dyd rather geue his reall body vnder that blessed signe of bread then that he would say he gaue vs his body yet in dede gaue vs wheaten bread whiche were lesse then his body Howsoeuer shamefast men are wont to speake modestly to them whom they loue best surely they wil not blush to do most boâ—…tifully for them much lesse may we thinke that Christ louing vs so well spake more then he dyd performe ¶ The vij circumstance of washing the Apostles feete THe Paschal lambe being eaten Christ sate down at the table with his disciples He arose again laid his garments down girded himself with a towel poured water into the basin and began to washe his Apostles fete and to wipe them shewing thereby both his own humilitie also of what a great mystery they should be made partakers For the worthy coming whereunto not only their mind should be tried and purified but also their bodies yea euen the the vttermost parts of their affections should be purged and cleansed For which cause euer sins the Apostles 〈◊〉 as it may appere by the practise of the Churche and by S. â—…ionysius the Areopagite the Catholike Bishops and Priestes haue vsed before they come to coÌ„secrate yâ— dreadfull mysteries to wash the very toppes of their handes What to doe I pray you wâ—…ether because they should come to handle bread and wine then might Christe haue washed his disciples hands as he dyd their fete before they had eaten the Paschal lambe for it was not eaten without bread neither without a cup of wine also if we shal beleue S. Hierom S. Bede and Theophilact who thinke suche a cuppe of wine as the Iewes dranke of after the Paschall lambe to be mentioned in S. Luke And why is not the bread wine which was ioyned with the fleshe of the Paschall lambe it being set also to signifie the same Christ for which the bread and wine of the new testament is appointed as the Protestants teach why is not I say that bread wine as good as this whiche we haue one God made both and both be assigned to shâ—…ow one Christ both oblations both SacrameÌ„ts both be 〈◊〉 of the same men in the same night and place And yet so much 〈◊〉 is betwene the bread and wine of the old 〈◊〉 and that of the new that it was sufficient for the one to be eaten with 〈◊〉 not vncleane but the other 〈◊〉 haue 〈◊〉 the bodies purified for the more worthy receauig thereof 〈◊〉 not because it is bread and wine still but because it is made the 〈◊〉 of life the food of Aungels the body and blood of 〈◊〉 Hence cometh al this preparation hence cometh the difference betwene the old new 〈◊〉 For although they meete inone signification yet in substance the one was earthly the other in substance is heauenly the one published by Moyses the other of Christes own insâ—…utioÌ„ and for that cause yâ— one a bare shadow of the truth the other a truth of yâ— shadow and also couering the â—…me truth in a mysterie ¶ The 〈◊〉 Circumstance concerning the place of the last supper THe place where Christ kept his supper was chosâ—…n appointed not without a miracle by geuing his disciples a strange signe howe to go to an vnknowen house by folowing him that should cary a pot of water into it That house Nicephorus and Damascene write to haue bene about the mount Siou whiche standeth in holy scripture eueÌ„ by the inrerpretation of S. Paule to signify the City and Churche oâ—… God all which things doe portend that some great and vnaccustomed matter shal be done in suche a place so assigned In the house a faier parler was decked and adorned and therem a table at the which Christ sitting downe made thereupon his maundy Of which table for the meats sake whiche should be geuen at it the holy Ghost had before prophecied by king Dauid saying thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon wisedom hath set forth his table Likewise yâ— table whereuppon the twelue loaues of the shew bread stoode in the tabernacle of the law before the face of God shadowed this table of Christes supper whereat the twelue Apostles sate before the face of Christ our Lord he being the bread of life and geuing to euery of them a loaf vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteyned Christ then making his supper vppon this table and thence distributing his meate vnto the Apostles doth vs to vnderstand that whatsoeuer he feedeth vs withall either in spirit or in body at his supper is reallâ—… present vppon the very boord wherevppon he did eate For Christ at this tyme is not talking in parables not disputing in the synagoge not preaching in the teÌ„ple â–ª he is in a house in a parler at a boord shewing thereby where his banket is exhibibed where it is serued and whence it is receaued We are not now occupied in spirituall praicr alone but also in corporal eating and drinking If the euerlasting meate of Christes supper be only spiritual and only receaued in mind by faith let the howse be thought only to be spirituall the parler to be spiritual and the boord to be spiritual Let vs deny that any of these things were natural and real but if all the rest be confessed real seing al they are prouided for the meates sake which shal be eaten from the table what an impudent folly is it to say the body and blood of Christ whiche only is the euerlasting meate of this banket are taken neither in hand nor in mouth nor be not at all vppon the material boord whence Christ visibly deliuered them to his Apostles own handes bidding them take and eate ¶ The nyntenth circumstance of the taking bread and wine OUr sauiour sitting doun at the table toke bread and the cup of wine and he tooke it who neuer touched the thig which he did not sanctifie because vertue went forth of him euen by touching his garments Moreouer it is to be thought he toke such bread as the presâ—… feast of Caster which was beguÌ„ne might suffer Unleauened I meane and such as presently was vpon the table at the eating of yâ— Paschal Lamb. The which surely was already figuratiue bread it was already a token of Christ and already was partakeÌ„ of the disciples Shall we think then that Christ goeth about to do that which was already done No no this 〈◊〉 of his goeth to an other end as we shall perceaue anon Thirdly by taking bread and wine into his hands Christ meaneth vs to looke for the mystery that shal be made within the forms of those cratures which he toucheth He now pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would only consecrate somewhat in theyr breasts as Caluin dreameth he taketh bread and wine there we must seeke the first work of his supper Last of al by this kind of
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
we hope to see that agreement of minds that consent of wils that vniformitie of life and belefe which our grandfathers and great grandfathers had The Trinitaries of Polonia vnder their Capitain 〈◊〉 who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉 that chief citie of yâ— Kingdom said that the name of the blessed Trinitie is a monsterouse thing not because they openly deny the father yâ— sonne yâ— holy ghost or the equality of them nor because they defend any more then one God But they affirm yâ— albeit there are three vnius naturae of one nature of one Godhead yet there are not three say they yâ— are vna natura vel Deitas one nature or Godhead And for proufe hereof they appeale to the new Testament and old and to the Churche which they call priuatiue which was of the first two hundred yeres or thereabout bidding vs looke whether we find Trinum vnum deuÌ„ or Trinitatem in vnitate or vnum deum in tribus personis in any scripture or in any Father of that age As for S. Athanasius S. Hilarie S. Basil S. Augustin so forth they esteme no more then our new brethren esteme S. Bede or S. Thomas of Aquine The booke intituled of the Trinitie which is in S. Iustinus works they affirm not to be his vsing presently the same shamles shifts against the blessed name and nature of that Trinitie which the Sacramentaries vse against the nature name of the Masse Not long after these Trinitaries an other cumpany began to think circumcision so necessarie that in Lituania many 〈◊〉 them selues who to defend that heresy must nedes deny S. Pan les epistles as Luther hath denied S. Iames his epistle for that it is against his iustification of only faith And what forbiddeth an other sect to doe the like in an other matter Thus alwaies are we seeking as Tertullian sayth but we neuer find any thing if once we goe from that which we all beleued If then a stay be to be made at any tyme in questions of belefe if we may be sure of any article of all our faith it behoueth we vndoe not that which our forfathers haue so long before concluded to be true No reason of induciÌ„g a new faith can be so weighty as the peace and preseruation of vnitie in Christes Churche ought to be singularly weighed of euery man There was but one vniuersall chang to be loked for in religioÌ„ from the beginning of Christes Church to the last end thereof And that was at the coming of Christ into the world The which chang that it might not be sodein it was prophecied of before in all ages both by yâ— dedes and words of Patriarchs of Prophets and of Priests And when the fulnesse of tyme was come it was proued to become by miracles of so great vertue and name that the very stones that is to say the infidels were turned by them so great a matter it was with God to haue the order of his religioÌ„ altered And now shal we after Christes faith preached beleued fiften huÌ„dred yeres together shall we now take a new faith of Luther of Zumglius and of Caluin If they be Christ I graÌ„t we must admit theyr doctrine but if they be not so it is not possible they should come of God though they came with neuer so many miracles but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉 To come again nere 〈◊〉 own matter if we shall geue any eare to them who affirm the words of Christes supper to be figuratiue that must be with some dout of our former faith and in douting thereof we are become men that lacke faith which if it be not sure it is not good for so much as it hath not the foundation of the things which the Apostle sayd were to be hoped for Or tell me he that first gaue eare to BereÌ„garius or Zuinglius against the bessed Sacrament of yâ— altar may the same man geue care now to another that should wickedly say the Apostles had no authoritie geuen them to write holy scriptures If he may theÌ„ he may dout of the sayd â—…utoritie and yet surely it were very hard to proue to a wrangler that such autoritie of writing Gospels or epistles could be iustified out of the expresse words of the holy Bible But if it be vnlawfull to heare any such seditiouse man how could it be lawful when eare was first geuen to Berengarius or Zuinglius for then it was no lesse generally receaued through all Christendom and much more expresly to be proued by the holy scripture that the things set foorth and consecrated vpon the holy table and altar were the reall body and blood of Christ then it is sayd that whatsoeuer the Apostles did write should be confirmed and established as the words of the holy gooâ—… Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉 of the cause â–ª And before we heare what reasoÌ„s he can bring who wil reproue the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist I say he is not to be heard because it is not possible that his reason can haue any sufficient ground why we should geue ouer our old faith and that whether we respect the writen word of God or yâ— faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his churche For â—…either can he shew where it is writen or when it was beleued This is not my body nor can proue that it is more honorable to God or more agreable to Christes coming or more profitable to vs that we should lack his body present vnder the forme of bread rather then haue it For if the death of Christ did procede from excessiue charitie of him toward vs and of God and our profite that his Sonne should take flesh and dye for vs I can not deuise how the most honorable remembrance of the same death should not be most according to th' intent of Christ and to our soules health And doubtles it is a more honorable and a more louing remembraÌ„ce where the true substaÌ„ce of Christ is made really present for the keping of his death in memorie we take more benefite by such a commemoration of his bloody sacrifice then if in stede of Christes reall body a peece of bread and wine be left vnto vs with neuer so great a feding by faith For imagine ye the faith to be neuer so great I am sure it will not be the lesse because Christ is taken into our hands mouthes and brests The touching of his garment neuer hindred any good hart much lesse can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or deuotion And yet if corporal touching did not also help the faithfull womaÌ„ troubled so long with a bloody fluxe had not bene so miraculously cured by touching the hemme of Christes garment Her faith touched his Godhead and her soule
come from God and belong to causes of religion And yet in them as euery thing is most obscure so are words more necessarie for the opening of it All mysteries by their very name pretend a secret and an obscure knowlege Among all the mysteries which were lest vnto the Church by Christ none hath obteined that name so peculiarly as the Sacrament of Christes supper whereupon it foloweth that words are most necessarie of all for the declaration of that Sacrament therefore noman ought to wonder that with so many dedes of sitting down at yâ— table of eating the paschal Lamb of washing the Apostles fete of raking bread and wine of blessing thanksgeuing breaking geuing words at the length be ioyned which may shew plainly the meaning wherevnto all those dedes tend Let vs not therefore follow the Sacramentaries in this behalf who looke only to this that Christ toke bread and will not consyder his promise going before his present performance in geuing that which he promised his blessing and his words Wherein he plainly sayth This is my body But because bread was taken and still bread is tasted and seen doâ—… and say Christ what him list they will trust their eyes and not his word But S. Mathew S. Marke S. Paule 〈◊〉 that Christ did these things sayd S. Luke writeth he did them saying All meane that saying is a principall part of the supper And that not without a cause For whereas dedes may haue many and diuerse interpretations as it appeareth by the figures of the law except words be ioyned withall to make them certein and plaine we shall not know how to vnderstand the dedes and therefore we can not tell how to beleue them For this cause S. Chrysostom sayd that whereas Christes words ought in al things to be more credited then our senses yet he addeth Quod praecipue in mysterijs faciamus the which thing let vs do specially in the mysteries Ponder then I pray you whether Christ did expound one parable by an other For the dedes of his last supper 〈◊〉 to me vndoubted parables Who could tell what the taking of bread meant after supper or to what end the blessing and geuing of thankes wolde goe except Christes own words had interpreted his mysticall doings For whereas all Christes doings are our instruction it can not be denied but when he toke bread blessed gaue thanks brake and gaue those dedes were a certein aduertissement or dark lesson to his Disciples Of the which some vnderstode more some lesse according as they had grace and wit Now the words of Christ come to these dedes as it were a plain exposition added to an obscure parable And yet shall we think that the words also are paraâ—… Shal we say the thing that is spoken to geue more light bringeth more darknesse Or did the comment of Christ nede again an other comment He did certain things and to shew what he did He sayd this is my body If these words be 〈◊〉 it had bene better he had sayd nothing but only doâ—… this for the remembrance of me For by that meanes we might haue done as he did and so haue referred obedieÌ„tly the meaning of the dede to his wisedom But he in words expounded the secrete meaning of the dedes sayd This is my body What reason can now excuse vs why we should not rest in the authoritie of the speaker sith he spake as an expositour or interpreter of his own doings This reason alone ought to persuade any man But now I will bring a greater Not only the interpretatioÌ„ of Christes dedes dependeth vpon his words but also the whole substance of them For he being the word of God hath ordeined that no Sacrament shal be made without words Yea that words shal be the chief part of euery Sacramâ—…t This appereth in baptisme where the washing with water is the lesse part and the pronouncing of the words is the chefe part Hereof I haue spoken before and haue declared out of S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustine that yâ— Sacraments haue their verie chese being through words As therefore water breade wine and oile whiche are the inferiour elements and the baser part of the Sacraments be most commonly knowen and most easily gotten so the words which are the higher part of the same Sacraments must be such as be most common easy For euery Sacrament is a signe euery signe is to geue knowledge of a thing whiche otherwise had bene secrete Now if the token it self be secrete what knowledge can rise thereof Seing therefore Chriâ—… making a Sacrament said this is my body we must think either no signe at all to haue bene made or els we must beleue the wordes as they sound outwardly ¶ The fiftenth circumstance of taking SEing Christ willed all the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas also was to take that one thing which he gaue we must vnderstand such a taking as may agree to 〈◊〉 nolesse then to the other Apostles Againe whatsoeuer taking be vnderstanded it must appertein to corporal appreheÌ„sion whereof only Christ sayd take 〈◊〉 thing therefore which was taken either was 〈◊〉 bread being a bare figure of Christ or the body of Christ vnder the form of bread For in bothe these ways Iudas might take that which all the other toke As for any effectual signe whereof Caluin vseth to brag no man corporally toke sith it is clere that Iudas toke none such yet it was sayd to him no lesse then to the other take Nâ—…w if the Apostles toke only a bare 〈◊〉 of Christes body Christ gaue no more with his hands but a 〈◊〉 signe 〈◊〉 they â—…oke that which he gaue but Christ was not sent to geue bare signes which thing was thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the old lawe therefore it being false that he gaue a bare signe it must nedes be true that the Apostles toke at his haÌ„ds his own body vnder the form of bread Neither will it serue here if a â—…cramentarie say yâ— Christ gaue spiritually more â—…heÌ„ bare signes and likewise that yâ— good Apostles toke more spiritually for if we speake of spirituall gifts they wanted â—…ot in y◠〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and of the old law Abraham beleued God and it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instice Elizeus receaued the dâ—…bble spirit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseching God to restore him y◠〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉 to strengththen him with his chefe spirit doth 〈◊〉 that both he had once the holy Ghost and loked again for greater comfort of him Seig then the good men always receaued â—…pirituall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwene Christ and the old law doth not stand only in â—…all gifts receaued in the soule but in this that Christ in his maÌ„hod which he toke for that purpose left vs such coâ—…poral meanes and instruments of grace as might work also vpon our soules And therefore Christ denyed 〈◊〉 to be the
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
ioyned together in the top it self which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mysticall howse by faith and charitie alone they are one in the fundation through the spirit of God but not yet one in the top And the vnitie of that fundation wold not cause them to be a perfite howse if some stones being reised thereon did not at the length mete really together in the top of the building which is the flesh of Christ through the connexion of which stones those also which laie in the lowest place may be sayd to mete in the top for that they are necessary and substancial parts of that howse which is builded from the lowest parte of the ground vp to the very highest top Faith is the fundation and ground of the things which are hoped for Baptisme goeth nerer the top because beside the grace of faith it partaketh some other grace proceding not only from the spirit of Christe but also from his flesh in that the water according to the minde of S. Chrysostom of Leo is as it were the wombe wherein and the worde is the sede wherewith man is regenerated as wel in body as in soule Confirmation geueth strength to the new building wherein the stones are as it were with strong barres of iron holden together But when Christe geueth him selfe to vs vnder the forme of bread then are we come to the top of the building and are ioyned really to him that is yâ— end of the law For which cause this Sacrament of Christes body blood is called of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio the end or perfitenes of our heauenly building This flesh is also in the fundation but by spiritual efficacie not by reall vnion It is in Baptisme by the vse of corporall instruments of water and the word and so by spirituall efficacie and also by meane of bodily instruments proceding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptisme which he constituted in his body and sanctified the element thereof with his body In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh it self is present to make a moste perfite end of the whole spirituall building Thus are the baptized Christians built vpon yâ— faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets and the faithfull who receaue Christes body in his last supper are built in a higher degree aboue the faith of the Fathers and aboue the Baptisme of those who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christes flesh And seing all these concurre to make vp one howse the top whereof may touche Christes naturall body which he toke to make the reall coniâ—…nction with vs who consist of bodies all the mysticall body of Christ is perfitly one through them who being one with the rest in faith spirit and baptisme be also one with Christes flesh in truth of naturall and corporall vnion to Christes flesh really partaken at his holy table Let vs once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar and here is no perfite building toward the flesh of Christ and consequently no reason why we should be called his mysticall body or flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones For as if Eue had not bene taken really out of the naturall body of Adam she should not haue bene in truth bone of his bones so we are not flesh of Christes flesh in truth it self except the flesh of Christ in the naturall substance thereof be the meane by our natural coâ—…ction to it that we are framed wrought into a spirituall man These last wordes of S. Paule where he toucheth how we are â—…esh of Christes flesh doe also leade vs to an other notable example of our natural vnion which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S Paule had said that the husband is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church he prouoketh the husbands to loue their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche Who haue loued it so intierly that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word to th end he might make him self a gloriouse Church without spot or wrinkle Behold baptisme is a token of Christes loue but to what end That he might haue a cleane spouse To what purpose Will he then come nere to his wife and as it were be cloupled with her Yea verily not for any fleshly pleasure but to nourish her by his reall flesh And therefore S. Paul goeth forward saying Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their own bodies He that loueth his wife loueth him self And surely noman euer hated his own flesh but he nourisheth and cherisheth it as Christ doth his Church What meane you S. Paule Is then the Church the flesh of Christ For your words import so much He answereth it is so For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother and shal be ioyned to his own wife and they shal be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament or mysterie but I meane in Christ and the Church Hitherto S. Paul hath prouoked the husbands to loue and to cherish their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche in cleansing it through baptisme and as he cherisheth it as being members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Note that as the loue of husbands toward their wiues is coÌ„pared to baptisâ—… so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing nourishing which Christ vseth toward his Churâ—… â–ª whiche is knowe to be done after baptisme for no man cherisheth that which is not yet borne When we are borne again in Christ we are made members of Christes body and therefore those words Membra sumus corporis eius we are members of his body may be ment of baptisme â–ª where we are made members of his my stical body according as S. Paule had said before Sumus inu icem membra we are members one of an other But when he addeth de carne eius de ossibus eius of his flesh and of his bones he then speaketh not of any mysticall flesh and blood but euen of the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereof we are made members not by faith and mystery alone as in baptisme but by naturall participation of them in the last supper So doth S. Ireneus take these words For S. Paule spake not saith he of any spirituall or inuisible man sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh but of that disposition which is agreable to man the which consisteth of flesh of sinewes of bones the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood and is increased of the bread which is his body So doth S. Chrysostome also take these words saying we are members of his flesh and bones And again he hath mingled him selfe with vs and brought him selfe into
one with vs. Vt corpus cuÌ„ corpore vniretur That the body might be vnited to the head Behold we that by baptisme were the body must yet be vnited with our head what by only vnitie of wâ—…l or faith and loue all that we had before but we must be vnited now in nature in real coniunction of body and blood S Cyrâ—…l writeth thus If we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christ suffereth not himselfe to be diuided or separated Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ and â—…uery one of vs according to S. Paule yâ— members of Christ. For we being ioyned to Christ alone through his body because we haue receaued him in vs who can nat be diuided our members are rather applied to him then to vs. Theodoritus toucheth as well the vnion of baptisme as of the Eucharist saying As Eue was formed out of Adam so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism and we rise together with him and we eate his body and drink his blood Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mysterie which is done in baptisme or by â—…is body blood which is done in the Eucharist That is the beginning of our vniting this is the end that is the foundation of the house this is the top that is in spirit chefely this in chefely in flesh But now let vs graunt that when S. Paule saith we are meÌ„bers of his body of his fleshe and of his bones that he meant we in baptisme are members of Christes mysticall body and we are members as it were taken out or proceding from his flesh bones that is to say we are one mystical body because the flesh bones of Christ haue geueÌ„ vertue to the font of baptism wheÌ„ce we are regenerated Let vs admit S. Paule had meant so the contrarie whereof al the auncient fathers teache yet the wordes which folow in S. Paule can by no meanes 〈◊〉 auoided For he vseth the example of Adam and Eue shewing it to be a great mysterie in Châ—…ist and the Church and that mysticall example may be applied to the vnity which is betwene Christ and vs either in baptism or in the supper of our Lord. For coÌ„cerning baptisme as Eue was not corporally begotten of Adam but was taken out of his syde whiles he slept so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christes side whiles he slept vpon the Crosse without the personall begetting of Christ him selfe in his owne substance But what â–ª stayeth S. Paule in this part of the similitude Goeth he not forward to a greaâ—… mysterie Saith he not for this cause the man which is Christ shall forsake Father and mother and shall cleaue to his own wife which is the Church and they shal be two in one flesh Eue was taken out of Adam and was flesh of his flesh but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth so yâ— vnion of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ then by his flesh Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is yâ— material patern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism euen as Adam was yâ— material patern according to which God formed Eue. But Eue was borne beside the customable course of nature to betoken that the Church should be born of the vertue of Christes flesh not by company of two sexes but by the working of God without the natural seede of man But when Adam knew his wife carnally then the flesh taken before out of him by God was not only ioyned again to his flesh by God but also by the actuall cooperation of Adam him self â–ª theÌ„ two were made not only out of one flesh which was the miraculouse work of God in forming Eue out of Adam but also two diuerse persons already made by God are by natural coÌ„iunction of both theyr bodies made really one flesh euen as man and wife when they beget children are not now two as Christ him selfe testifieth but one flesh This is a great mysterie I meane sayth S. Paule that it is great in Christ and the Church For when the faithfull members who were incorporated to Christ in baptisme by the vertue of his flesh really absent in substance but presente in efficacy when those members come againe to Christ in the sacrameÌ„t of his last supper they then find not his flesh absent in substance as before but two that is to say Christ and his spouse the Church are in dede one flesh they are in deede soyned together in truth of substance on eche part Christ by his power and vertue prepared our flesh in baptism and by cleausing it there he made it a mete spouse to receaue his naturall flesh in his own real substance But in the supper we are not only of him but we are him selfe For we two are one flesh for the tyme that the coniunction dureth for as the man and wife be not always ioyned in the act of begetting children no more is yâ— real flesh of Christ always ioyned in his own substaÌ„ce with our flesh albeit his spirit and the vertue of his flesh tarie stil with vs and make vs tarie in him but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said take eate this is my body then we really haue yâ— substance of Christes flesh in our mouthes and bodie In mariage there are diuerse degrees of coupling the first is by words of promise for mariage to ensew The second is by words of present bargayning the third is when the man wife deliuer theyr bodies eche to other for begetting of children Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning when he promised that the sede of yâ— woman should tread downe the serpents head The which promise the Patriarches beleuing were euen then ioyned by faith aud loue vnto God The signe whereof Abraham and his sede caried in theyr flesh and it was renewed to Dauid and denouÌ„ced by many Prophetes as by the lawfull proctours of God At the length Christ by taking fleshe came to the house of his spouse to see whether she would goe forward in mariage or no. And although the vnfaithfull Jewes forgetting the couenants of spousage plaied the harlots parte with Christe whereof he greuously complaineth in his Prophets yet Christ keping his promise went forward in mariage with them who would receaue him Who consenting to his conditions by the aunswere of a good coÌ„science in baptisme were by present words made surâ—… vnto him for euer renouncing all other â—…orain husbands aâ—…ter which consent eche part hath right vpon the others body newe may the party baptized call for the Sacrament of Christes body if he be of the yeres of discretion And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the other syde boâ—…nd to obey the
〈◊〉 tasted to euery man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to be iudged conceâ—…ing the receauing that Sacrament of the altar into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honours sake dareth not take it euery day an other for honours sake dareth not once to take it in any day As Manna would no lothsomnes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue bene vnworthely receaued of them Qui hoc non discernebaÌ„t a caeteris cibis vendratione singulariter debita Who did not discerne this thing or make a difference of this thing from other meates by a worshipping singularly 〈◊〉 For straight when he had said he eateth and drinketh damnation to him selfe he said moreouer Non diiudicans corpus domini not discerning our Lords body the which appereth sufâ—…iently in all that place in the first epistle to the Coriâ—…thians if it be diligently marked Thus far S. Augustine whose wordes I haue rehersed the more fully to thintent by the whole argument the Reader might the better iudge his minde His answer in effect is the honour of the Sacrament is the thing chefely to be attended which sith it is honoured both of him that for honours sake doth receaue and of him who for honours sake doth not receaue eche of theÌ„ auoideth the contempt thereof and sufficiently putteth a difference betwene it and other meats which difference being not put was the cause that some Corinthians did eate this meat vnworthely Note well good Reader what I shall say for this place is marueilouse notable First S. Augustine speaketh euidently of the Sacrament of Christes supper and of Sacramentall receauing 2. He signifieth that this Sacrament must not be dishonoured by any meanes nor despised in minde or fact 3. By dishonouring or despising he meaneth the omitting to geue it due honour in thought or deede so that by all meanes the honour thereof must not be neglected or left vndone 4. We must striue to honour this Sacrament but whether it be done by this or by that meane it skilleth not so it be honoured 5. It is a kind of honour done to it sometyme to receaue it into our mouthes for honours sake sometyme for yâ— same honours sake not to receaue it Put these two notes together and it must nedes be that he meaneth the honouring of that thing which is receaued into our mouthes Then the honouring of yâ— SacrameÌ„t is the honouring of that which semeth bread and wine but if it were in dede the substance of bread and wine he would ueuer exhorte vs to be so carefull how to honour a mere creature were it neuer so greate a signe But let vs yet goe forward 6. The Sacrament which is taken into our mouthes is also called a kind of meate cibus ille that meate 7. It is that kind of meate which the Apostle would to be separated for honours sake from other meates 8. What call ye separating for honours sake He answereth it was a fault not to seperate it veneratione singulariter debita with a worship singularly due 9. what is a worshipping singularly due but such a worshipping of which sorte there is but one For that is singular which is alone and which hath no fellow 10. Such a worshipping that only is which is due to God for as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honour and worship Therefore the SacrameÌ„t or that meat which sometimes for honours sake we receaue into our mouthes and sometymes for honours sake we absteine from that selfe same substaÌ„ce is to be honoured of vs with a singular duety of worshipping or with a worshipping due in a singular manner that is to say with godly honour I seke not hereby to declare only that S. Augustine is of the mind to haue the Sacrament and the meate receaued into our mouthes to be worshipped with a singular duety but much more to shew that he affirmeth S. Paule to meane so For the fault of the Corinthians was not to discerne this meat with a worshipping singularly due For if they had worshipped it as it ought to be worshipped they would not haue taken it in their mouthes without they had first prepared them selues for the receauing of such a meate so singularly to be worshipped What figuratiue interpretation wil now serue Is not Sacramentum honorare good latine Is not the English of it to honour the Sacrament Is it not plainly said cibum illum discernere à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita to discerne that meate from other meates by a worshipping singularly due Is that a worship which may be geuen to any creature which is not vnited to God The meat in yâ— mouth must be so honoured therefore that in the mouth is yâ— real substaÌ„cial natural body of Christ. The Sacrament must be honoured therefore the substance therein conteined is the body of Christ. Otherwise shall we think that S. Augustine who so diligently always disceâ—…eth yâ— kind of worshipping God shal we think that he wil haue material bread to be discerned and separated froÌ„ meates by a worshipping singularly due Did that greate Clerk so litle vnderstaÌ„d what singular worship was that he gaue that name not only to holy men or to the iust Angels but euen to the vnsensible creatures of bread and wine No no. S. Augustin neuer doubted nor none of all the faithfull but that the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar was to be adored with godly honour euen by the doctrine of S. Paule because it conteineth vnder the formes of bread and wine the natural substance of Christes body and blood It is worthy to be remembred that S. Augustine vseth in this place the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes flesh 〈◊〉 vnder the signe of bread otherwyse he would neuer haue taught that eyther the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honoured For honour can be geuen to no vnreasonable creatures If this kind of vnderstanding the word Sacrament be wel consydered many places in S Augustine otherwise very hard wil be much the easier to perceaue Last of al what should it meane yâ— S. Augustine saith yâ— Sacrament may be honoured by our absteining sometimes from receauing it into our mouthes It Were surely no honor done to God if we should at any moment absteine to fede vpoÌ„ him in faith or spirit Why is it then some honour to his SacrameÌ„t not to be receiued in certaine cases Was it not counted a vertue in yâ— CenturioÌ„ wheÌ„ he said him self to be vnworthy that Christ should enter vnder the roof of his house And yet the same Centurion did not refuse to receaue yâ— effect grace of Christes word into his house There is therefore a difference betwene the corporall coming of Christe into our house or body and betwene the
which was receaued at the holy coÌ„munion which dwelleth bodily in vs to be not only yâ— flesh and blood of Christ for those words should be eluded with figures and signes but to be the substance and nature of God which nature is not possible to be eaten of vs corporally otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ which we eate corporally in the Sacramenâ—… seing the nature and substance of God must be adored it is not possible to imagine but all yâ— Fathers gaue Godly honour to the mysteries of Christes holy table But yet let vs heare a more full witnesse S. Chrysostome exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeale and most vehement loue writeth thus Hoc corpus in praesepe reueriti sunt Magi c. The wise men commonly called the three kings reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion barbarouse they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iorney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at the least wise follow those barbarous men For when they saw yâ— manger and cottage only and not any of those things which thou now seest they came with most great reuerence quaking But thou seest that thing not in the manger but in the altar not a womaÌ„ which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy Ghost copiously spred vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither thou lookest barely vpoÌ„ the body as they did but thou knowest the power of it and all the order of dispensing things And thou art ignorant of none of those things which were done by him and thou hast bene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs proseâ—…e openly a greater denotion then those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly we ieopard our head into a more â—…ehement fyre Hitherto S. Chrysostome If there were any other refuge left for our aduersaries they wold neuer admit this place they would say in words yâ— which the masters of them must nedes sometyme think in hart They would say what care we for Chrysostome He was a man he might erre he did erre in this matter But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge for seing they lacke the Gospel and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred yeres together as them selues confesse there is no place for them to hyde their head in but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres For this cause they caÌ„ not reiect S. Chrysostome who is one of the chief lights of the East Church His bookes also they can not deny and least of all his commentaries vppon the blessed Apostle What shift then find they to avoide this place In truth they can finde none but they must nedes preteÌ„d to say somewhat out of their common places of Khetoricall figures yâ— vse whereof they can father vpon whome they list S. Chrysostome in these words expressy teacheth as well the reall presence as the adoration of Christ vpon the altar He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the forme and truth of a childe He compareth the altar where vpon the mysteries staÌ„d with the manger wherein Christ lay He compareth our blessed Lady which sometyme held Christ in her armes with the Priest present at the altar who sometyme handleth the holy mysteries He compareth the three wise men who came out of yâ— East with the Christian people who come to heare Masse He compareth the adoratioÌ„ and worshipping which those three wise men vsed with the adoration and worshipping which faithful men ought to vse at the tyme of oâ—…r Lords supper He sayeth the body of Christ to be the same in both places but yâ— cause of worshipping to be greater in them who come to the holy mysteries He sayth by the body Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi This body the wise men worshipped in the manger which this body surely whereof he sayd before Quando id propositum videris dic tecum propter hoc corpus non amplius terra cinis ego sum When thou seest it set before thee say with thy self for this bodies sake I am no longer earth and ashes Behold he speaketh of the body which is set before vs. Uerily of that which at Masse tyme all men see vpon the altar And againe he sayd of the same Quod etiam nobis exhibuit vt teneremus manducaremus The which also he hath geuen to vs that we should hold it and eate it This body then which is put before vs in yâ— Church which is holden and eaten This body the wise men worshipped in the manger If our figuratiue diuines expound this body for the signe or the representing of this body as they are wont to doe then the wise men adored in the manger the signe of Christes body But if they adored not the signe but the truth then this body is meaÌ„t this true body of Christ. And seing S. Chrysostome sayeth that the wise men adored this body meaning by the pronoun this that which we haue in the holy mysteries it is clere that he putteth it for a most knowen and certeyne veritie that we haue present before the tyme of receauing the reall body of Christ vpâ—… the altar And so haue it present that we are bound to adore it being vpon the altar Tu verò non in praesepe sed in altari vides Thou seest this body not in the manger but on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not only comprehended by faith but by the meane of yâ— forme òf bread it is seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome bringeth fower reasons why Chrystian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Masse then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage First because they were not Godly men for so S. Chrysostom doth call them because they had not the knowlege of al true deuotion and Godlinesse although in that acte they shewed them selues Godly But we are instructed in all true religion therefore should souer worship this body of Christ then they did Secondly they were Barbarous men but S. Chrysostome spake to 〈◊〉 who were most ciuill leste Barbarous of all people in the world So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duety to worship the body of their maker Thirdly the wise men saw Christe in a manger where such things are not wont to lye as must be reuereÌ„ced worshipped but thou seest this body vpon the altar which is a place made for holy things to stand on And so much the more ought we Christians to adore the body of Christ being set before vs vpon the altar then those wise men did adore it in a manger They saw it also in the mothers armes which was a woman neither is any thing which a woman holdeth bringeth foorth wont
his death he sayd to his Apostles hoc facite make this thing Thus we see good cause why this signe should differ from all other signes because a naturall thing was not appointed at the supper to signify Christ but a supernaturall thing was prepared and made there a new to signify his wonderfull death and resurrection Iuel Touching our beholding Christ in the Sacrament S. Augustine saith it woâ—…keth such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord him self present vppon the crosse San. You care not what you heape vp together so it may make a shew S. Augustine there speaking properly of the solemnity of Easter which now in England is wholy takeÌ„ away saith although death shall nomore beare rule ouer Christ yet Anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est the yerely remembrance doth represent that which was done in old time and it worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord present vppon the crosse those signes were externall and as it may appere were made to the senses by preaching and shewing some image of Christ and by creping to the crosse and by such like godly ceremonies as the Church of God hath alwaies vsed at Easter but in our Sacraments as S. Chrysostom saith Omnia quae tradidit insensibilia sunt al things which Christ hatâ—… deliuered are without yâ— cumpasse of yâ— seÌ„ses S. Augustine therefore spake not of yâ— SacrameÌ„t but of other external ceremonies Iuel This is it that Eusebius writeth that the body might be worshipped by a mystery and that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spiritual sort and not fleshly Christ is layed present vpon the table San. Beside that you omitt the beginning of this senteÌ„ce you haue also left out foure lines euen in the middest thereof which doe shew that because a daily redemption such as neuer fainteth did still run on for the saluation of men the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting By which words Eusebius declareth what kind of mystery the Sacrament of Christes body is verily such as offereth vp that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. For as Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heauen by his reall presence there maketh continuall intercession in his manhod for vs and causeth the redemption of mankind to be alwaies in his force and strength before God so the mystery which is consecrated according to his institution in earth doth from hence offer and present vnto God the same selfe redemption by the very same substance of flesh which is in heauen To this end Eusebius sayth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood is consecrated and in what sort consecrated The inuisible priest saith Eusebius by secret power turneth the visible creatures with his word into the substance of his body blood and again before yâ— creatures be consecrated by the inuocation of the highest name or power the substance of bread and wine is there but after the words of Christ it is the body and blood of Christ. This was the homily which M. Iuel thought good to alleage that all men might think that there was nothing writen that made not for his purpose Is that no reall presence where consecration is so made that the creatures be changed into the substance of Christes body blood was not the wine really present at Cana into which the water was changed Well consecratioÌ„ is made the creatures of bread and wine are thanged into the substance of Christes body and blood and in that body blood the redemption of mankind is offered to God and is preserued in the remembrance of men and yet all this while that body and blood by M. Iuels verdit is not present The change is made by the word of God yet that word is figuratiue if we may beleue M. Iuel yea but he hath a phrase in store I warrant you to plaiâ—…er this wound Iuel S. Augustine saith you are vppon the table you are in the cup. as the people is layd vppon the table so and none otherwise the Councel of Nice saith the Lamb of God is layd vppon the table Sand. What M. Iuel is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christes body and blood I haue shewed an other where in my v. booke the v. chapiter that euen that our being on the table and in the cup doth proue Christes reall presence For we should not be there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder that forme of bread and of wine wherein we are signified Iuel The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really but these two words truly and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the one doth vtterly exclude the other San. If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh it is all one in speaking of flesh to say truly and fleshly but as concerning the corruplible qualities of flesh so it is not al one If it had pleased your malice to haue denied Christes presence in heauen as you deny it in the Sacrament you might as wel haue mocked all the places brought against you for his reall presence there with this word fleshly as now thereby you mock at his presence in the Sacrament This licenciouse wantonnesse in taking aduantage by a fleshly terme when soeuer you be pressed with a good argument shal get you neuer the more credit among wise men The real presence which we defend in the SacrameÌ„t is not carnall and fleshly but cleane and pure in so much that Angels wonder at yâ— marueâ—…lous vnspekable mystery of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament Yea S. Chrysostom saith Quod angeli videÌ„tes c. That thing at the sight wherof Angels quake because of the brigthnes which shineth out of it therewith we are fed therevnto we are vnited and we are made one body of Christ and one flesh And yet is this a â—…eshly kind of presence M. Iuel Iuel He that eateth most spiritually eareth most truly as Christ is the true vine the true manna and we are veâ—…ily one bread and the Apostles verily the heauens and these are the paschall feast wherein verily the Lamb is slaine San. In comparison of bodilie eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort But a thing both eaten in bodie in spirit as the Sacrament is eaten is farre more trulie eaten both waies then by one waâ—…e alone Again when the name of anie thing affirmed of Christ apperteineth to the true nature of his manhad which he hath assumpted it is to he verified of him not onlie by a metaphor but in verie dede Christ is no naturall â—…ine because he assumpted not that substaÌ„ce to him Likewise he is not Manna
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
the bread of Christes supper to wit the subsâ—… of his own body is one to all But the eating by faith is not one to all It is the body which is one Therefore 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople writeth Post eleuationem statim partitio diuini corporis fit Verum enim vero tametsi in partes diuiditur indiuiduus insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur inuenitur Aster the eleuation which among the Breakes was done immediatly before the communion by by a partition of the diuine body is made But truly although he be diuided into parts yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided 〈◊〉 and whole in euery part of the things which are cut what is this to say but that the forme of bread is only broken and the substance of Christes body 〈◊〉 whole vnder euery peece of the sayd 〈◊〉 But what speake I of the Fathers S. Paule sayeth The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body Because we being many are one bread one body For so much as we all partake of the one bread If the bread be broken how partake we all of one bread That which is broken is not according to the course of nature one in number And surely the Corinthians had more then one loaf which was broken among them And yet S. Paule hauing shewed that we breake a kind of bread sayeth Be we neuer so many we partake all of the one bread How is that but because the bread which we breake is no materiall bread but how many loaues so euer there were before after it is once sayd 〈◊〉 them This is my body euery one of them is turned into that one bread which is Iesus Christ. And that bread is distributed vnder the formes of commoÌ„ bread and so is the scripture instified which sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body And therefore that body being one bread it self maketh all vs one bread which partake of that one bread ¶ The xiij circumstance of geuing It is not to be thought that Christ deliuered first the fragmeÌ„ts of bread vnto his Apostles and then sayd the words of consecration for then he had not deliuered them a Sacrament but only had geuen them the matter and element whereof the Sacrament should be made but seing S. Paule saith yâ— bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body we must rather iudge that he had consecrated his body before he brake as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament which was already made And consequentlie as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christes own handes or lying vppon the table before him so it was deliuered with his own hands and by none other way that euer I can reade of vnto his Apostles but Christ had willed them before not to work the perishing but the euerlasting meate which the sonne of man should geue them which he shewed afterward to be his flesh and now fulfilling his promise he geueth the same euerlasting meate with his own hands which could not be so except the sayd euerlasting meate were vnder the form of bread or in the chalice which only the Apostles doe see in Christes hands therefore it is inuincibly proued by the word of God that Christes body which is the euerlasting meate was and is geuen to them that communicate vnder the formes of bread and wine What soeuer is sayd of spirituall meate comming down from heauen as to be a part of Christes supper it is vtterly voyd and without all ground of Christes institution wherein that Apostles are bound to rest vppon that onlye which Christ doth corporally geue and when he is readen to geue the which was done with his hands for vs at the same tyme to looke beyond him as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands it is a horrible blasphemie and a reprouing of his gift as insufficient He sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate the Ghospell saith he gaue at his supper saying this is my body the Catholikes beleue that he theÌ„ gaue the same euerlasting meate which he had promised to wit his own flesh and blood the Sacramentaries say he gaue it not with his own hands I say there is none other way of geuing mentioned in the supper and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be geuen as the Sacrament it self declareth being called the body and blood of Christ. I allege S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke S. Paule where it is writen that Christ brake and gaue I think our 〈◊〉 will not deuie that gift of his to haue bene made with Christes corporal handes â–ª therein I beleue his promisse to haue bene fulfilled therein the spirituall and euerlasting meate to haue bene deliuered S. Iohn witnesseth that Christ said dabo I wil geue the which is not meant only of a geuing by faith for so Christ had alreadie geuen his flesh to diuerse men but it was meant of geuing by hands after which sort he had not yet geuen now the other fower 〈◊〉 before witnesse that our lord in his supper dedit gaue I say this later word fulfilled the former promise I aske our Sacramentaries what other Ghospell they can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any tyme his promise of geuing the bread which was his flesh and the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting pardon me good reader if in so weightie a matter zeale force to 〈◊〉 out vpoÌ„ these false preachers of Gods word You cruell murderers of Christian soules where is that euerlasting meate geuen by your false glosing which Christ promised and called it his flesh is it not geuen at his own supper where then is it geuen at Christes table by which word shew you that gift if not by the word dedit he gaue if that word shew it that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystically deliuered with Christes hands appearing still bread therefore vnder the forme of that bread Christes flesh was geuen which is the meate that tariâ—…th to life euerlasting I speake so earnestly to th' end I might prouoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in Gods word ¶ The xiiii Circumstance of saying WOrds be somtyme applied to the decking and garnishing of á matter the which without theÌ„ might doe right wel albeit it doth the better through their help But when the thing standeth so that either nothing at al can be vnderstanded without words or the cheife part of the businesse wil be hindered for lack of theÌ„ in that case they are by al meanes as most necessarie so most diligently to be obserued as for example we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉 matters if God reueled it not vnto vs by his only soÌ„ne by Angels Apostles prophets or other his seruants For this reason those words are moste carefully to be weighed which
is not possible to vnderstand the mingling of two waxes to be other then reall and substanciall For wax hath neither faith nor spirit 3. D. Harding hath alleged fiue or six most plain sentences which may â—…e sene in his booke To none of all which M. Iuel hath iustly aâ—…swered or scant sayd any word reade also S. Cyrâ—…l in Ioan. li. 3. cap. 36. lib. 4. cap. 18. c. Now touching the corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament it is to be vnderstanded that S. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood mysticam benedictionem the mysticall blessing and therefore he exhorteth the faithfull peple to come to receaue it to be partakers thereof as the which putteth away both death and disseases Of this benediction and Sacrament thus he writeth 1. It differeth from Manna because the benediction is verily meate whereas Manna was a figuratiue bread But if the Sacrament conâ—…sted of materiall bread and were not Christs flesh it were no more the true bread then Manna was A litle blessing to wit a litle peece of the consecrated foode draweth the whole man to it Et sua gratia replet and filleth him with his owne grace Therefore the Sacrament hath grace of his own and is no common bread because then it shoâ—…ld not drawe vs vnto it but it should be turned into vs â–ª but nowe the benediction that is to say the Sacrament draweth vs to it therefore it self in his own substance is the flesh of Christ. He declareth the worde of God to be life according to nature yâ— it hath made his flesh able to geue life Et hac ratione facta est nobis benebictio viuificatrix And by this meane the Sacrament is made of power to geue vs life Marke the degrees the life it selfe is first in the sonne of God and afterward in the fleshe assumpted and so is the Sacrament able to geue life how hangeth this discurse but only because he presupposeth it for an vndouted truth that in the Sacrament the flesh of the sonne of God is really present After he had shewed that the Catechumeui can not partake of our mystical benediction he saith The ministers crie with a loud voice to those who come to the mystical blessing Sancta sanctis holy things for holy men Meaning the touching the sanctification of Christes body to agree only to those who are sanctified with yâ— holy Ghoste He calleth the mystical blessing the body of Christ and sheweth that those who come to it doe touch Christ whiche is of necessity vnderstanded by the meane of the foorme of bread vnder the which Christ is But if Christe were not really vnder that forme of bread why are the Catechumeni kept frome it For seing they confesse the faith with a loud voice as there S. Cyrillus doâ—…h witnesse and seing they may by their faith â—…eed vppon Christ in heauen shew me a reason M. Iuel if you be able why he that may eate Christe in faith may not eate the bread as you terme it which is the signe of him Specially sith S. Augustine confesseth that they also had a kind of halowed bread but not yâ— body of Christ geueÌ„ to them We geue this reason hereof because in the Sacrament of the body of Christe his own body is really present whiche is of suche honour that no meane sanctification should suâ—…ise for the admitting therunto And for as much as the Catechumeni who be not yet baptized haue not that grace of the holy Ghost which is geuen in baptism they are not sufficieÌ„tly prepared to receaue this marueilouse sacrifice and dreadfull myâ—…erie whiche you not withstandinge repute so vile that you crum your potage dishes with it sometymes caste that which is left in the cup of your own blessing vpon the ground as I my selfe sawe it done in king Edwardes tyme at a communion in Gloceter shere You make in words muche of it but your dedes do shew your blasphemouse hartes Harding The Catholike fathers sithence Berengarius haue vsed the termes really substancially c. to exclude Metaphores and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion vvith Christ by meane of his natural flesh really though not locally present Iuel These Doctors liued within these three hundred yeres and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming San. He named none that were sithens the six hundred yeres after Christ because he saw your impudeÌ„t proclamation to haue bound him to yâ— tyme. But otherwise he neither lacked sufficient witnesses elder then Berengarius nor iudged them vnworthy the naming And because by these your insulting wordes you sâ—…e to loke for some witnesses aboue three hundred yeres olde I will geue you a taste euen of the best that were from the first six hundred vntil the last three hundred yeres after Christ. Within which time many notable fathers haue liued How thinke you by Damascene who saith the bread wine and water is superturally changed by the inuocation and the comming of the holy Ghoste into the body and blood of Christ. And that he proueth because our Lord said this is miâ—… not figure of body but body and not figure of blood but blood Saith not Theophilact that the bread is with secrete wordes by mysticall blessing and comming of the holy ghooste changed into our Lords fleshe saith he not it appereth bread but in dede is fleshe again why doth it not appere flesh because we should not abhor from the eating thereof For if it had appered flesh wâ—… had bene vnpleasantly affected towarde the communion Is there any dout but he who telleth that the bread is changed into flesh and sheweth why yet it doth appere bread and not flesh did verely beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread or is he not more impudent then any haâ—…lot who wil staÌ„d in deâ—…nse that Damascene Theophilact beleued not tâ—…ansubstantiation as we do and yet these two are not only aboue three hundred but also aboue seuen hundred yeres old Saith not Haymo licet panis videatut in veritate corpus Christi est although it â—…me bread it is in truth the body of Christ Saith not â—…igius that after consecration it semeth bread and wine but in truth it is the body and blood of Christ Saith not Paschasius although the figure of bread and wine be hâ—…re yet after coÌ„secration they are to be beleued to be nothing at all but the flâ—…sh and blood of Christ What shall I speake of Lanfrancus Iuo 〈◊〉 Anselmus â–ª 〈◊〉 Algerus Euthymius who were al notable men for lerning and al aboue three hundred yeres old I come to S. Bernard whom you haue alleged manie tiâ—…s in this your work Thus he writeth Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had sone in his manhod but yet
spiritually forsoth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say either yâ— apparitioÌ„ which was made to the fathers of yâ— old testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to be dâ—…nied in these oure daies For to them who faithfullie consider the matter â–ª it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the flesh it selfe is present now also to vs no dout verilie but that it is so in the sacrameÌ„t Here is M. Iuel the true substance of Christes own flesh affirmed to be no lesse present in a spiritual maner but not in a carnal manner of being as it was present to the Apostles who saw Christ in flesh I omit Nicholaus Methonensis and 〈◊〉 and Photâ—…s Grecians Albertus Magnus Alexander de Haâ—…s Iâ—…nocentius the third with diuerse moe aboue three huÌ„dred yeres old Iu. Their doctrine is without coÌ„fort thei hold that the bodie of Christe remaineth no longer in our bodies but only vntill the formes of the bread and wine begin to alter San. That doctrine M. Iuel is not without coÌ„fort in so much as the Sacrament serueth as a meane to bring to vs the body of Christ which when it hath deliuered vnto our bodies a coniunction is made by touching and eating Christ out of whiche coniunction made by flesh â–ª riseth a marueilouse commoditie to our spirite and soule So that albeit when the formes of breade and of 〈◊〉 be altered the body of Christe can not be affirmed to be corporally in our bodies any loÌ„ger yet a grace vertue strength is left stil with vs of inestimable operatioÌ„ toward life euerlastiÌ„g If this do seme absurd to M. Iuell how thinketh he of al those whome Christ healed by touching them with his fleshe was it not a corporall and real touching because Christ ceased to touche any more when the helth was once procured was not all Christes comming and walking in fleshe true real and corporall because when the tyme of his humble dispensation â—…as 〈◊〉 he departed bodily out of our sight and taried with vs in his godhead and power Moreouer I haue said often times our coÌ„â—…ton with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnal copulation betwen the wife and husbaÌ„d where twain are in one flesh A great mysterie saith S. Paule in Christ his Church As therefore the man and wife being corporally ioyned tarie not alwayes together but after a tyme departe a sunder and yet for all that of their coniunction iâ—…ue commeth and they kepe yet alwaies the bonde of wedlock and of loue in eche of them so after that Christe hath vnited him to vs vnder the foorme of bread he departeth in bodily presence when those foormes cease to be vnder whiche it pleased him to comme to vs but the vertue of that coniunction tarieth still Iuel Some others say that as sone as our teeth touch the bread straight wayes Christes body is taken vp into heauen The words be these Certum est quod quà m cito species dentibus teruntur tam cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christi San. Haue you not yet done with gloses M. Iuel I marueil not For the greatest flour of your gardeÌ„ lieth in gloses and phrases But yet if the gloses â—…e of them selues not at al tymes moste wary because they were made in greaâ—… security of yâ— faith the authors of theÌ„ neuer thinking yâ— such a desperat generatioÌ„ of â—…leuers should haue sprong vp surely you ought not to make theÌ„ more odiouse then they deserue by false and corrupt translation You haue englished nowe teruntur touched and species bread for you say as sone as our teeth touch the bread the body is takeÌ„ into heauen But species doe signifie the formes of bread wine teruntur doth signifie are wasted or consumed The which word in Berengarius coÌ„fession you could turne by the word grynded thus at one tyme terere is to grynd with you at an other tyme it is to touch Why M. gloser of gloses is terere latine to touch to grind But you haue a new kind of malice in your hart which can make new latine new english new Gospell new faith and a new Church at your pleasure Iu. Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike San. You can not so speake to D. Harding as he spake to the Arrian heretike to whome he spake not by his owne authoritie but by the authoritie of S. Cyrillus who disputing against an Arrian heretike saied vnto him as D. Harding may right well say vnto you An fortassis putas caet What troweth this Arrian heretike parhaps that we knowe not the vertue of the mysticall blessing Whiche when it is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwel in vs corporally also by receauing of Christes body in the communion Thus farre S. Cyril whose words touched M. Iuel a thowsand yeres before he was borne because his heresie is one in this behalf with the Arrian heresie who taught vs not be corporally ioyned by naturall participation to Christe as braunches are ioyned to the vine but â—…aughte euen as M. Iuel doth that we depend of Christ by faith and none otherwise And troweth M. Iuel now that he may talke to D. Harding by his own contemptible authoritie as D. Harding talked to him out of S. Cyrillus Bring if you can M. Iuel a saying of aboue a thowsand yeres old where D. Hardinges doctrine may be accused of heresie Iuel Commeth Christ to vs from heauen and by and by forsaketh vs San. As Christe at his incarnation came not frome heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assupting flesh of the virgin so nowe at the time of the consecration his body commeth not doune froÌ„ heaueÌ„ but the bread is changed into his body and by that meane his body is present with vs. and as after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread and wine being consumed Christe caeaseth to be corporally with vs to th end we should again desier his presence and well know these two chefe pointes of our belefe the one that the end of the ioyning consisteth in spirit rather thâ—…n in flesh the other that the flesh of Christ really eaten is the meane whereby we haue accesse to the spirit of God with trust and confidence Iuel Or that we eate Christe and yet receaue him not or hauâ—… him not or that he entreth not caet San. We eate him and receaue him and haue him he entreth into vs. Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadow troubleth you Iuel He saith this presence is knowen to God only then it foloweth M. Harding knoweth it not San. He sayd not this presence but the maner of the presence is knowen to God only and so is it in dede But why