the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
〈…〉 oud of Christ and yet no necessitie of reall presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else but 〈…〉 ho is set foorth and the greatnes of the thinges sette 〈…〉 rth Therefore saith Sander it is not breade and 〈…〉 ine that is set forth but the body and bloud of Christ. 〈◊〉 answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of breade and wine Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach in all his writinges alâ—hough intreating of so high a mysterie hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically as Hom. 6. he saith The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred is the place of Angels the place of Archangels the palace of heauen heauen it selfe Nam hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas Mensam istam vide cuius gratia constituta sit quapropter For doest thou doubt that heauen is here behold this table for whose cause and wherefore it is set CAP. XI No figure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently guiltie of Christes naturall bodie Sander confesseth that when a man by willfull contempt doth breake or defile the kings image it is reputed all one as if he had striken the prince himselfe not because the deede is one but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe But he saith this similitude is not like because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vpon the reall fact it selfe then vpon the will or minde of the dooer I answere there is no worde in saint Paul to prooue that he maketh his argument vpon the reall fact which is eating and drinking but vpon eating and drinking vnworthily which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing I answere the argument holdeth as well or neglecting as of contemning that which Ch 〈…〉 commaunded to be regarded although it be a greater fault to contemne then to neglect Secondarily saith Sander they that say the signe image or figure of Christs bodie is abused must shewe wherein that figure doth consist and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images external internal c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth in forme or shape are like to Christs bodie and bloude but in the vse and ende of them which is to nourish bodily as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vs is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vs spiritually of which spirituall feeding and nourishing the bread and wine being sanctified to that vse are not a bare naked or emptie signe Image or figure but a fuil perfect and effectuall seale confirmation and assurance to as many as receive yâ— same bread and wine being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin theÌ„ in baptisme of his body and bloud where vnto we are incorporated thereby then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament namelie then in Manna or the shewbread of which Sander speaketh But it is a thing neuer heard of saith Sander that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud therefore there is some other substante vnder the formes of bread and wine then was in Manna c Although the scripture saith not in so many words that he that did eate Manna vnworthily was guiltie of yâ— body of Christ yet in effect it saith the same and the same by necessarie consequence may be inferred He that did eate the same spirituall meate that we do vnworthily was so guiltie the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily for God was not pleased â—ith them as the Apostole saith therfore they were guil 〈…〉 e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply â—nd say it was not the same that we eate and drink First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expresly the rocke was Christ of whom wee 〈…〉 te and drinke S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe cap. 2 â—aith expressely they did eate the same spiritual meate that 〈…〉 ve doe for Manna was Christ vnto them Cyrill in Ioan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vnto those old fathers The like by Analogie is prooued of all other sacraments But Sander replyeth the â—ewes must then haue prepared examined themselues â—uerie day which is not reade of who doubteth but the Godly Iewes so did that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke and it is reade that they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes Why then saith Sander if it were so it had required more perfection in the law then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare and surely at the most but once a day wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked for 40. yeares The Law which is spirituall requireth more perfection then any man can performe but to argue what perfection is required of vs by that we vse corruptly is as grosse a fault in reasoning as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day so often they were to prepare and examine themselues And what if I say that euerie day although a man doe not receiue hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe as when he doth receiue But wee receiue but once a day at the most saith hee verily they receiued oftner because it was not onelie a spirituall meate but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues as our Sacrament is not wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament so coulde not they at that time Howe be it when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray which wee ought to doe more then once a day I would know what preparation or examination is necessarie for them that receiue the Sacrament excepting the onely relation of receiuing but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vnto God I speak not as Sander doth howe vnreuerently men vse to pray but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God CAP. XII The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating of the name of flesh bodie bloud eating drinking and such like wordes And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe and the fruite of the vine as for
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
prayer he citeth out of Cyrillus of Ierusalem That the holy ghost woulde make the breade the bodie of Christ and the wine the bloud of Christ in Cate. myst 5. But this is merueilous that Sander saith hee is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so great a mysterie if Christ had not commaunded him to make this thing But I replie if Christ had commaunded the priest to make his bodie what neede he desire another to make it And in that the holy ghost must make it it is certaine that Christ commaunded not the priest to make it Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite hee vrgeth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a making or working of holie thinges which may well stande with making and working of the sacrament although there bee no making of Christes hodie commaunded To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance But Irenaeus hath these wordes Quando mixtus calix c. when the Chalice mixed with water and the breade being broken taketh the worde of God then the Euâ—harist of the bodie and bloude of Christ is made It is made saieth Sander Yea verily but it is one thing to say the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloude is made another thing to say his naturall bodie is made But what is the Eucharist with you Papistes the verie bodie and bloude of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus wordes must be thiâ— the verie bodie and bloude of Christ of the verie body and bloud of Christ is made which were more then ridiculous Tertullian against Marcion saith lib. 4. Acceptum panem c. The breade which he had taken and distributed to his disciples hee made it his owne bodie Loe saith Sander he made the breade his bodie Yea sir but within six wordes following he sheweth howe breade was called his bodie namely because it was a figure of his bodie Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init saith Cap. 9. Sacramentum c. This sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the worde of Christ. And hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est This thing which we make is the bodie taken of the virgine But let Ambrose expounde himselfe in the words following soone after vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo Carnis illius sacramentum est c. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried wherefore it is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe ciâ—eth out This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloude before consecratino it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloude Likewise when Hierom in Ep. ad Hel. saith that Priestes doe make the bodie of Christ with their holy mouth hee meaneth the sacrament of his bodie as he saith immediately after â—hat we are become Christians by them meaning by the â—acrament of baptisme ministred by them Against Iouinian lib. 2. hee saith that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui in token of his bloude and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium quod in typo suae passiâ—nis expressit the mysterie which he expressed in the token of hâ—â— passion Out of Chrysostome are cited diuerse places al which are rather against Sanders making then for it as these The priestes make the oblation which Christ gaue to his disciples in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament vnproperly called of the old writers an oblation or sacrifice Againe The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest de sacer lib. 3. Againe Non homo est qui corpus c. It is not a man which maketh the bodie and bloude of Christ but the same Christ which was crucified for vs c. Yet Sander saith Christ saying Hoc facite commaunded men to make his bodie Aug. Cont. Faust Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our breade chalice is made mysticall vnto vs not borne made I say Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing I deny the argument especially vnderstanding this thing for the naturall bodie of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith Our Lorde doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe of his bodie Wherefore if hoc facite be make that thing which Christ gaue it is make a signe of his bodie The rest of the authorities of Theophilact Damascene Euthymius Anselmus c. I will not stande to rehearse because they being late writers speake often more neere vnto the Popish heresies And some of them were ranke papists yet in this matter for the signification of hoc facite make this thing not one of them speaketh directly as Sander defendeth But that the olde writers vse often the worde of making the bodie of Christ the sacrament c. It proueth not that they vnderstoode facere in Christs wordes to make one substance of another although by doing as Christ commaunded such a bodie as he spake of and such a sacrament was made CAP. XIIII What these wordes doe signifie For the remembrance of me and that they much helpe to prooue Christes reall presence vnder the formes of breade and wine To the obiection that the remembrance of a man differeth from the man himself Sander answereth that Christ said not onely do this but also make this thing because facere signifieth both to doe and to make and the remeÌ„brance of Christ is the shewing of his death as S. Paul teacheth by facte and by making Christs bodie vnder diuerse kinds to shew the separation of the bodie from the soule the breaking and eating of it in signe sheweth the breaking of it on the crosse c. To this I reply that facere can haue but one signification at one time and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul as Sand also confesseth to shew the Lords death which is by doing not by making except you meane the making of the sacrament hoc facite is still do this thing In deede the verie ministratioÌ„ of the sacrament according to Christs in stitutioÌ„ is a preaching of the Lords death but it followeth not therof that the Lord is present whom the Apostle by implication saith to be absent for he addeth vntill he come which were not properly saide if in person he were present but rather vntill he be seene which is there present inuisible To come is to remoue from one place to another place where the remouer was not before he came But Sander saith the presence of the benefactor is the best meane to make his good deede remembred as the scarre in a mans face being seene is the best remembraÌ„ce of his fighting for his friends defence I haue often shewed the vanitie of this kinde of reasoning by which it shoulde followe that
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
inwarde and outward which we must vse when we come to worship Christ himselfe CAP. II. The adoration of Christs bodie is proued againe out of the Prophet Dauid Psal. 98. The Latine text is Exaltate DominuÌ„ DeuÌ„ nostrum 〈◊〉 scabellum peduÌ„ eius quoniam sanctuÌ„ est Exalt the Lord our God worship his footstoole because it is holy Sander coÌ„fesseth the Hebrew readeth because he is holy So might he haue confessed that the Hebrew readeth worship at the stoole of his feete which is at the arke tabernacle or teÌ„ple which is called by Dauid 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstoole of Gods feete And that the sense of this verse is all one with yâ— last verse of the same Psalm which euen the vulgar Latine interpreter readeth thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate in monte sancto eius quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster Exalt ye the Lord our God worship in his holy mountaine because the Lord our God is holy In both verses is one word of worshipping the same preposition before the word that signifieth his footstoole and that word which signifieth his hil or mountaine Therfore the Latine interpreter should not haue said worship his foot stoole but worship in or at his footstoole as he saith in or at his holy hill Wherefore the Prophet Dauid in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the bodie of Christ any way if his own words rather then the words of the translator be considered Wherfore the foundatioÌ„ of this worship of the Sacrament is vtterly ouerthrowen But Sander saith that the Arke the temple being the footestoole of God toward which the Iewes did pray did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen but also in the Sacrament which is the arke temple vessel conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Did I not tell you in the preface that he would not proue the presence by the adoration but the adoration by the presence which is all in question who shall grant that the SacrameÌ„t is such an arke temple vessel as he affirmeth But many of the old fathers vnderstood the footestoose for the bodie or flesh of Christ affirming that it was to be worshipped To this I answer first they were all deceiued in their ground of scripture that so tooke the footestoole Secondly some of theÌ„ affirming the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped had no relation vnto the sacrament Thirdly they that said it was to be worshiped in the sacrament vnderstood worshipping otherwise then the Pa pists teach practise namely for reuerencing of Christs flesh in the mysteries without any imagination of carnall presence Hierom the first author cited by Sander for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith There be many opinions of the â—ootstole what it should be But heere the Prophet meaneth our Lordes body wherein the maiesty of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a footstoole This is spoken of the humanity of Christ without any respect vnto the Sacrament therfore it followeth Quid autem adorari debeat c. And that he ought to be adored the Apostles taught at his ascension when they returned vnto Ierusalem worshipping But also these thinges are to bee referred to our Lordes crosse and to his holy soule The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstanded by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteries which the Apostles as we haue said before did adore in our Lord Iesus for Christ is not deuided but one Here saith Ambrose the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honored or contemned in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrates in his word in al his creatures It followeth not that Christ is really present in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrats in his word in all his creatures Neither can it be prooued that by mysteries Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christes supper Againe when he saieth wee worshippe the flesh of Christ in the mysteries which the Apostles worshiped in Iesus Christ it followeth that the mysteries and Iesus Christ are diuerse thinges and not all one But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries that was worshipped in his proper person it followeth as Ambrose saieth that Christ is one and not deuided Thirdly is cited Augustine in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstoole to bee the flesh of Christ which he hath giuen vs to be eaten to saluation saith Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit c. And no man eateth that flesh except he haue first adored it it is found out how such a footstoole of our Lordes may be adored and that we should not only offend in adoring but we should sinne in not adoring Here Augustine saith the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten and who doubteth of that For hee that honoureth not Christe come in the fleshe shall neuer be nourished by his flesh and bloud But Augustine is so farre of to teach vs that Christs flesh is to be adored as really present in the Sacrament that he doth expresly denie his naturall body and bloud to be eaten and drunken for thus hee saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ as euen Sander reporteth ye shall not eate this body which you see nor drink that bloud which they shall shedde who shall crucifie mee I haue commended a certeine Sacrament to you being vnderstoode spiritually it will make you liue Although it must needes be celebrated visibly it must be vnderstanded inuisibly Howe thinke you Sander auoydeth the force of this place First he saith the last words must agree with the first and then both are true Very well he spake before of a spirituall manner of presence and eating of Christ in the Sacrament because he now denieth the corporall presence Secondly he answereth that Augustine speaketh of the visible forme and not of the substance of the body of Christ which is inuisible O abhominable impudence Augustine saith you shal not eate this bodye nor drinke that bloud Sander saieth These wordes body and bloud are taken for visible formes and not for the substance â—â—r Christ tooke not that greatnesse and quantity of flesh of his mother wherein he walked for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant to the state of a perfect man But I pray thee Sander if with shamefastnesse thou hast not lost all thy wit tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant or in the state of a perfect man Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified and that bloud which was shedde when he was crucified which body also he demeth that the Church hath present vpon
earth in Ioan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible forme of bloud which was shedde on the crosse or the very substance of his bloud If thou say it was the very substance which thou must say except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee then it was the verie substance of his bloud which Augustine denyeth to be drunken in the Sacrament But Augustine saith Sander was so fully persuaded that the fleshe of Christ was to bee adored vnder the forme of bread after consecration that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it not as common flesh but as the flesh of God for whose sake we adore it Cùâ—â—d â—erram quamlibet c. when thou bowest thy self or fallest down before any earth looke not upon is as earth but looke vpon that holy one whose footstoole it is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Now saith Sander what is it to say before any earth doubtles before any host coÌ„secrated c. Doubtlesse this is a clearkly interpretation that quaeâ—ibet terra any earth or euery earth that a mâ—n doth bowe vnto is a consecrated host Not onely the flesh of Christe is earth to bee worshipped but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to bee worshipped in respect of whome Augustine saith cùm ad terram c. when thou bowest downe to any earth consider God and not man whome thou worshippest in that man euen as in worshipping the flesh of Christ wee stay not in his flesh but ascend vnto his spirite for thus his wordes runne Numquid autem caro viâ—ificat What doth the flesh giue life Our Lord himselfe hath said when he spake of the commending of the same earth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Ideo ad terram quaÌ„libeâ— cùm te incliâ—as c. Therefore also when thou bowest and castest downe thy selfe vnto any earth whatsoeuer behold it not as earth but that holy one whose footstoole that is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Therefore here also he hath added worshippe his footstoole because it is holy c. The coniunction also which Sander hath craftily suppressed declareth that Augustine speaketh not onely of worshipping the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of God but also of worshippe giuen to any other earth which must wholy bee referred to God You see how inuincibly it is prooued that catholike men in S. Augustines time vsed to bowe down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar as San 〈…〉 no no more vntruely then ridiculously doth vaunt and 〈…〉 gge vpon the worshipping of any earth CAP. III. It is proued out of the Prophets that it can be no Idolatry to 〈…〉 ship the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar Sander first presupposeth the body and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 be really present in the Sacrament and then he defen 〈…〉 h it is no Idolatry to worshippe it But this is contra 〈…〉 to his promise for he vndertooke to prooue the reall 〈…〉 ence by the adoration that is dew to the Sacrament 〈…〉 d not the adoration by the reall presence But it is a â—onderful absurditie with him to say that it is Idolatry 〈◊〉 worshippe with godly honor the body and bloud of â—hrist in the Sacrament of the altar First because this say 〈…〉 g presupposeth externall Idols not to haue bene taken away by 〈…〉 e comming of Christ which is against the expresse worde of God If all externall Idols had bene taken away by the coming of Christ the Apostles would not so seriously haue warned men to beware of all Idolatry 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols act 15. 1. Iohn 5. c. Secondly it presupposeth saith he that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians by Publike doctrine and vniuersall practise in open Churches c. Not by true Christians but by false Christians the times of Antichrist as was prophecied Apo. â—3 9. Thirdly it presupposeth that Christ gaue occasion by his owne word that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread c. Christ gaue none occasion to worshippe bread more then to worship a dore or a vine tree Last of all it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping and also to teach that hee is Antichrist Nothing more agreeable to reason then that Antichrist should set vp an Idole that he himselfe by it might aspire to the greatest honor But Antichrist saith Sander is an aduersary and setteth himselfe against Christ but the Pope calleth himselfe the vicar of Christ and the seruant of seruantes Vnder the colour of these titles he arrogateth to himselfe power and honor aboue Christ to giue pardoÌ„ in papers sealed with lead a poena culpa when he teacheth that the pardon that Christ sealed with his bloud is only a culpa froÌ„ the fault but not from the punishment And yet the Popein his Canon lawe refuseth not to be called God aboue al Gods Secondly Antichrist aduaunceth himself aboue all that i◠〈…〉 shipped as God therfore he wil not how to an externall Id 〈…〉 commeth of superstition and pusillanimitie I answere 〈◊〉 Pope although he stoop not verie low to the sacramâ—â—â— of the Altar which is carried before him on a pal 〈…〉 when he himselfe is carried on mens sholders yet he pretendeth a familiar kinde of reuerence not of super 〈…〉 on but of subtiltie and fraude to couer his pride by hypocrisie that with deceit of vnrighteousnes he may preuaile in them that perish 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly Antichrist shall shew false signes and wonders to deceiue wicked men by So hath the Pope his members doâ— an infinite number wherof the Legends other lewâ—â— bookes are stuffed ful And euen Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of diuels Fourthly Antichrist is aduaunced aboue all idols th 〈…〉 shall set vp no idoll but himselfe therefore if the Pope set 〈◊〉 idol he is not antichrist I answere the Pope hath set vp 〈◊〉 idols but to aduaunce himself aboue them all For although he hath set vp the idolatrie of the Sacramens calling it god man yet what papist thinketh it not 〈◊〉 meritorious to worship kisle the Popes feete at Roâ—â— then to worship the sacrament daily in his owne pa 〈…〉 church What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa 〈…〉 of the Popes then in any thing that he loketh to receiue froÌ„ the sacrament of the altar wherfore this an hundred such like matters but that the Pope hath aduauced hims 〈…〉 aboue yâ— idols which he himself hath made coÌ„manded men to worship not for Christs honor but for his owne diuelish aduancement As for the profession of the Pope to worship Christ in the Sacrament in the signe of the crosse in praying to his saints by which Sandâ—r worlde discharge him froÌ„ antichristianitie is nothing elâ—â— but hypocrisie in him which hath no religion as it hath openly
The vnion is made not onely by faith but by the thing it selfe which is neither water breade nor wine nor faith but onely the reall substance of Christs body and blood Fulk That is not the question but of the manner of the mingling whether it be corporall or spirituall Sand. Chrysostome nameth changing sacrifice hand mouth tongue seeing touching eating hauing within vs therefore the manner of mingling must be corporall Fulk Chrysostome nameth the hande breaking the fleshe in peeces the mouth filled with spirituall fire the tonge made redde with this wonderfull bloode as you your selfe confesse therefore he speaketh not properly but figuratiuely of these instrumentes of the body which outwardly receiue the sacrement of so high holy a coniunction the manner of working whereof is wonderfull and not done with handes mouth tong c. of men Sand. Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith that such dwelling is made by the thing it selfe not by faith onely Fulk The word is be come flesh and dwelled in vs being verily Immanuel God with vs therefore by the thing it selfe and not by faith only he dwelleth with all the faithfull Sand. Prooue that wee are made Christes fleshe in baptisme by the bodie of Christ for else the vnion of the sacrament will be more reall Fulk By baptisme wee are buried with Christe vnto death c. And what purgeth vs in baptisme but the bloode of Christe which purgeth vs from all â—innes San. Prooue either that wee are vnited to faith it selfe and vnto baptisme it selfe or else the vnion made in this sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is in the other Fulk Wee are neither vnited to faith baptisme or to the Lords supper but to Christ by faith and by the sacraments Sand. Here wee are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fedde which wee see and touch but there wee bee not vnited to the water wherewith wee are washed Fulk Neither are you here vnited to anye thing that you see or touch excepte you will bee vnited to bread and wine or to the accidentes of them which only you holde remaine to be seene and touched In baptisme we are vnited to Christ whome we put on with whome we die are buried and rise againe being washed with his bloode in our soules as our bodies are washed with cleane water Sand. You say that wee are made Christ by baptisme but prooue that Christ is there deliuered in sensible thinges to your handes to your mouth to your tongue so that you may haue him within you as it is done in the supper These phrases you must prooue to be verified by faith and baptisme if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by baptisme as is made by the sacrament of the altar Fulk Saint Augustine saith wee are made Christe The phrases that Chrysostome vseth alluding to the externall manner of participation of that sacrament which is by hande mouth and tongue are not necessarie to prooue that the vnion made by the one sacrament is as reall as by the other when there bee phrases of equall force as the phrases of ingraffing putting on dying and being buried with him washed with his bloode c. Iew. As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lorde euen so the breade of idols is the partaking of Diuels and if wee eate one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sand. You falsifie the wordes of Saint Paul that which he spake of the substance of bread you assigne to the action of breaking Fulke You slaunder him for although he vse the tearme of breaking of bread yet bee assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking but to the thing that is broken as in the other parte of the similitude you might see if malice had not made you blinde Euen so the bread of idoles c. Sand. Primasius tooke not the name of breade materially for wheaten bread but for all kinde of meate and drinke which the idolaters vsed therefore he meant the bread which we breake is no materiall breade but a kinde of meate which Christe hath prepared for vs. Fulk Primasius tooke bread materially for wheaten bread although not onely for wheaten breade Therfore he tooke the breade which we breake for wheaten bread for what else is broken Againe the argument is nought hee tooke bread of idolaters generally for all meates by synecdoche the figure Therefore hee taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kinde of meate which is no bread at all But howe answere you Primasius saying there is the same vnion betweene diuels or idols and them that eate their bread which is betweene the body of Christ and Christians which eat the bread which is broken The participation of the one cannot be bodily ergo not the other CAP. XXII Sand. It is proued that S. Hilarie thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament Hard. If the word be verily made flesh and we receiue verily the word being flesh in our Lords meat how he is to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally who both hath taken the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable to himselfe in that he is borne man and also hath mingled the nature of his owne flesh to the nature of euerlastingnes vnder the sacrament of his flesh to bee receiued of vs in the communion Hil. de Trin. lib. 8. Iew. Master Harding hath not hitherto founde that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the sacrament Sand. You vse many shiftes whereof this is the last which I will nowe declare against your dissembling assertion Fulk Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are faine to seeke for him Iew. Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus Christ is really ioined vnto the father as vnto vs but Christ is ioyned to vs by nature therefore Christ is ioyned to God the father by nature That Christ is ioyned to vs by nature he proueth it thus We are ioyned to Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally Sand. He falsifieth S. Hilarie for he hath not the word naturally Fulk You slander him most impudently for he doth expounde the wordes of Hilarie Per vnius fidei naturam by the nature of one faith to be all one as if he had said naturally Sand. S. Hilaries intent is onely to shewe that faithfull men are one among themselues by nature of faith and not how Christ is ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at al for he answereth the argument of the Arrians grouÌ„ded vpon that place Act. 4. of the multitude of the beleeuers there was one soule and one heart Fulk As though there coulde bee anye vnitie of the belieuers among themselues but as they are al ioyned in one by Christ Christ to theÌ„ whoÌ„ blasphemously Sander affirmeth to haue had no faith froÌ„ the instant of his
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
Neither doe you consider this that they cannot haue life which are expertes without part of the body and bloude of Christ seeing hee sayth himselfe Except you shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude you shall haue no life in you Agayne Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelligeretis crederetis quare dixerit Dominus Non opus est san◠medicus c. If you did vnderstande you woulde beleeue wherefore our Lorde saide The whole neede not the Phisition but they that are sicke you would beleeue truely that they are not whole but wounded which are offered to be healed to our sauiour the Phisition at the station of Baptisme and that they shoulde not haue life except they eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of him which is life For he him selfe hath said Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal not haue eternall life in you and hee which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life Howe therefore doe you promise the life of the kingdome of heauen to infantes not borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Non cibatis carne atque non potatis not fedd with the flesh of Christ and which haue not dronke the bloud of Christ which is shedde for the remission of sinnes For it is his decree If any man bee not borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen For to enter into the kingdome of heauen is none other thing but to liue in a blessed life which remayneth for euer and euer Beholde hee which is not baptised and he also which is depriued of the vital meate and cup is diuided from the kingdome of heauen c. To the like effecte hee writeth Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus c. If reconciliation by Christ be necessarie for all men sinne hath passed oouer all men by which wee were enimies that we haue neede of reconciliation This reconciliation is in the lauer of regeneration and in the body and bloude of Christ without the which no not infantes can haue life in themselues Also Contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his pietie that infantes shoulde be damned for not doing that which they coulde not doe he addeth Vbi etiam ponis c. where also wilt thou place them because they shall lacke life seeing they haue not eaten the flesh of the Sonne of mā nor drunke his bloude Also de peccatorū meritis remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristowe but mingled with many intersections of his owne as his maner is After Augustine hath rehearsed the text Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c hee addeth Quid vltrà querimus c. What seeke wee further What can they aunswere to this except stubbornes doe stretch their striuing sinowes against the constancie of the manifest trueth Or dare any man say this also that this sentence pertayneth not to infantes and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them c Likewise cap. 24. he saith Optimè Punici c. Best of all the Christians of Africa do call baptisme it selfe nothing else but health and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else but life Whence but of an auncient as I thinke and apostolike tradition by which they holde it ingrafted vnto the Church of Christ that without baptisme and participation of the Lordes table no man at all can come not onely not to the kingdome of God but neither to health life euerlasting For this also the scripture testifieth according to those thinges which wee haue sayde before For what other thing doe they holde which call baptisme by the name of health but that which is sayde hee hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and that which Peter saith so also doeth baptisme in like manner saue you What other thing also doe they holde which call the sacrament of our Lordes table life but that which is saide I am the breade of life which came downe from heauen and the breade which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the worlde And except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you If therefore as so many and so greate testimonies of GOD doe consent that neither health nor life eternall without baptisme and the body and bloud of our Lord is to be hoped to any body in vaine without these is it promised to Infantes Furthermore if from health and life eternall nothing but sinnes do separate by these sacramentes nothing but the guilt of sinne is loosed in infantes These places of Augustine I haue rehearsed the more at large that the impudencie of the councell of Trent and of their poore patrone Bristowe might appeare whiche would excuse the errour of the auncient Churche and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times in saying that albeit they vsed to minister the communion to infantes yet they did it not for any necessitie to saluation whereas the contrary by so many places and more then I haue rehearsed doth most manifestly appeare As for the practise whiche he confesseth of giuing that sacrament to infantes he saith is not against Probet seipsum c. Let a man examine himselfe c. Because that infantes may examine them selues by others whiche is a monstrous kinde of speache as well as beleeue and repent by others Here is one errour of Augustine defended by an other of his for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD to whome baptisme is no more to be denied then circumcision was to the infantes of the Iewes The Prophet sayeth Iustus c. The righteous man shall liue by his owne faith It is not the faith of other men that can procure life vnto vs. Neither is faith required of infantes before they can heare the worde of God which is the onely ordinary meanes by whiche faith commeth But infantes sayeth Bristowe bee in no mortall sinnes being newely baptized and therefore they neede no examination for feare least they should come vnworthily Saint Augustine confesseth that hee was in mortall sinne euen in his infancie Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est non animus infantium The weakenesse of the members of infantes is innocent not the minde of infantes Afterwarde hee bringeth examples of enuie euen in an infant and at last concludeth Quod si c. And if it be so that I was conceyued in iniquitie and that in sinnes my mother in her wombe nourished me where I beseech thee my GOD when LORDE was I thy seruant where or when was I innocent By this you see there is no shorte time of mans life free from sinne Neither may you cavill that Augustine was not baptised in his infancie seeing he speaketh generally
not say that S. Paul might be deceiued in his writings epistles no more may the Church be I answere if S. Paul had proceeded further in prophecying then according to such knowledge as he had by reuelation argumentation out of the scriptures he might haue erred That he did not erre in his writings it was not because it was impossible for him to erre but because he did write nothing but that he had either by reuelation of Iesus Christes spirit or by argumentation out of the holy scriptures And therfore except the church haue such warrant as the Apostles elders had by reuelation the Scriptures Act. 15. she cannot truely say It hath beene thought good to the holy ghost vs. The 3. text is Ar. 88. where I saye It is true that S. 〈…〉 gustine saith euen the whole Church is taught to say 〈…〉 ry day Forgiue vs our trespasses But why so saith 〈…〉 stow because the whole Church doth erre in her de 〈…〉 minations euery day It were ridiculous so to say 〈…〉 t Augustine speake for vs both Propter quasdam igno 〈…〉 tias infirmitates membrorum suorum for certaine ig 〈…〉 rances and infirmities of her members The whole 〈…〉 urch for the ignorance of her members must say for 〈…〉 ue vs our debts but the whole Church neede not say 〈◊〉 except she may be deceiued through the ignorance of 〈…〉 r members therefore the whole church may be decei 〈…〉 d Apostles and al which did not erre in their writings 〈…〉 d determinations because it was impossible for them 〈◊〉 to doe whatsoeuer they had written or determined 〈…〉 t because in their writings and determinations they 〈…〉 ere directed by such reuelation as they had according 〈◊〉 the holy scriptures The 4 text is that the whole synagogue did erre but 〈…〉 ot the Church of Christ and that but in a fact not in 〈…〉 octrine nor the whole synagogue but a peece onely 〈…〉 hich was the example of Dauid carying the Arke of 〈…〉 od vpon a newe Chariot which should haue ben cary 〈…〉 d vpon mens shoulders 1. Chron. 13. So that there be no 〈…〉 sse then three walles saith Bristow betweene the Church 〈…〉 nd your shotte But by the grace of God I will shewe 〈…〉 hat they are al but paper walles that are erected against the trueth of â—od to binde it to the persons or places of men First saith Bristowe it was the synagogue and not the Church of Christ. Why Bristow was not the Church of Christ before Christ came into the flesh at least remember that S. Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. Al our fathers were baptised and communicated with the bodie and bloude of Christ or else finde vs some other way of saluation then in the bodie of Christ whose member whosoeuer is not is sure of damnation or say that the Iewes being the members of the bodie of Christ were not the Church of Christ. The second wal that this was a fact and no doctrine is soone blowne downe if wee doe consider that the fact had neuer beene attempted but that it was tho 〈…〉 lawfull and Godly which was an error in doctrine The thirde wal is That the whole synagogue erred noâ— For he did not consult with the priest saith Bristow w 〈…〉 with his Tribunes Centurions nobles but onely w 〈…〉 the Lordes temporall hereupon he noteth my be 〈…〉 ly blindnesse but much rather may I note his m 〈…〉 strous and more then beastly impudence where the 〈◊〉 according to his own vulgar translation addeth to th 〈…〉 whom he nameth Et ait ad omnem coeâ—um Israel and 〈◊〉 the whole congregation of Israel If it please you quoâ— he and if the motion be of God let vs sende vnto 〈◊〉 rest of our brethren in all the coastes of Israel and 〈◊〉 the priestes and Leuits which dwell in the suburbs of the ciâ—ies that they may be gathered vnto vs c. These saith Bristowe were as you woulde say the hedge priestes Very well ergo all the heade priestes were present For otherwise howe coulde it be a perfect congregation of Israel where there wanted the principall members of the priests and Leuites for their tribe and degree And when he saith let vs sende to the rest of our brethren and those which he sent to of that degree were none but 〈◊〉 it were hedge Priestes as Bristowe affirmeth who will doubt but the chiefe Priestes were present except hee thinke they were not brethren vnto the rest But three monethes after saith Bristowe hauing founde out his error he gathered not onely all Israel â—â—d Ierusalem but also the sonnes of Aaron Sadoc and Abiathar c. 〈◊〉 though they were no part of Israel But these saith Bristowe he gathered as two Bishoppes and six other as it were Archdeacons and said vnto them You that are the heades of the Leuiticall families prepare your selues with your brethren and bring the Arke of our Lorde God of Israel to the place which is dressed for it least that as before because you were not present our Lord did smâ—te vs so nowe also it happen for our vnlawfull doing The words that Bristowe taketh holde off in his vulgar translation are that these principall priestes and Leuâ—tes were not present which as before it is proued 〈…〉 e so are they not in the Hebrew text LO ATTâ—M No◠〈…〉 the verbe is vnderstood which is in the senteÌ„ce before 〈…〉 t omitted which now they were commaunded to do 〈…〉 t is to carie the Arke So the sense is because you did 〈◊〉 carie it and not because you were absent For beside 〈…〉 t hath beene saide before of all the cheefe Priestes in 〈…〉 nerall howe coulde it be saide that Aminadab one of 〈◊〉 sixe was absent when the Arke was first brought 〈…〉 t of his house who if he had not ben deceiued should 〈…〉 ue tolde the king of his error before The 5. text is Ar. 86. where I say the true and onely 〈…〉 rch of Christ can neuer be voide of Gods spirite and yeâ— she◠〈…〉 y erre from the trueth and be deceiued in some thingeâ— â—uen 〈…〉 there is no true Christian man that is voide of Gods spirite ye◠〈…〉 y euery true Christian erre c. This my sophisme saith 〈…〉 istowe consisteth in speaking confusely of Gods spi 〈…〉 e as though the gift of it were one in the whole church 〈…〉 d in euery particular true Christian man But I say 〈…〉 t cleane contrarie to that he chargeth me I distin 〈…〉 ish of the gift of the spirite of God concerning adop 〈…〉 n that is in euery one of the faithfull by which hee 〈◊〉 priuiledged from erring vnto damnation and the 〈…〉 rite of trueth which is not giuen in such measure ei 〈…〉 r to the whole Church or to euery member but that 〈…〉 ey may erre in some thinges though not finally in 〈…〉 atters necessarie vnto saluation As for the promise 〈…〉
I haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places Where I saide it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body or whether Christ haue any more bodies It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church but I pardon Bristowes ignorance and answere him that the sacrament is neither his naturall nor his mysticall body in proper speeche But secundum quendam modum as Aug. saith after a certain manner both And I read in Theodoret of a third body which the sacrament is De typico symbolicoque corpore a typicall or sacramentall body The place of Augustine in Psalm 58. with the cauillation of Adoration which Bristowe maketh is examined in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander Lib. 6. Cap. 2. The place of Augustine which I translated worde for worde and faithfully gaue the sense thereof as euerie man may see that readeth it Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth setting the carte before the horse in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation speaking of signes namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament Sed quia haec c. But because these thinges are knowen to men because they are done by men they may haue honour as religious things but wonder as miracles they cannot haue Whereof if he had known the carnal presence change of the bread such as the papistes speake of he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature which they are constrained to faine although no man can see them wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere Lib. 2. Cap. 4â— And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation saith Bristowe because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter before the last councell of Trent you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. â—2 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 6 About the sacrament of penance Absolution About the sacrament of penance the Popish Church saith foure thinges first that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away but one houres torment in Purgatorie as the master of the sentences teacheth is not taken away therby and Allen confesseth Bristowe saith it auaileth to take away the torments of hell But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to Gods ministers for absolution giueth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christes office in earth both for pardoning and punishing of sinne that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bristowe and himselfe and left naked in this place as almost in all places by Bristowe who would seeme to take vpon him his defence The second thing is temporall debt remaining after absolution Touching this matter I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron that they were signes of things to come not punishments of Gods displeasure Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristowe complayneth of my synceritie and rehearseth the wordes before When it is said to them that they should be gathered to their people It is manifest that they be not in the wrath of God which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie Thereby it is manifest that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come not punishments of Gods indignation What want of synceritie is here except there be so great difference betweene indignation and displeasure But Bristowe cauilleth of the wrath that separateth for euer as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time Yet the scripture presseth where God saide you shall die because you did not beleeue me This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution wherof the question is but a fatherly correction to them and an example vnto other Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise then the punishment was that they should not enter into the earthly possession Likewise I reported that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc mer. ac rem Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after â—his adultery remitted was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge Bristowe asketh if it be no punishment because it is a scourge yes verily and whether it be not for sinne yes truly But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remaining after absolution when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement For I chastice not my childe that his punishment should satisfie any part of his fault but to keepe him in humility and feare for committing the like and for example to the rest of my family as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians shewing why death that came in by sinne stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme that they owe nothing neither eternally nor temporally for them if death in such be any temporall debt remaining after absolution when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment Bristow saith he speaketh of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe Allen of forgiuenesse in penance But he may not creepe out at that hole it is too straight for him Chrysostome speaketh generally wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment yea he saith Vbi gratia ibi venia where grace is there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse and where there is forgiuenesse there shal be no punishment neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word either of Iewe or Baptisme but of all Christians escaping by grace the wrath which the lawe worketh and beeing made heires of the promise by faith The third thing is satisfaction against which Bristow saith I alledged Chrysostome and Ambrose so fondly that the wordes which I alledge will declare Chrysost. De Compunct Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit c. God
are sanctified you are iustified by the name of our Lord Iesus and by the spirit of our God By which he plainely sheweth that although they were baptized long before and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme yet the cleannesse of their washing the holinesse of their sanctification the righteousnesse of their iustification they retained still and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end So that while Bristowe as he doth alwaies chargeth me with ignorance not knowing what is meant by their making perfect he incurreth great forgetfulnesse euen of the Apostles words where he expouÌ„deth which are not onely he hath made perfect but he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme which no logike can proue yet it followeth that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme are made perfect not for a moment as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach from which perfection they fall immediatlie and must recouer it by masses and as Bristowe saith by penance c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered hath made perfect for euer all those that are sanctified That the purpose of the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth let him beleeue that can thinke the greatest part of his disputation for the abolishing of all ceremonies and sacrifices of the lawe to be idle and beside his purpose Likewise that if they fall he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme but remedie he telleth them none Verily there is no remedie for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vnto themseues by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite that he telleth no remedie by repentance from particular faulles and daylie offences when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ Hebrews 10. verse 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance verse 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vs to repentance Verses 5. 6. 7. c. But I shewe great ignorance where I conclude that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse No but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer from the onely once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to haue many ministers and many ministeries as it were conduites to deriue his purchase his redemption to his people In deede if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vnto all his elect he had neede of many conduites such as you speake of for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man but the vertue of the Holie Ghost The ministerie of man is such as man can execute that is by the worde audible and visible to speake to the eares and eyes of men and beeing â—â—iâ—red vp by the holy spirite to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God But you thinke to auoyde exclamation if you ascribe nothing to any man nor any thing but from that Priest and from that sacrifice as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice and bestowe it vpon any man or thing without commission yea against commaundement and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice which being once offered neede noe more to be repeated The scriptures thus examined he commeth to the doctors And first to Augustine or rather Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. 292. to proue that the olde doctors vsinge the name of sacrifice ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ because he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and wine Bristowe replieth that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body bloode of Christ wherein as it is cited by him so is it answered by me cap. 6. of this booke Secondly where he saith In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing commemoration c. Bristow replieth that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euideÌ„tly shewed what is giuen for vs he is announced alreadie killed But because this is nothing to the purpose he compareth it to the martyrdomes of Peter Paule commemorated vpon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades there seene and visited A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome so many Churches of Peter and Paule as haue presently or haue had in times past reliques of their bones were greatly deceiued For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome his nether iawe with his bearde is at Poyters and many of both their bones at Triers Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua where it was tried to be a good pumice stone The second doctor is August de ciui dei lib. 22. cap. 10. saying the martyrs are that body which is offered in sacrifice whereof I conclude that it is not the naturall body of Christ but his mysticall body which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Bristowe answereth that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natuâ—ll body But Augustine neuer saith that the naturall body of Christ is offered but expressing what body is offered sheweth that the mysticall body is offered Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body in offering whereof for his Church he offered his Church to God with it But how proueth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church which before he had purged by his sacrifice he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vnto God The third doctor is Tertullian which saith that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded Bristow saith That in the name of that prayer he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vnto vs after the gospell Dominus vobiscuÌ„ oremus let vs pray immediatly goeth to the bread and wine c. You may thinke I iest they be the very words of Bristow and his onely answere Yea but there be reasons of this saying Because that pure
sacrifice is made celebrated with prayer as Hierom saith by the pâ—iestes prayers What are then the wordes of consecration And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also was Domus orationis the howse of prayer Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer So is Tertullian answered Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth they say the same Yea doe Bristowe Is the sacrifice you offer the bodie of Christ Yea doth the conscience of the offerer sanctifie the body of Christ Out vpon thee filthie blasphemous dogge if thou dare affirme it But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine As though that were the question Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion no lesse then we doe in the masse What newes is this doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse I thinke euen the same for none that communicate with Caluine doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood and no more doe you although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it In the 25. demaund of Monkes where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes Bristowe saith in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes and Idolatrie we haue spoyled the Church of God of great vtilitie But he saith further they were votaries and so they be not in colledges of studentes their vowes were not such that could make them other then students they vowed to serue God vprightly and his Church when they were called and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same forsake this holie purpose haue smale commendation among studentes I know in time superstition preuailed and that which first was free at last became coact and that which was of conueencie was thought of necessitie euen as true religion declined and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition In the 27. demaund of Councels where I proue that Councels may erre First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel Bristowe saith the prayer is not in respect for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members when in the prayer they expresly declare their feare lest ignorance hath driuen them into error which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life but of their error in decrees seeing the prayer is appropriate vnto the Councel And that the wordes going before after do manifestly declare Te in nostris principiis c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes that is that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error that to our perfect desires thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke And because our conscience accusing vs we doe fainte for feare lest either ignorance hath drawne vs into errror or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vs to decline from iustice therfore we desire thee we pray thee that if we haue drawne vnto vs any offence in the celebritie of this Councell thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it and to make it remissible Who would pray thus in the name of the whole Councell which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error That I alledge out of Augustine de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed the later by the former Bristowe vnderstandeth of Councells not confirmed by the Pope which may be reformed euen by the see Apostolike alone That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells where lacketh any necessarie confirmation This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops in possibility of erring in doctrine not excepting the Bishop of Rome then prouinciall last of all generall Councells onely the scripture cannot be amended as that which hath no error in it Where I saide the Councells are receiued because they decreed truly according to the worde of God and not the truth receiued because it was decreed in Councells Bristowe saith I might as well say the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures But I say the comparison is not like For truth is not so necessarilie bound vnto generall Councells as it is to the holy scriptures and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures It followeth not so of councells that what soeuer they haue decreed is truth although the Bishop of Rome haue confirmed them Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine which is an argument sufficient to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions The pope caÌ„not erre The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope cannot erre In the 28. demaunde of the See Apostolike where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing the Bishop of Rome were not heretikes Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure which is no matter in question saith he vsurped no authoritie nor was so charged but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent it would seeme likewise to many who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops that withstoode Victor confessed that he had authoritie ouer them or that he could not erre But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure seeing he followeth as he thought the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles Likewise Eusebius saith that Victor was sharply reproued of many and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce whom he gouerned Yea he saith expresly that Victor
bin dāned for euer c. Which he saith also shal be my reply But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world he maketh his tormentes of minde whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vnto death which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched to be of no force except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ who feared so much bodylie death that many of his seruantes haue ioyfully imbraced and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse and that most lamentable complaint that God had forsaken him were for nothing but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse as Bristow writeth it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine and therefore we must needes acknowledge that he suffered more in the sight of God whose iustice he was to satisfie then he suffered in the sight of men And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me is answered why descendit ad inferos cometh after sepultus because the order of the Symbole is first to shew what suffered before men and then what hesuffered in the sight of God As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sinne c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vs with it then with those other blasphemies that Christ did dispaire in God or blaspheme God or commit some other sinne against God for our redemption which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes For which detestable slaunder if he haue no better ground then he sheweth let him remember that the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule I wil spare to amplifie though I lack no matter albeit that Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders as Iupiters Giantes then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts deriding myknowledge in amplification The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians Antidicomarianites who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians likewise cōdemned thē we to the Heluidians But let vs see his impudent quarels First I say As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ as we thinke it is true so because the scripture hath not reueiled it neither perteineth it vnto vs we make no question of it Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes which trobled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by the scriptures yet saith Bristow you forge a principle of onely scripture in their fauour Surely that principle as it is not forged so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures but within 4. lines afore I am contrary to my selfe where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture If I had to doe with a man of reason as I haue to do with a papist he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vnto saluatiō For otherwise I thinke many things to be true that are not conteined in the scriptures As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit learning honesty thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures but gathered by other reasons yet he saith I might which more honestie haue saide that it may be proued by scripture where she saith Luk. 1. Because I know no man that is saith he because I haue made a vow of virginitie A like matter that she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie although it so proue her vow But if Bristow were condēned or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow out of that place yea or any other place of the scriptures it were all one as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same Another poynt of that dishonor is where I controld Allen for excepting the mother of Christ when he speaketh of sinners which is all one as if he had said Christ was not a sauiour of his mother or that she had no neede of his saluation And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne because he saith against the Pelagians that he would haue no question of her for the honour of our Lord when he speaketh of sinnes For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her to ouercome sinne of all partes which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him 〈…〉 om it is certaine that he had no sin Denat grat 136. It is all one with Bristow to ouercome sinne to be voyde of all sinne What victorie is there without a battel if the flesh in the virgin Marie did not rebel against the spirite what victorie had she by grace But it is plaine Pelagianisme to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous The Pelagian nameth also ipsam etians domini c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour which he saith it is necessarie for godlines that we confesse that she was with out sinne But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will haue no question signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e but had grace to ouercome sinne yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners But Bristow perceiueth that I would not haue so answered seeing I affirme that by the reprehension of Christ Iohn 2. she did offend for he would neuer haue reproued his mother without a cause And said what haue I to do with thee woman except she had intermedled in his office more then of dutie she ought But Bristow would colour his reproofe two wayes one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what to me and thee O woman not vnderstanding the greek phrase which is by those words to refuse to haue to doe with one As the diuels Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What haue we to do with thee Iesus thou sonne of God and not as Bristowe translateth What to vs and thee Iesus c. But because Bristow saith that if Christ should meane that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother yet she were not discharged of error to moue him in a matter which belongeth neither to him nor her He sayth I might doe well to tell him what were those sinnes of hers I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnder colour of her motherly authoritie with matter apperteining to his diuine office of being Christ
kept 350. yeres past was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity but only of the Papistes no more was any that followed at Constance Basil Trent nor yet that of Florence in which although there were some Grecians yet the councell of Basil was against it and many Orientall Churches that were neuer called to it neither was there any thing for transubstantiatioÌ„ or adoration therein agreed by the Grecians that were there For in the last session it is thus recorded Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis summus pontifex petiit vt de diuina panis transmutatione quae quidem quarta quaestis fuiâ— in Synodo ageretur At Graeci dixerunt se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae â—auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse cùm pro illa tantâ—m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit Which foure questions beeing dissolued the Pope desired that of the diuine transmutation of the bread which was the fourth matter in controuersie it might bee treated in the synode But the Grecians sayed that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental Church coulde handle none other question seeing the synode was called together for that only question of the proceeding of the holy Ghost Fourthly although Berengarius was condemned by three Popish councels and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures and the iudgement of all the auncient Church for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time the same being nowe taught in England is true doctrine and no heresie Wherefore none of the foure certeinties are certeine and true on Sanders side But he will examine vs what Gospell what Church what councels we haue First he saith we can bring no Gospel where it is writen This is the figure of my body Neither doe we affirme that it is onely a figure of his body nor denye that it is his body after a certeine manner as Augustine sayth And Sander will not deny but that it is a figure which were not true except it were proued out of the Gospell which speaking of the Cuppe sayth This is the newe Testament in my bloud And what Gospell doeth Sander bring saying This bread is turned into my body To the seconde demaunde I answere The primitiue Churche for sixe hundred yeares did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament as wee doe during which time as there was no controuersie so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine As there are many other articles agreed on both partes which were neuer decreed in generall Councels because there neuer was question about them But when the question did arise it was in the time of the prophecyed defection from Christ vnto Antichrist and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it neither yet can by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ and the tyrannie of heathen Princes which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie But the first sixe hundred yeares saith Sander make not for the Sacraments which is declared inuincibly by three meanes First diuerse fathers require vs instantly to beleeue these wordes This is my body c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense And yet no wise man will require vs to beleeue figuratiue wordes O shamelesse and senselesse heretike will not euery wise man require vs to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture Are not these wordes true although they be contrarie to naturall reason sense The rocke was Christ I am the true vine I am the doore c and if these wordes are true are they not to be beleeued of vs in their true meaning euen so these wordes This is my body are true in their meaning and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vnto them The seconde reason is that the same fathers teache expressely that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries which is a lowd lye vnderstanding it of popish adoration The third reason is because the fathers teache that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament But this is false for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ which is by his incarnation for our coniunction by the sacrament is neither naturall nor corporall but spirituall vnto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vs. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding the sixe hundred yeres make still for vs. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres sayeth Sander by the writings of the fathers of those times because none of them goeth about to prooue that the body of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie or haue vsed such wordes as the Sacramentaries do now vse If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely although his negatiues are not all true For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes the sacrament to be the very body of Christ Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament it argueth that none in their time did worship it seeing you Papistes confesse that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake if it be not consecrated and therefore teach men to worship it with this condition when they see it if it be consecrated Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie weâ— vse when we teache that it is a figure a token a representation a signification a similitude a symbole a type of the body and bloud of Christ and what wordes soeuer wee vse wee vtter none contrary to their meaning and teaching of the holy sacrament But saith Sander that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe it hindereth not the reall presence because signes instituted by Christ haue reall trueth in euery sacrament Neither doe wee say the contrarie but that the reall trueth of Christes body is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament of the supper euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vs in the sacrament of baptisme and yet we deny the breade which is the signe to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ euen as we deny the water which is likewise the signe to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost But the fathers saith Sander are not against the doctrine of the Papistes because no Papist findeth fault with them By the same reason he might proue that none of the Iurie which haue found a theefe guiltie did goe against him because the theefe challenged none of them And yet
passion which was afterwarde who is so madde as D. S. to referre the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is giuen to a present giuing or sacrifising But proceeding in his vaine purpose he sheweth that the faultes of the popish clergy aduanced by transubstantiation caused them to bee contemned of the people which contempt by Gods iustice stirred vp Martin Luther like a proude king of Babylon to come out of the North to fight against Ierusalē Can you forbeare laugh ing They that were carnal in the Popish Church priests bishops to holde their liuings Abats and Monkes for good pensions receiued this doctrine and gaue vp their abbies to the Prince But this good hath Luther done that he separated the good from the badde especially from the Popish votary the maried Monke and vowed Preist which sayeth No man ought to vowe chastity condemning therby not only an infinit number of virgins but also the blessed mother of God To this I answer that first of all he slaundereth them which denye the vow of chastity or rather celebrate for euery man is bound to liue chastly to be lawfull for they denye it to be lawfull only to those which are not certeine that they haue the gift of continency to continue with them long as they liue And as for the vow of the virgin Mary I pray you how proueth he that she made any Because saith he she wondered how she might haue a child seing she knew not any man Wherunto her own reason might haue replyed that hereafter shee might knowe a man except shee had vowed her selfe not to knowe at all any man I answere that though her reason might haue so replied for hauing a child yet for hauing such a child as should be the sonne of the highest reason could not satisfie her and therfore shee desired to be instructed by the angel by what meanes it should be without that any vow of virginity can be concluded in any lawfull forme of argument out of this place by any Logician in the world But contrariwise that she was betrothed vnto a man it is an vndoubted argument that she vowed not virginitie For if she should haue made any vow before her mariage she would not haue deluded her husband to promise her body to him when she had determined the contrarie If they say she vowed after mariage it is plaine by the Gospel she did it without her husbandes knowledge and therefore her vowe could not be lawfull For before Ioseph was instructed by the Angel of her case his purpose was to haue taken her home to him and vsed her as his wife vntill she was perceiued to be with child and then he would haue priuily forsaken her After this he sheweth what were the opinions of Luther Zwinglius and Caluine which he maketh to be three in number when by the consent of the Churches of Heluetia Sabandia it is manifest that the iudgement of Zwinglius and Caluine concerninge the manner of eating and drinking of Christes bodye and bloud in the sacrament of his supper was all one Now concerning that Caluine willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith there to feede of Christ spiritually Sander liketh it not because our nature not beeing able to climme vp to the seate of God in heauen the sonne of God came downe to vs to life vs vp into heauen in taking vpon him our humaine nature So when our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to helpe vs he let downe the corde of his humanitie and of his flesh and bloud And shall wee nowe when it is let downe to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottome of our heartes by eating it really shall wee nowe refuse it and say wee will goe into heauen by faith our selues and there take holde of Christ whereby we may be deliuered out of the deepe vale of miserie As though the corde shoulde haue needed to haue beene let downe if wee coulde haue fastened our bodyes to anything in heauen and ye◠our bodies are they which weigh downe our soules chiefely In deede if the sonne of God had not come downe vnto vs and ioyned our nature vnto his the anchor of our faith could haue had no hould in heauen But seing the sonne of God did not only come downe vnto vs but also is ascended from the earth and hath caried vs vp into heauen with him Eph. 2. ver 6. he letteth no more downe vnto vs the corde of his humanitye but we cast vp the sure anchor of our soules which is fayth entring into the inward parte of that spirituall tabernacle which is heauen whither our forerunner Iesus is entred being an high preist for euer after the order of Melchizedek Heb. 6. ver 19. And vnto this ascension by fayth the Apostle exhorteth vs Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen againe with Christ seeke those things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God set your minde vpon things that are aboue not vpō things that are vpon the earth These authorities proue sufficiently that we must goe into heauen by fayth our selues for the sonne of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world cōmeth no more downe to vs in his humaine nature vntil he come againe to receiue vs actually into the participation of his glory according to his promise Iohn 14. 3. But now let vs see what wholesome doctrine Sander teacheth in those his wordes euen nowe set downe First that fayth perteineth onely to the fathers before Christ and in them called for Christ to come downe vnto vs which when he is come dayly letteth down the cord of his humanity we haue no neede of faith to fasten it in our bodyes and hartes but of our hands For fayth he compareth to the tongue by meanes whereof helpe is called for but when a corde is lett downe the vse of the tonge is needeles and the handes must be occupied Therfore he saith It is not sufficient for a man to vse his tongue still and to let his handes alone So that by this kind of reasoning eating it really being let downe is the hand that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies hearts Thirdly he holdeth that Christ neded not to haue ben incarnat if men could haue fastened their bodies to any thing in heauen Whereby he denieth that the fathers of the olde Testament by fayth were fastened in heauen before the incarnatiō of Christ restreining the vertue thereof not onely vnto the time since the same was actually perfourmed but also to the actuall and carnall manner of coniunction of the body of Christ with our bodies which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really To conclude professing that hee intendeth not to speake against the persons but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries specially against Zwinglius Caluine his purpose is to proue out of the worde of God That Christ giueth in his last supper the true
substance of his flesh and bloud not onely to our soules by wordes of promise but also to our bodyes vnder the formes of bread and wine Note here that the giuing wherein is the controuersie perteineth to our bodies and not to our soules Also that the giuing of Christes fleshe and bloud to our soules if I vnderstand this saying is not really but by wordes of promise whereof it ensueth that they which haue not eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ with their bodies from the beginning of the worlde are all perished because none can haue life in them but they that haue eaten his flesh and bloud which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten really and in deede but vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament CAP. IIII. What the supper of Christ is according to the beliefe of the Catholikes He promiseth to shewe first out of the worde of god and next out of the monuments of the auncient fathers what the beliefe of the Papistes is concerning this sacrament Although he esteemeth euen Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Alexander c. worthie of credit by a rule of S. Aug. cont â—u li. 2. because they liued before this question rose betweene the Sacramentaries theÌ„ by which rule so vnderstoode we may esteme Berengarius Bruno Henricus de Gauduno Waldo Bertrame c. worthie of credite because they liued long before this question rose betweene the Papistes vs. Wherfore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered not betweene what persons but what time the question first arose betweene any persons and so the fathers of the first 600. yeares are the best and lest partiall witnesses Furthermore he sheweth that the supper of the Corinthians was not the supper of Christ but he had a supper of his owne And so rehearsing the wordes of the institution out of the Eua 〈…〉 listes S. Paul hee affirmethâ— that we are informed by these words the supper of Christ to be his owne body bloud giuen vnder the signes of the bread wine whereupon he gaue thankes turning by his almightie power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body bloud That Christ giueth his body to them that receiue the bread and wine worthily it shal be no controuersie betweene vs. But that he giueth it vnder the signes of bread and wine vnderstanding as he doeth signes for accidents he should haue prooued out of Gods worde if either he would or could haue kept promise likewise that Christ gaue thankes vpon the bread and wine and thirdly that he turned the substance therof into the substaÌ„ce of his body bloud But leauing other arguments for other places not being able to proue these things in any place he wil enquire whether the name nature of a supper be more agreable to their beliefe or to our meaning that is saith he whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of coÌ„mon bread wine or of his owne reall body and bloud As though we affirmed that the only substance of Christes supper were common bread wine not the body bloud of Christ. But to proceed let him goe with that lye his first argument to prooue how deintie costly a banket Christ made taking his leaue of his friends is taken of the great preparatioÌ„ promise made of it so long before which promise preparatioÌ„ how euil fauouredly he prooueth out of Melchizedeks bread wine Manna the table of Dauid Salomon the bread flesh of Elias c I omitt His conclusion is we must not suppose that Christ at his farewell gaue any other deinties beside common bread wine sanctified in vse onely and not consecrated in substance You may see howe absurdly he speaketh common bread sanctified which is as good as if he would say Christ gaue white blacke bread or whot colde wine We affirme that the bread wine were consecrated not in accidents but in substance to the vse of an holy sacrament that they might be the body bloud of Christ to as many as receiued the same worthily not by conuersion of the natural substance of one thing into another but by a wonderfull diuine vnspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weake element of the world to be a mightie foode vnto eternall life The second argument he vseth to proue the excellencie of the banket is of the fine cookerie I vse his owne terme which also he doth exemplifie by making 16. or 20. dishes of egges alone which cannot be without many spices mixture great labour c. But Christ like a most cunning workman of simple litle stuffe and that without help of his disciples to prepare it made the gretest finest feast that euer was heard of vsing no shifts but only blessing or thanksgiuing The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world by the Angels heauens elements froÌ„ whence it pleased God to make a reuolt of al things from the bottome of the earth vpward againe towardes him self And so made out of the earth vegitatiue thinges then sensible creatures last man with a reasonable soule as a briefe summe of all creatures a litle worlde who being seduced by the diuel was by the incarnation of the sonne of God restored then al thinges were briefely brought againe to God So that in this banket where Christ is giuen there is serued in one dish a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fishes birds beasts of reasonable men and of God himselfe No kind of salet meates sauce fruits consectioÌ„ no kind of wine aqua vitae aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by art dâ—uised by wiâ—â—e but it is all set vpon this table and that in a small roâ—â—e c. Thus doe the Catholikes teach of the supper of our Lorde and beleeue it agreeable to his worde and worthie his worship What say you M. S. is this the doctrin of the Catholiks that the breade and wine being turned into the body and bloud of Christ are also turned into Angels heauens elements herbes fishes birdes beastes men God him selfe yea into all salets meates sauces fruits confections all kindes of wine aqua vitae aqua composita all liquors and syrops beside porredge puddings pyes pancakes and a great many other thinges which you haue not named but comprehended in generall wordes Is there a reall conuersion in deede by reason of your heraphicall reuolution And is this doctrine agreable to the word of God In what place is it written I pray you I suppose it to be this Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heauen which are in earth in him Where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a briefe gathering into one certeine head and summe that all thinges in heauen and earth are brought vnto Christ
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
corpus suum appellat He calleth the bread his bodie But we cannot call a thing except we speake vnto it Therfore when Christ called the bread his bodie he spake vnto the breade as if he had said vnto the bread be thou my bodie Who woulde haue thought it Sander cannot call a stone a stone but he speaketh to a stone nor a shouell a shouell but hee speaketh to a shouell And with Sander it is all one to say This is a shouell or a stone and be thou a shouell or a stone Nay he will say with God calling and making is all one where he will make one thing of another In deede that is another matter If this will of God coulde be prooued of the bread to make his naturall bodie calling and making might be one and yet it woulde not followe that Christ intending to turne breade into his naturall bodie by these wordes This is my bodie coulde not doe it except hee spake to the bread But nowe let vs see howe hee proueth that Christ made the breade his naturall bodie First Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst init Cap. 9. Ante bene dictionem c. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde after consecration the bodie is signified He himselfe nameth it his bloude Before consecration it is named another thing after consecration it is called bloude And thou sayest Amen that is it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inwarde minde confesse That which the speech soundeth let the affection feele Out of these wordes Sander saith that it is euident that Christ spake to the breade and wine but by what reason I cannot deuise and that the making of them is in deede so as they are called and signified because the people answered Amen I graunt the breade and wine are made sacraments to signifie the bodie and bloude of Christe and that is it which the people confesse if Ambrose expounde the words of Christ truely when hee saith that the bodie of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called breade and wine before the words of blessing and afterward is called the body and bloud of Christ. This 1. witnesse speaketh not so much against him but Tertullian his second witnesse speaketh much more Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei He made the breade which was taken and distributed to the disciples his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say the figure of my bodie Loe hee made the breade his bodie Wee confesse but howe his bodie That is to say a figure of his bodie but beeing a figure stoppeth not the reall trueth of his bodie saieth hee no more then Christ being a figure printe or forme of his fathers substance which is yet also his substance in deede What sayest thou Sabellian heretike Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis from his father because hee is Homousion of the same substance and is not that proued because hee is Character substantiae patris And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the diuinitie with the figures of Christ. Yea saieth Sander There can bee no more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinion then to thinke that Christ is a bare man c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the olde Lawe And againe looke what oddes is betweene God and man so much beleeue thou to bee betweene his naming or his figures of the newe Testament and all other figures Why Sander were the namings in the old Testament of man and not of GOD Were the figures instituted of man and not of God Yea were they not instituted of Christe himselfe If they were instituted of God howe followeth thy beastly conclusion of the difference or oddes of figures and naming of the newe Testament and figures and namings of the olde Testament The rocke was Christ it was a figure and naming of the olde Testament so named and instituted by Christ himselfe why shoulde there be more transubstantiation of the breade then of the rocke except as thou wast euen nowe a Sabellian so in this thou art a Marcionite that beleeuest another GOD and Christ of the newe Testament then was of the old Testament Augustine speaking of the figures of the old Testament and comparing them with the figures of the newe Testament sayeth Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria sunt Those were sacraments they are diuerse in signes but in the thinge which is signified they are equall in Ioan. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer and beside this examining Tertullian let vs aske him what did Christ distribute to his disciples Hee will answere panem breade Againe howe made hee the breade his bodie hee answereth hee made it a figure of his bodie Yea saieth Sander the Sacrament is a figure of Christes bodie because it sheweth his death vntill hee come But what is the sacrament with you Papistes The naturall body of Christe Then the naturall body of Christe is a figure of the body of Christe if this bee not shamelesse trifling I report mee to you Tertullian is a good expounder to interprete the name of Corpus by figura Corporis if Corpus bee taken properly But to proceede The next reason to proue that Christ spake to the breade is this The Sacrament is a sacrifice the acte which offereth it and voweth it perteineth as well to the thing offered as vnto God to whom it is offered as when a Lambe is offered God in the Lambe is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked and praysed I omitte these straunge phrases God is prayed to in a Lambe c. But speake plainely Sander if thou darest is the Lambe spoken vnto when it is saide This is the Passeouer This is the bloude of the couenant which God hath made with you For thou must not thinke to reason with men in such sort as boyes woulde not suffer thee to passe The acte of sacrificing perteyneth to the thing offered therefore the thing offered is spoken vnto But howe prouest thou that this Sacrament is a sacrifice Because it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice made by his death vpon the crosse It must also needes partake that nature whereof it is a remembrance and consequently it must bee certainely beleeued to bee a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was Who will grant or how canst thou proue the maior of this argument Euery remembrance must partake the nature of that wherof it is a remembrance Is the remembrance of a man a man or the remembrance of God God or to pose thee in thine owne popery is the memory of a Masse as you call it a Masse But that reason cannot proue authority shall enforce First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei the eucharistie of
the body bloud of Christ is made The bread saith Sander cannot take the word which is not directed to it Yes as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God spoken by God to men and by praier directed to God by men and not to the creatures that are eaten dronken The same Irenaeus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying Panis percipiens vocationem dei bread receiuing the calling of God is not now common bread but the eucharistie consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly If vocation be not here taken for inuocation or calling vpon God as it is most like yet at least it is taken for the vertue of Gods word which it may receiue although the word be directed to men and not to bread But the earthly thing wherof the sacrament consisteth saith Sander is the old forme of breade as though accidents without the subiect and substance of earth be earthly Secondly the heauenly thing is the body of Christ this is true if he ment as Irenaeus meaneth the body of Christ the diuine vertue and efficacy of Christes body sacrificed for our redemption But as he vnderstandeth it for the naturall body of Christ like as it is monstrous to affirme that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter so is it hereticall and anabaptisticall to say that the naturall body of Christ is an heauenly matter or substance The second authority is Iustinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis c. Wee haue learned that the foode which is consecrated by the worde of praier which wee tooke of him to be the fleshe and bloud of Iesus Christ. He yeldeth the wordes of Iustinus who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the worde Foode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which foode our bloude and flesh by transmutation are nourished which confuteth transubstantiation and carnall eating But to the matter in question This worde of prayer saith Sander can bee none other but This is my bodie as though Christ hath not taught vs to frame our prayers but by that saying But see the conclusion that will followe admitting these wordes This is my bodie to bee wordes of prayer Then are they not wordes of performance for prayer and performance differ as much as promise and performance Againe when Sander saieth they are not wordes of preaching because they are wordes of prayer for preaching is directed principally to the people and prayer onely to GOD. Marke the conclusion If they bee wordes of prayer and wordes of prayer bee directed onely to God then are they not directed to the bread The like may be gathered of that hee saieth that they bee wordes of sacrifice which were Idolatrie to direct to any but to God and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatrie for directing them to the people not remembring that it is as great Idolatrie to directe them to the breade if they were wordes of sacrifice But they are directed finallie to GOD saieth hee as though wordes of preaching were not finallie directed to GOD and by the way of sacrificing they appertaine to the breade as though wordes of sacrificing appertaine not to the people for whome the sacrifice is offered as much and more then to the thing that is sacrificed For what is a sacrifice of an Oxe or a Calfe of which hee taketh similitudes but a figuratiue preaching Hath any man so greate leasure to confute such insensible arguments But Hierom ad Euag. tom 2. sayeth that at the praiers of Priestes the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Doubtlesse at none other prayers saieth Sander then wherein they saye with minde of sacrificing ouer breade This is my bodie c. seeing his argument is nothing else but doubtlesse wee may not doubt vppon it A straunge prayer wherein nothing is asked and hee that prayeth speaketh not in his owne person but in the person of another But August saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised hath taken away the promising words I wil giue is a word of promise I haue giuen is a word of performance The Euāgelists testifie that Christ hath giuen therfore his words are not wordes of promise I answere The Euangelistes testifie that Christ gaue bread which he brake and gaue vnto his disciples promising the communicating of his body to them that did eat it faithfully in saying this is my body which is broken for you the condition of faithfull receiuing required in all Gods couenantes must needes be included in this although in euery place where mention therof is made it be not expressed From this matter he returneth to the former talke of sacrifice These wordes saith he fulfill the act of sacrifice and therfore they are called of Iustinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worde of prayer or vowe It is false that he saith that Iustine calleth these words This is my body wordes of praier or vow for he saith the food to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for which thankes is giuen by worde of praier yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God specially the oblation of the holy altar And againe Orationes c. We take praiers to be saied when that which is on the Lords table is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed This blessing and sanctifiing saith Sander is made by praier that praier is vowing to God of bread and wine let all this be granted what followeth The word of vowing is to say ouer it This is my body That is the matter in controuersie which with Sander is alwaies a good argument but yet remaineth to be proued But now we must see the difference betwen Caluine the old fathers Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and giuen thankes said This is my body and confessed the chalice to be his bloud and taught a new oblation of the new testament which also he prooueth out of Malachie the Prophet Caluine will haue no working vpon the breade but onely in the mindes of the hearers and neither praier nor vowe nor sacrifice in these wordes Neither hath Sander prooued that in these wordes is either praier vow or sacrifice Neuerthelesse Caluine acknowledgeth the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers vnder stoode namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of attonement for sinnes For thus writeth Irenaeus Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum c. He taught the oblation of the newe testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God through out the whole worlde euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes Here is no oblation of the body and bloud of Christ but thanksgiuing vnto God for his benifites And what the sacrifice foreshewed
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
our price as it is called the bodie of Christ for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They did eate that breade which was the Lorde hee did eate the breade of the Lorde against the Lord. What should I saye more when Sander confesseth that Saint Augustine saith de ciuitat Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ and citeth other words of August De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ and drinke the bloude of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certaine kinde of way As though S. Augustine said saith he Euery way the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in the supper of our Lorde But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine you shall heare by his owne words Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit saÌ„guinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neither are euill men to be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ for to speake nothing of other matters they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not as farre as a sacrament goeth but in verie deede to eate the fleshe of Christ and to drinke his bloude This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde not onely what he himselfe but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father seemeth to saye of wicked men eating the bodie of Christ namely that they doe it Sacramento tenus but not reuera they eate the bodie of Christ as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament but not in deede The sixte witnesse is Gregorie in prim reg libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice Of these words Sander can gather nothing but that hee addeth of his owne that the healthfull sacrifice is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ which Gregorie neither saith nor meaneth but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully The laste that speaketh for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie although it be not so great as that we should bee bounde to take him for a lawfull witnesse yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued we will admitte him Hâ—â— compareth saith Sander that man to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate illud inestimabile inuiolabile domini corpus that inestimable and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde Howe coulde hee violate it with his members if no part of his bodie touched it I answere by violating the sacrament thereof which they receiue vnfaithfullie and contemptuously Howe can hee treade vnder his feete the sonne of God and esteeme the bloude in which he was sanctified coÌ„mon c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other with his bodie Heb. 10. Let the reader iudge whether the iudgement of the Fathers doeth fauour Sander more then the Apologie If any man will see more of this controuersie he may resort to mine answere vnto Heskins lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter to the 56. CAP. IIII. What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie and bloude The Apologie saieth that in the supper there is truely deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ the fleshe of the sonne of God quickening our soules the foode of immortalitie grace trueth life This doctrine Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike but out of it he will prooue the Popish reall presence and that by two arguments The first reason is Christ deliuered but one thing at each time when he said This and This The Apologie confesseth that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine but in appearance and his bodie and bloude onely in deede I denie the Maior for vnto the faithfull of whom the Apologie speaketh he deliuered two thinges of diuerse natures in one sacrament or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures the bread and wine corporally his bodie and bloud spiritually as Irenaeus saith Neither is there such force in this and this but that one thing of diuerse natures or two things in one mysterie may be signified thereby When God said This is the passeouer it were a madde conclusion to say it were no Lambe or This is the newe Testament therefore it is not his bloude because This can bee but one thing Yet ' Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument O masters trueth is straunge and by the aduersaries owne weapon getteth the victorie His second reason is When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature The nature of a bodie is to be deliuered after a bodily maner therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily The Maior is false for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered when it is deliuered after a spiritual and diuine maner For in the saying of the Apologie truely is contrarie to falsly not to spiritually And all the Papists confesse that the body of Christ may be must be eaten spiritually Which of them dare say the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely when it is eaten spiritually or not eaten when it is eaten spiritually euen without the sacrament Againe if Sander like this Maior I will thus inferre vpon it When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once and that to fill with his owne quantitie c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered as it occupieth but one place reteyneth quantitie and all other things required in the nature of a true bodie Finally whereas Sander in the determination of the Apologie misseth quickening of our bodies but that he is disposed to play Momus hee might haue founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules and more properly CAP. V. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ. The Apologie saith that by the partaking of the body and bloude of
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen When you can perswade vs I saye that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe then wil we beleeue you that a figure and the thing figured be all one CAP. XV. The reall preseÌ„ce of Christs bodie is that which setteth his death and life before vs. The eating of common breade saith Sander in answere to the Apologie and drinking of common wine is but a homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ which dyed rose againe and wrought all the myracles in the worlde then is the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ in deede set before the eyes of our faith Is not this an absolute answere to tell vs of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie which as Iustinus saith wee haue learned to bee common breade and wine but the bodie and bloude of Christ that was incarnated for vs. Confessing thus much what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine into his bodie and bloude more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme Tush saith Sander all other wayes of setting the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation If this be true preaching of the death of Christ by which he is euen crucified among vs as S. Paul saith Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing the ministration of baptisme by which we are ingaffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander and no liuely representation But what affinitie saith he hath breade and wine with the death and resurrection of Christ I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death buriall and resurrection of Christ which is not nakedly represented but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme Rom. 6. By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes namely an hystoricall faith which because it is common to true Christians with diuels is not the faith that we come to feede vpon in these diuine mysteries But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort the effecte and fruite of the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ with the which the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie as things corporal can haue with thinges spiritual teaching that the most necessarie and onely sufficient nourishment of our soules is receiued by faith euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himself thou eatest himself See saith Sander whether the Apologie do more truely teach that the signe or token wtout the real presence or the body it selfe present doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely speaking of the Eucharistye Si mortuuâ— Iesus non est Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quantum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria teneamus prâ— nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse If the Iesus hath not dyed as some heretikes affirme whose token and signe is this sacrifice Thou seest how great desire he had that we should alwayes keepe in remeÌ„brance that he hath died for vs. But I know he wil presse the former words thou seest himself c. therfore not a signe without the reall presence But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatioÌ„ if transubstantiatioÌ„ be not that real presence which he holdeth is not And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ Chrysostome telleth vs plainly Quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vinum tradidit when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament he deliuered wine And this saith Chrysostome against theÌ„ that vsed to celebrate with water But to helpe out transuâ—stantiation he bringeth in Damascen a writer out of the compasse of the challeng which saith De ortho fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the bodie of Christ camâ— downe from heauen but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much with the worde of chaunging as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say it is euerie where And therefore aduise your self what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands But Cyrillus saith he teacheth That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ when he cryed out My Lorde and my God So wee touch that flesh when we touch the forme of breade as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the fleshe visiblie These are high poyntes of Metaphysike Master Sander to touch the godhead which is insensible and to touch visiblie or inuisiblie except you meane by touching not visibly to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke which wee see not But howsoeuer you would cloake the matter by leauing out the wordes of Cyril hee saith that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence nay where is your carnall presence become which you grounde vppon touching when he is none otherwise present to be touched then he is present to be seene and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himselfe thou â—atest himselft If Christ be none otherwise eaten then hee is seene and is not seene but by faith it will follow that he is not eaten but by faith And nowe let vs heare Cyrillus beginning one sentence before SaÌ„d was disposed to heare him speak I n Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 Iâ— reigitur sanctae congregationes die octaâ—o in ecclesâ—â—s fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter autem in corpore Prâ—bet enim nobis carneÌ„ suaÌ„ tangendam vâ— firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est verbis ipsius probatur
Fractum enim panem distribuebat dicens hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum hoc facite in meam commemorationem Participatio igitur mysterii vera quaedam confessio commemoratio est quod propter nos pro nobis dominus mortuus sit reuixerit diuina nos benedictionem propter hoc replet Fugiamus igitur infidelitatem post tactum Christi firmi atque stabiles ab omni longè ambiguitate inueniamur Worthelie therefore the holy congregations are made in the Churches on the eight day and the doores being shut after an highe manner Christ appeareth to vs all both visiblie and inuisiblie Inuisiblie truely as God but visibly in his bodie For he giueth vs his flesh to bee touched that we might beleeue assuredly that hee hath truely raised vp his temple For that the communion of the mysticall blessing is a certaine confession of the resurrection of Christ it is prooued by his owne words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my bodie which shal be deliuered for you for the remission of sinnes Doe this for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of the mysterie is a certaine true confession and commemoration that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath dyed and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessings Let vs therefore flee infidelitie after the touching of Christ and let vs bee found stedfast and strong being farre from al doubtfulnesse You see both Chrysostome and Cyrill agree that Christ is visiblie present in the sacrament as they agree that he is touched And as Chrysostome affirmed that Christ gaue wine so Cyrill affirmeth that he distributed breade By both which confessions it appeareth that breade and wine and not the shapes of breade and wine are giuen in the sacrament and that the bodie and bloud of Christ is visiblie present which cannot be vndestoode of the Popish presence and therfore of necessitie must be ment of a spirituall manner of presence which is seene onely by faith CAP. XVI Our thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christes death is alsogether by the reall presence of his body I haue often shewed what maner of presence we allowe agreable to the scriptures and the iudgement of the ancient fathers But that will not satisfie Sander except he haue a making of Christs body which making he saith is the thankesgiuing for his death Whereupon it followeth that seeing making by his iudgement pertaineth onely to the priestes that thanksgiuing also pertaineth only to the Priestes But Chrysostome whom hee citeth maketh thanksgiuing common to all the faithfull Ipso genere sacrificii c. By the verie kinde of sacrifice inuiting vs to thankesgiuing for his benefites And by the way Chrysostome teacheth what kinde of sacrifice the celebration of the communion is accounted of him Namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of reconciliation And therefore he writeth in the same Hom. 26. in Matth. Propterea reuerenda salutaria illa mysteria quâ— omni certè ecclesiae congregatione celebramus Eucharistia id est gratiarum actio nuncupantur Sunt enim beneficiorum recordatio plurimorum capútque ipsum diuine erga nos charitatis ostendunt nosque faciunt debitas Deo gratias semper exoluere Therefore euen those reuerend and healthfull mysteries which truly we celebrate in euerie congregation of the Church are called Eucharistia that is a thankesgiuing For they are a calling to minde of many benefites and shew vnto vs the verie heade of the loue of God towarde vs and make vs to yeelde dewe thankes to God alwayes But to a Christian saith Chrysostome Hee himselfe is set before thee dayly lest thou shoulde be vnmindefull Beholde saith Sander not by a feeble token doubtfully but by his owne presence he is called to minde Note heere that he calleth it a feeble token where Christ is bodilie absent by which it shoulde followe that baptisme is but a feeble token where Christ is not bodily present But Christ is present in both his sacramentes although he bee absent bodily and so meaneth Chrysostome that he is present spiritually For in the same Hom. 51. in Mat. he saith Ipsum enim si volumus non vestis solùm sed corpus ipsius nobis propositum est non vt tangamus solummodò sed vt comedamus saturemur For not onely his garment but his bodie is set before vs not onely that wee may touch him if wee will but also that wee may eate him and be satisfied Marke in these words after what manner the bodie of Christe is set before vs to be touched and eaten verilie euen as his garment is set before vs to bee touched But no man will saye that the garment of Christe is otherwise set before vs then after a spirituall manner no more verily is the bodie of Christ. CAP. XVII The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that bodie of Christe whiche is both true and is true in vs. This is confessed by the Apologie that the resurrection of our bodies to glorie commeth by the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but that this eating and drinking may be without the Sacrament it is manifest by this that manie shall bee partakers of the glorious resurrection which did neuer eate this Sacrament But nowe let vs see what vaine reasons Sander bringeth to prooue that the resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating of Christ in the Sacrament onely First Christ prepared a supper and set it forth vpon his table but the breade and wine was prepared by the baker and the vintener therefore Christs preparing was to make of earthly bread the bread of euerlasting life which was his body that he deliuered and they receiued All this we confesse Yea saith Sander but he delyuered it with his owne handes or else doubtlesse they did not eate his bodie But where is the necessitie of this consequence For hee saide in respect onely of that which hee delyuered Take and eate Yea syr but howe prooue you that hee deliuered onely with his handes that hee deliuered and whereof hee saide take and eate Is there nothing delyuered in baptisme but the water which is in the hande of the minister or in the fonte The onely proofe hee bringeth is Chrysostome Hom. 82. in Math. where there is no such wordes at all to bee founde yet thus he citeth them Cogita quid manu capias Bethinke thy selfe what thou takesâ— in thy hande and keepe it from all couetousnesse and violent robberie consider againe that thou takâ—st it not onely in thy hande but also puttest it to thy mouth and after thy hande and tongue thy heart receiueth that dreadefull mysterie Here saieth Sander the hande and tongue receiue the same bodie that the heart doeth And yet Chrysostome if euer hee haue such a context nameth not the bodie but the mysteries It is one thing
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
to coâ—er the saide flesh because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence Beware Sander what you say lest you proue a Sacramentarie Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament another manner of presence then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them Yea it was a glorious and mysticall presence If you coulde holde you there wee shoulde soone bee agreed The eight is to confesse the reall presence and to denye adoration let them answere that defende such presence The ninth howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice siâ—h it is his bodye who is the propitiation for the world Nay howe grosse is this consequence seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice and by that one oblation found eternall redemption Heb. 9. 10. The â—enth grosse imagination is of him who teacheth that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered be wordes of promise and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him which teacheth a gift to be made deliuered and receiued when he which receiueth it is neuer the better for it Finally whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament it is grosse falshood and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures the sense of which and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode is the worde of God CAP. XXVI What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christs supper The Apologie toucheth briefely that the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greeke of some doth expressely forbidde vs that wee shoulde not basely occupie ouâ— mindes about the breade and wine set before vs Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large and gathereth great matters out of them Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa c. Againe here also in the holy table let vs not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vs but lifting vp our minde let vs vnderstand by faith That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be set on that holy table to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes and that we truely taking his owne preciouâ— bodie and bloud doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause wee taâ—e not much but litle that we may knowe we take not to fill vs but for holines Out of these wordes ten argumentes he hath to prooue or to helpe to prooue the reall presence of Christes body vnder the formes of bread and wine The first is that bread and wine are set on the table not to be basely considered ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore and a forlorne helpe and a miserable argument For the contrary doth followe the bread must not be basely considered ergo it is breade although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme The second argument is that seeing the wordes of consecration be past in respect of which the Councell sayeth the breade and wine must not be basely considered the wordes did not onely make them a Sacrament as in baptisme c. but also did worke some reall thing vnder the formes of bread and wine which remaineth still as long as the saide formes and signes remaine Nay rather the Councell signifieth that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof is not perfite before the vse and receite of it whereof it speaketh soone after and therefore is not to be basely considered as common breade and wine but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption as for the formes and signes and colours of breade and wine the Councell speaketh not one worde of them but of bread and the cuppe which be substances and not accidental formes The thirde We must vnderstand saith hee not by seeing but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith In deede that is the onely waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body bloud in the Sacrament The fourth We must beleeue that to be the Lambe of God which is on the holy table whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth but of that which is breade and wine and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen by faith Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ. The fifth The Lambe is there so that he is put laide and situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of another thing But if a man should aske you howe that may bee I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it and yet your wordes import a fimilitude Therefore seeing it is without example your position is after an imagined manner Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vnto vs by his holye mysteries as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme not that one thing is situated as another thing which is no where neither any such thing can bee shewed and therefore is nothing but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne The sixt The Lambe is so truely made present that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes vnbloudily Where haue you the worde outwardly or what argument haue you of an outwarde oblation except you thinke Priestes cannot offer but outwardly Naye rather in that the Councel sayth the Lamb is offered vnbloudily it signifieth that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes for without shedding of bloud there is no sacrifice for sinnes Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onely insacrificable sacrifice of Christe is celebrated in that holy action The seuenth After the sacrifice made the people doe partake with the altar which could not bee except a permanent substance were made by consecration The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ in the mysticall tokens of our redemption which ouerthroweth priuate Masse Communion in one kinde and transubstantiation and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite before it be receiued The eight Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ is to take it really and bodily The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking but of taking by faith when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ. The ninth taking of that which standeth before vs on the table is by the instrument of our bodies therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell A shamelesse collection of a false argument For that which standeth on the table the Councell calleth breade and the cuppe which is taken and deliuered externally and by corporall instruments the rest must be vnderstoode by
to our greate shame and reproch receiue this pure and immaculate bodie which is the Lorde of all which is partaker of the diuine nature c. Heere saith Sander Chrysostome sheweth vs to receiue the bodie of Christe from the holy table or Altar as truely concerning the substance thereof as wee may truely touch another mans garment I answere hee speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table and seeing hee hath before shewed howe and from whence Christes bodie is in deede receiued if afterwarde he call the externall Sacramentes by the names of that which they signifie and performe to the worthie receiuer What proofe is that for the carnall presence Neither doth he shewe at all how truely Christes bodie is taken but what iniurie it is vnto his bodie to haue his sacraments despised or vnworthily receiued CAP. XXVIII The breade which is the meate of the mindâ— and not of the bellie can be no wheaten breade but onely the breade of life which is the bodie of Christ. This saying of Cyprian saieth Sander prooueth that the substance of breade remaineth not for materiall breade cannot be meant of the minde but of the bellie Yes forsooth as well as materiall water câ—n serue for the washing of the minde And yet Saint Peter saith it is not the washing of the body but the aunswere of a good conscience which is baptisme that saueth vs. Wherefore it may be materiall breade though not prepared to feede the body but consecrated as a sacrament to feede the minde The plaine meaning of Cyprian is that the body of Christ entreth not into the body of man but into the minde being no bodily foode but spirituall foode as the Apostle calleth it 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith The fleshe is fed with the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be made fatte in God I haue shewed before howe it must of necessitie be vnderstoode of the externall sacrament which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament seing he speaketh there altogether of the externall signes receiued in the bodie and vertue thereof applyed to the soule But Cyprian saieth further in the same treatise de coen dom Panis iste c. This breade which our Lorde gaue to his disciples being chaunged not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almightie power of the worde This place is often alledged by the Papistes for transubstantiation but Cyprian did meane no such matter but onely that common bread by the almightie power of the worde of God is chaunged from the nature of common breade whiche is a bodily foode to bee an heauenly and spirituall foode as I haue declared more at large in answere to doctor Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall haue better occasion to speake of the same place repeted afterwarde CAP. XXIX Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof onely Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alledged by the Apologie The Apologie to shewe the naturall bodie of Christ not to be sought on the earth but by faith in heauen citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in Ioan. How shall I hold him that is absent How shal I reach forth mine hand inâ—o heaueÌ„ that I might hold him there sitting Reach out saith he faith and thou hast caught him Here Sander scoffeth out of measure saying that Augustine in that place spake not one whit of the Sacrament but of beleeuing in Christ that hee speaketh not to the faithful but to the vnbeleeuing Iewes and therefore it is one thing to receiue Christ by faith alone another thing to receiue him by faith and sacrament together In deede it is true that Christ may bee receiued by faith alone without the sacrament and it is as true that Christ is receiued by faith alone with the sacrament seeing by this place of Augustine it is shewed that Christ is absent from the earth and to be sought in heauen onely by faith No saith Sander although he be absent to infidels that are not baptised yet hee is not absent to the faithfull that are admitted to the Lords table As though Augustine in the same treatise sheweth not at large that the bodie of Christe is not with the Church on earth vpon these words The poore you shal haue alwayes with you but me you shall not haue the place I haue ciâ—ed at large before and in the same treatise sheweth how Christ is present in the holy sacrameÌ„ts namely in one as he is in the other Quid est enim non semper quid est semper Si bonus es si ad corpus Christipertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Habes Christum in praesenti sed habebis semper quia cùm hinc exieris ad illum venies qui dixit latroni Hâ—die meâ—um eris in Paradiso Si autem malè versaris videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam signas te signo Christi baptizaris baptismo Christi misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè viuendo non semper habebis What is meant by not alwayes and what is alwayes If thou be a good man if thou pertaine vnto the body of Christ which Peter doth signifie thou hast Christ both in this preseÌ„t time and in the world to come In this preseÌ„t world by faith in this preseÌ„t world by the signe of Christ in this present world by the sacrament of baptisme in this present world by the meate and drinke of the Altar Thou hast Christ in this present world and thou shalt alwayes haue him For when thou shalt depart from hence thou shalt come vnto him which saide vnto the theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise But if thou leadest an euill life thou seemest to haue Christ in this present world because thou comest into the Church signest thee with the signe of Christ art baptised with the baptisme of Christ ioynest they selfe with the members of Christ commest vnto the Altar of Christ thou hast Christ in this present worlde but by euill liuing thou shalt not alwayes haue him By these wordes it is euident howe Christ is present in the meate and drinke of the Altar namely as he is present in Baptisme which is not corporally but spirituallie Secondlie that the vngodly so receiue Christ in the sacraments that they onely seeme to haue him when in deede they haue nothing but the signe of him Thirdlie that all the faithfull in Augustines time receiued as well drinke as meate at the Altar Last of all while Sander iesteth at the penneâ— of the Apologie hee sheweth him selfe most ridiculous of all For although Augustine speaketh of the Iewes by Apostrophe which hee wisheth
myracle made in meate gaue occasion to that doctrine vttered in that Chapter as S. Iohn sheweth The 3. circumstance the Propheticall promise what he would doe the Easter tweluemoneth after I answere that promise was fulfilled in his passion The 4. the conference of thinges done and said about the sea of Tiberias at Capernaum with that was done and said in the last supper This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift The 6. the eating of Christes gift to come To these two circumstances I answere that Christ exhorteth the Iewes to the present eating of his flesh vpon paine of damnation Except ye eate the flesh c. He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therfore the flesh bloud of Christ might be eaten and drunken before his supper Wherfore none of these circumstances do proue a promise of a sacramentall eating which may be without profite nor an eating of the naturall substance of flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament which at that time was not instituted But nowe we must come to the conferences Foure of which conferences are bread 2. blessing 3. thanksgiuing 4. eating in both I answere so there was in all the dinners and suppers that euer hee did make Beside that heere is multiplying and fish which is not in the last supper Therefore a vaine conference The fift is that as heere hee beginneth his talke of common breade and endeth with eating and drinking his fleshe and bloude so in his supper hee tooke common breade in his handes and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and bloude But when Sander can make a consequence of this conference I will yeelde vnto it that he speaketh of Sacramentall eating The 6 and 7. the sonne of man is the giuer meate is giuen in both ergo hee speaketh in both of the Sacraments I denie the argument for the meate which the sonne of man giueth may bee eaten without the Sacrament and therefore hee saith he that nowe eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud when as yet that sacrament was not instituted The 8. conference Hee saith the breade which I will giue is my fleshe and not the bread which I will take So in his supper he tooke one kinde of breade and gaue another This is a noble conference to tel vs what Christ said not According to which I might conferre this He saith the breade which I will giue hee saieth not the drinke which I will giue is my bloude therefore in the supper he giueth not his bloude The 9. conference the fleshe is giuen in the one and nothing but the bodie in the other for the substance of common breade was chaunged This reason in deede is of great weight if transubstantiation were granted The 10. No common breade is giuen in either of both places if by common breade he meant prophane breade and not dedicated to holy vse I confesse the conference but seeing by common breade he meaneth naturall breade I denie it For though no naturall or materiall breade was promised to bee giuen in the sixte of Saint Iohn yet was naturall breade giuen in the Sacrament The 11. The fleshe that dyed for vs is giuen in both That is true but after diuerse manners in the one it is giuen in a Sacrament in the other more generally but in both to bee spiritually receiued and not carnally The 12. The gift is eaten in deede in both I confesse but spiritually and by faith yet with this difference that in the one it is eaten often without the sacrament the other is a seale or a sacrament of that which is eaten euen without it The 13. The bloude of Christ is drunke in both It is so drunke as the flesh is eaten The 14. As in the sixt of Iohn there is no wine spoken of so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine but of drinking nor gaue any wine at all to bee drunke because it was by his wordes chaunged into his bloude I answere If bread were spoken of in that which was taken into his hands wine by Metonymia was spoken of by taking the cuppe Secondly if the fruite of the vine be the matter of wine wine was spoken of At Caparnaum there was no wine spoken of nor any occupied Let Sander see howe hee can make the conference with the supper in which wine was occupied although he say it was not drunk which is a weightie argument when that which is in question is brought for the proofe Last of all if Christ at his supper gaue no wine at all to be drunke as Sander saith howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christs supper seeing the Papistes doe giue wine to bee drunke vnto the laye people The 15. The twelue Apostles most faithfull taried with him at Caparnaum so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying to his holy table In the faithfull tarying of the twelue Apostles he forgetteth Iudas and that the twelue onely were present at the institution of the supper it is vncertaine For it is certaine there was more then twelue present at the eating of the Passeouer and it is prooued before that Iudas went out before the Sacrament ordeined The 16. Peter with the twelue protested in both places not to forsake Christe So they did at other times and places where no mention was of eating Christ. The last Iudas was reprooued in both places I answere Iudas was reprooued in other places where no promise or mention of the supper is made Finally I answere that not any one nor altogether of these conferences can make any consequence to prooue that our Sauiour Christ in that sixt of Iohns Gospel speaketh of the Sacrament otherwise then as it is a seale a pledge an vndoubted token of assurance of that spirituall eating drinking of Christs flesh and bloud which in that Chapter is commended vnto vs. CAP. III. It is prooued out of the holy Fathers and generall councels that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper I haue shewed euen nowe in what sort Christ may bee saide to haue spoken of his last supper in that chapter and of that sense and meaning are the most ancient and sounde fathers whome Sander citeth to bee vnderstoode And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christes fleshe and bloude which there is spoken of to bee peculiar vnto the supper and singulerly to bee vnderstoode of eating in the sacrament and not otherwise which is the onely thing which we denie and not that the doctrine of that Chapter doeth not at all pertaine to the supper but that it is further to bee extended then to the supper by which the carnall manner of eating of Christes flesh is manifestly ouerthrowne But let vs briefely runne ouer his authorities First Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen hee omitteth because they speake nothing almost sounding to his purpose But Cyprian in orat dominica
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in
they ministred the communioÌ„ to infants it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance as all error doth but it sheweth not that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise then the other a seale or assurance of iustification wtout any dreame of transubstantiatioÌ„ That Sand would excuse their custom to haue bin vsed more for a security then for necessitie is to no purpose It is manifest that they thought erroniously that the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both as Aug. Innocent B. of Rome hath defined denying eternall life to infants that dyed without the communion and baptisme as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements CAP. XIIII That S. Augustine did not teach thâ—se words Except ye eaâ— the flesh c To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of god theÌ„ by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually which Aug. doth teach not the carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend S. Aug. de doct Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse affirmeth that this speech of Christ Except yee eat that flesh c containeth a figure And what the meaning of this figure is August telleth vs It is a figure saith he commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and that we should sweetely and profitably remeÌ„ber that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs. But Sander replyeth first against the Lutherans that August calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper And which of the Lutherans I pray you denyed that it appertaineth to the last supper although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper Secondly he fathereth vpon the Zwinglians an vntruth that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper to prooue the necessitie of both kinds which is a fable for they graunt none otherwise then I haue often shewed yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of that place because Christ giueth vs a perfect nourishmeÌ„t of meat and drinke or as Iustine saith of dâ—ie and moyst nourishment vnto which spirituall trueth the externall seale must be made consormable But nowe will Sander teach vs to vnderstande what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach which is al one as if he would teach vs to go to supper as it is in the Greeke prouerbe First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach to be vsed vnproperly but is measured by faith and good manners Whereas Augustine telleth vs that if in any sentence of the scripture the words sound against faith good manners the words must not be taken in their proper sense but they are a figure and signifie some other thing then the words in their proper taking do sound as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place beside his plaine wordes do declare This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head which he doeth thus interprete Vt intelligas carbones ignis esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus quibus superbia sanatur eius qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis a quo eius miseriae subvenitur That thou mâ—ist vnderstand coales of fire to be the burning groanings of repentance by which his pride is healed which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man by whome his miserie is helped Beholde euen as coales of fire in this text are not taken in their proper sense for a bodily substance of woodde incensed so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence taken in the proper sense for receiuing at our mouth chawing and swallowing But as Augustine interpreteth for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite c. either in the Sacrament or without it And it is a foolish cauil of Sander to say that charitie is not broken when we eate Christ whole vnder the forme of breade without hurting of him c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium an heynous offence to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating that is corporally Yea faith Sander to eate it in peeces as it is solde in tho shambles As though to eate an whole man after that maner were not more monstrous then to eate a piece of him But Sander to shewe his synceritie rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see Durum illis visum est c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue life euerlasting They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body and to giue them This is an hard talk say they They were harde not the talke For if they were not hard but gentle they would say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle not hard they wold tati with him shal learn of him that thing which after their departure those learned who taried For when the twelue had taried with him the other beeing departed they as who were sory for the others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed But Christ instructed them and saied it is the spirite that quickneth the flesh profiteth not the wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand that which I haue spokeÌ„spiritually Ye shal not eate this body which you see wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde who will crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall make you liue And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge First against the Lutherans that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament I answere that Augustine in other places and namely in his purposed commentary of that place vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament but otherwise also which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes is to be meant of the manner of eating in the natural vnderstanding of câ—râ—all men by cutting tearing chawing c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole sound and quicke to be eaten vnder the forme of breade I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
those wordes the same will bee the sense of these wordes taking the speaches either as proper or figuratiue But Christ saith he hath forced vs to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes This Chalice that is to say the thing contained in this Chalice is my bloud I pray you sir what necessitie except the speach be figuratiue You will say it is figuratiuely onely for the cuppe to signifie that which is contained therein If you so say then tell mee once againe whether these wordes The newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in proper speach with these wordes my bloude If the newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in sense with these wordes my bloude they are figuratiue for no man properlie vseth so to speake that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude when hee nameth nothing but his bloude naturally If these wordes bee figuratiue not onelie in the name of cuppe but in the wordes following whiche are is the newe Testament in my bloude then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue and all the babling about This and Is and bodie and bloude and mine c. are vaine and foolish for This and Is are in this figuratiue speech and that in one manner of speaking is called My bloude in an other is called the newe Testament in my bloude and by necessarie analogie that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes My bodie may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes The new Testament in my bodie crucified That the Pronowne hoc is the Neuter gender and hic the Masculine gender it prooueth not the alteration of substance for the genders followe the names and note no substantiall propertie where the thinges differ not in the sexe But where you saide first the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue bodie where it endeth then to the formes you are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also to the schoolemen which say it pointeth to neither of both but vnto indiuiduum vagum a singular vncertaine or wandering thing But point it as you will it can haue no true literall sense if you will holde your owne principles for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered as all papists I thinke except Sander will affirme That which hee had in his hande was breade at that instant when hee saide This. And Sander himselfe saith This which appeared to them breade to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes His owne bodie Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended and howe can is a Verbe of the present tense signifie that which shall bee after although it bee neuer so soone after But of the Pronowne This wee shall haue occasion to speake in three Chapters following and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise CAP. IIII. That the pronowne this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine I haue prooued before that if it can point to nothing else if it point to anie thing that was there present but vnto breade and wine because bodie and bloude by your owne principle was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered But Sander saith this signifieth a substance because Christ saith not This is in my body but this is my bodie which is a blockish reason for Christ saith This is the new Testament which is an Accident in my bloud as well as This is my bloude Well the Protestants opinion is saith he that This pointeth to the bread and the wine which signifie his bodie bloud But that cannot be because this cannot agree with breade and wine neither in Greeke nor Latine and then telleth vs the genders of the nownes c. But good Sir the pronowne This is the newter gender put absolutely comprehending in signification that thing which was shewed which needed not to bee called breade and wine because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses But then saith Sander you correct the wordes of Christ as though he had said This which is breade is my bodie and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes doeth not correct them neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This to the generall substance of breade but affirme that it demonstrateth that breade onely which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament And whereas it is translated in Latine Hic est sanguis the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders maie agree with either of them but that the Pronowne This is to bee referred to the wine the other Euangelistes doe shewe which vtter it thus this cuppe that is the wine in this cuppe And whereas Cyprian sayeth haec est caro mea hee might aswell haue said pointing to bread hoc est caro mea or hic panis est caro mea and yet his words as he vttereth them haue none other meaning euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD saith Hoc est signum foederis c. This is the signe of the couenaunt where hoc agreeing in gender with signum doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna Exodus 16. saieth Iste est panis quem dominus c. This is the breade whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate In the Latine the pronowne This agreeth with panis which is the Masculine gender yet doth it demonstrate Man which is the Newter Therefore this grammaticall discourse of genders of nownes Adiectiues and their Substantiues serueth to no purpose to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This. CAP. V. That the Pronowne This cannot point to any certaine acts which is a doing about the breade and wine The Pronowne saieth hee is of the singular number and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges done about the breade as taking breaking blessing c. and seeing it can point but one thing it can point no one acte certainely To this ridiculous argument I answere that the Pronowne this doeth demonstrate that breade with all actions and accidents belonging to it so that the sense is This breade thus taken blessed broken giuen eaten is my bodie that is as Tertullian and Augustine saye a figure or signe of my bodie euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer but not a Lambe nakedly considered but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging such a Lambe so taken killed the bloude so sprinckled the bodie â—osted eaten standing with staues in their
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
but this is sufficient that neither facere in Cyprian signifieth to sacrifice neither the bodie of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him then as it suffered in his sacrifice The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc Christ saith doe or make this thing or as Haymo saith Make this bodie for he saith not sic facite doe so but hoc facite doe or make this thing I haue answered sufficiently this making in the first booke where Sander findeth fault with our translation wherevnto I adde that which Cyprian writeth in the Epistle last mentioned Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est vtique id not obaudire facere oportet quod Christus fecit quod faciendum esse mandauit cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat si feceritis quod mando vobis iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to bee followed verily that wee ought to obey and to doe which Christ did and commaunded to bee doone seeing hee himselfe saieth in his Gospel if you shall doe that which I commaunde you nowe doe I not call you seruants but friendes In this saying Cyprian referreth the verbe facere to all thinges that Christ did and not to making his bodie But if wee shoulde graunt facere to signifie onely to make yet coulde Sander get no more of vs by making but a sacrament of his bodie yet for his exposition hee saieth hee hath Iustinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris Anno Dom. 1551. where hee writeth thus The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundemeÌ„t who when he had taken bread and giuen thanks said Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say my bodie First Sander hath put in more wordes then Iustinus for hee hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which Sander giueth Doe and make hee might as well haue added and sacrifice Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth vppon the errour of the Printer omitting one small letter o for in the next lyne continuing the hystorie of the institution he rehearseth the verie words of Christ. This is my bloude wherefore there is no doubt but lustinus telling what Christ saide doth not onely rehearse these wordes Doe this in remembrance of me but also these This is my bodie and so haue all the translatoâ—s taken it as Sander doth confesse Neither doth the processe of Iustinus prooue that he did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he saide before they tooke the meate that was consecrated by the worde of prayer to bee the flesh and bloude of Christ for that the Apostles do witnesse that Christ hath giuen them such a precept Hoc facite doe or make this thing that is to say my bodie for hee prooueth it by the whole hystorie of the institution remayning in the commentaries of the Apostles in which it is written that Christ saide Doe this in remeÌ„brance of me This is my bodie likewise after he had taken the cup and giuen thanks that he said This is my blood This processe therefore declareth what Christe said as wel in the one part as in the other and therefore excludeth the vaine cauillation of Sander grounded vpon a letter missing in one print which in other copies is not omitted as all the translations declare The 21. circumstance of the wordes in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christes death but that is best remembred by the presence of him selfe ergo he is really present for Christe would make the best remembrance that could be I answere Christe saith in the remembrance of me and not onelie of his dying but of me dying and redeeming It is against the nature of recordation or hauing in minde to haue the thing remembred actually present therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be reteining the nature of recordation and considering other circumstances to be considered as he did in al tokens that euer he made which were the best that could be deuised for God in al things doth the best wherfore this reasoÌ„ of Sand would proue the reall presence of Christ in all sacraments that were before his incarnatioÌ„ as wel as in this And whereas Chrysostome saieth Christ himselfe is daily set before vs that we shoulde not forget him he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians where he saith he was crucified among them and to the Corinthians saying his glorie shewed vnto vs with vncouered face which is by doctrine more cleare then the figures of the Lawe Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament onely Last of all whereas a potte of Manna was commaunded to be reserued for a memoriall vnto the children of Israel with what breade the Lord had fedde their fathers in the wildernesse to prooue that a thing may be the remeÌ„brance of it selfe I answere that it is nothing like For there a part of that visible foode was reserued for a sensible token of remembrance not of it selfe but of that which was eaten being of the same kinde But in this sacrament there is no such matter except wee shoulde beleeue the tales of a bloudie finger seene in the patten c. as a part of the whole bodie c. and the Papistes confesse that Christ is not sensiblie present as that Manna was The 22. circumstance of these words drinke yee all of this They all dranke of one cuppe Iudas and al saith hee for if two or three had drunke vp all either Christ must haue consecrated the cuppe againe or the rest must haue receiued a drinke not consecrated as they do in Englande when one cuppe is drunke vp an other is filled out of a prophane potte that standeth by therefore this circumstance doth shewe that more then wine is drunke This conclusion shal be graunted of them that drinke worthily without this circumstance and of them that drinke vnworthily also for they drinke iudgement to themselues But concerning consecration Sander imagineth it to be a magicall murmuring of wordes ouer that wine which is present in one cuppe Whereas the consecration of Christ and the ministers of England is a dedicating to the holy vse of the supper of so much bread and wine as shal be occupied in the celebration and neither more nor lesse But because he saith it is not the will of Christ that one Priest should consecrate in one maâ—â—eany more then once each kinde of the sacrament because Christ dyed but once and then both kinds together because his bloud and soule must be signified apart from his flesh and bodie I aske him what large cuppe they had or howe often in a day they said masse in the time of Leo bishop of Rome when a
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude which is shed for the remission of sinnes and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words This is my bodie The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the new testament The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude thâ—t confirmeth the newe testament but that is reall bloude therefore this is reall bloude saith Sander I answere the argument is naught because in one proposition the speach is figuratiue in the other proper But he replieth that the olde testament had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof but the bloude of Calues therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe by which the newe testament is confirmed and therefore there was no figure of that bloude to bee made Heb. 9. But S. Luke and S. Paul by reciting the words otherwise doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification that no reasonable man will say that the name of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude saying this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude In deede I confesse in this sentence the worde bloud signifieth properly the bloude of Christ shedde vpon the crosse which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice But then the former wordes This cup is the newe testament are figuratiue for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not â—e is not the new testament but a sacrament or signe thereof which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vpon the crosse This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation carnall presence for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul giue the true sense of these wordes This is my bloude which is shedde for you which in effect is thus much to say this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul but bloude taken properly whereby he woulde prooue that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists bloud should not be taken figuratiuely which is as good an argument as this Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech is taken properly therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe it is not taken figuratiuely The 25. circumstance of these wordes This â—â—ppe or Chalicâ— The cuppe saith he is named to shewe the manner of fulfilling the olde figures in which the bloud was put in a cuppe as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed and presently sprinkled I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices but that was referred to the passion of Christ and not to the sacrament for those bloudie sacrifices were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie and not in the supper The supper as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments is diuerse in signe but equall in signification with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the baâ—en did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe as Sander trifleth but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse But Oecumenius saith that in steede of the bloud of beastes our Lorde giueth his owne bloud and that well in a cuppe that hee might shewe the olde Testament to haue shadowed this thing before I answere that Occumenius a late writer to whose authoritie I am not bound of the Sacrament speaketh sacramentally ascribing to the signe that which is proper to the thing signified Otherwise there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation The 26. circumstance of the verbe est left out in S. Lukes words Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe â—s according to the phrase of the Hebrewe tongue what verbe will you bring in his place saith he the verbe significat you cannot because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominatiue case then must you needes haue the verbe est but as soone as it is in his place shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat c And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him But when you haue spoken your pleasure of taking in and casting out of compulsion enforcements of verbs substantiue and adiectiue c. I pray you what great piaculum is it if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat to make good the logical sense And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est in these wordes of Saint Luke This cup is the newe Testament in your 23. circumstance when you expound it so that you say that which is in the cup is not the newe Testament which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed You will say the figure is in the words newe Testament and not in the verbe esâ— Then must I sett vpon you with your owne weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance I would faine see the brasen face of Sander with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe The 27. circumstance of these wordes which is shedde for you This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud which is shedd for you saieth S. Luke Here saith Sander the relatiue which is referred to the Nowne Cuppe and not to the Nowne Bloud because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominatiue case and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wherefore the sense must be the cuppe that is that which is in the cuppe was shedd for vs. but the onely reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes therefore the onely reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument if hell were lett loose To the graÌ„maticall construction I haue answered sufficiently in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church vnto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza that those wordes might by error of the writers be taken into the text nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes in that place as in diuerse other yet at the lest that the article prepositiue standeth for the relatiue 〈◊〉 as often it doth and that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstoode being left out as in the former part of the sentence For howsoeuer it be it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus This cuppe that is to say this bloud which is shedde for you is the newe Testament in my bloude
all out ouer it The verbe is in the words of Christ The bread which I will giue is my flesh although it respect the naturall flesh of Christ yet it prooueth not that the verbe is in the supper must be referred to the sonne more then the same verbe in Saint Paul the Rocke was Christ yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of wordes I will reason with him in his owne sense and ouerthrowe him in his owne conference I say not saith Sander that the bread shal be but the bread is my flesh If the bread is his flesh then his flesh is the bread and if the worde bread signifie an eatable thing as we haue bene often told then the flesh of Christ is an eatable thing when he so saith and consequently the flesh of Christ which he said he would giue for the life of the world might be eaten before the institution of the Sacrament The word coÌ„municating is the next matter of conference which being vsed of S. Paul doeth interprete the verbe Is to signifie a substantiall and not an accidentall being for communicating doeth shewe that all thing is common betweene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction commeth betweene these two but a barâ— signe of bread can make no such communicating because it is cleane of another kinde c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger he disputeth against that often times which wee vtterly denie For we neuer saide that naturall bread or a bare signe can make vs to haue communion with Christ but the verie bodie bloud of Christ yet not corporally but spiritually ioyned vnto vs of which communicating the bread and wine are effectuall seales sacraments As for Sanders assertion of communicating to signifie all thing common betwene Christ and vs not only without diuision but euen with out distinction is horrible heresie and detestable blasphemie Saint Iohn Ep. 1. Cap. 1. vseth the same worde often saying that wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating with God the father and his sonne Iesus Christ haue wee then all thing common with God the father so that ther is no distinction betweene vs and him O intollerable blasphemie The same Apostle saith wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating one with another by which he not only sheweth that the worde of communicating signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth but also teacheth that our communicating with Christ and with the members of Christ is spirituall whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 10. We being manie are one bodie c. And last of all that wee haue this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or communicating by other meanes then by receiuing the Sacrament That wee haue seene and heard saieth Saint Iohn wee preach vnto you that you also may haue communicating with vs that our communicating may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ. Againe if we walke in the light as he is light we haue communicating one with another and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne doeth purge vs from all sinne The last wordes of conference are bodie and bloud for which he heapeth vp so many texts as they are named in and more then either they are named meant in to proue that bodie and bloud stand not for signe or figure of bodie and bloud and in the ende concludeth that because these wordes are taken properly therefore to defend the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue is ignorance in Grammar and Logike blindnesse in diuinitie malice inexcusable in the day of iudgement But so long as it is but Sanders sophisticall conclusion it is little to be regarded what Logike diuinitie or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus let all the Logicians diuines and men of good conscience consider vntill Christ come and iudge all things The worde bodie in this saying This is my bodie is not figuratiue therefore the whole saying is not figuratiue This signifieth a generall thing and not that thing in his hand Is declareth that to be presently which is not vntill all the wordes be said bodie is taken properly Therefore the sense of this whole saying vttered together cannot be figuratiue But nowe we shall see conference of other places of scripture It is euident he saith that Iohn is not Elias and vseth many arguments to proue it yet will he admitte no arguments out of the present words This is my bodie to prooue that the saying is figuratiue as well as This is Elias And yet there is more oddes betweene the bodie of Christ and naturall bread then hee saith is manifest betweene Iohn and Elias Secondly The rocke was Christ must needes be figuratiue because it speaketh of two diuerse natures as though bread and the body of Christ were not two diuerse natures But there is no conuersion of any rocke into Christ for Christ did neither say of the rocke This is my body nor coÌ„mand vs so to say Seeing the holy ghost saieth the rocke was Christ who doubteth but that it was so by the word of Christ although not expressed by Moses And seing the Apostle speaketh so in the time past who will denie but that Moses or any man by the authority of Gods wordes at such time as the Israelites did drinke of it might haue said of the rocke This is Christ The other places which proue the absence of Christ in his humane nature froÌ„ the world as the poore ye shall haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwaies He is risen he is ascended into heauen he sitteth at the right hand of God c. Sander saith they denie not his inuisible presence in the Sacrament nether is any thing impossible to God and Christ sitting in heauen is almighty c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles that they shal see him no more after his ascension saying I goe to my father and you shal see mee no more Iohn 16. ver 10. but also he telleth them plainely and without any parable as they confesse that he leaueth the world and goeth to his father Io. 16. ver 20. whereas if he had saied I departe out of the worlde when he onely departed out of sight and purposed still to be present inuisibly he had not spoken plainely but very darkely Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd lib. 3. saith it is a great miracle that he which sitteth with his father in heauen at the same instant is touched with the handes of all men and deliuereth him selfe to those that will touch and embrace him It is manifest he speaketh of the heauenly mystery figuratiuely For immediatly before he saith when thou seest turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubâ—fieri c. the people standing about to be dipped and made redde with that precious bloud doest thou thinke thou art still among mortall men and standest vpon the earth Art thou not rather immediatly remoued into the heauens Doest thou not casting away all cogitation
of flesh with naked soule and pure minde looke rounde about vpon those thinges that are in heauen These wordes declare plainelye that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith And so it is more wonderfull that wee in body remaining on the earth doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen not by bringing him downe vnto vs but by lifting vs vp vnto him The places of scripture that Sander quoteth as perteining to the supper although they all pertaine not vnto it yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence I shall easily answere it CAP. XI Why the Sacrament is called breade after consecration If Master Sander had first prooued that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration wee might easily haue yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called that which in nature it is not As wee can yeld many reasons why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it yet it is meete that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner that the Papistes defend and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie But let vs heare Sanders reasons First the Hebrue tongue which the Euangelists Apostles writing Greek doth follow vseth the name bread for all maner of food Secondly a thing is called by the name of that which it was and not which it is as Aarons rod is said to haue deuoured the roddes of the coniurers yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent Exod. 7. Thirdly a thing is called not onely as it is but as it seemeth outwardly to be so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre is called a yong man Marke 16. And in all these three respectes the Sacrament is called bread when it is not naturall bread For it is a kind of foode it was bread and seemeth to be breade But I will prooue that in none of these respectes it is called bread but because it is naturall bread in deede without conuersion of the substance First whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode which wee haue without the Sacrament Secondly when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread after consecration there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread changed in vse not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake he sheweth plainlie that he speaketh of material breade for the bodie of Christe nor spiritual foode nor general foode are not broken Secondly in the conuersion of Aarons rodde there was a sensible change there is none such in the Sacrament Thirdly as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell and no man but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ therefore the comparison is nothing like The water turned into wine was iudged by the taste to be wine not water There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread for as materiall bread it tasteth and partaketh all accidents yea it nourisheth and corrupteth which neither bare accidents nor the bodie of Christ doeth or can doe The authorities that Sander citeth to proue that the Sacramentall bread is called the bodie and flesh of Christ do not denie that it is material bread yea many of the old writers expressely affirme that it is so Yet let vs consider his authorities Ignatius Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desire the bread of God quod which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily Ignatius saith no more here then Zwinglius saide which was no friend to transubstantiation Secondly Iustinus saith Hic cibus c. this meate is called with vs the Eucharist or thanksgiuing after he saith We take not these things as common bread drink but wee haue learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier taken of him to be the flesh bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be coÌ„mon bread doth not denie it to be naturall bread And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That meat of which our bloud flesh by transmutation are nourished we haue learned to be the flesh bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate That which nourisheth our flesh bloud is material bread although it be not coÌ„mon bread Thirdly Hilarie saith Nos verè c. we truly take the word flesh in our Lordes meate The same Hilarie saith afterward verè sub mysterio truely vnder 2 mysterie we receiue the flesh of his bodie Fourthly Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith Christ offered bread wine that is to say his owne bodie bloud Here Sander cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words which manifestly proue material bread wine Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat id est panem vinu suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered that is to say bread wine namely his bodie bloud Speake Sander tel vs was it not material bread wine which Melchizedek brought forth the selfsame thing saith Cyprian offered Christ which yet was his bodie bloud after a certeine maner After what maner you may learne In these wordes you haue not onely the spirituall manner after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud but also the same breade and wine to be made of cornes grapes which I trow caÌ„ be none other but material bread and wine Fifthly Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread but the Eucharisty lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant terrena coelesti the Sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly thing and an heauenly Likewise he saith that of the bread wine being made the Eucharisty augeâ—ur consistit carnis nostrae substantia the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is increased and consisteth lib. 5. that is not of accidents nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread supersubstantiall breade and yet I weene it be still naturall food of the body But he saith more Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not the bread which goeth into the body but that
be caried in his owne handes and at length concludeth that Christ ipse se portabat quodammodo he caried himselfe after a certeine manner when he said This is my body The meaning of Augustine is when he caried the Sacrament of his body To this Sander ioyneth the ioy that Dauid had by the fruit of corne and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise he preferreth the light of Gods countenance before all temporall benefites but it is ynough for Sander that he nameth corne and wine Likewise the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that comforteth the hart of the spiritual man Ps. 103. the meat that God giueth to them that feare him these if wee beleeue Sander were prophecies of the Sacrament in which is neither bread nor wine But of all other mee thinke Sander should haue held his peace of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunke Ps. 22. seing he wil not suffer ChristiaÌ„s so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice much lesse to be made drunk with it Peraduenture it is because the Papistes will keepe true Christians sober that they will not suffer them to drinke of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk O shameles hypocrites My soule yrketh to rehearse these grosse mockeries of Gods worde Elias is fedde from the ayer with breade and flesh and walketh 40. dayes in the inwarde strength of a peece of bread Yet in the first there was bread and flesh which would make well for the Lutherans in the other there was bread and water which would serue the turne of the Aquarians if these places were figures of the Sacrament The wheaten corne Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corne of the Church shall no more be giuen to her enimies that vine wherin she hath labored shall no more be drunke of strange children the corne of the elect and the wine that ingendreth virgins as the vulgar text translateth Zachary Cap. 9. If they perteine to the Sacrament doe rather fight against transubstantiation then for it As for the bread in Ieremie 11. wherein the wodde is fastened is a palpable error of the translator as I haue shewed before The cleane Sacrifice of Malachie is to be offered of euery one of the faithfull and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse The bread of Angels was Manna Psa. 77. which spiritually was the body of Christ as the Sacramental bread is to vs. Last of all Salomon saith and repeteth often No other thing to be good vnder the sunne besides eating drinking with gladnes and mirth where vnto Sander addeth that the best thing vnder the sunne may be eaten and drunken which Salomon neither said nor meant but that amongst the troubles and vanities of the world nothing was better for a man then quietly to enioy those things which God giueth and to lead his life peaceably iustly Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Sander concludeth that the custom of the scripture in commending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body bloud of Christ should be giuen vnder their forms I say it may more probably be gathered to shew that bread wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding with the body bloud of Christ. For it is a strange maner of coÌ„mending to praise the substance for the only bare shewes accidents therof Although the scripture in most of these places cited intendeth in deede neither the one conclusioÌ„ nor the other CAP. XIII These words of Christes supper Hoc facite do not onely signifie do this but much rather Make this thing wherof it followeth that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made Although Hoc facite might signifie nothing but make this thing yet it would not followe that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made but rather a SacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud which are two seuerall thinges which if he had commanded to be made he would haue said Haec facite make these things not Hoc facite make this thing But when Sander hath prated his fil of agâ—râ— facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the verbs facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to do which he cannot denie therefore will haue the verbe to fignifie in this place both to doe to make which is most absurd But S. Paul putteth the matteâ— out of question rehearsing the wordes of Christ perteining to the cup saith This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Hoc facite doe this thing as often as ye shall drink for the remembrance of me And telling vs what they should do he addeth a reason of that saying For as often as ye eat this bread drink this cup you shewe the Lords death vntil he come Behold what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him In eating drinking of this bread cup to preach the Lords death Sander will reply that This is general to all the Church but Christ saying Hoc facite speaketh onely to his Apostles and in them to all priestes I aunswere Christ speaketh to his whole Church neither can it be proued that the aposâ—lâ—s only were present And yet it followeth not that euery priuate man hath authoritie to minister the communion seeing God hath chosen special persons for the administration of all publike actions in his Church As for the saying of Dauid memoriam fecit c. He hath made a remembrance is to no purpose for although he spake of the sacrament as he doth not yet there is great difference betweene making the bodie of Christ and making a remembrance of his meruailous workes But Sander will faine the consent of the old fathers to proue that Christes bodie is made I will not denie but the fathers sometime vse so to speake when they vnderstande the sacrament signe and figure of Christs bodie and not as Sander doth his reall bodie to be made of breade yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite to be of a making as well as of a doing First hee alleageth the Liturgies of Iames Clemens Basil and Chrysostome although none of them is his whose name it beareth yet are they of some antiquitie and what say they Foâ—sooth there is a prayer in them that God would send his holy spirite vpon them and the holy giftes which may sanctifie and make this bread the bodie of Christ. Heere breade is made the bodie of Christ. Very good but by whom by the priest or by the holy ghost If by the holy ghost then it is not by vertue of these words Hoc facite which were not spokeÌ„ to the holy ghost but to men I omit that this prayer in the old Liturgies is vsed after the words of consecration rehearsed by which is giuen vs to vnderstand that the bread is made the bodie of Christ by the holy ghost in the faithfull that receiue the bread and not as it lyeth on the table The like
of our spirituall feeding by the body of Christ and therefore as sufficient to testifie our communication with Christ as water in baptisme the cleansing of our soules with his bloud In handling the word of communicating he bringeth in a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Chrysostom which is vaine and to no purpose seeing the Apostle vseth both the wordes for one For when he had said we are one bread and one body being many he giueth a reason thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we all are partakers of one bread Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ Sander saith it can not be by a bare signe and token And wee say euen the same but by a Sacrament wherein Christes body and bloud is not really present it may be For els how are they that are baptised only made members of Christ and haue a true communicating of his body and bloud yea how had all the fathers before Christes incarnation this communicating of Christes body and bloud without which they were no members of Christ the like I say of raysing of our bodies not by a figure of Christes body but by the vertue of his body it selfe which vertue if it could not be communicated to our bodies otherwise then by reall presence in the Sacrament as Sander falsly dreameth that Irenaeus shoulde meane by what meanes should the resurrection of all them be wrought which haue not receiued the Sacrament O shameles and yet most blockheaded kinde of reasoning As for Irenaeus hee prooueth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretiks by that they are fed with the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne confession But he doth not hold it necessary that who so euer iâ— partaker of the resurrection of the righteous must receiue the Sacrament or the naturall body of Christ really present in the Sacrament For we haue communication with God the father with Iesus Christ by faith as S. Ioan teacheth 1. Ioh. 1. in the Gospell preached and receiued And whereas Sander saith that S. Irenaeus neuer dreamed of bloud that should be receiued from heauen I demande what is the heauenly part of the Sacrament When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose that the heauenly thing can be nothing but the body and bloud of Christ which seing he affirmeth it to be a heauenly thing verily it can not be conteined in an heauenly vessell nor be receiued but from heauen CAP. III. The presence of Christ in his supper is prooued by the one bread which being receiued of vs maketh all one body Nay this vnion which is spiritual of vs and Christ and of vs one with another inuincibly prooueth the presence of Christ to be spirituall and not carnal for it is the spirit of God which maketh this vnion and not the flesh of Christ which is one of the termes to be vnited and not the meane of the vnion For by the spirite of God wee are as verily vnited vnto the body of Christ in baptisme as in the supper therefore the reall presence is not necessary for this vniting I passe ouer how ignorantly Sander abuseth the example of fire conuerting all things into it selfe to shewe how Christ which is a consuming fire turneth vs into his body whereas God in respect of his Iustice and not of his mercy is in scripture called a consuming fire Where he saith the vnion can not be made by wheaten bread I agree with him but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine receiued according to Christes institution may testifie that vnion vnto vs as well as elementall water in baptisme which is made by the spirit of God So saith Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum that QuaÌ„do c. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many graines his bodi he signifieth our people which he bare to be vnited vnto him and when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches and brought into one his bloud he signifieth likewise our flock coupled togither by commixion of the multitude that is ioyned in one Cyprian saith bread and wine made of graines and grapes and not the forme of bread which was made of graines is now no bread as Sander saith doth represent this vnion Neither did any auncient writer say or thinke that by the accidentes and not by the substance of bread and wine our coniunction is represented CAP. IIII. The reall presence is prooued by ioyning together all the former wordes Now must we haue a further tast of Sander his tedious Sophistrie in ioining the wordes together The bread which we break is the communicating of Christs bodie because we being many are one breade and one bodie for we all partake of the one breade Here bread being thrise named saith hee is put to expresse one and the same mysterie But that is false for in the first and last place breade is put for the earthly matter of the mysterie or sacrament Against this Sander replyeth and saith that if we once take the substance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither is that substance the communicating of Christes bodie nor wee are all one materiall breade I might likewise reason thus if the bread that is broken be the substance of the bodie of Christ neither is 〈◊〉 the communicating of the bodie of Christ neither aâ—â— we the substance of the bodie of Christ for the bodie of Christ and the communicating thereof differ as much as the substance of a thing and the accidents of the same S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident ergo it is not the â—â—bstance Wherefore to auoide all cauilling the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes toâ—ie spiritually sacramentally not really corporally substantially Against this Sandâ—r riseth vp and saith that if to bee is interpreted to signifie then in the next verse where it is saide we that are manie are one bread and one bodie we are said to be the figure of one bread because it is one verbe and one nowne in both places A simple cause as though one verbe and one nowne in diuerse places may not be diuersly taken And yet we can not be called one bread but figuratiuely that is like vnto one loafe of bread made one of many graines one bodie that is like vnto one bodie consisting of diuerse members spiritually vnited together But Sander vrgeth vs further by the wordes of breaking and partaking if the bread broken be materiall bread saith he wee partake of the materiall bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by Saint Paul named one for seeing it is broken it is not still one I answere wee partake all of one materiall breade which is either one in lumpe or kinde to signifie that wee doe spiritually communicate with the onely bodie
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
saieth hee for all men that by my selfe I may giue life to all and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all For death shall dye by my death and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus The sixt Booke To the Preface BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle or that which is in question CAP. I. The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the Pâ—phâ— Da 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalme The adoration of Christes bodie is no question betweene vs but whether the sacrament is to be adored that thereby the reall presence might be proued The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes is this verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him The poore or meeke shall eate and be satisfied they shall praise the Lord seeking him your soule shall liue for euer All the ends of the earth shall remember and be conuerted vnto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee Because the kingdome is the Lordes and he hath dominion among the Gentiles All that be fat on the earth shal eate and bow downe themselues before him they shall all fal downe which descend into the duste In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him that they shall praise God and that they shall haue eternall life But for as much as Christ nourisheth the faithfull otherwise then by the sacramâ—t it is great violence to draw this prophecie only or chiefly to the sacrament as Sander doth As for adoration of the sacrament heere is no colour for it Christ promiseth plainely that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua shall worship him fall downe before him but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied there is no mention in the worlde I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme and meddle onely with that which is pertinent to the question But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence saieth Sander concerning the person of the king But yet visible concerning the formes of bread wine to the end his mebers may know where to worship him And must wee haue the visible formes of bread and wine that we may know where to worship him Why doe wee not knowe that he is ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the father shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen S. Paul willeth vs to seek those things that are aboue where Christ is and not those things that are on earth because Christ is in heauen Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme to be meant of the sacrament is not of Sanders inuention we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie and passion the vowes of the church are good workes or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud with them who celebrate those things in his feare Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine Cassiodorus Beda Euthymius all which affirm this prophesie of eating to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament although not onely to it But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament Forsooth saith Sander manducauerunt adorauerunt are both referred to one thing they haue eaten the Sacrament therfore they haue adored the Sacrament I deny the maior the text is plaine that they haue adored bowed and fallen downe to God not to that which they haue eaten If I say Sander hath eaten giuen thanks do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate or to him that gaue him meate This is a miserable argument But S. Augustine doth fortifie it For he saith vpon that Psalm Euen the rich of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord neither are they so filled as yâ— poore euen vnto imitation sed tamen adorauerunt but yet they haue adored I heare that they haue worshipped but I heare not that they haue worshipped or adored the SacrameÌ„t And if you say they haue worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie how proue you that they worshipped the same really present in the SacrameÌ„t Or that the Sacrament may be called the bodie of the lords humilitie If this wil not serue Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honoraâ—â—m ca. 27. Suprà dictum est c. It was 〈◊〉 before the poore shal eat be filled But here it is said all the rich of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie bloud But they adore only be not filled also because they follow not For although they eat Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe because God hath raised him from the dead hath giuen him a name which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed of things heauenly earthly vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come themselues to the table they eate adore but yet they are not filled because they do not huÌ„ger thirst af ter righteousnes Al this while I heare adoring of Christ but not of the Sacrament nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament I would haue al men that eat the Sacrament not only to eat but also adore giue thanks not to the Sacrament but to him that spiritually feedeth vs by the Sacrament But â—eda expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shall adore because they shall come with a certein outward reuerence or worshiping Although Beda liued in a corrupt time yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped Therfore he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence that men vsed in comming to the lords table which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde haue him he should not haue said a certeine externall worshipping but with all honor worship both
supper more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes CAP. III. The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen 〈…〉 proued out of the new Testament The Apostle saith the vnworthie receiuer eateth and drinketh damnation not putting a difference betweene our Lordes bodie and other meates saith Sander And this difference is in two pointes the first in due preparation of our selues which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God the seconde is in respect of the substance of the meate that is receaued which is to be honored and adored I answere the earthly substance is not to be adored the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present and not vppon the earth and as well in Baptisme as in the supper But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. â—8 saith hee eateth vnworthily who considereth not as it behooueth the greatnes of the things set forth not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift Hee speaketh not of the effect saith Sander but of the substance of the Sacrament because he saith afterwarde If thou doest learne diligently who is s 〈…〉 foorth thou needest to account nothing else I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament that is Christ yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnder the formes of bread and wine for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes both of the olde Testament and the newe Christ washeth vs in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vs in his supper and hee purgeth vs with his bloode as verily as hee feedeth vs with his bodie and bloode Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing when he saith Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood we drinke in a mysterie For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie is to drinke it spiritually by meane of a Sacrament euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth is false and hath â—o ground nor consequence wee must iudge the subâ—â—ance of this Sacrament as the substance of him that â—s Gâ—d therefore wee must adore the substance of this â—acrament as God For admit that I must adore the boâ—ie of Christ which is God yet it followeth not that I â—ust adore it vnder the visible formes of the breade and â—ine For the body of Christ which as Irenae us saith â—s the heauenly part of this sacrament is in heauen and â—ot vnited to the bread and wine or to the shapes of theÌ„â—n personall vnion more then the bloode of Christ or â—he holy Ghost vnto the water in Baptisme yet I must â—dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bapâ—isme as that which is God or in personall vnion vnited â—o God as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour But Chrysostome saith further in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light life I answere this is nothing else but the effect of our redemption whereof we are assured by participation of that table As for the heauenly substance that it is in heauen Chrysostome sufficiently declareth when hee affirmeth in the same Homily that we must become eagles and flee into heauen for where the dead bodie is thither wil the eagles be gathered Wherefore the adoration that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vnto the outward elementes which if Sander cannot shewe hee laboureth in vaine to tell vs of the true substance of the sacrament which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ vnto the worthie receiuer but not personally vnited to that breade and wine or the shapes of them But nowe let vs heare what he hath to say out of Saint Augustine Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium who answereth the question Whether they doe better that receaue the communion euerie day or they which at certaine times onely Neuter eorum exhonorat c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour if each of them striue who may honor best the most healthfull sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house the other by saying Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes Manna tasted to euerie man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to bee iudged concerning the receiuing of that sacrament into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honor sake doeth not take it euery day an other for honors sake dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie As Manna would no loothsomenes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue beene vnworthily receiued of them Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discerne this thing from other meates by a veneration singularly due For streight when he had said he eateth drinketh damnatioÌ„ to himself be said moreouer Not discerning our Lordes bodie the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently marked This place to Sander seemeth merueilous notable for honor due to the sacrament And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme is an heretike and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost or as the bloode of Christ is an idolater But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all but onely such as in which I dissent from him In the fourth obseruation he noteth that we must striue to honor the sacrament whether by this meane or that it skilleth not so it be honored If he vnderstand of those two meanes of which Augustine speaketh I agree with him if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament I say he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine In the fifth obseruation he saith If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine hee would neuer exhort vs to bee so carefull howe to honor a meere creature were it neuer so great a signe I answere we honour not a meere creature when we honour the sacrament for his sake that instituted the same for we honour God and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine We honor not a meere creature when we honor a magistrat and yet the magistrate in substance is a man In the ninth obseruation he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
after an heauenly and spirituall manner in the Sacraments not by bringing the body of Christ downe vnto vs but by our ascending vp vnto him as Chrysostome sheweth plainly by that long allegory of the Eagles which he vseth in the 24. Homily Neither doth Chrysostome say that as those vngodly barbarous men did worshippe his body in the manger and handes of a woman so we being godly and ciuil must worshippe it lying on the altar or in the priestes hands in the forme of bread But he exhorteth by this exaÌ„ple his auditors to come often decently with dew reuerence preparation to the participation of the holy mysteries in which the same body of Christ though after an other manner is seene and dispensed But Chrysostom saith more plainely Hom. 28. I will shewe thee that in the earth which is worthy of highest honor Where can he shewe it saieth Sander but on the altar pointing to the host Yes forsooth he can shew it to the eies of faith for to the bodily eies he can shew nothing but breade and wine which is worthy of small honour But yet it followeth more plainely As in the pallaces of Kinges not the walles not the golden roofe but the Kinges body fâ—tting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heauen which is now sett forth to the earth to be seene What could the greatest Papist in Europ say more quoth Sander Verily no Papist that is aduised what hee saith will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seene but onely by the eies of faith and so the Lord of all thinges is shewed by preaching by ministring of the Sacramentes but not to bee seene with eies of the body but with the eies of the mind Wherfore seing Christ is set forth to be seene on earth which sight cannot be but by faith Chrysostome meaneth of a spiritual sight shewing manner of presence and not of a bodily sight shewing or manner of presence Neither doe we inuent any shiftes as Sander saith to auoide the adoration in question for it shall neuer be prooued that the Sacrament was adored in the primitiue Church in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papistes But beside Chrysostome wee must haue a plaine authority of Theodoret who disputing against an Eutychian that denieth the humanity of Christ reproueth him by the example of the Sacrament wherein two thinges are found saith Sander but Theodoret saieth there are two natures and substances breade and wine and the body and bloud of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica for the mysticall signes after sanctification depart not out of their nature For they remaine in the former substance figure and forme But now heare the shameles glosse of Sander In substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine So that in substances is not in substance but in accidentes wherevpon it will followe in Theodorets argument that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity but the substance of accidents thereof Secondly hee saieth The formes remaine in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained And is it the shapes or formes of bread and wine that nourished before while the substance remained was it the former nature of the formes to nourish O monster of impudency If the substance and not the shapes did nourish the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth remaine not in their former nature but haue taken vpon them a newe nature which no formes or shapes beeing accidents euer had before But hitherto Sander hath done nothing but by intollerable impudence sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret which is so plaine and direct against transubstantiation Now followeth the place for adoration which he citeth in Greeke for more credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The mystical signes are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are beleeued reuerenced Sander had rather say adored as being those thinges which they are beleeued to be Heere can be no lesse then reall presence and adoration And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sorte as Sander would haue him The mysticall signes are spiritually the bodye and bloud of Christ so to be beleeued and so to be esteemed reuerenced honored and adored not by any actuall conuersion of the elementes into the bodye and bloud of Christ but by the grace of God making the same spiritually which the signes represent outwardly And so shal Theodoret expound himselfe Dialogo primo Qui enim c. He which called his naturall body wheat and bread and nameth himselfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto the nature And whereas Sander concludeth vpon the place by him cited Therefore worshippe is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent It followeth immediatly after the wordes by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imagineÌ„ cum exemplari videbis similitudineÌ„ Oportet enim figuraÌ„ esse veritati simileÌ„ Compare therefore the image with the paterne or sampler and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure must be like the trueth Theodoret calleth the same mysticall signes which are reuerenced the image and the figure which represent the body of Christ which is the principal sampler whereof the Sacrament is an image and the trueth whereof the Sacrament is a figure Se you not what reall presence he maintaineth Who so will more at larg see Theodoret cited and obserued he may reade the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answere to the third booke of Doct. Heskins CAP. VI. The adoration of the body and bloud of Christ is prooued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first 600 yeares First he citeth the liturgies of Iames Clement Basil Chrysostom all which beare conterfeit names and yet say nothing to the purpose They report that the deacon said let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence What is this for adoration we also charge men to come with feare reuerence to the coÌ„munion Again the Priest said before the receiuing of the coÌ„munion Sancta sanctis Holy things are for holie men Sander laboreth to prooue that they spoke of the Sacrament as though we denied that the Sacramental bread and wine were holy things when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ to the worthie receiuers But Chrysostome ad pop Antioch Hom. 61. vppon the same saith Considera c. Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before the Angels ministring at the table the king himselfe is present
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
supper Bertrame whome Sander affirmeth to be but suspected in his booke De corpore sanguine Domini which is extant for euery man to reade plainly determineth against the Popish reall presence and transubstantiation And whereas Sander offereth a large scope as he saith that we should name one bishop in the whole earth who before the time of Berengarius reprooued the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I can name none so conueniently as Aelfricke sometime Archbishop of Canterburie with al the Saxon bishops in his time who set foorth an Homily to be read on Easter day vnto the people and allowed certeine Epistles of the saide Aelfricke in which is conteined a plaine and manifest denyall of that bodily presence for which wee striue and an approbation of the onely spirituall manner of presence which wee teache If Sander will cauill that although they so taught they reproued not the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent men how they would haue accused any man that obstinately should haue maintained a doctrine contrarie to their common beliefe and consent Howe the fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued concerning the blessed Sacrament namely S. August whom Sander half suspecteth and yet saith he is not against them because his communion is not forsaken it hath ben plentifully and often shewed is not here to be repeted But Hilarie saith it is the profession of our Lorde the faith of the Church that the Sacrament is truely the flesh and bloud of Christ therefore there is no place left of doubting Certeinly we doubt not but to the worthy receiuer the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be after a spirituall manner but wee are out of doubt that our Sauiour Christ reteining the nature of his bodie would not make the same insensible impalpable incircumscriptible c. It is not therefore the presence nor the reall presence rightly vnderstood but the bodily presence which we denye and no man affirmed for sixe hundred yeres after Christ except perhaps Marcus the heretike that changed the colour of the wine by inchantment that it might bee thought that Christe had dropped his bloud into his chalice as Irenaeus testifieth lib. 1. Cap. 9. Likewise we aunswere to Epiphanius we belieue the wordes of Christ to be true which by grace hath giuen vs bread and wine to bee his bodie and bloud spiritually euen as the water of baptisme to be regeneration which similitude Epiphanius vseth euen as he doth this of the supper to shewe that wee are truely made according to the image of God not by nature but by grace Epiph. Anch. But Sander hath a pleasant similitude to shewe that the Papistes are not gone from the Apostles and auncient fathers because a man liuing in these dayes should be vniustly charged with treason for disobeying of William the Conquerour or being the sonne of him that disobeyed William the Conquerour when he answereth that he liued not vnder that king and al his ancestours in their dayes were obedient to such kings vnder whome they liued A worshipfull similitude But if William the Conquerour made a lawe that whosoeuer committeth these things or these things shal be deemed a traitour and it is prooued that thou hast committed some of them what will the former answere auaile thee it is the doctrine and not the persons of the Apostles and auncient fathers from which you are accused to haue departed But which of the successours of the Apostles saith Sander sent Berengarius to preach that doctrine whereof they helde the contrary I aunswere so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine which the Apostles themselues commaunded to bee taught he needed no speciall commission from them that were departed from the Apostles doctrine to reprooue them for he was sent of God who opened his eyes to see the trueth and their errours that sitting in the chaires of the Apostles taught a doctrine contrarie to the faith of the Apostles But Sander will at once prooue that all citizens of the house of God through the world witnessed with one voice and in one worde that they beleeued the bodily presence For the olde custome was at the wordes of consecration and at the time of the receiuing the Sacrament which was saide to be the bodie and bloud of Christ to say Amen that is to affirme it was so And this Sander prooueth by manie witnesses which is needelesse for wee knowe it as well as he But this prooueth no carnall nor bodily manner of presence except Sander can proue that it was tolde them this to bee the body and bloud of Christ without any figure really corporally present vnder the onely shapes of bread and wine as they teache nowe Yes saith Sander a figuratiue speach soundeth otherwise then we must thinke whereto Amen must not be answered What shall wee then answere to these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud are not these the wordes of consecration also But what was meant by Amen and what the Sacrament is S. Augustine teacheth serm ad infantes Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in mens a positum est Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondâ—tis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuuâ— c. Therefore if you be the bodie receiue the Lordes mysteries whereunto you are You answere Amen and by so aunswering you subscribe Be thou a member of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true These wordes declare that not the reall presence was aduouched by the worde Amen but the spirituall participation of the mysticall body of Christ by the faithfull But Leo Ser. 6. de Ieiu 7. mensis saith Sic sacrae c you ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye dout nothing at all of the trueth of the body and bloode of Christ for that thing is taken in the mouth which is beleeued in faith And Amen is in vaine answered of them who dispute against that which is receiued In these sayings Sander vrgeth that it is receaued with the mouth as though Leo did meane that whatsoeuer was beleeued in faith was receaued in the mouth yet the worde is are sumitur it is receaued by the mouth which is not all one with in the mouth For the bodie of Christ may be receaued by the mouth as by an instrument that receaueth the visible sacrament thereof and yet the body is not receaued into the mouth But Leo speaketh manifestly against the Manichees which denied that Christ had a true bodie exhorting Christians not to doubte thereof for except they beleeued faithfully that Christ had a true bodie they coulde not with their mouth receaue a sacrament of that body which they beleeued not to bee nor truely answere Amen when they disputed against the
answered partly because Sander bringeth no newe matter in this replie but either such as he hath brought in the sixe bookes before and partly because his chiefe and most generall answere is nothing but a begging of the whole matter in controuersie with an affirming and denying grounded vpon his owne authoritie By meanes whereof in this one article he hath noted iump 218 vntruethes howe well and iustely let the readers of his booke and Master Iewels replie be iudges As for mee I will not examine them all but onely so manie as touch the controuersie with any shewe of argument sauing that in a fewe of the first I will giue the reader a taste that hee may iudge of the rest And whereas hee chargeth the Bishoppe for setting one trueth against another for falsifying of autorities for misconstruing of their meaning c as the matters shall occurre I wil not faile to consider them CAP. I. Master Iewell hath not answered Doctor Harding well touching the wordes of Christes supper in this article Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first sixe hundreth yeares to beleeue that Christs bodie is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament To giue a tast as I promised of Sanders collection of vntrueths I will examine a fewe The first vntruth is noted to be this Master Iewell said Whether Christes body be corporally in the Sacrament Harding answereth not one worde Harding had saide The termes really substantially c. are sounde in the doctors treating of the true being of Christs bodie in the Sacrament Ergo saith Sander Master Iewell saide not truely for hee prooueth afterwarde Christes bodie to bee in the Sacrament Heere the reason of this vntrueth is the whole matter in controuersie whether Harding haue proued in deed that which he intended The 2. vntruth Iewell saith in this matter hee is able to alledge nothing for direct proofe Harding had saide Christian people haue euer beene so taught of that kind of preseÌ„ce which is founded vpon Christs plaine words Ergo saith Sander hee was able to alleage somewhat But what I pray you That Christian people were euer so taught which is false that this doctrine is grounded vpon Christs words which is false also For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article Harding saith the three Euangelists and Saint Paul Ergo saith Sander there is the thirde vntrueth for M. Iewel hath words plainely written c. But if these words prooue the presence according to the article the controuersie should be at an ende The 4. vntruth is that M. Iewell saith Harding vpon the wordes of the institution foundeth his carnall presence in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament Sander replieth it is lesse carnall grosse and fleshly to haue the substance of Christs corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of breade then to bee in his mothers wombe as Marcion and Apelles counted it or to make a lye when he saide take eate this c As though the graunting of Christes humanitie prooued the Popish presence which is contrarie to the truth of his humanitie or that Christ might not say truely the Sacrament to be his bodie except it were after that manner his bodie His presence in spirituall manner we graunt but we vnderstande spirituall manner to bee otherwise then inuisiblie for manie thinges may be so present that they are not seene and yet be not spiritually but corporally present The fift vntrueth is that M. Iewell saith Christ vseth no leading to that carnall presence Sander answereth The word This leadeth the Apostles to that vnderstanding as if I say this is a Lyon it will followe vnder this visible forme that I shewe a Lyon is substantially contained c. As right as a rammes horne If I shew a king or a strong man I may say truely in some sense This is a Lyon For if I shew one substance and affirme another of it the speach must needes be either false or figuratiue The sixt vntruth and a forged lye is that Master Iewell saith D. Fisher saith this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words as Sander reherseth them are these No man shall proue by the bare words of the Gospel that any priest in these dayes doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ. Againe No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our masse the verie presence of Christs bodie and bloude is made Iudge indifferentlie of the words what lye Iewell hath forged Although Fisher meant that by the interpretation of the fathers and practise of the Church the vnderstanding of the Gospell is more certainely obtained then by the bare words of the Gospell But Fisher hath other wordes Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cùm nec isâ—ud in scripturis contineatur which M. Iewel beginneth to english thus It cannot therefore be prooued by any scripture Here Sander playeth the schoolemaster and apposeth him What cannot be proued M. Iewel giue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it cannot saith Sander What cannot Wherevpon is grounded the 7. vntrueth when Iewel saith Doct. Fisher saith the carnall presence cannot be proued neither by these words this is my bodie nor by any other But I put case Master Iewell woulde answere your deepe demaunde in saying that potest in this place is a verbe impersonall and therefore he can giue it no nominatiue case at all but must english it thus non potest it cannot If you will aske him why he saith then the carnall presence cannot bee prooued as though presence were the nominatiue case he will answere you he doth not so construe or translate the Latine but he inferreth that conclusion vpon Fishers wordes No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our Masse the verie presence of Christes bodie and bloude is made But your learning wil haue the whole speach following to bee the nominatiue I say let it so bee if you will needes haue it so yet Master Iewels conclusion is true That Fisher affirmeth the carnall presence cannot bee prooued to bee made either by laye man or Priest ergo it cannot bee prooued at all Yet saith Sander Howe manie enormous faults haue you committed heere master Iewell First Harding affirmed these wordes This is my bodie to teach a reall presence Fisher spake of these words Make this thing and not of these wordes This is my bodie This were an enormous fault if Fisher had not saide Non potest per vllam scripturam probari it cannot be prooued by any scripture but seeing he saide so this is an enormous slanderous impudent and foolish lye and cauill of Sander Secondly Harding spake of the reall
presence if any sacrament bee made at al Fisher whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if or condition you shal be answered to Fishers whether or question Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words Fisher of our doings If the scripture be not Christs words Fisher spake onely of our doings 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures Nay syr he affirmeth precisely that it cannot be proued by the scripture These are the foure great enormous fault I trust after this tast no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes falsely fathered vpon Master Iewel Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onely to the matter in controuersie Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued Videlicet that the people were not taught c. as in the beginning of the Chapter The question being not of the wordes but of the meaning saith Iewel Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. to proue that Christ lacked neither wisedome nor vtterance to speak plainely of his Sacraments and mysteries which is verie true for hee spake plainely syncerely and truely although he spake figuratiuely Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner as Augustine saith But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking M. Iewel M. Harding M. Sander and my selfe it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse as Sander giueth me example Iewel Christ was the Rocke but yet not really Sand. S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament or any other thing Fulke S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament made by God in the wildernes Sand. Two diuerse natures in those words are named which can not be one substance But this is my body nameth one substance Fulke One substance is demonstrated and another named Moses might haue said truely shewing the rock to the people This is Christe or els S. Paul could not haue said truly the rock was Christ. Sand. It was not anie one certaine rocke whereof S. Paul spake for the water flowed out of two Rocks Either of which did signifie Christ and they both are onely one Rocke in meaning and in substance figured therefore Saint Paul meant onely of the spirituall Rocke which is Christ. Fulke Manna which was the spirituall meat they did eate rayned euerie day yet was it but one Christ in signification therefore S. Paul meant onely of the spiritual Manna which is Christ and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke Iewel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his bodie and bloud Sand. He did so but he gaue such a figure as is also the substance of his bodie as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance is also the selfesame substance with his father Fulke As he gaue a figure he gaue not the substance Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as he is a person distinct by himselfe and not his father Neither doth Augustine meane of such an vnitie in essence as is betweene God the father the sonne when he doth plainly deuide sacramentum rem sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament that is the figure and the thing figured Sand. He gaue a true and not a false signe lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous not a common figure lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine not a rhetoricall figure lib. 2. cap 14. Fulke These are answered in their proper places aboue cited Sand. He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth not which betokeneth a thing absent from it which August declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come c. Fulke Augustine in this place and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament and of the new that theirs were of Christ to come once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come but of the reall presence he speaketh no word Ablata sunt signa promittentia c. The promising signes are taken away because the truth that was promised is exhibited In this bodie we are of this bodie we are partakers Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof after a mysticall manner and so were all that euer pleased GOD not after a corporall manner such as the Papistes imagine wherefore Augustine saith vpon the same Psalme alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament Sursum corda habcamus Siresurrexistis cum Christo dicit fidelibus corpus sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit c. Let vs haue our hearts aboue If yee bee risen againe with Christ hee speaketh to the faithfull hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde if you bee risen againe with Christ sauour of these things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely and not as he saith else-where Sacramento tenus as farre as the sacrament or outward signe onely Sand. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure Fulke Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14. Sand. The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible corruptible mortal nature which Augustine knowing was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth none otherwise then in the shape of breade for that respect hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie Fulke Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onely by way of a similitude sheweth that if children should neuer learne more of Christ then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them that it is the bodie of Christ and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onely in the celebration of the sacrament they woulde imagine that Christ had appeared onely in that shape but this is impossible therfore Augustine coulde not feare it And seeing hee had no such feare he had no such respect as Sander dreameth as well concerning his feare as concerning his respect Iew. Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie Sand. Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body Fulk Tertullian proueth that Christ had a true bodie because the sacrament was a figure thereof for a phātasme or a vaine thing can
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
in the vnitie of his body that is in the couiunction of Christian members the Sacrament of which body the faithful communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is to be said truely to eate the body of Christ and to drinke the bloud of Christ. De ciui Dei li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth Sacramento tenus reuera manducare corpus Christi to eate the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament and to eate the body of Christ in very deede Ergo they that eate the Sacrament onely eate not the body of Christ in very deede Therefore Christs gift is not onely in the Sacrament Iewel The fathers of the old law receiued the selfe same body that is now receiued of the faithfull Aug. de vtil pâ—n Cap. 1. Sander Augustine saieth the selfe same spirituall meate that is Christ by faith but not the same corporall meate which is the body of Christ Tract 11. in Ioan. Fulke Augustine saith not that the body of Christ is our corporall meat but that which answereth in proportion to Manna as a corporal meat namely bread and wine Tract 26. Sander But Tract 11. he saith Quid est Manna what it Manna I am saith Christ the liuing breade that came downe from heauen Fulke It followeth immediately Manna accipiunt fideles the faithfull receiue Manna therefore hee meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporall meate but for the bodye of Christe whiche is spirituall meate Sander But he sayeth further It is knowen what God had rained from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what Christians take Let them blush because they knowe not Let them passe ouer by the redde sea Let them eate Manna that euen as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit him selfe to them Therefore Iesus is eaten bodily of vs after baptisme Fulke I denye the argument except Manna be Iesus bodily If Manna be spiritually taken then Iesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna which Sander confesseth to be onely spiritually Sander But Catechumeni might so eate Christ that is spiritually Fulke They might not eate Christ in the Sacrament before they were baptized and therfore they were ignorant of that mysterie Iewell Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and bloud of Christ in baptisme whiles he findeth that vnitie which is signified by the Sacrament Therefore the faithfull eate Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament Apud Bedam 1. Cor. 10. Sander They are not partakers really but onely in the Sacrament of the supper in which if the body were not really present hee that is baptized shoulde not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christes supper because hee is not partaker of bread and wine but onely is made a member of that mysticall bodie which in the Sacrament is signified Fulke Beda knewe no such distinction of really spiritually Neither doeth he saye they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper but of the bodie and bloud of Christ in baptisme wherefore I knowe not whereof Sander dreameth Sander Augustine saith of heretikes and schismatikes de ciuit Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bonde of peace which is expressed in that sacrament The bond of peace expressed is not the wheaten cornes molded in one loaf but the bodie of Christ present really vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulke Alack poore sophistrie Christ is the bonde of peace but the bonde of peace is expressed in the externall Sacrament of breade and wine Although the wheaten cornes are not the bonde of peace expressed yet the bonde of peace is expressed by the wheaten cornes c. Sander Looke in my 5. booke Cap 5. Fulke Looke there for an answere CAP. V. Sander Master Iewell hath not replyed well touching the Capernaites Harding If Christ in S. Iohn had spoken tropically the Iewes and disciples who were vsed to figures would not haue said This is an hard saying Iewell His reason hangeth thus The Capernaites vnderstoode not Christ ergo his bodie is really in the Sacrament Sander No sir They vnderstoode Christ to speake without parables Christs wordes pertaine to the sacrament therefore his bodie is really in the Sacrament They vnderstood what Christ promised but they beleeued it to be either not possible or not conuenient Fulke The maior minor of your mishapen syllogisme are both false Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem c. They were afraide of his speache not vnderstanding they thought our Lord Iesus Christ had spoken some hard thing c. Sander S. Augustine saith they vnderstoode not because they beleeued not in Ioan. Tr. 27. Fulke What though infidelitie were the cause of their not vnderstanding yet he saith Non intelligeÌ„do scandalizati sunt By not vnderstanding they were offended ergo you saide falsely they vnderstoode what he promised And much lesse vnderstoode they the meane howe it should be perfourmed Iewel He said The bread which I will giue c. of spirituall eating It is the spirite that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith Augustine Sander See in my third booke Cap. 19. 20. Fulke See the answere in the same places Iewel Ye shal not eat saith S Augustine with your bodily mouth this bodie that you see c. I giue you a certeine Sacrament Sander Of this place I haue spoken at large lib. 6. Cap. 2. lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulk And I haue sufficiently answered in the same places Sander Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustines meaning Master Iewel hath false translations Fulke Sander heth foolish quarels master Iewell giueth the sense faithfully Iewel We haue a spirituall mouth taste eyes eares as Basil Leo Origen Tertullian say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the minde not of the bellie to beleeue in him that is to eat the liuing bread therefore Christs meaning is spirituall not reall Sander The fondest kind of reasoning in the world Christ is eaten both spiritually bodily Fulke Al these fathers meane only spiritual eating excluding all other carnal grosser maners of eatings Sander Doth not Tertullian say The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ to the ende the scule may be made fatt of God Fulke Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the externall Sacraments which haue the name of the things signified as of the signes of baptisme impositioÌ„ of haÌ„ds c. Iewel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who saith to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand plainly as the thinges be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing else Sander We vnderstand not so For wee seeing the forme of breade thinke vpon the bodie of Christ. Fulke But what did the Capernaites see whose vnderstanding you defende And what other thing do you vnderstand then is vttered in the wordes Iewel S. Augustine saith The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speach commanding vs to be partakers
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
affirmeth Oâ—kam Quodlibet 4. quest 30. ContrariuÌ„ illius non habetur ex canone Bibliae c. The contrary of that opinion that bread should remaine is not had out of the canon of the Bible c. Iewell So the wordes stand This BREAD is my body Sander where stand they so in your gospel but not in ours Fulke A foolish cauill the word bread is added for explicatioÌ„ by parenthesis shewed not to be of the text Iewell They say this meant not bread but one certeine thing in generall Sander I haue shewed how it is taken lib. 4. Ca. 4. 5. 6. Neither doth it signifie in generall but that which is conteined vnder the forme of bread Fulke Who could tell that you woulde renounce indiuidium vagum and what is conteined but bread before the words of consecration be all spoken Iewel Est they expounde erit it shal be Sander you delight in falshod Christ chose this word est because it signifieth a most present being of a thing for God worketh in a moment Fulke Then the wordes make not the bodie of Christ as all other Papistes saye For the wordes cannot be vttered in a moment Iewell Erit they expounde the substance of this vncerteine generall one thing that shal be changed Sander These interpretations be false Fulke They be the interpretations of all Papists except Sander who also sayth That which was bread before he spake was his bodie at the ende of his speache But what was it in the meane time while he was in speaking and saide est it is Iewell It is giuen they expounde it shal be giuen Sander We expound it of the present vnblody sacrifice Fulke Harding against whom master Iewel writeth expoundeth it of the passion Neither can it be both as you say but is in deede meant of the passion onely but yet figuratiuely seeing Christ said of his bloud which is shed which cannot be vnderstood of your vnbloudie sacrifice nor of the bloudy sacrifice of Christ wtout a figure Iewell Do ye this ye expound sacrifice ye this Sander Nay sir we controll your false translation for Hoc facite is make this my bodie Of the making of the sacrificed substance I haue spoken li. 4. Cap. 13. Fulke Sander controlleth the greatest Papistes that euer were before him in his newfound translation Iewell This bread they expound this that was bread Sander You should name the place Fulke A weake answere the place is 1. Cor. 11. Iewell These verbs He tooke he blessed he brake he gaue stande togither and rule one case Sander They stand together in order of writing but not in order of doing Fulke They rule a case according to the order of writing and not after the order of doing Sander If the words of consecration were spoken before the breaking what wonder ye if the thing that was taken being changed we change the construction of verbes Fulke If the holy ghost haue set it downe otherwise you shall haue much to doe to prooue it if any thing be chaunged you must giue vs another accusatiue case then panem and not chaunge the construction of verbes Iewell He tooke bread he blessed it away Sand. He changed it into a better thing Fulke By blessing or by saying This is my bodie Sand. God blesse me from such a man who scoffeth at the holy mysteries Fulke Nay he derideth your bald interpretations Iewell He brake the Accidents Sand. That is true Fulke Accidents cannot be broken except the substance whereof they be accidents be broken Iewell He gaue his bodie Sand. We beleeue it to be a meeter gift then to giue common bread Fulke Who saith he gaue common bread Iewell Vpon these fewe words of Christ thus manie figures and moe they haue imagined Sand. They be not all the words of Christ but some are the words of the Euangelists The words of Christ are all proper but you haue many moe figures and absurdities Fulke They be all the words of God and if the words of Christ be all proper what neede so vnproper expositions of them But now let vs heare no lesse theÌ„ 41. figures and absurdities maintained by Protestants Sand. First you ioyne together this bread Fulke In translation wee doe not but in sense we may when Saint Paul saith of that which is the bodie of Christ this breade Sand. 2. You haue done it against the Gospel for Hoc is the newter gender panis the masculine Fulke We haue not done it against the Epistle following saint Paul who I hope was no enimie of the Gospell Sand. 3 You haue irerated the same fault in ioyning hic to vinum Fulke We ioyne it none otherwise then Saint Paul ioyned This cuppe Sand. 4. You haue deuided the pronowne hoc from the bodie and bloude with which substantiues onely it may agree Fulke Hoc is an adiectiue in the newter gender taken substantiuely Sand. 5. You expounde the pronowne sometime for breade sometime for bodie as when you make the laying to be words of promise Fulke It is still bread for Christ promiseth by that sacrament of bread to giue his bodie Sander 6. You expounde est for significat when it standeth not betweene two seuerall natures Fulke The body of Christ and bread which is demonstrated by hoc are two seuerall natures Sand. 7. You take the same verbe est properly referring iâ— to the bodie of Christ which in euerie mans heart you consecrate by preaching these words This is my body as Caluine teacheth Fulke You belye Caluine and prate you wot not what The verbe changeth not his signification for the breade signifieth Christ which is spiritually giuen to vs. Sand. 8. Some other will haue the verbe est to stand properly and the breade to be a signe Fulke A fond cauill all commeth to one reckoning the bread is a signe and the bread signifieth Sand. 9. In the words of the cuppe in Saint Luke ye supplie the verbe est and then cast it out againe as superfluous Fulke A lewde cauill answered lib. 4. circumstance 26. Sander 10 The nowne body you take properly when you take est for significat and 11. vnproperly when est is taken properly Fulke Childish trifling where matter is all one see lib. 4. Circumst 18. Sand. 12 You expound the relatiue quod which so as it cannot agree with the antecedeÌ„t the verbe following Fulke Boyes play answered lib. 4. circumst 18. Sand. 13 Datur you expounde dabitur Fulke So doth Harding and so it must be as I haue shewed in this chapter Sand. 14 You expounde facere to doe onely and not to make Fulke One verbe can haue but one signification at one time Sand. 15 You expounde hoc for hic or ita in your homilye doe thus Fulke Take your action against the Printer Sand. 16 In mean commemorationem you english in the remembrance of me which should be for the remembrance of me Fulke A knot in a rush Sand. 17 When you haue expounded est for
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh â—ee which is more Catholike CAP. X. Sand. The signification of aduerbes discussed Hard. By these words really substantially c. The fathers meant only a trueth of being and not a meane of being after carnall or naturall wise Iew. All aduerbs taken of nownes signifie euermore a qualitie and neuer the substance Sand. An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioined to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification thereof which if it signifie a substance the aduerbe doth make it to signifie the same substance more perfectly As Your God is verily the God of Gods This man was verily the sonne of God Fulk The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance but the maner of trueth which is a qualitie Sand. Christ walked corporally vpon the water that is in trueth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed maner as other mens bodyes are wont to walke Fulk Yes verily he walked vpon the water as other men walked on the drie lande giuing strength to the water to beare him not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed who walked likewise on the water Sand. The maner of the walking did exceede the maner of a meere naturall bodie Fulk TheÌ„ belike Peter had not a meere natural body Hard. When the fathers teach Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes Saint Hilarie and S. Cyril haue then they meane that Christ is in vs by the true substance of his flesh and not in such maner as common flesh is wont to be any where Iewel The fathers meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall and naturall manner and not in substance Fulke Yea after some kinde of corporall c. manner that is truely soundly and not shadowedly effectually c. not after euery corporall carnall or naturall manner Sand. The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in vs without the substance of his bodie and bloode Fulke But the general qualities of a bodie of flesh c. may be in vs as in their subiect without the proper subiect of Christes bodie and blood Sand. S. Hilarie saith Christ hath the father in him according to the spirit naturally Hath Christ a qualitie and not the whole true substance Fulk The question is not what he hath but what he hath by force of the aduerbe naturally which is not of force to giue him the whole substance but signifie that hee hath it after the manner of nature which is truely Sand. Hilarie saith he tarieth in vs naturally Fulk That is truly which is some maner of naturall being Sand. He saith further he is in vs himselfe by flesh Fulk Which he tooke of vs and doth againe giue vnto vs. Sand. And againe Naturally according to the flesh we liue by him that is to say wee haue obteined the nature of his flesh Fulk I aske no better interpreter then Hilarie him selfe Whosoeuer liueth by him hath obteined the nature of his fleshe which is able to giue life but manye liue by him which hath not receiued the supper therfore Hilarie speaketh not of giuing the substance of his flesh in the supper as Sander vnderstandeth but of giuing the nature of his fleshe which is power of life confirmed to vs by the sacramentes of his supper and baptisme CAP. XI Sand. Of the first author of the Sacramentarie heresie Hard. Berengarius began first openly to shewe the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes bodie in the sacrament Iew. Before master Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Sand. The Messalians began priuilie by generall disgracing the sacrament Berengarius began openly by speciall denying the vertue thereof Fulk The Messalians spake as openly as Berengarius and he that vtterly denieth the sacrament to be of any vertue taketh away the special vertue also wherefore Hardings tales agree not but that is a small matter Iew. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteined the same doctrine before Beâ—â—ngarius Sand. If they barked in corners at any ceremonie which is not euident to vs yet they mainteined it not For then they had ben condemned of heresie by them you haue gained litle more then 200. yeres Fulke They preached and wrote openly the one of them dedicating his booke to the Emperor which is extant the other condemned in the Councell of Vercells holden against Berengarius But while they liued their doctrine therein was not controlled Two hundreth yeeres is small gaine to vs which count from the beginning but it is great losse to you that build vpon antiquitie not regarding how it came from the beginning Iewell It shal be necessarie to open Berengarius iudgment Sand. It is ynough you are at a staye and can bring your faith no higher then Ioannes Scotus and Berengarius Fulke We beginne at Christ and bring downe the continuance of our faith herein for 600. yeres and more which you cannot impugne Iewell This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius I beleeue that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sensiblie and in verie deede is touched with the hande of the Priest and broken and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull Sand. You haue Englished the wordes very spightfully you haue added Rent of your own head Atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to bee wasted which may be done without grinding Fulk What great spight is in Rent more then in Broken and why should alteri signifie to be broken wheÌ„ we had the word broken before and what honestie is it for you to say the body of Christ may be wasted with the teeth Finally when you haue dentibus halteri I meruaile why you dare not say ground except it be that you teach the people to swallow the cake and not to grind it with their teeth Iewell The verie glosse saith vnlesse you warely vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie then euer he helde any Sand. The glosse telleth you that al touching breaking or washing is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine Fulke Then the confession of Berengarius was false that the body is touched broken grinded with teeth Iewel These fathers redresse the lesse error by the greater Sand. They teach him to speake as Chrysostome hath spoken in Ioan. Hom. 45. Non se c Christ permitteth himselfe not onely to bee seene to them that desire but also to be touched and to be eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh all men to be filled with desire of him Fulke Chrysostome speaketh figuratiuely except you will say it is a proper speech that Christ is seene in the Sacrament These fathers abhorre all figuratiue speaches in this case and it is nothing like that a recantation of a figuratiue vnderstanding should be expressed by
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
The name of spirituall may be taken as many wayes at spiritus which is for God the holy ghost Christ Angels winde gifts spiritual the soule the imagination breath anger or punishment and many other waies Fulke So many waies of taking as you knowe yet you cannot tell any other then as Clemens and Hierom take it for that which hath not the substance but the grace and effect of Christ. Sander That which you bring out of Athanasius apperteineth to the Capernaits and to no man else Fulke Yes to as many as erre grossely like the Capernaites as you Papistes doc Harding The fathers vsed the wordes really substantially c. to put away al doubt of the being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries Iewel He diuineth what they meane before they speake Sander Nay because he is sure of their words he expoundeth their minde Fulke He is so sure of their wordes that he knoweth not where they are written nor you neither Being so often called for and so much bragged of bring them out for shame CAP. XIII Sander A place of Chrysostome expounded Iewel Chrysostom saith in the same homilie If Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentarie quarel Sander You proue a signe here but not that the trueth is absent from the signe Fulke The Sacrament is a signe ergo not the thing signified a relatis Sander The sacrifice of the new testament is the bodie of Christ this is the sacrifice of the newe testament therefore it is the bodie of Christ. Fulke The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing as prayer almes preaching vnto which is no reall presence required Your syllogisme is all of particulars make the maior vniuersall and the error is soone espied Euery Sacrifice of the newe Testament is the bodie of Christ. Sander Chrysostome there saith that Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus who denied Christes reall flesh and death are confounded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them Fulke Verie well as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure to the thing figured The SacrameÌ„t could not be a figure of Christs body except Christ had a bodie in deede For a voide thing that is a phantasme can haue no figure Sander Chrysostom saith it is euident by these mysteries that Christ is alreadie sacrificed which cannot be true if his reall flesh be not present of which point I haue spoken in my fift booke Cap. 1. Fulke And in the same place I haue aunswered the vanitie of your argument Iewell Master Harding knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries for it followeth Euen so in baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneration is a thing spirituall wherefore if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament hee must likewise force the same in the other Sander D. Harding brought that place onely to shewe that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present Fulke The place prooueth that the body of Christ is none otherwise present then regeneration in baptisme Sander In baptisme the grace of regeneration which is giuen is conteined and giuen when the worde commeth to the water Fulke The water is no subiect for the grace of God yet Chrysost saith not the grace but regeneratioÌ„ it self Nothing is borne againe but the partie baptized therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme CAP. XIIII Sander The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper Iewel Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme The fathers in the Councell of Nice bid vs thinke that the water is full of heauenly fire c. Basil the kingdome of heauen is set open Chrysostome God himself in baptisme by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose In the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard Let vs be washed in his bloud c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue that the power of God the heauenly fire the grace bloud of Christ is really present in baptisme Sander Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament except it be signified present in the wordes instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament or of necessitie be inferred vpon them Fulke Neither is all that really present which is affirmed of a Sacrament that is signified present in the words instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament As Christ saide This is my bodie so hee sayde This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud yet it followeth not that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe no nor in the bloud of Christ which he shedd for vs but is confirmed by it and signified by the other Sander Baptisme the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other Fulke If they had no differences they should be all one yet haue they not so many as you make But in the matter in question they haue like force to vnite vs to Christ and assure vs of eternall life which none can haue but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ or else what becoÌ„meth of them that are baptized and not admitted to the communion CAP. XV. Sander M. Iewel replyeth not wel touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell Harding We behold saith the Councel of Nice the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or laide on that holy table we receiue his precious bodie and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily in deede which is to say really Iewell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstall but deuised by M. Harding Sander It is founde in the actes of the Councell that are not all printed but they are extant in diuerse Libraries Fulke You name none where we should find them to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies Sander In many Latine printed bookes it is translated sâ—â—m situated or put Fulke The question is not what some Latine coppies haue but what is the originall Greeke Iewel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed needes sounde a reall presence Sander Can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Fulke A fit comparison betweene a capon and the lambe of God Iewel Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith and yet not really Sander The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table by faith but to be set or laide there Fulke How can the Councell saye We behold it set there but by faith Iewel S. Hierom saith as often as we enter into the sepulchre we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode yet he lay not there really Sander But he lay
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke