yâ— bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of him â—…elfe affirmed to be his body and blood therefore S. Paule confesseth that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ in theyr mouthes But that they could not doe except the body and blood were vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore he teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine Saith not S. Paule whosoeuer eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord vnworthely Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken vnworthely But what Speaketh he of eating by faith or of drinking by spirit No verily for such eating and drinking can not be vnworthely made You wil say it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh If it were so why doth S. Paule name it this bread â–ª For 〈◊〉 the pronoune this doth shew a thing present to some sense or other and seing when S. Paule wrote these wordes he being absent in body from the Corinthians could not shew them any thing by any corporal actioÌ„ of his it remaineth that yâ— thing whereunto this doth point was named in the epistle of S. Paule which he worte to those faithfull men and also that it went not long before as the which otherwese might be of vncertaine vnderstaÌ„ding What is it then which went before Christ toke bread and after thanks geuen said Take eate this is my body whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point vnto that whereof Christ said This is my body S. Paule meaneth to shew his faut whosoeuer eateth the body of our Lord vnworthely and thereby he grauÌ„teth euil men to eate Christes body which they can doe by no meanes except that be Christes body which they take into theyr â—…outhes The Sacramentaries will obiect againste me that Christ ment the signe of his body which truly can not be so For seing S. Paule named no signe as this can not point to that which was not named so it must point only to the thing named before But the thing before named was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance ¶ The reall presence is proued because vnworthy receauers are gilty of Christes body and blood WHo soeâ—…er eateth this bread or drinketh the cup of our Lord vnwortehly he shal be gily of yâ— body blood of our Lord. A man may be gilty either for doing an euil deede or for leauing a good deede cleane vndon or els for doing a good dede in an euil manner Here S. Paule maketh the vnworthy receauer gilty for eating this bread and drinking the cup of our Lord vnworthely which is to say for doing a good deede after an euil manner his dede is eating which thing he so reaâ—…ly doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drink damnation to himself But no man is gilty of doing more theÌ„ he actually doth therefore the vnworthy receauer who for eating and drinking is gilty of the body and blood of Christ doth eate and drink in deede the same body and blood of Christ whereof he is gilty The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paule to haue said He that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christes supper refuseth to eate by faith the body of Christ sitting in heauen is gilty of not eating Christes body Who euer heard of such a toy what iote of all the scriptures which appertein to Christes supper haue they left vnwrested vntorne or vndefiled what sentence clause or word haue they left in his naturall meaning If S. Paule and the foure Euangelists were not theÌ„ selues men of sufficient discretion who might consider how nedefull it were to vnderstand wel the mysteries of Christ yet surely in repeting one matter oft it would at the least chance vnto them that they should haue told vs some one syllable which might haue made for the Sacramentary doctâ—…ine if it had bene true But now whatsoeuer they speake doth destroie vtterly and ouerthrow theyr fond assertion And that I may for this tyme go no farther what caÌ„ be answered to this place of S. Paul he that eateth a very good thing vnworthely is pronounced gilty therefore his present fault consisteth in the euill manner of his eating For to eate vnworthely is to eate in deede but not to eate after a good manner No man by eating in an euill manner can be gilty of that which he doth not eate in that euill manner and yet the vnworthy receauer of this bread is pronounced gilty of Christes body and it is ment of his naturall body Therefore this bread which he doth eate vnworthely is the reall and naturall body of Christ. If a man had done neuer so heinouse a robbery yet thereby to condemne him of adulterie it were an euideÌ„t 〈◊〉 although the paine due to adultery be lesse then that which is due to robberie But now to condemne a man for eating the body of Christ who did eate only the figure of it that were much more vniust for that his paine increased aboue the measure of his fault Let it be neuer so great a fault to eate the holy bread vnworthely yet if that holy bread be
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin